Posen Speech

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

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Monstrous » Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:18 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:In his interview with Goldensohn, Göring matter of factly noted that he heard Himmler's Posen speeches for the first time when they were read at Nuremberg - he didn't contest the authenticity of the speeches but instead complained about Himmler.
Really? They read the October 6 speech at the IMT despite it being discovered in 1970? Göring was not present during the October 4 speech and denied any knowledge of the Holocaust to his death.

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

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Monstrous » Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:25 pm

Monstrous wrote: "Terry concludes this section with a long quotation of a Himm-
ler speech “in front of generals at Sonthofen” of 21 June 1944, in which
he referred i.a. to the killing of Jewish women and children. He ignores
the title of the speech: “The ‘final solution’ and the uprising in the War-
saw Ghetto (1944) [recte: 1943].” 1189 The whole excerpt refers in fact to
the Warsaw ghetto revolt. I do not count this as an omission by Terry,
because he has probably never seen the text he quotes (“Bradley F.
Smith and Agnes F. Peterson (eds.), Heinrich Himmler. Geheimreden
1187 Ibid., p. 110.
1188 Bradley F. Smith, Agnes F. Peterson (eds.), Heinrich Himmler Geheimreden 1933 bis 1945
und andere Ansprachen. Propyläen Verlag, 1974, p. 200.
1189 Ibid., p. 203. The speech is found on pp. 203-205.
M ATTOGNO , K UES , G RAF · T HE “E XTERMINATION C AMPS ” OF “A KTION R EINHARDT ” 501
1933 bis 1945. Frankfurt am Main, 1974, p.203: footnote 328”), and
most likely took it instead from the web. 1190 This text contains unindi-
cated ommissions, and its translation swings between approximation
and falsification. I give here the most blatant examples. The following
passage: 1191
“The time when we cleaned out the last big ghetto in Warsaw – by all
means I can give the number – with more than 500,000 Jews in summer
1943 after five weeks of street fighting was also the last time. As isolated as
they may have been, the ghettos were the centers of all partisans – and of
all bandit movements.”
is rendered like this:
“We cleaned out the last one, the big ghetto in Warsaw, in summer
1943. In Warsaw there were 500,000 Jews. I tell you this number confiden-
tially. It took us five weeks of street fighting. Just the same, I want to an-
swer a little question that surely you must have.” (p. 211)
The dissolution of the ghettos as “centers” of the war against the par-
tisans stands in contrast to the thesis of racial extermination of the Jews
inhabiting them, and therefore the pertinent passage has been omitted
(although the omission corresponds to twenty lines of text).
Further in the text, the sentence
“Do we want to be so indecent as to say: no, no, we are too weak for
that, but our children can once deal with them.”
is incorrectly translated in this way:
“Do we want to be so improper that we say, no, no, we’re too weak to
kill children. Our children can deal with them.” (p. 211)
And finally “No, we can not take the responsibility for it” becomes
“No, we cannot shirk our responsibility to kill all the Jews.” (p. 211)."
http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php ... page_id=28

"Finally, on June 21, 1944, again before a gathering of generals at Sonthofen, he stated:
""It's a good thing we had the firmness to eradicate the Jews in our domain. Don't ask how difficult that was. As soldiers, you should appreciate — if I may put it that way — the difficulty of carrying out such an order. Also, as soldiers thinking only of what is best for Germany, you must, after critical examination, come to the logical conclusion that it was necessary. For the bombings alone would have been unbearable if we still had the Jews in our cities. I am likewise convinced that the front at Lemberg, in the Government General, could not have been held if we still had the large ghettos in Lemberg, Cracow, Lublin, and Warsaw. The summer of 1943 was the last possible time for clearing out the last big ghetto, the one in War saw, which had — I might as well give the figure — over 500,000 Jews, and that took five weeks of house-to-house combat. The ghettos, no matter how sealed off they may have been, were the centers of every kind of partisan and bandit activity. Likewise, they were breeding-grounds for the toxins of demoralization behind the lines ...

I also want to answer a question which I am sure is on your minds. The question is: "Yes, of course, you're killing the adult Jews. I can understand that. But what about the women and children?" — Well, I have to tell you something. One day those children will have grown up. How could we be so contemptibly dishonorable as to say: No, no! We're too weak for this. Our children can take care of them. Let them fight it out, too! When the little Jews of today are all grown up, they'll vent their Jewish hatred on our children and grandchildren, who will have the same problem to solve as we did...

As I said, we had five weeks of house to house fighting in Warsaw, and we cleaned out 700 bunkers — cellar fortifications — sometimes one on top of the other. When we got finished with one block, they suddenly came at us from behind. The Jew always has his catacombs, passages, tunnels. It is an ancient system. He's been a nomad from time immemorial. — As I said, this was the last possible time for this, and I don't believe that otherwise we could so easily have held the front in the Government General.142"

Even these excerpts — Peterson and Smith do not give the whole texts of the speeches — must be regarded with skepticism, for they were taken from documents that are manifestly unreliable. In contrast to the Posen speeches, however, they show rather clearly that Himmler refers to the execution of Jews only in connection with the fight against partisans and other bandits operating behind the German lines on the eastern front."
http://codoh.com/library/document/230/
Some confusion regarding these text on the June 21, 1944 speech despite the sources being clearly marked. See the given sources regarding who the authors are. The parts about killings is clearly in reference to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. As one of the not "retyped" speeches, it likely demonstrates what Himmler was actually saying before the retyping of, for example, the October 4 and 6, 1943 speeches.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26411
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 » Tue Sep 08, 2015 4:18 pm

Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:In his interview with Goldensohn, Göring matter of factly noted that he heard Himmler's Posen speeches for the first time when they were read at Nuremberg - he didn't contest the authenticity of the speeches but instead complained about Himmler.
Really? They read the October 6 speech at the IMT despite it being discovered in 1970? Göring was not present during the October 4 speech and denied any knowledge of the Holocaust to his death.
Calm down, big fella. Göring said "the speeches to the SS leaders in Posen et cetera," which implies he meant what was read in court, I just didn't quote his every word. Maybe, just the same, Göring had heard of multiple speeches, perhaps from Dönitz or Speer or someone else who was there, or maybe he thought that the excerpts came from multiple speeches - in court they quoted from numerous Himmler speeches and documents. Or maybe he was just a bit careless in what he said to Goldensohn. But his reference was to the speech(es) to the SS leaders, not to the Gauleiter. I don't think the plural vs the singular here is important at all. If that is the best evidence you have for forgery, god help you. The key thing is that from what he heard, knowing the people and the context, Göring didn't suspect any chicanery. Nor did I say, of course, that he was at Posen - in fact, I wrote that he first heard Himmler's words at Posen in court, which more or less equates to his not being at Posen.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Tue Sep 08, 2015 5:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26411
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 » Tue Sep 08, 2015 5:17 pm

Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:Here’s what a member of an Einsatzgruppe (SK 4a), Karl Kretschmer, wrote in a letter to his wife on Sunday, 27 September 1942, explaining how he understood his orders:
. . . I am in a very gloomy mood. I must pull myself out of it. The sight of the dead (including women and children) is not very cheering. But we are fighting this war for the survival or non-survival of our people. You back home, thank God, do not feel the full force of that. The bomb attacks have, however, shown what the enemy has in store for us if he has enough power. You are aware of it everywhere you go along the front. My comrades are literally fighting for the existence of our people. The enemy would do the same. I think that you understand me. As the war is in our opinion a Jewish war, the Jews are the first to feel it. Here in Russia, wherever the German solider is, no Jew remains. You can imagine that at first I needed some time to get to grips with this. . . .
in Klee, Dressen & Riess, "The Good Old Days": The Holocaust as Seen by Its Perpetrators and Bystanders, p 163

Here Kretschmer wrote that his SK was killing women and children to ensure Germany's survival against its Jewish enemy - in fulfillment of the German strategy, which his Kommando was implementing and which he found personally difficult, of making certain that in the occupied East "no Jew remains."
Evidence for nothing. The women and children could be among those killed by the mentioned Soviet bombing. The Jews were moved to ghettos by so most German soldiers would not see any remaining Jews in Russia. Furthermore, revisionists have not denied that many Jews were killed by the EG and others but that is not the same as an extermination.
In the first place, Kretschmer explained the killings as murders targeting the Jews and getting rid of them, which is indeed extermination no matter what spin deniers try putting on it. Indeed, Kretschmer had been oriented to the whole war being "a Jewish war." Kretschmer: ". . . the war is in our opinion a Jewish war, the Jews are the first to feel it. Here in Russia, wherever the German solider is, no Jew remains."

But let's look at how Kretschmer supposedly described these Soviet bombings of their own women and children - or of those who accompanied the German Einsatzgruppen . . . Kretschmer told his wife that the Germans were doing to the enemy what he imagined the enemy would do to the Germans but didn't want to spell everything out: "I think that you understand." Kretschmer also told his wife, without going into details, that he didn't need clothing etc as the soldiers could get whatever they needed from people "no longer alive today." He wrote too that "the Jewish dealers are no longer alive." The German officer also assured his wife that he could keep sending food and other packages home because "The Führer has given his approval. Even if the end result is that the people here die of hunger, we will still take the food for ourselves." I half expect Monstrous to interpret the phrase "the people here" as referring to the oppressed Germans in the Einsatzgruppe, not locals, but . . .

And in another letter Kretschmer rationalized, again referring to women and children, that "We have got to be tough here or else we will lose the war. There is no room for pity of any kind. You women and children back home could not expect any mercy or pity if the enemy got the upper hand. For that reason we are mopping up where necessary but otherwise the Russians are willing, simple and obedient. There are no Jews here any more." Again, he explained that the Jews were the victims, completely gone from the occupied area, and, again, what the Germans were doing to women and children was on his mind.

Perhaps this is the missing evidence of resettlement we've been waiting for . . . the Jews not being "here any more"?

Well, no, Kretschmer described his role in the operations too, writing "I have already told you about the shooting - I could not say 'no' here either." He told his wife that things were quiet in the area because "We are more notorious than their old Cheka or GPU," whose methods were . . . well, never mind.

In a pensive mood, Kretschmer explained to his wife that "If it weren't for the stupid thoughts about what we are doing in this country, the Einsatz here would be wonderful. . . . Since, as I already wrote to you, I consider the last Einsatz to be justified and indeed approve of the consequences it had, the phrase: 'stupid thoughts' is not strictly accurate. Rather it is a weakness not to be able to stand the sight of dead people; the best way of overcoming it is to do it more often. Then it becomes a habit. . . . For the more one thinks about the whole business the more one comes to the conclusion that it's the only thing we can do to safeguard the security of our people and our future. I do not therefore want to think and write about it any further. I would only make your heart heavy needlessly. We men here at the front will win through. Our faith in the Führer fulfills us and gives us the strength to carry out our difficult and thankless task. For everywhere we go we are looked upon with some degree of suspicion. That should not however divert us from the knowledge that what we are doing is necessary." Ah, more Cheka methods . . .

In Monstrous's interpretation, what Kretschmer meant by saying he approved of the actions that had killed the people whose bodies disturbed him, and which were necessary he thought for German security, was no doubt that he approved the bombings that the Soviets were supposedly carrying out on their own people or the Germans . . . and that the only way forward was for more Soviet bombings of their own people or the Germans . . . quite a muddle Monstrous is giving us.

Klee, The Good Old Days, pp 163-171
. . . 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 Sep 09, 2015 5:46 pm

Obviously SM is trying to avoid discussing the Posen speeches. Can just as well cite this EG testimony: "Ohlendorf’s testimony contrasts with that of Haensch, an SS Lieutenant Colonel who was in command of a Sonderkommando in group C for about seven weeks. The fact that Haensch had not testified previously when others were on trial and the fact that his lower rank made the a priori constraints on Case 9 of lesser effect in his case, gave him a freedom that Ohlendorf did not enjoy. He testified that absolutely nobody, in giving him his orders, had ever mentioned Jews as such in connection with executive activities of the Einsatzgruppen and that his Sonderkommando had not, as a matter of fact, had a policy of executing Jews as such. He estimated that his Sonderkommando executed about sixty people during his period of service. All of these claims were completely in conflict with what are said to be the reports of the Einsatzgruppen."
http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=7

Shall we got back to discussing the Ponsen speeches?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26411
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 Sep 09, 2015 10:36 pm

Monstrous wrote:Obviously SM is trying to avoid discussing the Posen speeches.
LOL. Desperate, aren't you? Obviously I was discussing the Posen speeches - and replying to your silly response . . .

I gave you an example of how Himmler's thinking, expressed in some of his speeches, about the Jewish problem and about women and children reached down to the officer level, you {!#%@} up reading Kretschmer's letters in your direct reply to my post, so I helped you out. The women and children - that is the point, numbskull.
Monstrous wrote:"Ohlendorf’s testimony contrasts with that of Haensch, an SS Lieutenant Colonel who was in command of a Sonderkommando in group C for about seven weeks. The fact that Haensch had not testified previously when others were on trial and the fact that his lower rank made the a priori constraints on Case 9 of lesser effect in his case, gave him a freedom that Ohlendorf did not enjoy.
So now you change the subject . . . to the Einsatzgruppen?!?!?! LOL. Anyway, this denier idea of "constraints" on Ohlendorf is so much BS. Ohlendorf volunteered his explanations about EG D to British and American interrogators - and then testified for the prosecution at the IMT.

He was of course free to change his mind and open himself up to perjury charges if he wished when he himself sat in the dock during the Einsatzgruppen trial. In other words, any problem Ohlendorf faced in his NMT trial involved the facts and the earlier statements he'd volunteered.

But let's chat about Walter Haensch . . .
Monstrous wrote:He testified that absolutely nobody, in giving him his orders, had ever mentioned Jews as such in connection with executive activities of the Einsatzgruppen and that his Sonderkommando had not, as a matter of fact, had a policy of executing Jews as such. He estimated that his Sonderkommando executed about sixty people during his period of service. All of these claims were completely in conflict with what are said to be the reports of the Einsatzgruppen."
http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=7
In the first place, you guys are amazing - you will believe anything a defendant says to wriggle out of his legal issues . . . if it dovetails with your beliefs and wackadoo claims.

But, yes, Haensch, unlike most of the other defendants, denied receiving or carrying out execution orders, especially with regard to the Jews. Nosske was another outright denier at the Einsatzgruppen trial (btw, I want to congratulate you for here getting the correct trial for the EG defendants, even if you got it in the Posen thread., whereas in the thread on the EGs you came up with the wrong trial.)

You may or may not know it but Haensch was deployed to EG-C, Sonderkommando 4b, in 1942, not during the widespread mass murder in Ukraine during summer-fall 1941. That is why in his defense, according to Hilary Earl (pp 162-163), during the EG trial Haensch was eager to put his time in the occupied USSR as late as possible and why he stressed to the court he'd not been posted to the east until the very end of February 1942 or the middle of March - and that he had spent only 7-8 weeks there from March through July 1942. Haensch indeed claimed not to have learned about the mass murder of Jews until after the war, making him an outlier among the EG trial defendants, most of whom pleaded some form of superior orders and military necessity whilst admitting mass murder. Your source "forgot" to mention this point.

What your quotation also failed to mention is that, according to Earl, EG reports do place Haensch in SK 4b when the unit had killed 3,401 persons between January and February 1942 (this was when Haensch had told the court he was not in the east - but at a dentist appointment in Berlin etc; if Earl is wrong, and Haensch wasn't detailed to the east until March, as he claimed, then his testimony is clearly worthless as to documented murders by SK 4b during January and February.)

In any event, according to Hilberg (vol. I, pp 386-387), the most significant actions in the eastern Ukraine carried out by EG C during early 1942, under which SK 4b operated, included Makeyevka, Stalino, Gorlovka, and Artemovsk. Indeed, according to Arad (The Holocaust in the Soviet Union, p 271), “By the end of 1941 most of the Jews in the German-occupied regions of Generalbezirk Zhitomir and Kiev had been murdered. The few that remained in ghettos were exterminated in 1942. After the first wave of massacres , no Jews remained in Generalbizerk Nikolaev and Dnepropetrovsk with the exception of a few dozen Jewish artisans in some of the towns.” - thus in this area SK 4b did not have to carry out major extermination actions like Babi Yar of fall 1941, you know, the massacre about which Nick Terry smacked you silly.

As to the smaller actions that continued in this territory, EG report no. 177 (6 March 1942) stated, “As a result of the measures carried out by Einsatzkommando 6, both the Gorlovka and Makeyevka districts are free now of Jews.” Despite executions of 100s in Stalino, a small number of Jews remained there to be dealt with later (these Jews were murdered in spring 1942, according to Arad, THISU, p 193). As to Haensch’s unit, around the same time “Sonderkommando 4b executed 1,317 people (among them 63 political agitators, 30 saboteurs and partisans, and 1,224 Jews). With this action, the district of Artemovsk was also freed of Jews.” (report no. 177 excerpted in Arad, Krakowski, Spector, The Einsatzgruppen Reports, p 305) Report no. 187 reiterated the successes of EK 6 in Gorlovka and Makeyevka (“purged Jews out”) and three other towns during the second sweep in eastern Ukraine. (Arad, Krakowski, Spector, p 322)

Implausibly, Haensch denied in his testimony, among other things, the use of the equation Bolsheviks = Jews by the Germans as well as any discussion of actions against the Jews in Russia. The court's judgment dismissed Haensch's claims as "simply incredible" and "incredulous" and said that the court “rejects completely” Haensch’s “statement that he did not know of the execution of Jews.”

In its judgment, the court argued that even if Haensch's alibi as to his time of duty in the east were to be accepted, he was responsible for mass murder. The judgment reviewed the location of SK 4b in April 1942 (there's a typo in this review), during the period of Haensch's command, and then quoted from EG report no. 189 on the execution of 50 hostages at Zhitomir and from a report (NO-5087) on mass executions at Gorlovka.

Illustrative of Haensch’s dubious value in “exonerating” the EGs is an excerpt from the judgment against him. The judgment cited the previously mentioned report of an execution by SK 4b of 1,224 Jews occurring 3-4 weeks before Haensch’s claimed assumption of command:
[Haensch] was asked—
“You have now stated that you have no reason to doubt the correctness of these reports. Therefore, if 1,224 Jews were shot by your organization before you took over, does it not seem strange to you that in all the time that you were with the very men who conducted these executions, that not a word was ever said about so extraordinary a phenomenon as the execution of 1,224 human beings because they were Jews?”
His only reply was that no one talked about these killings or any killings at all . . .
This was the action described in EG report no. 177 which took place in the Artemovsk district, as noted above. The judgment reasoned that, as Haensch had testified that he was to continue the actions of SK 4b, it was not believable that in turning over command to Haensch, his predecessor had not briefed him on the unit’s anti-Jewish actions, many of them detailed in EG reports. One need not agree with the court’s reasoning that Haensch’s defense was ludicrous to see that your quoting him doesn’t help dismiss reports of murders when he says he wasn’t present!

The judgment also noted that in a written statement given 21 July 1947 - “devoted to a discussion on executions and his, the defendant’s, manner of conducting them” - Haensch had said that he could no longer estimate the number of people his unit had executed in Russia in the absence of records; the judgment concluded that Haensch's statement “reveals irrefutably” that for him “mass killings formed a regular routine . . . and were not unusual events.” The judgment quoted at length from the written statement to support this conclusion.

(from Green Series, vol. 4)

Haensch makes a very poor witness for your assertions - as he seems to have accepted the authenticity of the EG reports but distanced himself from the actions recorded in them. Further, his unit, best I can tell, was involved in mopping up actions against the Jews, not in the major actions against them, which were mostly completed by early 1942 in SK 4b's area of action. It’s not clear why you brought this guy up, as he only helps support the arguments I and others have made in this thread. So . . . thanks!
Monstrous wrote:Shall we got back to discussing the Ponsen speeches?
We were discussing the Posen speeches, doofus, along with related speeches of Himmler. We were exploring other examples of how German killers in the east viewed the Jews and women and children, parallel to Himmler's statements. You're not too bright, are you?

Note: will post copy of this exchange in the EG thread, as it doesn't belong here in the discussion of German concepts about the Jewish question and the elimination of women and children as developed by Himmler and others
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26411
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 Sep 10, 2015 9:02 pm

Here’s one we weren’t aware of . . .

Horst Pelckmann was counsel for the SS at the IMT, defending against the charge that the SS was a criminal organization.

On 20 August 1946, Green Series, vol XXII, pp 355-356, Pelckmann reviewed relevant affidavits for the tribunal - affidavits going to Himmler’s secrecy and thus the lack of general knowledge on the part of SS members of the full extent of the operations and actions of their organization and its leadership.

Pelckmann:
On the same question of how much the members of the SS knew, I consider Affidavit Number 24 to be very important.
In answer to a direct question by a Waffen-SS Fuehrer who reported to him, Himmler said in April 1944 that everything was in order hi [sic] the concentration camps, and that the treatment of the prisoners was satisfactory.

Himmler made this same statement to the. whole officers' corps of the 17th SS Division.

Affidavit 117 proves that the utmost secrecy prevailed in the Fuehrer's headquarters, and the degree of secrecy was such that nothing was known about crimes in concentration camps, the extermination of Jews and the activity of the Einsatzkommandos.

I again put three affidavits together, 63, 93, and 94. They also show that the utmost secrecy was observed within Himmler's' sphere of command and especially concerning the inspection of concentration camps.

The notorious speech of Himmler's at Posen in October 1943 is known to the Tribunal. It was made to Obergruppenfuehrer of the SS. The Schneider affidavit, Number 29, says the following:

"Schneider was warned by Himmler personally to keep absolutely silent about, the Posen speech if he valued his life.”
Schneider’s affidavit is quoted on p 927, Green Series, vol. V. On this page of the “Pohl case” transcript also Waffen SS General Steiner (see below) is quoted on the 4 October speech, commenting on Himmler’s remarks concerning a German advance on the Urals, where Himmler promised that the Germans would burst out and press onwards to the Urals.

Pelckmann's statement about Schneider, to reiterate, was made in court by defense counsel for the SS; it accepted the authenticity of the Posen speech of 4 October 1943. Pelckmann seems not to have been in on the forgery alleged by our resident chimp Monstrous.

The affidavit which Pelckmann referred to was made in Landshut by former SS Obersturmführer Rudolf Schneider, a “member of the SS Personnel Main Office in Berlin,” on 26 June 1946.

The affidavit explained that Schneider was “ordered to report to the Reichsführer SS in Posen” (Himmler) in October 1943. Schneider traveled to Posen in the company of an SS Gruppenführer, von Herff, as his “escorting officer.” Schneider’s time with Himmler was delayed due to a meeting, according to the affidavit, of the SS Gruppenführer on 4 October in Posen.

At Posen on the 4th, “the Reichsfueuhrer made a speech before approximately 90 Gruppenfueher" at 1900.

“Sitting in the smoking room which was connected with the conference room,” said Schneider, “I was a witness to this speech. The recording apparatus serviced by 3 Security Service members was also/in the smoking room.”

“I heard the entire speech of the Reichsfuehrer SS without interruption. . . . During the speech there was complete silence.” When Himmler finished speaking, the attendees were served dinner. According to Schneider, a discussion between Himmler and two Waffen SS Gruppenfuehrer ensued: “Steiner was opposed to the solution to the Jewish problem as proposed by the Reichsfuehrer SS. Steiner suggested centralizing the Jews and wished to postpone the fundamental settlement of the Jewish question until the post war period. Steiner was also opposed to the use of the Waffen SS in the so-called operati[…] commandos (Einsatzkommandos), since the front troops would lose important support and this activity was, moreover, not within the sphere of duties of the Waffen SS.”

According to Schneider, “Steiner had to report to the Reichsfuehrer SS on the following day. The general impression was that he had fallen into disfavor.”

Now here Schneider’s declaration supports certain of Balsamo’s points in the Brayard thread (in fact, the whole thrust of his remarks fit with many points Balsamo made in that thread and others, but see Schneider’s purpose stated below): “My impression of this evening was that the statements made by the Reichsfuehrer SS came as a surprise to the participants and that many of them, especially those representing the Waffen SS, were not in agreement. Because of the Reichsfuehrer’s brutal attitude it was impossible for most of them to contradict him. Even at a later date nothing could be undertaken by any participant because everyone, including myself, was bound to strictes[…] secrecy with respect to our supervisors. I had to sign a paper according to which I and my entire family would be exterminated if I were to violat[…] the order for secrecy.”

And: “Several days later as I was with the Reichsfuehrer SS at the field command post, he personally warned me again, that if I valued my life I would have to keep silent about 'Posen' under all circumstances.”

Schneider further explained that the reason for his affidavit was his concern that the prosecution charge against the Waffen SS, of which he’d learned, and which relied in part on the Posen speech as evidence, contradicted what he knew about the Waffen SS leadership: “I declare once more that on the evening of 4 October 1943 the generals of the Waffen SS expressed their opposition to the solution of the Jewish question as proposed by the Reichsfuehrer SS. I had the impression that they would rather not have heard anything at all of what they had learned.”

I cannot explain why I’ve not come across this affidavit in the numerous discussions of the Posen speech that I’ve read. It is surely interesting that in hoping to exonerate the Waffen SS Schneider spoke about Himmler's speech, with its hard policy toward the Jews, one which diverted “combat soldiers” from their war duties, stating even that he’d heard it in its entirety. Even if we question the description Schneider gives of the Waffen SS response as self-serving (there's ample reason to doubt his defense of von Herff), it is hard to get around his ready acknowledgment of the speech itself.
. . . 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 » Fri Sep 11, 2015 5:31 pm

"hard policy" is not the same as genocide.

"because everyone, including myself, was bound to strictes[…] secrecy with respect to our supervisors. I had to sign a paper according to which I and my entire family would be exterminated if I were to violat[…] the order for secrecy.”
Really? Why has no else mentioned this? Of course, its fits perfectly with Schneider's agenda of trying to rehabilitate the Waffen-SS leaders, they were absolutely prevented from saying anything of what they had heard at the speech...

Furthermore, "Asked, whether he would have been able to forward such a
speech to the people under him, provided that he would have been·
allowed to do so, the witness declared literally:
"But certainly on no account, such a madness cannot be for­
warded, because, if you say to a unit which is in retreat, that
they have got to advance to the Urals, they surely think their
commander has be'come quite mad."
So, no mention of a genocide being inappropriate to mention because it would be bad for morale or spread to the Allies who would use as propaganda. No, the worst thing Steiner could state about the speech was that Himmler struck an optimistic note regarding the future of the war...

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26411
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 » Fri Sep 11, 2015 7:22 pm

Increasingly desperate, aren't you now? You can't parse this one away - now we're supposed to accept forgery claims because a witness who destroys your position didn't spell things out with just the phrasing you demand? I don't think so. Sadly for you, Schneider has the Waffen SS generals complaining about their troops being diverted from combat to assist in solving the Jewish question. Further, Schneider says that the Waffen SS leaders specifically mentioned the EGs and the support Waffen SS were giving to their anti-Jewish operations. Funny, he didn't explain the EG actions as anti-partisan or having any military importance at all - quite the opposite - they damaged, in the generals' view, military operations. So Schneider, come to think of it, also destroys your BS arguments about the EGs.

As you know, clutching at straws as you are, I did not cite Steiner on the Urals as evidence for genocide - your "refuting" his testimony only underscores how slow is your mental processing. With the "Urals," I merely mentioned yet another person present for, in his case, parts of the "Posen" speech to set up that person's role in Schneider's testimony. Interestingly, though, is that Steiner's testimony shreds one of your early gambits - that supposedly loony statements by Himmler (Steiner described what he heard as "madness") equate to his speech's being forged. In the "Pohl" trial Hoffman quoted Steiner generally on the subject of knowledge of war crimes and crimes against humanity among SS leaders, not specifically on the Jewish question.

This thread, however, focused on Schneider's affidavit - and your trying to change the subject is as funny as it is revealing. In the series of documents of which Schneider's affidavit was part were three documents - one concerning the utmost secrecy in the concentration camps, another dealing with SS handling of "rumors about the murder of Jews," and Schneider's affidavit on the "well-known" and "notorious speech of Himmler's at Posen in October 1943." And you would have us believe the Pelckmann (and Schneider) were not referring to the most well-known and most notorious aspects of PS-1919? LOL

Anyway, if the Himmler speech was a forgery on the Jewish question - PS-1919 having been entered into evidence - why didn't Pelckmann explain the facts and get rid of, once and for all, the issue of what called the "notorious" speech, and why did Schneider, having heard about the "scandal" of this speech with regard to the Jewish question, fail to say so? Why did both men accept the validity of the speech, when not doing so, especially with the facts supposedly on their side, would have taken the problem off the table? Kind of a round-about way for these guys to proceed - prove that Waffen SS leaders disagreed with a speech that didn't contain the thoughts they disagreed with?

Give it up. You have so lost this. Everyone sees it, and your forlorn post practically admits it.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26411
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 Sep 12, 2015 10:38 am

Also posted in EG thread:

Speaking of von Herff and Posen and die Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa!, David Irving has posted excerpts from Maximilian von Herff’s diary at his website (von Herff being one of the SS leaders on whose behalf Schneider spoke). Von Herff's entry for 18 May 1945 is interesting. It says in part:
Die Judenvernichtung war der Anfang für unser Unglück. Hier mußten Männer auftreten und Einhalt gebieten. Nichts geschah. Der große Mitschuldige war der Reichsführer, der in völlig falsch verstandener Treue sich des größten Verbrechen aller Zeiten schuldig macht. Gleich schuldig die Partei, die diesen Wahnsinn zuließ.
Rough translation: “The annihilation/destruction of the Jews was the beginning of our misfortune. Here men should have spoken up and stopped it. Nothing happened. The great accomplice was the Reichsführer [Himmler], who in totally misconceived loyalty makes himself guilty of the greatest crime of all time. Equally guilty is the party who allowed this madness.”

In his 1946 affidavit Schneider gave his view that the Waffen SS leaders learned about the extermination of the Jews from the Reichsführer SS in his 4 October 1943 speech at Posen: “My impression of this evening was that the statements made by the Reichsfuehrer SS came as a surprise to the participants. . . . I declare once more that on the evening of 4 October 1943 the generals of the Waffen SS expressed their opposition to the solution of the Jewish question as proposed by the Reichsfuehrer SS. I had the impression that they would rather not have heard anything at all of what they had learned. Steiner, Phleps and von Herff emphasized the fact that they were combat soldiers and that they as well as their troops did not want to be burdened with other problems.”

If Schneider’s account was correct, it destroys Monstrous’s argument. Indeed, von Herff’s diary entry vents against Himmler himself. If Schneider was mistaken, however, and von Herff had known before Posen about the extermination, that too is of no help to Monstrous, who claims that there was nothing to know and that the anti-Jewish actions and Himmler's policy - which von Herff wrote of as “the annihilation/destruction of the Jews” - really had to do with military operations against partisans.

My my. What's an asinine anti-Semite to do when his heroes let him down?
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26411
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 Sep 12, 2015 11:29 am

From the EG thread, as this is also pertinent here (henceforth I will just use a link where we have "thread crossover"):
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote: "Steiner, Phleps and von Herff emphasized the fact that they were combat soldiers and that they as well as their troops did not want to be burdened with other problems.”
I sort of wonder, that, if the Waffen SS officers are pretending to only have become aware in October 1943, as this was after Kursk and defeat was probable, that the Waffen SS officers are simply making an attempt to get out of future war crime indictments by refusing to comply (although they had probably already participated in rounding up Jews at the front.)
For at least some of them, more likely than not. With regard to Schneider's affidavit, there's the Franke-Gricksh report of May 1943 which would mean von Herff knew about Auschwitz; further, it was of course not in 1943 that Waffen SS units became engaged in providing support for EG actions. For the three Waffen SS leaders named by Schneider as "opposed to the solution to the Jewish problem as proposed by the Reichsfuehrer SS" at Posen, we get this slightly blurry picture:

1) von Herff took his position as head of chief of the Persönlicher Stab Reichsführer-SS not until October 1942. I believe von Herff had served in North Africa and then in administrative positions before his appointment as head of personnel.

2) Felix Steiner, also mentioned by Schneider, formed and led SS-Division Wiking, which was a Panzergrenadier force; here it says that despite Steiner and others promoting a "clean" Wiking record, Dieter Pohl has documented some (not extensive) involvement of the Wiking division in the extermination of Jews (a single massacre in July 1941 near Tarnopol).

3) Artur Phleps was with the Wiking division during 1941 (Lviv, Kremenchuk, and Dnipropetrovsk) and then assigned command of SS-Freiwilligen-Division "Prinz Eugen" in 1942; this force trained in the Banat and then, after deployment to fight the Chetniks in Serbia, part of Fall Weiss in the NDH and part of Fall Schwarz against Tito's forces. "Prinz Eugen" division was notorious for war crimes against civilians in the Balkans - but not afaik involved in the FS; Phleps himself was killed in 1944.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26411
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 Sep 12, 2015 4:17 pm

Pop Quiz

Monstrous says that the solution to the Jewish question mooted by Himmler didn’t refer to National Socialist extermination policies. Note that Schneider included in his affidavit some comments on Himmler's Posen speech:

1) “the statements made by the Reichsfuehrer SS came as a surprise to the participants”
2) “the generals of the Waffen SS expressed their opposition to the solution of the Jewish question as proposed by the Reichsfuehrer SS”
3) the Waffen SS leaders “would rather not have heard anything at all of what they had learned”

So here is a quiz. Which of the following does Monstrous believe best describes what the generals learned about the solution to the Jewish question at Posen, vehemently opposed, and wished they’d never been told of?

(a) the granting of swimming pool privileges to Jews camping at Auschwitz
(b) a new plan of the Germans to provide a homeland for the Jewish people in Madagascar or Palestine
(c) anti-partisan campaigns in the occupied USSR, France, and the Balkans
(d) Jews for once being mobilized, much like German high school kids were, to work gainfully and productively for the war effort in up-to-date labor facilities
(e) the KLs providing modern health facilities and good medical care and 3 square meals a day for Jewish KL prisoners
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27519
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Posen Speech

Post by scrmbldggs » Sat Sep 12, 2015 4:46 pm

I think it was about
f) the closing of the provided brothels and the marrying off of all the working ladies to decorated bachelors
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

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

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Monstrous » Sun Sep 13, 2015 3:04 pm

See no particular reason why Schneider should be considered particularly important. He had an openly stated historical revisionist agenda: free the Waffen-SS leaders from blame. He made strange clams no one else has made such as the SS listeners being forced to sign a non-disclosure agreement stating that their family members would be exterminated if they disclosed speech and large scale disagreement by the SS listeners against Himmler's Jewish policy. At the same time Schneider is very unclear regarding exactly what Himmler stated. Obviously the Allied propagandists did not like the affidavit so they only very selectively quoted some incriminating parts in the official Nuremberg documents while censoring Schneider's blameless SS claims.
Anyway, if the Himmler speech was a forgery on the Jewish question - PS-1919 having been entered into evidence - why didn't Pelckmann explain the facts and get rid of, once and for all, the issue of what called the "notorious" speech, and why did Schneider, having heard about the "scandal" of this speech with regard to the Jewish question, fail to say so? Why did both men accept the validity of the speech, when not doing so, especially with the facts supposedly on their side, would have taken the problem off the table? Kind of a round-about way for these guys to proceed - prove that Waffen SS leaders disagreed with a speech that didn't contain the thoughts they disagreed with?
Denying the Holocaust was an impossibility. It had already been "proven" at the Dachau and other trial and by various commissions before the IMT and after the IMT it was simply a "Truth". Furthermore, the Posen speech(es) had at this time not the importance it has now as the most importance evidence. The most compelling evidence at Nuremberg was the confessions extracted by torture from Höss and others and above all the faked movies framing typhus/starvation/bombing victims as genocide victims. So denying the authenticity of the Posen speech would have gained nothing regarding the status of the Holocaust. Also, at this time they did not know what we know today, such as the critical pages of the Posen speeches being "retyped", making the prosecution speech text at best valueless as evidence, and so on.
Die Judenvernichtung
https://holocausthistorychannel.wordpre ... rnichtung/
the Franke-Gricksh report
Seriously? You must be utterly desperate.
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Franke-Griksch_Report
I cannot explain why I’ve not come across this affidavit in the numerous discussions of the Posen speech that I’ve read.
Simple. It is because unlike you all other Holocaust propagandists have realized that a blameless SS does not fit with the official Holocaust version so they have not made use of this affidavit.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26411
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 » Sun Sep 13, 2015 6:42 pm

Monstrous wrote:See no particular reason why Schneider should be considered particularly important. He had an openly stated historical revisionist agenda: free the Waffen-SS leaders from blame.
So what? Schneider is yet another witness to Himmler's speech. What he testified to was the reaction of some Waffen SS generals to the speech. Why? Because the speech occurred, it contained very damaging material. Had it not, the easiest course would be to deny the speech - not to go off on reactions to something that never happened!

And, no, Schneider's not "particularly important" - heck, in all the discussion of the "Posen" speeches I've read, I've never come across the affidavit before: the authenticity of the speech is well established. Schneider's affidavit just adds a bit to it.

I would like to see your basis for insinuating that Schneider's testimony about the speech is dishonest - and your explanation for the "revisionist agenda" that includes the "Posen" remarks. And, no, don't try parsing your way out of this again: remember that you've failed to give us a good reason for why Pelckmann accepted the authenticity of Himmler's "notorious" remarks at Posen, connecting Schneider's affidavit to them, along with the other explanation I've given you. The essence of the defense offered by Pelckmann, and at the "Pohl" trial, was in fact that Himmler's remarks were what the prosecution at the IMT claimed - but the organizations and individuals in question opposed the solution he offered for the Jewish question. That is the point you keep dancing away from.
Monstrous wrote:He made strange clams no one else has made such as the SS listeners being forced to sign a non-disclosure agreement stating that their family members would be exterminated if they disclosed speech and large scale disagreement by the SS listeners against Himmler's Jewish policy. At the same time Schneider is very unclear regarding exactly what Himmler stated. Obviously the Allied propagandists did not like the affidavit so they only very selectively quoted some incriminating parts in the official Nuremberg documents while censoring Schneider's blameless SS claims.
Every time I think you've reached rock bottom, you dig deeper. At the IMT, it was the defense which used Schneider's affidavit - Pelckmann to be specific. Not the prosecution. Did you miss that? In the "Pohl" case, it was Dr Karl Hoffman who introduced material from the Schneider affidavit. The part I quoted was from the closing statement made by Hoffman . . . who was the attorney for defendant Rudolf Scheide, Chief of Office 5 of Amtsgruppe B, WVHA, who was acquitted in fact.

You see, the affidavit was viewed as useful by the defendants, you {!#%@} moron, that is why the defense made arguments based on what Schneider had said. Everyone, on both sides, knew full well what was said by Himmler at Posen, so that wasn't in dispute; the dispute was how SS leaders had reacted. Jesus, "{!#%@}" doesn't begin to describe an ignoramus like you. I believe the affidavit is in the NO- series (NO-5033).

If you don't know anything about this, are too lazy to find out what is being discussed, and can't follow the discussion, you might simply disappear again. At least you won't keep embarrassing yourself with such stupid comments.

Finally, whether Schneider exaggerated the fear Himmler put him into is beside the point of this discussion, which is about the authenticity of the "Posen" speech, which Schneider's affidavit verified and which the SS defense at the IMT and Scheide in the "Pohl" trial confirmed.
Monstrous wrote:Denying the Holocaust was an impossibility. It had already been "proven" at the Dachau and other trial and by various commissions before the IMT and after the IMT it was simply a "Truth".
First, that's BS - e.g., Göring's guilt didn't carry over to other individuals or trials, nor did the verdicts in other trials carry over to those not indicted in them. And, of course, what we're discussing first and foremost is Pelckmann's argument - which was made on behalf of the SS, before the organization was found to be criminal by the IMT! Your argument simply makes no sense - and is another example of a chimp flinging {!#%@} around in the hopes that some of it will stick somewhere: Pelckmann, to repeat, in introducing the Schneider affidavit was trying to avert a guilty verdict against the SS and was by definition not bound by a verdict that hadn't yet been issued.

But to the point here, "the Holocaust" in general isn't what we have under discussion - rather, we're discussing how the defense at the IMT (and following Pelckmann's lead, the defense in the "Pohl" trial) dealt with Himmler's statements at "Posen"; there is absolutely no reason why, if defendants at the IMT didn't accept the authenticity of the speech, they could not have and would not have challenged it. They'd been found guilty of nothing - and had everything to gain by making any persuasive defense they could, so much the better if it accorded with the facts.
Monstrous wrote:So denying the authenticity of the Posen speech would have gained nothing regarding the status of the Holocaust.
Remarkable - so you have now come up with the "genius" argument that the best way for defendants to deny culpability and knowledge was to accept culpability and knowledge?
Monstrous wrote:Also, at this time they did not know what we know today, such as the critical pages of the Posen speeches being "retyped", making the prosecution speech text at best valueless as evidence, and so on.
Well, that is what is "known" today only if you disregard what's been shown in this thread and try being incredibly stupid.
Monstrous wrote:Die Judenvernichtung
https://holocausthistorychannel.wordpre ... rnichtung/
the Franke-Gricksh report
Seriously? You must be utterly desperate.
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Franke-Griksch_Report
Ah, time for link dropping, I see. Not my preferred mode of discussion, but you seem to be incapable of much else. Probably a link-drop is ok for a clear tangent to the "Posen" issue, I guess. "Revisionist" claims about the report are a pretty big dud, but I warn you the thread I've linked to is longer than the few silly lines of your WN, er, "pro-European, "authority" - the length is due to an actual discussion of evidence and what it means.

And why on earth would I be desperate? Please try following, ok? I mentioned the Franke-Gricksh report not as an argument for the authenticity of the "Posen" speech but in dialogue with Matthew Ellard as a possible indicator of what von Herff knew prior to fall 1943. You can toss it out and you're actually left with a worse case on "Posen" because then it appears that perhaps von Herff's diary entry was prompted by the "Posen" speech, which fits with how Schneider indicated Waffen SS leaders learned about the Final Solution. That really screws you.

I notice, speaking of desperation, that you simply ignored the issue of von Herff's diary entry, unless you're trying to have it that in von Herff's entry, as with Rosenberg, "his remarks allude to nothing more than assimilation," as your link suggests . . . ?!?!?! You have a curious sense of humor.
Monstrous wrote:Simple. It is because unlike you all other Holocaust propagandists have realized that a blameless SS does not fit with the official Holocaust version so they have not made use of this affidavit.
Another assertion for which you've got zero evidence. Propagandists? LOL. Historians are well aware of the defense of a clean SS - Schneider's affidavit is at best a minor part of that defense, not mentioned either in any standard history of that defense which I've read. That historians have no problem with Pelckmann's argument is made clear by Conot, Justice at Nuremberg, pp 462-463, where Conot gives Pelckmann kudos for making the best of a horrendous situation for the defense and shows, with the various indicted organizations, that "the attorney for each organization attempted, in his turn, to pass the poisoned chalice to another." No, the myth of a "blameless SS" is a non-explanation and hardly a problem for the argument I've been making. Anyway, for the reasons explained above, Schneider adds another layer of testimony for the authenticity of the speech.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5018
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 Sep 17, 2015 5:29 am

Monstrous is finished. Excellent work SM.

The von herff diary entries are revealing in that they serve as evidence for the general set of actions in a broader sense.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5018
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 Sep 17, 2015 5:33 am

Jeff_36 will dig up an affidavit from a Hildebrandt on this speech. It does not pose any good news for monstrous.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19071
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Posen Speech

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Sep 17, 2015 4:20 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:q As for my view, I agree with you that Himmler's statements at Posen are damning - but I don't believe there to be any single "coup de grace." The best - and incontrovertible - proofs of the Holocaust remain the vast web of independent pieces of evidence for the major elements of the genocide, from planning to actions on the ground.
What I meant was that It is by far the crown jewel of the anti-revisionist war chest. I must admit that I was sceptical of it for a long time, it was too good to be true. The Mention of it in the diary of Goebbles is huge though.

Do you know of any ways to absolutely verify it's authenticity?
Like Chris Christy and the Bridge===it really doesn't matter what "Leaders Say" in speeches, what their plans or reports are: the Crowning Jewel is "what happened."

.................and for that we have testimony of living witnesses, the Killing Factories, the Mass graves.

"We don't need any stinkin Speeches."
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

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

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Monstrous » Sat Sep 19, 2015 7:22 pm

So, here is yet another Posen speech witness shaming the Believers: the always trustworthy Otto Ohlendorf:

"In 1943 the Reich Leader SS,
Himmler addressed the SS major generals at Poznan. You are
aware of that speech, are you not?
A. Yes. I have heard it myself....

... Q. Now during your direct examination you told this Court
that you had no idea, and that you have no cause today to think
that there was any plan to exterminate the Jewish race in exist­
ence, nor that you had any information of putting it into effect.
Is that right?
A. Yes. ...

... it was not known to me that the Jews in all
of Europe were being killed, but on the contrary I knew that
down to my dismissal these Jews were not killed, but it was
attempted at all costs to get them to emigrate."

(Green series, IV, pages 270, 274)

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5018
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 » Sat Sep 19, 2015 9:40 pm

Monstrous wrote:So, here is yet another Posen speech witness shaming the Believers: the always trustworthy Otto Ohlendorf:

"In 1943 the Reich Leader SS,
Himmler addressed the SS major generals at Poznan. You are
aware of that speech, are you not?
A. Yes. I have heard it myself....

... Q. Now during your direct examination you told this Court
that you had no idea, and that you have no cause today to think
that there was any plan to exterminate the Jewish race in exist­
ence, nor that you had any information of putting it into effect.
Is that right?
A. Yes. ...

... it was not known to me that the Jews in all
of Europe were being killed, but on the contrary I knew that
down to my dismissal these Jews were not killed, but it was
attempted at all costs to get them to emigrate."

(Green series, IV, pages 270, 274)
That's not really a denial. He could be referring to the speech as it was played to the court. By late 1943 he held a position in Speer's ministry IIRC and I'm not sure he would have been present.

Besides - We have the other witnesses, Hildebrand, Schneider, VDBZ, Speer and many others. Not to mention the reaction of Goebbles. Just roll over little man.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26411
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 Sep 19, 2015 10:00 pm

Oh my god, stop the presses! Ohlendorf contradicted himself and made dubious statements on the stand! Will wonders never cease? The only person who should be ashamed here is Monstrous, for posting such nonsense.

(In addition to which, it isn't clear from Ohlendorf's testimony if he was at Posen and when he learned of what. Of course, Ohlendorf may well not have known about a general extermination of the Jews "down to [his] dismissal," but his testimony at the NMT is replete with such weaseling, and in such contrast to his earlier statements when he didn't think his life at stake, it is hard to imagine that Monstrous would make such a brain-dead post.)
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Sat Sep 19, 2015 10:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26411
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 Sep 19, 2015 10:25 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:He could be referring to the speech as it was played to the court. By late 1943 he held a position in Speer's ministry IIRC and I'm not sure he would have been present.
Damn, spot on, good call: Headland, p 271, where Headland explains that, though it sounded from his first remarks as though Ohlendorf had been present, it was later clarified that Ohlendorf had learned of the speech at Nuremberg.
Jeff_36 wrote:Besides - We have the other witnesses, Hildebrand, Schneider, VDBZ, Speer and many others. Not to mention the reaction of Goebbles. Just roll over little man.
Yes, we sure do.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5018
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 Sep 20, 2015 3:46 am

thanks statman. I do what I can. Charlatanry grinds my gears and I detest how it corrupts the youth (monstrous strikes me as young). My worst fear is denial becoming mainstream and psudeo-de facto.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5018
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 Sep 20, 2015 3:47 am

Also: this is an indication of an omission by monstrous or monstrous not reading his materiel. Pick your poison.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26411
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 » Tue Sep 22, 2015 2:38 am

So there's a denier claim that the Nuremberg defendants denied the Holocaust - Weber wrote, mentioning Höss (!) and Ohlendorf, that "the Nuremberg Tribunal defendants declared that they did not know of any extermination program during the war" - which Monstrous seems to be re-cycling with his post quoting Ohlendorf on trial for his life:
it was not known to me that the Jews in all of Europe were being killed, but on the contrary I knew that down to my dismissal these Jews were not killed, but it was attempted at all costs to get them to emigrate.
This was a statement Ohlendorf made during the NMT case no. 9 trial - as I wrote above, part of his self-contradictory and dubious attempt to evade, explain his actions away, and thereby save his skin. Ohlendorf gave this testimony in October 1947.

Under different circumstances, in November 1945, when he thought he had the upper hand, with valuable knowledge and services to offer the Allies, during questioning about Kaltenbrunner, Ohlendorf had told his interrogator, Smith Brookhart, precisely the opposite:
As chief of the Security Police and SD, Kaltenbrunner had knowledge of the program for extermination of the the Jews. He knew that the Reichsführer SS had been charged with the responsibility of exterminating the Jews and that this program was also carried out by the Einsatzkommando of the Security Police and SD, as well as in concentration camps to which the Security Police sent Jews for extermination. I will have to sharply contradict statements of Kaltenbrunner to the effect that he might try to shake off any of the responsibility.
For Weber to try making IHR readers believe that Ohlendorf consistently denied the Final Solution is a flat-out bit of dishonesty.

quotation from Conot, Justice at Nuremberg, p 368
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5018
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 » Tue Sep 22, 2015 2:49 am

IIRC even during his NMT trial OO never denied the mass shootings that he had overseen or that they were from superior orders.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26411
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 » Tue Sep 22, 2015 2:55 am

Jeff_36 wrote:IIRC even during his NMT trial OO never denied the mass shootings that he had overseen or that they were from superior orders.
correct, he explained them as being based on "the Führer order" and justified as security measures ("Eastern Jews" as "carriers of Bolshevism") - and he tried to minimize the number executed, he argued that he himself hadn't done the killing, and he could not evade or alter the basic execution order
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26411
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 » Tue Nov 24, 2015 8:55 pm

Kitchen adds a different dimension to the Posen speech, at least as far as Speer's involvement goes.

By fall 1943, with Goebbels and Speer trying to lead it, the total war effort was being ground down by opposition from powerful figures (Bormann, Lammers, Ohlendorf) and the Gau- and Reichsleiters, who feared domestic repercussions aimed at the Party should consumer goods be cut back too much, domestic living standards reduced too much, all-out labor recruitment of German women go forward, etc. During 1943, Speer had launched the Battle for Armaments to raise armament production, begun closing small workshops or absorbing them into large enterprises to rationalize war production, reorganized and renamed his ministry to absorb parts of Funk's Ministry of Economics and navy production, and worked out an alliance with Himmler and Goebbels aimed at full war mobilization as the military situation worsened, crying out for new measures.

It was in this context, according to Kitchen, that Speer spoke at Posen, on the morning of 6 October 1943, to the meeting of Gau- and Reichsleiters. Kitchen doesn't focus on what Speer heard about the extermination of the Jews when Himmler spoke that afternoon, or on Speer's counter story, as Kitchen established before this that Speer was in the know. Kitchen recounts a number of speeches at which Speer was present where some of the same ground was covered. Most important is a 7 February conference at Rastenburg with the Führer, where Speer was among a group of Third Reich leaders
treated to a two-hour harangue on the current situation. Hitler placed the blame for the defeat at Stalingrad on the Romanians, Hungarians, and Italians. The Bolsheviks had mobilized the people far more effectively than the Germans, but the main reason for the enemy's success was that they had "the driving force of Jewry" behind them. From this it followed that "we must exterminate Jewry not only in the territory of the German Reich but throughout Europe." Goebbels was entranced by these words. Hitler had endorsed his inchoate plans for Total War. . . . Speer prudently made no mention of this speech in his memoirs or elsewhere.

(p 172, Hitler’s speech is also covered in Longerich, Goebbels, p 567, using “eliminate” rather than “exterminate”) Kitchen cites other, similar speeches which Speer sat through, including Goebbels “Potato Beetle" speech at the Sportpalast in June 1943.

As to Posen, then, Speer, like Himmler, spoke to lecture the Party leaders on the rules of the game, according to doctrine of Total War - the need to give up pet projects, the drive for efficiency and rationalization, rigorous controls on consumer output and purchasing. This is why leading industrialists, representatives of the navy and other armament experts, and other dignitaries were present that day. Some of these experts spoke before Speer made his address; these speakers included Rohland on army armaments, Frytag on the Luftwaffe, Merker on shipbuilding for the navy, and Schlieker on iron and steel production. Panzer Rohland was especially hard on the Party brass, driving home that special interests had to give way to Total War and announcing the takeover of consumer goods factories for the war effort. Speer took a similar hard line in his talk - threatening obstructionist Party leaders with punishment (he mentioned his agreement with Himmler that the SS would help him deal with recalcitrant Gaue) and defining Total War as reduction of home front living standards to those prevailing for front line soldiers, maximum output from workers, and reduction of consumer goods production.

Kitchen notes postwar claim that he left the meeting before Himmler's speech without comment. Kitchen then highlights from Himmler's address: 1) the admonition that the Party leaders keep what had been said among themselves for the time being and perhaps "to our graves," 2) despite the importance of production, economic considerations were not to trump the extermination of the Jews (citing the example which Himmler gave of the Warsaw ghetto), and 3) how spoke directly to Speer in the audience at this point in his speech, supporting Speer's call for production and telling the Gau- and Reichsleiters that he and Speer would shortly put an end to the "sort of self-styled 'war production'" that got in the way of efficiency. Kitchen concludes his discussion of the 2nd Posen speech with this:
The whole point of the Posen meeting was to celebrate an agreement between the Security Service, the Security Police, and the Ministry of Armaments, known as the Iron Pact. . . . It was designed to impress upon the Gauleiters that they were now subordinate to the "Speer-Himmler Axis." Speer's close association with Himmler was something that he was understandably determined to conceal after the war.

(pp 180-182) Kitchen describes the negative reactions of the Party leaders, who complained to Hitler, who was by this time cooling on Speer, and Bormann, their focus being on the hard line taken against their projects and on the potential domestic problems the Iron Pact would create.

Tooze, in The Wages of Destruction (pp 605-610) provides a very similar explanation of the meeting at Posen, including much more detail than does Kitchen - Tooze writes specifically that Speer’s presence at the afternoon session was ”likely.” I will read back through that account, which Kitchen footnotes, and cull anything significant later today or tomorrow. My sense is that Kitchen doesn’t dwell on the “attendance” issue because he’s established Speer’s complicity in the Final Solution well prior to fall 1943.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26411
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 » Tue Nov 24, 2015 10:28 pm

Some tidbits from Tooze, whose interpretation of the Posen speeches of the 6th, like Kitchen's, has nothing in common with Brayard's viewpoint (the conspiracy) and everything to do with putting the Gauleiters on notice that they'd best start delivering what was expected of them:

- Himmler and Speer agreed at the end of July 1943 that SS would oversee security within war production plants
- on 5 October 1943 Himmler and Speer formally agreed to cooperation including SD spying on civilian production workplaces
- Speer spoke to 100 Gestapo agents that day to mark the conclusion of this agreement
- "The next day Speer and Himmler made a show of their new partnership at the annual meeting of Gauleiter" in Posen
- at Posen on the 6th, the speakers included Himmler and Speer, of course, also Dönitz, Milch and the experts from Speer's staff
- the program "was calculated to make the regional leaders of the Nazi party aware of a new axis of power within the leadership of the Third Reich"
- Tooze calls Speer's speech "drastic" - Speer told the Party leaders that he meant "to remove from you in the future any excuse that you did not know what we were dealing with" and promised "the sharpest measures" to turn things around
- the aim was mobilizing the civilian economy for the war, which meant rationalizing (consolidating) civilian firms and prioritizing armaments over consumer goods
- the SD, per agreement with Himmler, would have "access to all the armaments firms" and there would be no tolerance for Gauleiters' resisting closures of firms in their regions - those who persisted in protesting and stalling Speer would "deal with" under his agreement with the SS - Himmler thus equated closing down consumer firms with the clearance of Warsaw and expected the Gauleiters to go along with the unpopular economic measures with the same enthusiasm they'd shown for the Final Solution
- as to Himmler's speech and the short section on the FS, "By 1943, it would be naive to imagine that the Final Solution was news to an audience of Gauleiter. . . . A number of them were leading perpetrators. Rather than revealing a secret, the purpose of Himmler's address was precisely to puncture the complacency that surrounded commonplace discussion of the 'Final Solution' and to spell out to the party comrades what it meant to have accomplished the deed. Like Speer, Himmler wanted to rob the Gauleiter of 'any excuse.'"
- to illustrate his point, Tooze quotes Himmler's saying to the Gauleiter's "You all accept happily the obvious fact that there are no more Jews in your province. . . . The brief sentence 'The Jews must be exterminated' is easy to pronounce, but the demands on those who have to put it into practice are the hardest and most difficult in the world. . . ." and continues quoting Himmler's discussion of women and children, saying it was important "to speak . . . for once quite openly about this question," using the Warsaw example to chide those (not "party comrade Speer") who had complained about liquidations of the Jews in the east as interfering with essential production, and telling the Gauleiters that they were "now informed" and should keep things amongst themselves
- Speer's explanation that he wasn't there - and that Himmler being nearsighted was not aware of his departure - is judged unlikely
- information about the destruction of the Jews was widespread and the fact of their destruction couldn't be missed by visitors to the East (Speer among people traveling east) - Tooze cites the example of Ernst Heinkel (aircraft manufacturer) who observed that aircraft production in Poland was nearly impossible due to chaos caused by the "extirpation of the Jews" there and calls the FS "an open secret" amongst Reich leaders
- "The purpose of the Posen meeting was to unite the regional Nazi leadership around the new axis formed by Speer and Himmler in Berlin"
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Nov 24, 2015 11:09 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote: By fall 1943, with Goebbels and Speer trying to lead it, the total war effort was being ground down by opposition from powerful figures (Bormann, Lammers, Ohlendorf) and the Gau- and Reichsleiters, who feared domestic repercussions aimed at the Party should consumer goods be cut back too much, domestic living standards reduced too much, all-out labor recruitment of German women go forward, etc.
Speer proposes that all consumer goods are manufactured outside Germany. All German production is converted to war production. Foreign workers, outside Germany, would not resist as much, if making consumer products. This all makes sense to me as a plan.

However, it seems obvious to me that in late 1943 that the foreign territories were starting to rapidly fall. No one says it openly, but it seems unlikely that any resources could be assigned to establishing expanded consumer production in occupied areas, which were about to fall anyway. Therefore my gut feeling is that moving all German consumer production in occupied lands was a bit of a white lie by Speer. ( I wonder what actually happened?)

I am still having trouble understanding the power of the Gauleiter. I can't work out if their power is mostly legislated or simply an ability to bend Hitler's ear on a case by case basis. it's not easy for me to follow and understand.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26411
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 » Tue Nov 24, 2015 11:39 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:Speer proposes that all consumer goods are manufactured outside Germany. All German production is converted to war production. Foreign workers, outside Germany, would not resist as much, if making consumer products. This all makes sense to me as a plan.
Kitchen says that Speer advocated tight controls over consumer firms and production, not moving all consumer production outside Germany, AFAIK. Speer battled with Sauckel over keeping armaments production local - e.g., in France - instead of dragging foreign workers to Germany where they were unproductive, homesick, etc.
Matthew Ellard wrote:However, it seems obvious to me that in late 1943 that the foreign territories were starting to rapidly fall.
Yes, for example, during early 1943 Speer hoped that the Germans could hold Kryvyi Rih (iron-mining), Bol'shoy Tokmak (manganese) and the Donbas (coal) - following the battle of Kursk, the Germans lost Kryvyi Rih and the Donbas - barely holding onto Bol'shoy Tokmak (losing the area, regaining it) through the fall, finally losing it again in early 1944.
Matthew Ellard wrote:No one says it openly, but it seems unlikely that any resources could be assigned to establishing expanded consumer production in occupied areas, which were about to fall anyway. Therefore my gut feeling is that moving all German consumer production in occupied lands was a bit of a white lie by Speer. ( I wonder what actually happened?)
Did Speer say this post-war? I forget . . . but, agree, the debate as outlined in Tooze IIRC and in Kitchen is about cutbacks in the consumer area - under the guise of sacrifice and Total War - to shift resources to war production - and opposed by the Gauleiter as "spokesmen" for the masses. Hitler went back and forth, as you'd expect. One day he'd tout Goebbels's appeals, next he'd agree with Gauleiter protests. But the whole point Kitchen and Tooze are making is that Speer was fighting to reduce consumer goods which brought him into conflict with the Gauleiters, Sauckel, Bormann.
Matthew Ellard wrote:I am still having trouble understanding the power of the Gauleiter. I can't work out if their power is mostly legislated or simply an ability to bend Hitler's ear on a case by case basis. it's not easy for me to follow and understand.
Appointed by Hitler, answerable to Hitler, usually working through Bormann in my understanding.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Nov 25, 2015 12:17 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Did Speer say this post-war? I forget
I'm reading the Gitta Sereny book on Speer again. I am getting more out of it, after reading some of the discussions here.

Pragmatically, I don't really understand how whole parts of the German economy was working at the time. If I shipped you 50,000 non German speaking workers, from rural Eastern Europe, I can't see how they could be trained to do anything useful in less than six months. However, we are talking about millions of foreign workers. Sometimes I wonder if Speer's economic miracle was partly due to hundreds of mid-sized German factories, simply getting foreign language workers to become efficient workers. It was also, thus partly, a legacy timing "thing".

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26411
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 Nov 25, 2015 12:19 am

You should pick up Kitchen - his basic argument is that there was no miracle; rather, the economy being one more of Speer's self-promoting myths.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Nov 25, 2015 12:51 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:You should pick up Kitchen - his basic argument is that there was no miracle; rather, the economy being one more of Speer's self-promoting myths.
OK. That is exactly what I was wondering. I will order, then read the book and come back later if I don't understand something.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26411
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 Nov 25, 2015 1:10 am

branch to book discussion here
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5018
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 Nov 25, 2015 1:33 am

- information about the destruction of the Jews was widespread and the fact of their destruction couldn't be missed by visitors to the East (Speer among people traveling east) - Tooze cites the example of Ernst Heinkel (aircraft manufacturer) who observed that aircraft production in Poland was nearly impossible due to chaos caused by the "extirpation of the Jews" there and calls the FS "an open secret" amongst Reich leaders
is there any specific info re Heinkel and his knowledge?

Xcalibur
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1434
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Xcalibur » Wed Nov 25, 2015 1:49 am

Jeff_36 wrote:
- information about the destruction of the Jews was widespread and the fact of their destruction couldn't be missed by visitors to the East (Speer among people traveling east) - Tooze cites the example of Ernst Heinkel (aircraft manufacturer) who observed that aircraft production in Poland was nearly impossible due to chaos caused by the "extirpation of the Jews" there and calls the FS "an open secret" amongst Reich leaders
is there any specific info re Heinkel and his knowledge?

Certainly as to his use of Jewish forced labor from sometime in 1941 to the end of the war, but iirc, he had been critical of Nazi Jewish policy in the 1930's owing to the expulsion of Jewish workers from his company. Sorry, no citations for this as it's been years read about him.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26411
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 Nov 25, 2015 1:52 am

I don't know other than what is in Tooze - and Heinkel using KL labor. Tooze footnotes (p 766) Budrass, Flugzeuindustrie and adds
Nor can there be any doubt that Heinkel was talking about the Holocaust itself. The word he used was "Ausrottung" and the factory he was referring to was located in the Lublin, Crakow and Lemberg triangle, at the very epicentre of the Judaeocide.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5018
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 Nov 25, 2015 1:55 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:I don't know other than what is in Tooze - and Heinkel using KL labor. Tooze footnotes (p 766) Budrass, Flugzeuindustrie and adds
Nor can there be any doubt that Heinkel was talking about the Holocaust itself. The word he used was "Ausrottung" and the factory he was referring to was located in the Lublin, Crakow and Lemberg triangle, at the very epicentre of the Judaeocide.
Splendid.
Where was he giving this speech? Posen? Another conference?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26411
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 Nov 25, 2015 2:12 am

Sorry, not in a speech but more damning IMO: in a report Heinkel submitted to Milch, autumn '42. Heinkel himself was forced out of his own works in '43, after the Air Ministry took it over . . . according to Wikipedia Heinkel then established an aircraft design and manufacturing concern - Heinkel-Sud - outside Vienna.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .