Posen Speech

Discussions
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 2:17 am

Holy {!#%@}!

that is legitimately huge info!

Love to see the skinheads slobber over "ausrottung"

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

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Balsamo » Sun Nov 29, 2015 6:42 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote: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"

I am not sure i agree with all that. :lol:

Brayard does not contest most of those points - which are known, especially those regarding Speer and its efforts to boost war production.
I mean most of those points are not even related to Brayard's arguement.

But i have lost touch with this topic, so i will first read more of it.

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 Nov 29, 2015 7:02 pm

Well, you must agree that on the specific topic of Himmler's Posen speech, Tooze's assessment doesn't have a lot in common with Brayard's . . . Tooze arguing that the frame for the speech was getting the Gaulieters in line behind some rendition of Total War and that the Gaulieters were mostly familiar with the Final Solution but needed a kick in the ass to think and act beyond their local fiefdoms. Now, whether Tooze is right or wrong is a different question, no?

The purpose of this post was not to contest the Brayard thesis - I'd have posted it in the relevant thread if that were my main aim - but to show the alignment of Kitchen and Tooze on the context (economic, political, intra-party dynamics) of the Posen speeches, Speer's and Himmler's. This framing was something at best alluded to in this thread and not given the clarity which Kitchen and Tooze bring to the context.

I only mentioned how Tooze's argument diverges from Brayard's - interestingly he wrote already in 2006 against the concept of Himmler revealing a secret - as a passing comment, because the sharp difference struck me and because I thought it helpful to "place" the viewpoint within the debates on this forum.

On Tooze's assessment one could argue that some of the notes struck by Himmler - those in the "there, I've told you, so get with it" vein - could be interpreted in Tooze's way (especially in the case of Gauleiters not as close to the FS but also maybe to be clear where some loose talk was going on) or in another way, Tooze's and Kitchen's interpretation not being the dominant one IIRC.
. . . 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 » Sun Nov 29, 2015 7:30 pm

Well yes, i agree with your summary.
But it does not address the crucial point in Brayard, that is that Himmler did indeed reveal the full extention of the Final Solution to his audience for the first time during this speeches.

I have read somewhere that one of those authors proved that Speer knew ALL of it before.
Could you give some more details?

Because this:
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.'"
How to put this politely... But, hum... it is like Himmler saying. "Guys, do what Speer and I tell you, because we have killed millions of men, women and children, so now you are warned, please comply!"
seriously?

Of course i agree that Himmler told them what the "so much talked about" Final Solution meant. But the whole question is how many of them knew those details before. Neither Brayard nor I contest that some in the audience knew the complete story, most knew partially like "yes for the killing in the East,but much less so for the convoy departed from Berlin or Paris".

Each ministry represented in this conference was there for its own reasons, its own prerogatives and exposed the challenge it was facing. Himmler, IIRC, was among the last to speak. And that he exposed se clearly the murders that were decided only to boost the audience attention, is...well...

One detail, Brayard also considers that any denials from Nazi leaders AFTER those speeches are just lies. Even if Speer was not there - and in the case he had not the whole information before, it is almost unconcievable that he was not told the next days.

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 Nov 29, 2015 7:46 pm

Balsamo wrote:Well yes, i agree with your summary.
But it does not address the crucial point in Brayard, that is that Himmler did indeed reveal the full extention of the Final Solution to his audience for the first time during this speeches.
Uh, how could Tooze's discussion, as it was written I believe a decade before Brayard's argument, address the crucial - or any part - of Brayard's discussion?!?!?! As I said, I didn't put this here to debate Brayard's thesis but to clarify and enhance the argument that the speeches were forgeries. I suggest taking the issues touching on Brayard's thesis to that thread.

As to the point made by Tooze and Kitchen, who gives a {!#%@} about the larger context and purpose of the 2nd Posen meeting - in terms of the forgery charge and Monstrous's "suspicions" that something's not just right (e.g., attendees)? Well, I do, and partly for the reason that having the nature of the meeting in mind makes it easy to understand why certain representatives of the military, economic offices, and industry were present - and thus exposes Monstrous's ignorance about this aspect of the meeting, the shallow deceitfulness of the Metapedia article he relies on, and the way his ahistorical approach leads Monstrous to make CT-type allegations (e.g., concerning the recordings made of Engel's comments whilst he was in custody).

To get at the inanity of Monstrous's conspiracy theorizing is why I posted this stuff, in this thread. To be direct about it.
Balsamo wrote:I have read somewhere that one of those authors proved that Speer knew ALL of it before.
Could you give some more details?
I can't for the simple reasons that I don't know which author you mean or what you mean by "ALL of it."
Balsamo wrote:Because this:
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.'"
How to put this politely... But, hum... it is like Himmler saying. "Guys, do what Speer and I tell you, because we have killed millions of men, women and children, so now you are warned, please comply!"
seriously?
Come on. Really, I don't think that's remotely a fair rendition of Tooze's argument. Maybe I did a bad job summarizing but, re-reading my summary, I don't see how you get from my summary to that gloss on it. Tooze's argument is that the combination of Speer and Himmler lectured the Gauleiters to get behind Total War, support it, do their part. You've left out the economic/Total War thrust the Tooze features and my summary explained. Himmler in his speech, Tooze is saying, sent rather this message to the Gauleiters: "You were on board with us on the toughest assignment we had, exterminating the Jews. You did your part, even if it was easy and mine was the ugliest task. You really don't know how {!#%@} up my part was, ok, but here it is [implication of bragging, as I read Tooze]. And now we need you on Total War, on the economy, on total focus of resources and leadership on winning the war. Do your part - but suck it up, the way the SS did with the Jews."

Tooze takes up the Warsaw/economy point as critical, given his framing.

You may disagree but please disagree with the argument being made, not a ridiculous caricature of it.
Balsamo wrote:Of course i agree that Himmler told them what the "so much talked about" Final Solution meant. But the whole question is how many of them knew those details before. Neither Brayard nor I contest that some in the audience knew the complete story, most knew partially like "yes for the killing in the East,but much less so for the convoy departed from Berlin or Paris".
Tooze doesn't enumerate. I might could reconstruct from Kitchen what he thinks on this score, but first: what does Brayard say, is he explicit about who knew?
Balsamo wrote:Each ministry represented in this conference was there for its own reasons, its own prerogatives and exposed the challenge it was facing. Himmler, IIRC, was among the last to speak. And that he exposed se clearly the murders that were decided only to boost the audience attention, is...well...
That's, again, not what Tooze argues. And, again, I am not fully bought into his argument about the FS passage. But the speech was not aimed at the ministries at all. The speech was made to the Gauleiters and directed toward them. To lecture them, toughen them up, get them behind the Speer-Himmler axis. According to Kitchen and Tooze.
Balsamo wrote:One detail, Brayard also considers that any denials from Nazi leaders AFTER those speeches are just lies. Even if Speer was not there - and in the case he had not the whole information before, it is almost unconcievable that he was not told the next days.
I am convinced by Speer himself that he was there: he said so. I don't see a reason to doubt him on that.
. . . 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 » Sun Nov 29, 2015 8:20 pm

Yep sorry Statmec.
I guess i am too tired today.

I forgot about Monstrous absurdities.

as for Speer, i meant on what does he base that Speer knew every details of the Holocaust before Posen? the here maybe Kitchen...

Well, sorry for the mockery, but how should i understand this

"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.'"

The many other chapters - Himmler also described the real situation of the Front, the difficulties, the errors made, especially in Russia, etc - quite a dim description - which would have been enough to make those "gold feasants" make their "wake-up call" and stop waisting resource by building bunkers all over the places, ignoring instruction to refrain from over-consuming, etc.
So if they knew, why tell them?
If one assumes they all knew, then yes, it is basically like saying "should i recall you that we have murdered millions of Jews? But i will make you remember it, so be nice." It is basically - with cynicism - what the quote implies.

The problem with this interpretation is that it is hardly based on what Himmler is saying. So yes, i almost laughed. Sorry.

I mean you are right, the Posen speech is tens and tens of pages long. It clearly exposes the critical situation faced by Germany to those Gauleiters who were livings like aristocrats in their Gau, completely unaware of the situation.

But indeed, he told them in details what happened to the Jews who are no longer living within their Gau. I am sure the intent was to schock and make them realize that "defeat" was not even an option. But the whole point is that if they knew before, it would have make no sense to repeat it all. But of course, Himmler never suggested in his speech that his audience knew it all before, quite the contrary (i speak of the speech before the Gauleiter, not about the first before the SS). So how can one make conclusions based on the fact that the Final Solution described during this speech was a known fact for the audience is beyond me.

Anyway, I apologize, i jumbed in a thread i have bearly read. My wrong.

But i will later open a new thread about those speeches trying - but i am sure i won't succeed - to summarize Brayards analysis as good as you do summarize your readings.

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

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Balsamo » Sun Nov 29, 2015 8:21 pm

Sorry... i am really {!#%@} today...
I can hardly write a simple post like the above....

Shame on me.

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 Nov 29, 2015 9:01 pm

Balsamo wrote:Yep sorry Statmec.
I guess i am too tired today.
No worries . . .
Balsamo wrote:I forgot about Monstrous absurdities.
They are the main point - in this thread. :)
Balsamo wrote:as for Speer, i meant on what does he base that Speer knew every details of the Holocaust before Posen? the here maybe Kitchen...
Kitchen? He doesn't make the argument that Speer knew "every detail" - I plan to do a few posts on Kitchen's argument re: Speer's role in Jewish issues in the Third Reich, so I'll cover this there, if ok?
Balsamo wrote:how should i understand this

"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.'"
Like I said, the sentence should be understood in the context of Tooze's argument about Total War, the economic aspects of Total War and the Gauleiters' non-cooperation on economic issues, and the announcement, so to speak, of the Speer-Himmler alliance. And, again, I'm not convinced by how Tooze treats the FS passage - the framing Tooze and Kitchen use is good but some of Himmler's plain words don't align, IMO (now you're informed, we had to make a hard decision to make this people disappear from earth, your Gaue are free of Jews so let me tell you how that came about and the BS the SS had to put up with to do this for you, etc), and Himmler went through many other topics in the speech (we don't know how exactly which ones because the speech isn't fully preserved - but Tooze feels that Himmler recycled material from the 1st Posen speech and that it was aimed at presenting the crisis in its full glory, also to scold the Gauleiters into submission). But the above is quoted from Tooze's argument, which emphasizes the political demands which Himmler and Speer were laying on the Gauleiter's, so I think if you don't keep that in mind, Tooze's argument can't be understood.

For Kitchen, you have to have in mind Speer's long, running struggle with the Gauleiters on precisely the issues brought to a head by the military crisis and the needs of Total War.
Balsamo wrote:The many other chapters - Himmler also described the real situation of the Front, the difficulties, the errors made, especially in Russia, etc - quite a dim description - which would have been enough to make those "gold feasants" make their "wake-up call" and stop waisting resource by building bunkers all over the places, ignoring instruction to refrain from over-consuming, etc.
So if they knew, why tell them?
If one assumes they all knew, then yes, it is basically like saying "should i recall you that we have murdered millions of Jews? But i will make you remember it, so be nice." It is basically - with cynicism - what the quote implies.

The problem with this interpretation is that it is hardly based on what Himmler is saying. So yes, i almost laughed. Sorry.
Although I don't fully agree with Tooze, I don't think that the case is so extreme as this. And, again, I think before laughing or crying or disagreeing, it is best to get straight what his argument is. Even if we don't buy every point Tooze makes, the overall framing for the speeches which he and Kitchen use, I think, is very important. After all, Speer and Himmler didn't come to Posen to speak about the Final Solution . . .
Balsamo wrote:I mean you are right, the Posen speech is tens and tens of pages long. It clearly exposes the critical situation faced by Germany to those Gauleiters who were livings like aristocrats in their Gau, completely unaware of the situation.

But indeed, he told them in details what happened to the Jews who are no longer living within their Gau. I am sure the intent was to schock and make them realize that "defeat" was not even an option. But the whole point is that if they knew before, it would have make no sense to repeat it all.
Again, Himmler's argument - as I read Tooze - is that the war is at a crisis, you aren't pulling your weight, you Gauleiters, we all agree that the Jews had to be dealt with - and I did it, ugly as it is, but now you have to do your part. Himmler, with the Warsaw workshops example, is chiding the Gauleiters for the same attitude - protecting their turf when it's convenient and not getting with the program. Himmler actually makes a bizarre comparison, in a way: cleaning out the Jews and cleaning out "this type of so-called war production enterprise" "unsentimentally," the type of small enterprise which the Gauleiters promoted and defended against economic rationalization.
Balsamo wrote:But of course, Himmler never suggested in his speech that his audience knew it all before, quite the contrary (i speak of the speech before the Gauleiter, not about the first before the SS). So how can one make conclusions based on the fact that the Final Solution described during this speech was a known fact for the audience is beyond me.
Well, yes and no. Part of my problem with Tooze's view of the FS passage is the same as yours, but Speer did say "The brief sentence, 'The Jews must be exterminated' is easy to pronounce" before going into the very hard demands on the SS to make it happen, down to killing the women and children. So I can partly see Tooze's point . . . that Himmler was providing details - shoving them in the Gauletiers' faces almost - about something known at some level . . .
Balsamo wrote:Anyway, I apologize, i jumbed in a thread i have bearly read. My wrong.

But i will later open a new thread about those speeches trying - but i am sure i won't succeed - to summarize Brayards analysis as good as you do summarize your readings.
Again, no worries, although I do agree with trying to leave the focus here on Monstrous's monstrosities.
. . . 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 » Sun Nov 29, 2015 9:07 pm

Balsamo wrote:Sorry... i am really {!#%@} today...
I can hardly write a simple post like the above....

Shame on me.
No worries, mate! We continue another time . . . but I don't really see anything "out of line" in your posts, except we disagree along the same old lines AND you've gotten the forum back to the Holocaust, so kudos! . . . :mrgreen:
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
supervitor
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Posen Speech

Post by supervitor » Mon Nov 30, 2015 10:45 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Balsamo wrote:Sorry... i am really {!#%@} today...
I can hardly write a simple post like the above....

Shame on me.
No worries, mate! We continue another time . . . but I don't really see anything "out of line" in your posts, except we disagree along the same old lines AND you've gotten the forum back to the Holocaust, so kudos! . . . :mrgreen:
Yes, Balsamo!! Thank you!! I was going crazy already! It's been what? 3, almost 4 days without talking about the Holocaust?

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 » Mon Nov 30, 2015 11:59 am

So Kitchen returns to the Posen speech in his chapter on Speer's life following his release from Spandau prison. He says that, whether or not Speer was present at Himmler's speech, he would certainly have heard about the speech from people who were (as we've seen in this thread, the Posen speeches were discussed afterwards). Kitchen reiterates, this time citing Fest (!), that Speer already knew about the Final Solution before Posen in any event.

Kitchen contributes some new (to me) information about Speer and Posen (pp 345-348). Before discussing that information, I'll review the more familiar part of what Kitchen writes:

- Speer claimed not to have been present at the Posen meeting during the afternoon of the 6th, when Himmler spoke, and gave the following explanation:

Speer's basic explanation
- neither Speer, Dönitz, nor Milch had a "pressing reason" to remain in Posen to listen to Himmler's speech after the morning session (my editorial comment: since one purpose of the Speer-Himmler speeches was to present a Speer-Himmler united front to the Gauleiters, Speer had reason to be there that Dönitz and Milch lacked, Speer's reasoning on this is IMO weak)
- Rohland and Speer, concerned about negative reactions amongst the Gauletiers, drove to Rastenburg right after their morning speeches in order to get to Hitler early the evening of the 6th and "preempt" the complaints of the Gauleiters which Hitler was sure to hear following the Posen conference

Speer's reaction to Erich Goldhagen's 1971 article
- the Goldhagen article pointed out Himmler's references to Speer
- in response to the Erich Goldhagen article, Speer went into hyperdrive to defend himself, calling Fest and calling his publisher in an agitated state
- Sereny showed Speer where Goldhagen had attributed wording to Himmler, involving Speer, that Himmler hadn't used; she helped calm Speer's concerns with this find
- Speer changed how he described his knowledge of the Final Solution: he now "conceded" that he "sensed" something dreadful happening to the Jews and admitted his "approval" (in the sense of allowing to happen by turning away) of their persecution and murder (Kitchen finds this disingenuous because dim awareness of something dreadful doesn't square with tacit approval of specifics like murder)
- "the references to Speer in the speech were all in indirect speech" (my editorial comment: Speer's claim isn't accurate, as Himmler said at one point, "we were told: Stop! Armaments factory! Of course, this has nothing to do with Party Comrade Speer. It wasn't your doing," the "your" being a direct reference to Speer)
- there were over 70 people in the room so Himmler couldn't have seen Speer (Kitchen dismisses this argument saying that Speer, who was far from a shrinking violet, was unlikely to have hidden in the rear and out of sight)
- Speer orchestrated testimonials saying that he'd left the meeting (Panzer Rohland in 1973, Harry Siegmund in 1975, also Heinrich Reuss who said, further wrecking the revisionist case, that Speer was not present for "Himmler's ominous speech"); Siegmund also contributed the argument that Himmler wore thick glasses and thus wouldn't have been able to see who was present, his glasses apparently performing no corrective function - of the Rohland and Siegmund affadavits, Kitchen comments that both "are worthless. They were made at Speer's request. He had carefully vetted their texts." Reuss seems to have been present at the 4 October speech, so his testimony is probably irrelevant)
- Milch told Toland that Speer wasn't present
- it was impossible to land a plane at Rastenburg at night, so Speer couldn't have flown to Hitler's headquarters in the evening, following Himmler's speech (Hitler's pilot, Hans Bauer, later "dismissed this nonsense," explaining that it was difficult to fly into Rastenburg at night but he did so "on numerous occasions" - Kitchen cites Sereny)
- Hitler's diary shows that he had no appointments early the evening of the 6th, so he would have been available to meet with Speer then, when Rohland and Speer would have arrived from Posen

was Speer at Rastenburg early evening on the 6th?
- almost certainly not as he was almost certainly at Posen for Himmler's speech and would have arrived at Rastenburg later
- Hitler's manservant, Heinz Linz, routinely recorded Hitler's visitors and meetings; there is no record of a visit from Speer on 6 October, at any time, in the "immaculately kept" "Appointments Book"
- however, the same book "is clearly marked" that Speer "came the following day"
- the night of the 7th Speer - along with Rosenberg, Wolff, Bormann, Gauleiter Hanke, Gauleiter Sauckel, Gauleiter Hofel, and Gauleiter Rainer dined with Hitler (as all these men had been present in Posen for Himmler's speech, Kitchen finds it implausible that the speech wasn't discussed)

the Jeanty letter
- Kitchen notes that the letter to Jeanty in which Speer admits his presence at Himmler's speech was written in December 1971, following the appearance of Goldhagen's article, and speculates that Speer's returning of Jeanty's letters to him in 1974 may have been to prompt her to give back his letters to her, including the one with his admission

additional thoughts
- Kitchen (p 345), describing how sensitive Speer was to questions about his knowledge of Jewish matters, mentions that when Sereny asked permission to interview Speer's wife, Grete, he requested she not "ask any questions about the Jews" - and Sereny agreed to this condition (citing her book on Speer)
- I still need to pull together a brief summary of the reasoning which Kitchen uses to support his assertion that already before Posen Speer was aware of the Final Solution (I've ordered Matthias Schmidt's book, Albert Speer: The End of a Myth, on which Kitchen relies)
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

ryu289
Poster
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 11:14 am

Re: Posen Speech

Post by ryu289 » Wed Dec 09, 2015 4:05 am

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... peech.html
Monstrous' best claim is that it was a forgery...not a good idea.

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 Dec 09, 2015 4:12 am

Has anyone else noticed that our trolling twit, RYU238 is now RYU289 with only 20 posts?

I would assume Jakob is trying to get away from his numerous bans on other forums, and wishing to re-start all over again, spamming forums with exactly the same Neo-Nazi propaganda and saying "What is this?"
:mrgreen:

ryu289
Poster
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 11:14 am

Re: Posen Speech

Post by ryu289 » Wed Dec 09, 2015 7:29 am

Matt I explained here: viewtopic.php?f=39&t=26318#p493415
Also I just debunked a holocaust denier, so back off.

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 Dec 09, 2015 1:14 pm

ryu289 wrote:http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... peech.html
Monstrous' best claim is that it was a forgery...not a good idea.
ryu289, in this very thread you can also read how poorly Monstrous does trying to support his forgery claim, the lack of evidence for it, how each of his attempted defenses falls apart, and how much evidence there is for the authenticity of the speeches at Posen. - SM
. . . 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 » Wed Dec 09, 2015 6:15 pm

StatMec wrote:
I still need to pull together a brief summary of the reasoning which Kitchen uses to support his assertion that already before Posen Speer was aware of the Final Solution (I've ordered Matthias Schmidt's book, Albert Speer: The End of a Myth, on which Kitchen relies)
I think i remember Schmidt's book. IIRC, it was aboout Speer implication of the evacuation/confiscation of the Jews' real Estate in Berlin, in the context of the plans of the future "Germania", and the fact that he does not mention it in his memoir, among other things, like his visit of Dora, his presence in Kiev, etc.
I do not remember if i was convinced or not by the "end of a Myth"...

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 Dec 09, 2015 6:56 pm

The book just arrived today so I will read it soon. One problem with Kitchen is that he makes some chronological errors on the evolution of Judenpolitik - since Kitchen relies a lot on Schmidt, I thought before pulling some notes together, it would be good for me to read Schmidt . . . and, yes, that seems like what I will be reading about, Kitchen, e.g., makes a lot of the visit to Dora-Mittelbau, which does seem fair enough . . . given the correspondence around that visit (Speer's "positive" impressions of the installation) . . .
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Wed Dec 09, 2015 7:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

ryu289
Poster
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 11:14 am

Re: Posen Speech

Post by ryu289 » Wed Dec 09, 2015 7:17 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
ryu289 wrote:http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... peech.html
Monstrous' best claim is that it was a forgery...not a good idea.
ryu289, in this very thread you can also read how poorly Monstrous does trying to support his forgery claim, the lack of evidence for it, how each of his attempted defenses falls apart, and how much evidence there is for the authenticity of the speeches at Posen. - SM
Yeah and I added to it.

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 Dec 09, 2015 7:24 pm

danke! and add more if you find more :)
. . . 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 » Thu Dec 10, 2015 12:31 am

ryu289 wrote:Matt I explained here: viewtopic.php?f=39&t=26318#p493415
Also I just debunked a holocaust denier, so back off.
Bull-{!#%@}. Your old account is working just fine. You are simply trying to hide from all your "bannings" on other forums, with a new name.

I'm not going to back off. I'm going to continue to debunk you, your plagiarism of other people's posts, your "goal" to post as many extremist website claims, as possible and your motive to pay-back the old members of Deviant Art, who laughed at your pathetic attempt to become a "social justice warrior".

Go to another forum.

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 Dec 16, 2015 4:24 am

Balsamo wrote:StatMec wrote:
I still need to pull together a brief summary of the reasoning which Kitchen uses to support his assertion that already before Posen Speer was aware of the Final Solution (I've ordered Matthias Schmidt's book, Albert Speer: The End of a Myth, on which Kitchen relies)
I think i remember Schmidt's book. IIRC, it was aboout Speer implication of the evacuation/confiscation of the Jews' real Estate in Berlin, in the context of the plans of the future "Germania", and the fact that he does not mention it in his memoir, among other things, like his visit of Dora, his presence in Kiev, etc.
I do not remember if i was convinced or not by the "end of a Myth"...
Schmidt's book is indeed weak - episodic structure, thin arguments, scant detail. He has some decent - but not extensive - material on Speer as GBI and the eviction of Jews from their homes in Berlin and their ultimate removal from the city - and from Germany. Some good stuff on how Speer tried to manipulate his record (suppressing information) and hide embarrassing aspects of it. Kitchen's coverage of Dora-Mittelbau, Auschwitz, Berlin evictions, Posen, and Mauthausen is 1000x better . . . plus Kitchen discusses a meeting with the Führer that Schmidt didn't mention; Kitchen also explores Speer's official relationship to Ganzenmüller.

At any rate, Schmidt, yes, an end is put to the Speer myth, as Speer constructed it, but, no, not a deep, full exploration of Speer's career and definitely not a convincing discussion of Speer and the Final Solution. I will try to put together the main points from Kitchen and Schmidt on Speer and the Final Solution - although I am busy these days (I will get to it though . . . ).
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

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

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Xcalibur » Thu Dec 17, 2015 5:03 am

Sure,Speer lied shamelessly.... By his own admission he and Todt were out in Russia during the the "Winter Crisis". Inconceivable neither saw nor heard what was gong on. As well the transport crisis... Speer's relationship with Ganzenmuller and Dorpmuller...The man lied his way out of a noose.

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 Dec 17, 2015 11:11 am

That's how I see it, although the willingness to be deceived on the part of so many people is also part of Speer's "journey" (these credulous folk have included IMT judges, postwar commentators and officials, journalists and biographers, readers). Speer not only lied and trimmed relentlessly but he also messed with* documents to support his dishonesty . . . in my view, Kitchen's book is far stronger than Schmidt's early study (and has more discussion of the Final Solution - but with some embarrassing and inexplicable gaffes on the author's part) - and Sereny's depressingly gullible book is really part of Speer's campaign of deceit. But for all its shortcomings, Schmidt's book does put an end to Speer's carefully fabricated myth of his career and his tendentious moralizing.

When "revisionists" complain about IMT judgments, no doubt, they have a point in Speer's case: the tribunal's Speer judgment was indeed off base, far too lenient. It is not that the decision for Sauckel, to take a contrasting case, was too harsh - rather that, in a very close decision, Speer got off lightly in comparison to his guilt. The IMT's leniency with Speer was most likely down to presentation or style points and Speer's presumably "being a person like us" (class, education, manners) in the tribunal member's view - that is, class bias. But the judgment almost went the other way - the Soviets and the US at first recommending execution - Speer cheated death when the French and British justices persuaded Biddle to drop his demand for the death penalty.

----------------------
* e.g., by keeping the original of his office diary suppressed in order to cover up his knowledge of the treatment of the Jews and to hid his participation in crimes, making false alterations to other documents
. . . 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 Dec 17, 2015 5:08 pm

Xcalibur wrote:Sure,Speer lied shamelessly.... By his own admission he and Todt were out in Russia during the the "Winter Crisis". Inconceivable neither saw nor heard what was gong on. As well the transport crisis... Speer's relationship with Ganzenmuller and Dorpmuller...The man lied his way out of a noose.
Gazenmuller was a liar too, he honestly stated that he thought the Jews being sent to Treblinka were going to "a special territory near Lublin". This blows the whole "Russian east" gambit out of the water.

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 Dec 19, 2015 6:15 pm

I want to make sure that these comments are understood in context. So the question here is different to the one being asked in Nessie's RODOH thread on what Speer knew. The focus of our thread is rather what was going on at Posen - and by extension, Speer’s role there, Himmler’s and Speer’s goals for their speeches at Posen, and what was taking place within the leadership of the Third Reich by fall 1943. By this point, even Monstrous has given up trying to refute the obvious fact that Speer knew about Final Solution, having heard Himmler’s remarks on 6 October at Posen. But what we’re asking about is Speer’s participation with Posen and what knowledge he had of the FS before sitting through Himmler’s speech there.

Some highlights of the evidence, and with a note on its strength, for Speer’s knowing about the FS and/or mass murders of Jews, prior to Posen, October 1943 and Hungary in 1944:

7 February 1943 Hitler talk at headquarters (Kitchen p 172; Longerich p 574):
- extermination/elimination of Jews from Reich-controlled territory as key factor for winning the war; suppressed in Speer’s postwar self-narrative (Kitchen adds Speer’s presence at Goebbels’ June 1943 “potato beetle” speech)
- taken alone, Speer's attendance at these sessions isn't persuasive of his knowledge of the Final Solution, as, IMO, the language used was radical and murderous but not specific

Deportations of Jews from Berlin (Schmidt pp 185-189; Kitchen pp 95-96, 99, 299, 306, 399, 347, 356)
- during the course of orders from Speer for evictions of Jews from their apartments and homes in Berlin, starting as early as 1939 as part of the rebuilding of the city’s core and expanding during the war to make room for bombing victims, came the fall 1941 deportations of Reich Jews, including Jews from Berlin, to the East as approved by Hitler; Speer received a document in November 1942 summarizing the Berlin deportations and stating that “a total of 23,765 Jewish apartments have been vacated. . . . Of these apartments, 9,000 have been reassigned. The number of resettled persons runs to 75,000.”
- Schmidt reproduces 2 documents on these deportations - one from Speer’s office journal (maintained by Wolters) and the other a report to Speer on the progress of the deportations; Kitchen cites a Nuremberg document written by Sauckel (26 March 1943) detailing Speer’s agreement (and Himmler’s) with the policy of removing Jews remaining at work in the armaments industry in Germany and shoving them into camps in the East during early 1943 (Fabrik-Aktion)
- expulsions included the seizure of Jewish property under a law of July 1933, the law on Jewish rentals signed by Hitler in April 1939 (permitting evictions of Jews from properties they occupied if they had other lodging options) and a Führer decree of May 1941 (on disposition of property of enemies of the Reich)
- Kitchen writes that Speer’s office (GBI) compiled lists of Jews for eviction that exceeded in number the requests of the RSHA - both in fall 1941 and in January 1942
- after the war, Speer fabricated that he "knew something" about the cruel deportations only because during his daily commute during this period he happened to observe Jews ready to be deported crowded onto the platform of the Nicolassee railway station - rather than his having planned and in part overseen the expulsion (Kitchen points out that there were 13 such transports, not daily removals, and they departed from the Grünewald station, not from Nicolassee as Speer tried having it)
- after the war, Speer’s deputy, Wolters, had the office chronicle he maintained for Speer retyped and in so doing he excised passages that risked legal culpability for certain individuals including Speer (Speer approved suppressing the original and hiding it); one such passage set out the numbers of apartments and expelled Berlin Jews noted above (David Irving of all people unearthed the discrepancy)
- Speer was aware that Himmler was rounding Jews up in Poland and removing them from forced labor - to the point that Speer’s postwar defense was that his armaments and other labor assignments saved Jews’ lives (by keeping Jews in armaments factories instead of immediately replacing them with Polish slave laborers), an odd claim to make it Himmler weren’t murdering the Jews he was removing
- Speer as GBI need not have known the fate of the Jews he had removed from Berlin; however, as he assumed control of the armaments sector and broader parts of the economy, and worked hand in glove with Himmler, Kammler, Pohl and others, Speer would have found it hard not to acquire knowledge of the big picture - a postulate which his postwar lies (see below) tend to underscore

General knowledge KLs (Schmidt pp 154-158; Kitchen pp 289-290, 351, 357, 370-371)
- Speer and Sauckel, despite rivalry and very different personalities, worked together on labor issues, Speer placing orders with Sauckel for laborers of certain types and in specified numbers (whether volunteer or forcibly taken), as well as working with the KL brass to obtain slave laborers from the camps
- Speer was present for meetings in 1942 where Hitler and Sauckel discussed that force (to be provided by the SS) would be needed to obtain workers in occupied countries; in one meeting on labor needs, a target of 4 million was set for Sauckel, who repeatedly failed to meet targets, provoking complaints from Speer
- Speer advocated harsher measures against “slackers” in his factories (e.g., sending them to a KL) than even Himmler felt wise
- at Nuremberg it was shown that Speer had knowledge of conditions in the camps and in his workplaces - e.g., the Krupp “iron closet” used to punish Soviet POWs; see below for more on the issue of Speer’s insight into camp and working conditions

Visit to Mauthausen (Schmidt pp 189-190; Kitchen pp 157, 291, 367):
- Speer’s visit to Mauthausen was during late March 1943 and was for the purpose of inspecting labor arrangements for prisoners working to supply the armaments ministry and construction projects; Speer concluded in a note to Himmler that Mauthausen labor was overly focused on construction projects not vital to the war effort: despite shortages of labor and material for war production, Speer wrote, “I was forced to see that the SS is implementing projects that strike me as more than lavish under present-day conditions.” Speer’s recommendations was for more efficiency through institution of what he called a “switch to a primitive construction method.” This recommendation concerned the solid stone structures housing inmates at Mauthausen, which had been built of course before the war but which Speer now deemed wasteful. He also determined to have officials from his ministry inspect all KLs. (see entry just below, for “Pohl letter”)
- starting in spring 1942 Hitler promised Goebbels to pressure Speer to replace Jewish laborers with foreign workers in the armaments industries

Pohl letter (Schmidt pp 189-190; Kitchen pp 156-157):
- Pohl responded to Speer’s “Mauthausen” recommendations in writing to Himmler, saying that Speer was well informed of the manner in which labor was utilized in the camps (this is in early 1943, an important point), that the stone construction at Mauthausen was well known and dated to before the war (before shortages became an issue), that Speer had set out a requirement that all construction projects be registered with Speer’s ministry and that thus all were being authorized by Speer, and that the recommendation for “a primitive method” would exacerbate the already poor conditions (accommodation, sanitary, etc) and high mortality to which KL laborers were subject: “Returning to primitive building methods would probably cause a hitherto unimaginable death rate in the camps” for the 160,000 laborers in them
- by March Speer issued an order that KLs get “makeshift” housing only but by May 1943 reversed course, based on catastrophic conditions his officials witnessed at Auschwitz, and Speer now authorized improved housing for inmates performing labor (see just below)
- Speer approved of the conditions in other regards in the KLs, writing to Himmler, in a handwritten addition to a report to Himmler in May 1943, “I am delighted that the inspection of the other concentration camps resulted in a highly positive picture” (postwar Speer tried passing off his handwritten note as having been penned by Pohl)
- further, Pohl and Speer agreed to the selection of Jews so that they could be diverted to “work in the armament industries” with labor assignments within the Auschwitz complex for labor

Dealings re: Auschwitz (Schmidt pp 190, 194-195; Kitchen pp 8, 154, 156, 157, 196, 357, 359-361,367)
- Speer’s ministry had direct involvement in Auschwitz construction and expansion by way of Speer’s management of supply chain and general oversight of construction; it was to Speer’s ministry that Kammler took requests for funding and material needed to explain Auschwitz during fall 1942 - this included requests for materials for expansion of the POW camp as well as for building crematoria, morgues, and “disinfestation facilities” (Kitchen says that the building programs at Auschwitz came to be called informally “Professor Speer’s Special Programme”)
- as part of the inspections noted above, Speer’s officials (Desch and Sander) visited Auschwitz in May 1943 to see first hand work on the expansion of the camp and on the new crematoria (three of the 4 new installations were working by this time whilst the fourth would not begin operating until June); Desch and Sander met with Kammler and Höss, the latter describing the function of Auschwitz in “the solution to the Jewish question”; Desch and Sander made a detailed report to Speer on their visit and following this, at the end of May, Speer agreed to Himmler’s support requests as above

Visit to Dora-Mittelbau and subsequent correspondence (Schmidt pp 195-196; Kitchen pp 221-222, 291, 341, 359, 395)
- Speer’s visit to Dora-Mittelbau took place a month and a half after the Posen speech so, in a sense it doesn’t belong here, but given Speer’s centrality to the so-called miracle weapons and the underground slave-labor complexes built to produce them, I want to mention this topic here
- Kammler was put in charge of the underground construction in August 1943 and pushed it forward in appalling conditions with extremely high mortality for the slave-workers utilized in the construction
- after his visit, on 17 December 1943, Speer pointedly wrote to Kammler to congratulate him on the success and speed of his construction of the underground factories - according to Kitchen, however, members of Speer’s inspection team were so shaken by the conditions they witnessed at Dora-Mittelbau that they requested a special vacation; undaunted, Speer wrote to Himmler on 23 December informing him of his plan to use Kammler for more projects
- curiously, at the time of Speer’s visit, hangings of inmates as warning measures against sabotage were occurring and Speer, objecting, prevented such executions during his visit - but Speer failed to recall this after the war, probably because recalling his intervention would have exposed his knowledge of the ongoing practice
- Dr Porschmann (medical official in Speer’s ministry) would write a report on Dora-Mittelbau in mid-January 1944 saying that the complex resembled Dante’s inferno (citing 72 hour work weeks involving heavy labor, a diet of only 1100 calories per day for slave-workers, lung and heart disease epidemic due to damp conditions and extreme air pressure in the complex, deaths of 160 workers a day); Kitchen notes that Kammler’s response to workers’ requests for some alleviation in conditions was to execute 80 prisoners - and Kitchen concludes that “There is no record of any action taken to improve conditions on the site as a result of” a follow-up visit to the camp
- at Nuremberg Speer testified that the underground factories were exemplary workplaces; to his good fortune, these statements were not challenged with questions from the prosecution (by the time of his 1971 Playboy interview, Speer conceded to feeling like vomiting after his visit to Dora-Mittelbau - nevertheless, according to Kitchen, Dora-Mittelbau continued to figure in Speer’s self-justifying claim during his later years that work in the armaments camps “saved” workers’ lives)

Manipulation of evidence, tampering with documents (Schmidt pp 15-21, 153-159, 191-194, 205-206; Kitchen pp 338-339, 354-356, 365)
- without going through all the details, and having alluded to some of this above, suffice to say that after the war Speer collaborated in suppression of the original of the office chronicle kept for him by Wolters - to hide damaging entries; threatened to sue Wolters for sharing original entries with Schmidt (Speer’s death intervened); forged a note on a copy of a speech he oversaw and ordered (and which contained phrases on Jewish wire pullers and the like) to attribute the verbiage solely to one of his deputies (Liebel); instigated false testimony as to his whereabouts during Himmler’s 6 October 1943 Posen speech; attributed his own written and incriminating note on a report from Pohl to Pohl; and conveniently forgot incriminating documents.

Close working relationship, division of labor with Himmler:
- Speer’s relationship with Himmler stumbled on the question of whether to “bring into the KLs” armaments production, Speer favoring private industry; nevertheless, the two men worked out an alliance that extended from utilization of KL labor for construction and armament projects to supply of materials to Himmler for KL construction to authorization of KL construction projects and finally to the drive for total war (e.g., Pohl met regularly with Speer on KL issues such as labor utilization and needs, housing in the camps, health and medical conditions of prison-laborers, food supply, etc, see Kitchen, p 154); Speer specifically requested at one point that 50,000 Jewish prisoners be brought from KLs to Speer’s armament factories, as Himmler and Speer did reach an accommodation on how armament production would be carried out

Ganzenmüller, a connection rightly highlighted by Xcalibur above (Kitchen pp 136-137, 139)
- to address the transport crisis of spring 1942, Hitler formed a committee led by Milch, a firm ally of Speer (Speer was a committee member); when the committee wrapped up its work, Speer, only a few months into his new role heading the armaments ministry, established a special section to continue resolving transport issues
- for this effort, Speer contrived, gaining Hitler’s approval, to have Albert Ganzenmüller appointed deputy under Julius Dorpmüller, Reich Minister for Transport; Speer continued throughout the war to undermine Dorpmüller in favor of Ganzenmüller, who steered a politically astute course through the political minefield, and to have his ministry work closely with Ganzenmüller
- Ganzenmüller’s reputation had been sealed with his work on transport in the east during fall 1941, and he “continued his work in the East,” according to Kitchen, where he “organized the transportation of Jews to the death camps in Aktion Reinhard in the summer of 1942”; in early 1943 Himmler tapped Ganzenmüller to oversee transports to Auschwitz-Birkenau as well as to Theresienstadt - Kitchen, describing Ganzenmüller as Speer’s protege, finds Speer’s claims of ignorance of this work unbelievable and argues that by working, without formal responsibility, through Ganzenmüller, Speer orchestrated control over the Reichsbahn, which he ensured by assigning his deputy Hans Kehrl to this area and by organizing transport into his system of committees and rings, by which industrial sectors were integrated into the war effort - Kitchen judges that though these efforts, rail traffic experienced a 25% increase; in spring 1942, the Transport Ministry, represented by Ganzenmüller, would be bound tightly to Speer’s efforts through his establishment of Central Planning, a board on which sat Backe (food), Korner (for Göring and the 4 Year Plan), Milch (air force), Kehrl (economy), Pleiger (coal), and Sauckel (labor supply)

Summing up, and leaving Posen and Hungary out of the assessment, if the question is whether Speer’s case provides evidence (analogous to the contents of Goebbels’ diary, for example) for the mass extermination of the Jews, the above review of crucial evidence suggests not - which is unsurprising in the light of Minister Speer’s various roles. But if the question is the one we're asking - whether there is evidence, given what we know about the FS, that Speer must have known about the mass murder of the Jews- then the answer has to be yes.

It is implausible that Speer - who had access to Hitler without needing Bormann as gatekeeper, who forged a broad alliance with Himmler, and who had the involvements described above - did not know the regime's Jewish policy. When the policy was to expel Jews out of certain areas of Berlin or to a place in Poland, he knew. If the policy had remained similar to this, he'd have known. As it was, when the policy became mass murder with selections for labor, Speer had to have been aware. Before late 1943, the case of Speer doesn’t prove the mass murder - other cases do that - but with knowledge of the Third Reich’s Jewish policy, how the state and party functioned, what Speer did, and how Speer worked, we can deem his claims of ignorance as lies. Speer's admitted lie about Himmler's Posen speech only adds to his dishonesty on this score.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

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

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Xcalibur » Sun Dec 20, 2015 2:02 am

Excellent summary, SM.

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 Apr 24, 2016 2:47 pm

1942 Himmler statement on murder of Jewish children, presaging his Posen and Sonthofen statements; also a similar comment from 1943 in a report on German policy from the Italian ambassador in Germany
. . . 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 » Fri Nov 16, 2018 12:45 pm

Monstrous wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2015 5:49 pm
*Why does the speech state that genocide was part of the NSDAP party program?
A denier favorite. I just came across today where Eichmann stated at his trial, "The party program did not matter, you knew what you were joining." This is in Mann's book, Fascists, and Mann sums up,
Many Nazis . . . would boast that they had never looked at the party program and say (though only in private) that thy had never opened their copies of Mein Kampf
In this sense, the "program" became "'shared knowledge' . . . more than any canonical dogma." (p 141) Mann does argue, however, that the party program gave "a clear summary of . . . cleansing nation-statism." More on this later.
. . . 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 » Fri Nov 16, 2018 6:23 pm

That is an impressive Bumb!
Do you expect Monstrous to react? :lol:

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 12:45 pm
Monstrous wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2015 5:49 pm
*Why does the speech state that genocide was part of the NSDAP party program?
A denier favorite. I just came across today where Eichmann stated at his trial, "The party program did not matter, you knew what you were joining." This is in Mann's book, Fascists, and Mann sums up,
Many Nazis . . . would boast that they had never looked at the party program and say (though only in private) that thy had never opened their copies of Mein Kampf
In this sense, the "program" became "'shared knowledge' . . . more than any canonical dogma." (p 141) Mann does argue, however, that the party program gave "a clear summary of . . . cleansing nation-statism." More on this later.
Not exclusively a denier's favorite.
I agree with Mann, though, although i have just read in a book - forgot which one - that the assertion that few Nazis had actually read Mein Kampf is quite correct, with reason it is unreadable, even less Nazis read Rosenberg.
But Mein Kampf is of course not the sole source of the Party's program. The program is what was expressed by the Nazis leaders during their speeches, in the Nazi official newspapers, along with political leaflets, etc.
To ethnically cleanse Germany from its Jews can clearly be considered as part of the Nazi political program, and Mann is right about that when he speaks about "cleansing nation-statism" ( i actually like the expression).
Physical Extermination of every single Jews, that is systematic mass murders, was of course not in the program. There are just no instance of precedent that a genocide featured in any programs, that is had been announced in political speeches, in newspaper's articles, or...on TV.

I guess that i would have got more attention and less condescension, had i propose discussion about the difference between "ethnic cleansing", "political violence" and genocide.

Nevertheless, the term used in German to describe any form of "ethnic cleansing" (that is ethnic, religious, political, etc.) is "ausrottung". ;)

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 Nov 16, 2018 7:07 pm

Just a point of clarification: Mann addresses the party’s program and Mein Kampf both but doesn’t confuse the two. He was making a broader point, focusing on the program, and brought in the parallel case of Hitler’s book. He devotes some attention to deconstructing the program and then showing its evolution (including the progressive “backtracking” through the ‘20s on its “leftist” elements).

And, a second point, Mann doesn’t so much as imply that the party program had a plank specifically advocating genocide (understood as mass extermination of a people). He discusses the völkisch sentiments in the program which advocated exclusion of non-Germans (including Jews) from membership in the nation, barring non-Germans from key positions of influence, and “the penalty for non-Germans infringing these provisions [being] twice stated as deportation.” (Expulsion is IIRC stated or implied in three of the planks.) Mann relates the provisions of the program to the biological-medical language that Hitler used concerning “enemies” in his speeches and that appeared in party literature. (pp 141-142) Hitler, as we know, seemed to try outdoing himself in violent imagery and language and often spoke imprecisely, focusing on broader themes. What he meant in his exhortations, where his threats fall on Mann’s continuum (below), wasn’t precisely clear. He also joined political and ethnic cleansing - but in the 1920s and 1930s, most scholars agree, where this angry, violent, exterminatory threatening was meant to lead was unknown to Hitler and the Nazis. The Nazis may have hated Jews, but their program had no clear solution to “the Jewish question” and, as Koonz and others have shown, they understood Germans well enough not to make their anti-Jewish animus their core pitch, downplaying anti-Semitism during election campaigns for example.

Mann’s companion volume, The Dark Side of Democracy, which we discussed in the genocide thread, explains Mann’s conception of a continuum of cleansing actions and when such actions tip over to the most lethal end of the continuum. I do not see where ausrotten is used in the platform in its expression of “cleansing nation-statism.”

So back to my point, which was to suggest that we not take Himmler’s wording in the passage with dogmatic literalness, given how the party’s program was viewed and discussed even by its militants. Himmler “reading back” into the program this, that, or the other point he wanted to stress during the war years would be mostly a rhetorical device, alluding to customary understanding, with the result that to judge Himmler’s 1943-1944 statements, even when he referred to the program (the specifics of which most Nazis would have recalled only generally), seems to be too clever by half.
. . . 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 » Fri Nov 16, 2018 8:53 pm

Statmec:
The Nazis may have hated Jews, but their program had no clear solution to “the Jewish question” and, as Koonz and others have shown, they understood Germans well enough not to make their anti-Jewish animus their core pitch, downplaying anti-Semitism during election campaigns for example.
Indeed,
But the last "elections" were in 1934, which is why "rage against Jews" followed its course, despite a pause between 35-37, and as did the program regarding the Jews, the Final Solution of the Jewish question as defined in 1938-39.

I know Michael Mann's "Fascist", and it is a really good work. You would have noticed that i raised no objection, which does not negate my expressed position that there is no consensus regarding to how properly define fascism.
Actually, you just gave me the idea to read again the "Dark side of democracy" because it has been quite a while.
But this time, i remembered it as being really good.
I do not see where ausrotten is used in the platform in its expression of “cleansing nation-statism.”
?
I gave example dating back to the 15th, 18th, 19th and 20th century covering a whole bunch of ethnic (or religious, political) cleansing operations, some genocidal some less, some not at all, all gathered under the same appelation of "Ausrottung", i cannot do more, except boring everyone with a more extensive list.
I was of course not thinking about Mann's personal work, which i have of course not read in German.

So back to my point, which was to suggest that we not take Himmler’s wording in the passage with dogmatic literalness, given how the party’s program was viewed and discussed even by its militants. Himmler “reading back” into the program this, that, or the other point he wanted to stress during the war years would be mostly a rhetorical device, alluding to customary understanding, with the result that to judge Himmler’s 1943-1944 statements, even when he referred to the program (the specifics of which most Nazis would have recalled only generally), seems to be too clever by half.
:lol:
I was almost tempted to put this paragraph into google translate, although i guess it is crystal clear to you!
:lol:
Do i dare to understand that you suggest that maybe the term "Ausrottung des Judentums" of "Ausrottung des Judischen Volkes" could have been understood by the "militants" as an operation of "ethnic cleansing" without knowledge of the specific means that would be used? (yeah, i know, i am probably deaming... :lol: )

Unfortunately, i have no clue about what "too clever by half" might mean... :|


PS/EDIT: F*ck...i put it into google translate and i don't even understand the french version of the text!
:mrgreen:

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 Nov 16, 2018 9:56 pm

Balsamo wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 8:53 pm
Indeed,
But the last "elections" were in 1934, which is why "rage against Jews" followed its course, despite a pause between 35-37, and as did the program regarding the Jews, the Final Solution of the Jewish question as defined in 1938-39.
Of course, but I was referring to the 1920s and early 1930s when the Nazis were more constrained in their attacks on Jews than they were later.
Balsamo wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 8:53 pm
I know Michael Mann's "Fascist", and it is a really good work. You would have noticed that i raised no objection, which does not negate my expressed position that there is no consensus regarding to how properly define fascism.
But that hasn't any relevance to this discussion, does it? My post was about the attempt to undercut the thrust of Himmler’s remark by pettifogging about his reference to the party program.
Balsamo wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 8:53 pm
?
Referring to where you wrote, "Nevertheless, the term used in German to describe any form of "ethnic cleansing" (that is ethnic, religious, political, etc.) is 'ausrottung'." By which I thought you were referring to the party program, which was what I'd posted about.
Balsamo wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 8:53 pm
I gave example dating back to the 15th, 18th, 19th and 20th century covering a whole bunch of ethnic (or religious, political) cleansing operations, some genocidal some less, some not at all, all gathered under the same appelation of "Ausrottung", i cannot do more, except boring everyone with a more extensive list.
I was of course not thinking about Mann's personal work, which i have of course not read in German.
My comments here were not meant to address the discussion in the other thread but the - to me - strange and almost legalistically over-literal reading of Himmler's reference to the program in his Posen speech. I thought you’d referred not to Mann’s text but to the party program.
Balsamo wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 8:53 pm
So back to my point, which was to suggest that we not take Himmler’s wording in the passage with dogmatic literalness, given how the party’s program was viewed and discussed even by its militants. Himmler “reading back” into the program this, that, or the other point he wanted to stress during the war years would be mostly a rhetorical device, alluding to customary understanding, with the result that to judge Himmler’s 1943-1944 statements, even when he referred to the program (the specifics of which most Nazis would have recalled only generally), seems to be too clever by half.
:lol:
I was almost tempted to put this paragraph into google translate, although i guess it is crystal clear to you!
Himmler was looking back, making a point about what the Nazis had achieved and were doing. What Himmler said about the party program at Posen thus came many years after the program - always understood in a general, shared sense, as Mann noted - had become less and less relevant. He now sketched out a collaboration in genocide, to implicate and to justify. So Himmler's statement about the party program referred generally to a shared trajectory for the movement and for these men; he mentioned the program as a device to drive his point home to his audience - that they knew what it was like to move from shared rhetoric and shared vision (the program, loosely construed) about getting rid of the Jews to "knowing what it means when 100 corpses lie next to each other, when there are 500 or when there are 1,000" - to be part of mass murder.

To read his statement as an exegesis of the party program is, to my mind, overdoing it, overreaching, over-applying a neat but irrelevant interpretive frame.
Balsamo wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 8:53 pm
Do i dare to understand that you suggest that maybe the term "Ausrottung des Judentums" of "Ausrottung des Judischen Volkes" could have been understood by the "militants" as an operation of "ethnic cleansing" without knowledge of the specific means that would be used? (yeah, i know, i am probably deaming... :lol: )
Well, it is a bit interesting that Himmler said, "But none [of 'the upstanding 80 million Germans'] has observed it, endured it. Most of you here know what it means when 100 corpses lie next to each other, when there are 500 or when there are 1,000." Do I dare to understand that you are going to suggest that this should be understood only as cleansing, removal, deportations, apartheid, etc but not murder?
Balsamo wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 8:53 pm
Unfortunately, i have no clue about what "too clever by half" might mean...
Overreaching, overconfident of one's interpretation of something.
. . . 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 Nov 17, 2018 1:54 am

Statmec:
Of course, but I was referring to the 1920s and early 1930s when the Nazis were more constrained in their attacks on Jews than they were later.
Well i am not sure that the Nazis were more constrained in their speeches in those days, and while in the 1920's such speeches were inconsequential, the NSDAP scored around 3% in 28, the first years with the Nazi at power, that is from 1933-34 were among the most violent toward the Jews, until a pause for international political reasons - the Olympic Games of 36 being one - which would be surpassed in 1938 with KN, and the rhetoric will only go stronger from then on along with the prospect of and the war.

Well, it is a bit interesting that Himmler said, "But none [of 'the upstanding 80 million Germans'] has observed it, endured it. Most of you here know what it means when 100 corpses lie next to each other, when there are 500 or when there are 1,000." Do I dare to understand that you are going to suggest that this should be understood only as cleansing, removal, deportations, apartheid, etc but not murder?
What is you point?
He concludes his former paragraph mentioning the "naivete of those Germans and Party comrades having each their "good Jew" speaking lightly about the "ausrottung" of the Jews, by stating:
"(Aber) Zugesehen, es durchgestanden hat keiner."
He is addressing his SS when speaking this. Himmler knew they knew the reality of the "Ausrottung" of the Jews (in contrast of those lazy Germans and Party comrades just happy to be freed of their Jews).
You, of course, may dare, but you would be wrong, as the fact that Himmler spoke openly of the true nature of the Final Solution in all his Posen speeches, is not the issue. This is a fact.
Given that i have never suggested this, well you might dare to but you'd be wrong.

The issue is what those "80 millions Germans" and those "parteigenosse" understood, when they were told about the ausrottung of the Jews, that it implied the vision of 100, 500, 1000 corpses... in other words the systematic murder of all Jews whatever ages and sex...as soon as they had heard the word, like in 1939....Did they understood THEN as the killing of men, women and children, or whatever the means?
But that hasn't any relevance to this discussion, does it? Which was about the attempt to undercut the thrust of Himmler’s remark by pettifogging about his reference to the party program.
Depends on what you were talking about when you wrote:
Mann’s companion volume, The Dark Side of Democracy, which we discussed in the genocide thread, explains Mann’s conception of a continuum of cleansing actions and when such actions tip over to the most lethal end of the continuum. I do not see where ausrotten is used in the platform in its expression of “cleansing nation-statism.”
Since you linked ausrotten to Mann's work, i reply to this.
Whenever one speaks about "ethnic cleansing" one speaks of "ausrottung".
But maybe i missed something, as you seem to forget that i am not from Texas but from Brussels, and that i had to search the meaning of "pettifogging" in the first place. ;)
To read his statement as an exegesis of the party program is, to my mind, overdoing it
It is not a matter of exegisis - sorry but that is what some are doing, but not me - but a matter of translation.
When some speaker says " X is part of our program", it usually means just that, that is "X is part of our program", now the phdn site change "program" into "plan", or as you wrote earlier into "shared knowledge".
Sorry, but translation does not allow such liberties. When a foreigner speaks about a political program, it is not to be translated in to "political plan" or "political shared knowledge". This is "exegisical" while, as far as i am concerned, translating "ausrottung" into a project of "ethnic cleansing" is not.

Statmec:
Overreaching, overconfident of one's interpretation of something.
Thanks for that, but then in the context you used it, how am is supposed to understand it:
you wrote
with the result that to judge Himmler’s 1943-1944 statements, even when he referred to the program (the specifics of which most Nazis would have recalled only generally), seems to be too clever by half.
Do you say that one has to understand the speech as an allusion to physical extermination which would then have been something everyone would have know although recalling only generally?
So you mean that a Gauleiter saying: " You say exterminating? i thought you would only kill them" seems less what's the term...too clever by half?
While an interpretation like
"You all agreed and were happy to/with getting rid of your Jews, but i have to tell you, and i request from you that this should not be spoken about, that in order to get rid of your Jews we, the SS, HAD to kill them, men, women and children, and we did it"
is an exegesis?

Then the usual conclusion would be "we agree to disagree". ;)

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 Nov 17, 2018 2:15 am

Balsamo wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 1:54 am
Well i am not sure that the Nazis were more constrained in their speeches in those days
I am.
Balsamo wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 1:54 am
Well, it is a bit interesting that Himmler said, "But none [of 'the upstanding 80 million Germans'] has observed it, endured it. Most of you here know what it means when 100 corpses lie next to each other, when there are 500 or when there are 1,000." Do I dare to understand that you are going to suggest that this should be understood only as cleansing, removal, deportations, apartheid, etc but not murder?
What is you point?
This is what I should have asked you. I did not make my first post to debate Ausrottung or anything like that. You now write, "Since you linked ausrotten to Mann's work, i reply to this." But I didn't bring up ausrotten or Ausrottung or link ausrotten to Mann's work - you did when you replied to my first post, "Nevertheless, the term used in German to describe any form of 'ethnic cleansing' (that is ethnic, religious, political, etc.) is 'ausrottung'." My post was about the denier canard that the speech is faked because of Himmler's reference to something not in the party's program.
Balsamo wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 1:54 am
You, of course, may dare, but you would be wrong, as the fact that Himmler spoke openly of the true nature of the Final Solution in all his Posen speeches, is not the issue. This is a fact.
Again, what is your point here?
Balsamo wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 1:54 am
Given that i have never suggested this, well you might dare to but you'd be wrong.
Well, that is why I asked, because I couldn't figure out what you were trying to say. I still don't know.
Balsamo wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 1:54 am
The issue is what those "80 millions Germans" and those "parteigenosse" understood, when they were told about the ausrottung of the Jews, that it implied the vision of 100, 500, 1000 corpses... in other words the systematic murder of all Jews whatever ages and sex...as soon as they had heard the word, like in 1939....Did they understood THEN as the killing of men, women and children, or whatever the means?
That's your issue, not mine or what my post was about. I posted about Himmler's October 4th speech at Posen. He did not address the general German public in either of his speeches at Posen.
Balsamo wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 1:54 am
But maybe i missed something, as you seem to forget that i am not from Texas but from Brussels, and that i had to search the meaning of "pettifogging" in the first place. ;)
That's ok. Google helps with things like that.
Balsamo wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 1:54 am
To read his statement as an exegesis of the party program is, to my mind, overdoing it
It is not a matter of exegisis - sorry but that is what some are doing, but not me - but a matter of translation.
But I didn't post about you. Or translation issues. And, frankly, I am at this point completely lost on what your comments are getting at.
Balsamo wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 1:54 am
When some speaker says " X is part of our program", it usually means just that, that is "X is part of our program", now the phdn site change "program" into "plan", or as you wrote earlier into "shared knowledge".
Sorry, but translation does not allow such liberties. When a foreigner speaks about a political program, it is not to be translated in to "political plan" or "political shared knowledge". This is "exegisical" while, as far as i am concerned, translating "ausrottung" into a project of "ethnic cleansing" is not.
Useless sophistry, IMO. Especially since I mentioned where Mann quoted Eichmann on how the platform was taken and since I didn't post about Ausrottung but something else entirely.
Balsamo wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 1:54 am
Statmec:
Overreaching, overconfident of one's interpretation of something.
Thanks for that, but then in the context you used it, how am is supposed to understand it:
you wrote
with the result that to judge Himmler’s 1943-1944 statements, even when he referred to the program (the specifics of which most Nazis would have recalled only generally), seems to be too clever by half.
Do you say that one has to understand the speech as an allusion to physical extermination which would then have been something everyone would have know although recalling only generally?
Again, I can't decipher what you're trying to say and I'm not going to guess any longer. Guessing only seems to create confusion.
Balsamo wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 1:54 am
So you mean that a Gauleiter saying: " You say exterminating? i thought you would only kill them" seems less what's the term...too clever by half?
While an interpretation like
"You all agreed and were happy to/with getting rid of your Jews, but i have to tell you, and i request from you that this should not be spoken about, that in order to get rid of your Jews we, the SS, HAD to kill them, men, women and children, and we did it"
is an exegesis?
No, this isn't what I meant. I meant what I posted above.
Balsamo wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 1:54 am
Then the usual conclusion would be "we agree to disagree". ;)
But about what?


edits: I can't spell German words all that well!
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Sat Nov 17, 2018 4:23 pm, edited 5 times in total.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Sergey_Romanov
Regular Poster
Posts: 602
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 10:15 am

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Sergey_Romanov » Sat Nov 17, 2018 10:27 am

As usual, certain people fail to get the point.

The point is what Himmler was meaning in his speeches. The obsession over how to translate ausrotten in general is irrelevant to this. Himmler talked specifically about umbringen - killing.

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

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Balsamo » Sun Nov 18, 2018 9:44 pm

Sergey_Romanov wrote:
Sat Nov 17, 2018 10:27 am
As usual, certain people fail to get the point.

The point is what Himmler was meaning in his speeches. The obsession over how to translate ausrotten in general is irrelevant to this. Himmler talked specifically about umbringen - killing.
Who denies this?

Certain people seems to feel that the correct translation of this term that is repeated many times is quite essential to the understanding of the whole and specifically if Himmler did reveal to his audience of the 6th the full extend of the extermination program initiated by him and his SS or if the audience knew very well the same full extend of this program.
The problem being that both the general problem - known by everyone - and the mean used - mass murder and genocide - are designated under the same term.
1. Die Juden müssen ausgerottet werden< mit seinen wenigen Worten, meine Herren, ist leicht ausgesprochen

2. Ich hielt mich nämlich nicht für berechtigt, die Männer auszurotten – sprich also, umzubringen oder umbringen zu lassen – und die Rächer in Gestalt der Kinder für unsere Söhne und Enkel groß werden zu lassen

Of course, the meaning of the second sentence makes no doubt at all It is to kill or to exterminate, although, Himmler felt obliged to use "that is" to clarify that he was speaking of killing of having killed.
I, being a foreigner, use this term "that is" quite often, when i am not sure 100% that my object could be understood right away.

But in the first sentence, the question is yet to be answered.
One things is sure: both cannot have been understood as "to exterminate" by the audience.
I agree, that Himmler does not help, when he introduced the "the solution of the Jewish problem" as "the Ausrottung des Judischen Volkes" on the 4th while not on the 6th.

It is nevertheless a fact that Goebbels in his diary the next day, speaking about this "Ausrottung"/Final Solution, as Himmler having chosen the most radical and the most brutal way to solve it, that is by exterminating, while agreeing with this "most brutal" decision.

Now if one uses such superlatives/comparatives (whatever the good english word is), it indicates that before the speech Goebbels might have had less radical or less brutal ways in mind.

But i cannot figure out how extermination can be a more brutal way to exterminate. Do you?

Himmler adds:
" Es mußte der schwere Entschluß gefaßt werden,"
expressing clearly that the DECISION to physically exterminate men, women and children had been taken after all those people were talking about..."exterminating" lightly.

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 Nov 18, 2018 10:04 pm

How did a post about Himmler's reference to the National Socialists' party program, a post which never mentioned translation issues, transmogrify into a "discussion" about the translation of Ausrottung/ausrotten?
. . . 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 » Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:51 pm

Statmec:
I am.
Ok got it.
But that depends on the perspective. And i think we don't share the same, here.
In my perspective, Antisemitism was present from the start as was the definition of the so called "Jewish problem". There were many books, speeches, articles in Nazi newspaper addressing this issue from the start.
I think of the writings of Dietrich Eckart, Alfred Rosenberg, articles in "Der Sturmer" or "Volkische Beobachter".
Already in 1920, the NSDAP program stated clearly that "Jews could NOT be German citizens", and that only German citizens could live in Germany.
The objective, the goal was crystal clear: a Germany without Jews, or to use other words "Germany cleansed of its Jews" or "the destruction of Jewry" in Germany...
Measures to achieve this goal were in the box even before Hitler was elected, and the Party, once full powers achieved, lost no times to start issuing laws targeting the Jews specifically.
As soon as April 1933, it was crystal clear that Jews could no longer expect a career as civil servant in Germany. Numerus clausus were imposed in schools and university; soon after Jews were forbidden to own land in Germany, then excluded form the press and journalism, all this during the first months of the Nazi Regime. And it will never stop - with a Olympic pause in 1936.

1933 was also among the most brutal periods towards the Jews before 1938.

What i mean is that the "Ethnic cleansing process" started right away, and means were thought about and conceived continuously, from the start it involved "political violence", persecutions and murders.

Now i realize that your perspective, along with Mann's and the others scholars, is based on the genocide and takes a backward direction. Which is what i alluded to in my first post here (2018). Of course, for an "ethnic cleansing" to become a "genocide", a process of successive radicalization is needed as well as an evolution of the context, as it took place in Nazi Germany.

But my opinion is that even without Genocide, Germany would probably got free of Jews sooner than later, with or without war.
This is what I should have asked you. I did not make my first post to debate Ausrottung or anything like that. You now write, "Since you linked ausrotten to Mann's work, i reply to this." But I didn't bring up ausrotten or Ausrottung or link ausrotten to Mann's work - you did when you replied to my first post, "Nevertheless, the term used in German to describe any form of 'ethnic cleansing' (that is ethnic, religious, political, etc.) is 'ausrottung'." My post was about the denier canard that the speech is faked because of Himmler's reference to something not in the party's program.
Lot of things here.
Yes i thought you were making a link when you posted this:
Mann’s companion volume, The Dark Side of Democracy, which we discussed in the genocide thread, explains Mann’s conception of a continuum of cleansing actions and when such actions tip over to the most lethal end of the continuum. I do not see where ausrotten is used in the platform in its expression of “cleansing nation-statism.”
Given that Mann mention ausrotten, i might have overreacted.
Now, given that there are no longer Deniers around, i don't see any point to disprove such silliness as "Himmler's four hours speech" is fake and made up by the Soviet.
The fact remains: "ethnic, political, religious cleansing" were and still are designed as "Ausrottung" in German, whatever the means used to achieve it, I think i have made that point quite clearly.

So as i read that there is still some clouds about what i am talking about, i will use the fewer words possible.

As shown above:
- the project of having Germany cleansed of Jews was in the NSDAP program from the start (1920)
- Concrete legal measures along with "extra legal use of political violence" targeting the Jews started (and even reached a peak until 1938) as soon as 1933.
- Legal pressures will never stop - with a small pause in 1936 - during the whole Nazi era, that is until 1945 (the prohibition for the Jews to own PETS being one of the last)
- All those measures - legal as well as uses of violence - managed to kicked half the German Jews out of their country - before the war.
- One can therefore speaks of a "ethnic cleansing" targeting the Jews in Germany during that period.
- "Ethnic cleansing" ( including all its steps including genocide) is expressed as "Ausrottung" in German.
- Hence all the measures taken toward the Jews up to the start of the physical Genocide of the German Jews, including forced emigration, evacuation, etc." could have been understood as expressed by the term "Ausrottung" by the listeners and readers.
- All those measures taken can be considered as part of the Nazi political program.
- Hence, some listeners among the crowed gathered at Posen on the 6th, might have taken as a surprise that the Final Solution in reality meant the physical extermination of all the deportees, including the men, women, and children".

Does it make more sense, now?

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 Nov 18, 2018 11:26 pm

Balsamo wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:51 pm
In my perspective, Antisemitism was present from the start as was the definition of the so called "Jewish problem". There were many books, speeches, articles in Nazi newspaper addressing this issue from the start. < snip >
But the comment I made about this was about election campaigning before the seizure of power, not the larger context and background (I wrote about the Nazis' "downplaying anti-Semitism during election campaigns for example", which presupposes an existing, prevalent antisemitism that was being downplayed).
Balsamo wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:51 pm
What i mean is that the "Ethnic cleansing process" started right away, and means were thought about and conceived continuously, from the start it involved "political violence", persecutions and murders.

Now i realize that your perspective, along with Mann's and the others scholars, is based on the genocide and takes a backward direction.
I don't know what this means. I don't know what you think my perspective and Mann's might be. Now, Mann says (I would, too) that the Nazis set out with a cleansing mindset. But how that relates to what you say here, I don't know.
Balsamo wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:51 pm
But my opinion is that even without Genocide, Germany would probably got free of Jews sooner than later, with or without war.
But conquest kept bringing in, so to speak, larger and larger Jewish populations.
Balsamo wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:51 pm
Lot of things here.
Yes i thought you were making a link when you posted this:
Mann’s companion volume, The Dark Side of Democracy, which we discussed in the genocide thread, explains Mann’s conception of a continuum of cleansing actions and when such actions tip over to the most lethal end of the continuum. I do not see where ausrotten is used in the platform in its expression of “cleansing nation-statism.”
Link to what? The translation discussion? I don't see that at all. You introduced the word ausrotten as the expression for cleansing - I told you that the term is not used in the 1920 platform. As set out below, the 1920 platform states things in a very different way than is suggested by any translation you've given for ausrotten.
Balsamo wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:51 pm
Given that Mann mention ausrotten, i might have overreacted.
Mann didn't mention ausrotten. And I didn't say that he did. You introduced discussion of the word.
Balsamo wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:51 pm
Now, given that there are no longer Deniers around, i don't see any point to disprove such silliness as "Himmler's four hours speech" is fake and made up by the Soviet.
OTOH I think the forum can serve as a "repository" for arguments, thoughts, etc that undermine denial. As a kind of side thing. Anyway, whether you want me to or not, that's one thing I will keep on doing.
Balsamo wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:51 pm
The fact remains: "ethnic, political, religious cleansing" were and still are designed as "Ausrottung" in German, whatever the means used to achieve it, I think i have made that point quite clearly.
This has nothing to do with what Mann wrote or what I posted.
Balsamo wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:51 pm
- "Ethnic cleansing" ( including all its steps including genocide) is expressed as "Ausrottung" in German.
- Hence all the measures taken toward the Jews up to the start of the physical Genocide of the German Jews, including forced emigration, evacuation, etc." could have been understood as expressed by the term "Ausrottung" by the listeners and readers.
- All those measures taken can be considered as part of the Nazi political program.
That is really a stretch - and, to be clear, Mann makes no such argument; in fact, he writes, of the 1920s and early 1930s, '"It was still unclear, even perhaps to Hitler himself, what all this ethnic and political cleansing might practically entail." (p 185) And he notes, correctly I think, that "Exactly what was meant by terms such as 'exclusion' or 'elimination' was unclear . . ." (p 206) Mann also says that the bulk of Nazi paramilitary violence was aimed at the left, during this period.

Also, if you look at the 1920 platform, it doesn't say anything like what Himmler stated at Posen, which was about violent expulsion, uprooting, eradication, mass murder. What the party platform said was that Jews were not to be members of the German nation but that non-citizens could live in Germany as "guests" and were to be treated as foreigners; non-citizens (that is, Jews) would be denied the right to participate politically and to serve as officials; that in economic crises, "foreign nationals (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich"; and that recent immigrants to Germany would be made to leave. None of this has the sense of what Himmler said at Posen.

I made a very limited point that has gotten lost in your replies, which veer off, back to a discussion you and Sergey were having in another thread, about a different issue.
Balsamo wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:51 pm
Does it make more sense, now?
No. We're discussing different points, and I am not sure why.
. . . 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 » Mon Nov 19, 2018 5:06 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Fri Nov 16, 2018 12:45 pm
Monstrous wrote:
Fri Jul 10, 2015 5:49 pm
*Why does the speech state that genocide was part of the NSDAP party program?
A denier favorite. I just came across today where Eichmann stated at his trial, "The party program did not matter, you knew what you were joining." This is in Mann's book, Fascists, and Mann sums up,
Many Nazis . . . would boast that they had never looked at the party program and say (though only in private) that thy had never opened their copies of Mein Kampf
In this sense, the "program" became "'shared knowledge' . . . more than any canonical dogma." (p 141) Mann does argue, however, that the party program gave "a clear summary of . . . cleansing nation-statism." More on this later.
Stat,
All started with this mysterious post from you, bumping up a post - the POSEN SPEECH THREAD - untouched for over two years, then using a Eichmann's trial statement - which is utter BS like 90% of his testimonies when it comes to his personal implication to the genocide - to prove what exactly? That genocide was in the program? or that "everyone"(who?, all party members? all Germans?) knew (what exactly, the genocide?) what they were joining" ?" (what joining? joining what?)
And then, what? Mann summing up that this untold "program" - which did not matter - as everyone who joined (again what?) know it was a "shared knowledge" - Eichmann's favorite - that is a "shared knowledge of the genocide that was going on"?
And then, you conclude, by stating that Mann - sorry i am just about finishing the "Dark side" and not "Fascist", confirming what i am basically saying that Germany through the NSDAP program "gave a clear summary of "cleansing nation statism!

And then, when i reacted, this thread is no longer about the Posen speech but Mann?

Stat:
But the comment I made about this was about election campaigning before the seizure of power, not the larger context and background (I wrote about the Nazis' "downplaying anti-Semitism during election campaigns for example", which presupposes an existing, prevalent antisemitism that was being downplayed).


I understood that...
But then what is the relation between the NSDAP political strategies ( in the 20's and 30's) to get elected and the Posen Speeches?
And even then, who would - certainly not Mann - take conclusion of what a political party says during a electoral campaign in the first place?
But then - and i have not checked - if Mann downplays Antisemitic action during the years 1932-1933, then he is just wrong! Especially after the "fire of the Reichstag" which was attributed to the Communists, which means in Nazi rethoric, Jewish*-Bolshevism.
I don't know what this means. I don't know what you think my perspective and Mann's might be. Now, Mann says (I would, too) that the Nazis set out with a cleansing mindset. But how that relates to what you say here, I don't know.
Come on, Stat, you know very well what "ethnic cleansing" means.
So even if the program is meant to get the Jews out of the German society, and that as soon as enough authority is gathered, the first Antisemitic laws, along with way too many public killings and/or humiliations, are issued continuously in order to make the life of Jew in Germany impossible, you and Mann would qualify this as a "mindset" ????
So that half of the German Jews left Germany before was the result of a "mindset?
Sorry but i don't remember Mann stating such things. I remember him saying that the first mean was "pressured" emigration ( what is the objective?), followed by forced deportation (again what is the objective?), and finally the genocide ( and bloody hell the objective is the same!)

So my question to you would be: How do you define a "Ethnic cleansing" (or of course, political, religious or social one)?
But conquest kept bringing in, so to speak, larger and larger Jewish populations.
Of course, and this new situation imposed new means. But that is really another issue.
Link to what? The translation discussion? I don't see that at all. You introduced the word ausrotten as the expression for cleansing - I told you that the term is not used in the 1920 platform.
Well, maybe, because the word ausrotten is quite relevant to the Posen speech which is what this thread is about?
And what the hell do you mean by platform in this context?
So that some German scholars(?) from 1930 write or translate about "Die ausrottung der Ukrainer in Polen" (published in Prague by the way) means it is also out of that "platform?", of those who wrote that book just missed a genocide that took place three years before Hitler became chancellor? Or was this unfortunate minority also victim of a vicious "cleansing mindset" by the Polish government?
Mann didn't mention ausrotten. And I didn't say that he did. You introduced discussion of the word.
First, Mann mentions the term at least on page 191.
And then should we conclude that the term ausrotten is irrelevant to to the Posen speech thread.
Then better to open know thread about it, then...I can hear the loud applause from the crowed of readers... :lol:
OTOH I think the forum can serve as a "repository" for arguments, thoughts, etc that undermine denial. As a kind of side thing. Anyway, whether you want me to or not, that's one thing I will keep on doing.
So you were really talking to Monstrous in your first post?
Sorry then.
This has nothing to do with what Mann wrote or what I posted.
Nope, but the thread is about the "Posen speech".
That is really a stretch - and, to be clear, Mann makes no such argument; in fact, he writes, of the 1920s and early 1930s, '"It was still unclear, even perhaps to Hitler himself, what all this ethnic and political cleansing might practically entail."
Not meant to be a stretch, just a summary.
Unclear/undecided about the "How's" in order to achieve a goal (already decided) is irrelevant. They took action as soon as they could - and by saying that i do not oppose Mann's radicalization steps at all.

Of course, if one starts from the final dramatic ending, that is the true nature of the Final solution, that is the extermination, then the perspective is to concentrate on what actually led to the genocide. The logic in this perspective is to identify the steps that led to the radicalization steps that led to the genocide. (Is that clear?). But this perspective is only given to those who knows the end, you and me among millions, it is just that it does not work so good with contemporary actors through a perspective from "the past to the future".
Of course, and who would even dare to claim such stupidity, that genocide was not even thought about in the 20's or 30's, but one thing is certain a ethnic cleansing - or political social - whatever, anyway the cleansing of the Jews started long before 1939.
Would you at least agree with that?