Denier Absurdities

Discussions
User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26862
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:11 pm

ralphie possessed a certain hatstand quality the others lack: it's like color vs b&w. Haight-Ashbury vs Stalinist apartment blocks. :)
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Darren Wilshak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1408
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:16 pm

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Darren Wilshak » Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:15 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:11 pm
ralphie possessed a certain hatstand quality the others lack: it's like color vs b&w. Haight-Ashbury vs Stalinist apartment blocks. :)
:lol:
"We are still waiting for anyone to rebut the main theme of the article that the decode in question and the numbers it quoted perfectly match those in the Korherr report.

Until such a rebuttal comes to light and goes through peer review the article stands the test of time. And after 10 years since the article was published both Peter (Witte) and I have moved on to other research projects. "

AHF

VFX
BANNED
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:36 am

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by VFX » Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:41 pm

Darren Wilshak wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:49 pm
I can list many more than three but the top three are.

VFX
Been There
Ralph Gordon.

:lol:
Image

User avatar
Darren Wilshak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1408
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:16 pm

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Darren Wilshak » Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:07 pm

You've put on some weight I see.
"We are still waiting for anyone to rebut the main theme of the article that the decode in question and the numbers it quoted perfectly match those in the Korherr report.

Until such a rebuttal comes to light and goes through peer review the article stands the test of time. And after 10 years since the article was published both Peter (Witte) and I have moved on to other research projects. "

AHF

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 12178
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am
Custom Title: Lost in Translation
Location: Safely stored in my own mind

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:10 pm

Darren Wilshak wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:07 pm
You've put on some weight I see.

That’s VFX trying to work out the latest Germar Rudolf crapfest.
Question for Groening by a reporter:
“Mr. Groening, what do you say to those who still deny the Holocaust?”

Groening:
“Nothing. They are hopelessly lost.”


Hhhhhhhmmmmmm, is it possible that Carlo Mattogno is the greatest scholar the world has ever known?
:lol: :lol:
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=31585&p=713843#p713843

VFX
BANNED
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:36 am

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by VFX » Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:15 pm

Darren Wilshak wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:07 pm
You've put on some weight I see.
Nope that is a selfie that JeffK did.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 12178
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am
Custom Title: Lost in Translation
Location: Safely stored in my own mind

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:43 pm

VFX wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:15 pm
Darren Wilshak wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:07 pm
You've put on some weight I see.
Nope that is a selfie that JeffK did.
No, the tongue out, the vacant expression.....definitely you puzzling your way through Germar Rudolf’s latest bird droppings.
Question for Groening by a reporter:
“Mr. Groening, what do you say to those who still deny the Holocaust?”

Groening:
“Nothing. They are hopelessly lost.”


Hhhhhhhmmmmmm, is it possible that Carlo Mattogno is the greatest scholar the world has ever known?
:lol: :lol:
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=31585&p=713843#p713843

User avatar
Oozy_Substance
Poster
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:48 am

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Oozy_Substance » Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:47 am

I just came up with another absurdity.

The Nazis gassed their own people in the T-4 program. Deniers don't deny it.
Then, when the Nazis addressed the "Jewish Problem" which they saw as extremely severe, they merely deported the Jews away, and absolutely did not gas them.

Absurd.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3074
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Nessie » Mon Nov 05, 2018 11:42 am

Oozy_Substance wrote:
Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:47 am
I just came up with another absurdity.

The Nazis gassed their own people in the T-4 program. Deniers don't deny it.
Then, when the Nazis addressed the "Jewish Problem" which they saw as extremely severe, they merely deported the Jews away, and absolutely did not gas them.

Absurd.
Plus, some deniers accept the mass shooting of Jews by the Einsatzgruppen took place. They then try and justify it because those Jews were partisans and enemies of the Nazis. But the Jews all over Europe were supposedly enemies of the Nazis.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Goody67
Regular Poster
Posts: 547
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 5:55 pm

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Goody67 » Mon Nov 05, 2018 11:54 am

Nessie wrote:
Mon Nov 05, 2018 11:42 am
Plus, some deniers accept the mass shooting of Jews by the Einsatzgruppen took place. They then try and justify it because those Jews were partisans and enemies of the Nazis. But the Jews all over Europe were supposedly enemies of the Nazis.
Yup.

Addressing his district governors in the General Government on 16 December 1941, Governor-General Hans Frank said: "But what will happen to the Jews? Do you believe they will be lodged in settlements in Ostland? In Berlin, we were told: why all this trouble; we cannot use them in the Ostland or the Reichskommissariat either; liquidate them yourselves!" Himmler went to see Hitler at the Wolfsschanze Führerhauptquartier on December 18, 1941, to discuss the Judenfrage (Jewish Question), Himmler noted: Als Partisanen auszurotten (roughly, "to be wiped out as partisans")

Image

Also, German army commanders cast the Jews as the major cause behind the "partisan struggle". The main guideline for German troops was "Where there's a partisan, there's a Jew, and where there's a Jew, there's a partisan", or "The partisan is where the Jew is".
"We were the first country to attempt and to succeed in rolling back the frontiers of socialism, which is the first cousin to communism. Socialists don't like people to do things for themselves. Socialists like to get people dependent on the state! You never build a great society that way." - Margaret Thatcher

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26862
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Nov 05, 2018 2:46 pm

A wrinkle to this is that, from what I've read of Einsatzgruppen commanders and officers, I think that there was a mixture of conviction (that Jews were the social and political basis for all forms of oppositional activity, partly via the belief in a concept of Judeo-Bolshevism) and some awareness of the problematic nature of this conviction.

On the latter point, some examples:
Pieper cites a perpetrator statement that conveys the context in which the killings were understood:
They were shot because they were Jews. There cannot have been any other reason from my point of view. It is out of the question that they supported the partisans or were partisans themselves. I don’t know anything about Jews resisting the German troops at all. According to my observations they always were friendly and loyal. And most of them were women and children down to the smallest baby. With them, too, there were no exceptions made [and they all were killed].[10]
https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... tml#_ftn10

And:
The majority of Jews [in the Ukraine] remained under German administration. The latter found the problem more complicated through the fact that these Jews represented almost the entire trade and even a part of the manpower in small and medium industries besides the business which had in part become superfluous as a direct or indirect result of the war. The elimination therefore necessarily had far reaching economic consequences and even direct consequences for the armament industry (production for supplying the troops).

The attitude of the Jewish population was anxious -- obliging from the beginning. They tried to avoid everything that might displease the German administration. That they hated the German administration and army inwardly goes without saying and cannot be surprising. However, there is no proof that Jewry as a whole or even to a greater part was implicated in acts of sabotage. Surely, there were some terrorists or saboteurs among them just as among the Ukrainians. But it cannot be said that the Jews as such represented a danger to the German armed forces. The output produced by Jews who, of course, were prompted by nothing but the feeling of fear, was satisfactory to the troops and the German administration.
3257-PS: report of armament inspector on Ukraine

And:
On numerous occasions Kube has said to me personally that Jews evacuated from the Reich could be spared without any problem since they do not understand the local language and would therefore not pose a danger in so far as their becoming involved in guerrilla activities was concerned.

I am convinced from the evidence that deep down Kube is opposed to our actions against the Jews. If he does not admit to this outwardly the only reason is his fear of the consequences. He is in agreement with actions against Russian Jews because he is able to appease his conscience by the fact that the majority of Russian Jews collaborate with the guerrillas.
from 1943 report of Strauch on Kube's attitude, Ernst Klee, Willi Dressen and Volker Riess, eds, The Good Old Days: The Holocaust as Seen by its Perpetrators and Bystanders, pp 183-194

It is also interesting in this regard how EMs sometimes note that regions were made free of Jews through German security operations and how often they distinguish victims as "communists" or "partisans" etc. vs "Jews" (example: EM 150) as well as how the basic orders stressed Jews among the targeted groups.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Mon Nov 05, 2018 9:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

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

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Sergey_Romanov » Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:21 pm

> It is actually the Nazis who gave the meaning it has today in "modern" German...as it turned out it meant physical extermination.

No, they did not.

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... tten.shtml

Why are you repeating the deniers' talking points?

> The term is originally botanic, to "root out" weed from a field, it was therefore employed all over the 19th century in political speech as a way to "get rid" of nasty influences, political threats, etc.

Just as it can always be used in that meaning, as any word meaning literal killing can. What does this have to do with anything?

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

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Balsamo » Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:45 am

Sergey_Romanov wrote:
Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:21 pm
> It is actually the Nazis who gave the meaning it has today in "modern" German...as it turned out it meant physical extermination.

No, they did not.

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... tten.shtml

Why are you repeating the deniers' talking points?

> The term is originally botanic, to "root out" weed from a field, it was therefore employed all over the 19th century in political speech as a way to "get rid" of nasty influences, political threats, etc.

Just as it can always be used in that meaning, as any word meaning literal killing can. What does this have to do with anything?
Sergey, you could have quoted the whole paragraph, instead of only the last sentence:
This is what i wrote:
the term "ausrotten" was not meant to imply systematically physical extermination back then, that is as a first meaning for Germans. It is actually the Nazis who gave the meaning it has today in "modern" German...as it turned out it meant physical extermination.

Sergey:
Why are you repeating the deniers' talking points?
I could ask the same, why "Ausrottung des Judentums" keeps being translated into " The extermination of the Jews" in many instances?
It is a really interpretive definition, as to exterminate has clear physical implications which a term like "eradication" has not. Now of course, as i said, this interpretation will be the correct one.
Nobody would say that they are going to "exterminate" poverty, one would use to eradicate instead. Just like in German one would say "Ausrottung von Armut", and the word was primarely used in this context in the 19th century for example.

I never denied that if used with a physical substantive, like "Ausrottung der Juden", or like in the Himmler's quote, " der physischen Ausrottung eines Volkes" (note that he outline physischen to be clear) would already have meant the extermination of the Jews, but in most speeches Hitler or other were careful enough to use the world with a non-physical substantive like "Judentum". Used in this context, the term offered the comfort of being clear on the intent, but NOT on the means that would be used.

I'll stick to it. ;)

Balmoral95
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3140
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Balmoral95 » Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:02 am

Point of clarification, Balsamo: When you say "modern", from what date are you referring to?

Balmoral95
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3140
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Balmoral95 » Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:03 am

Point of clarification, Balsamo: When you say "modern", from what date are you referring to?

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5094
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Jeff_36 » Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:05 am

recall that Bismark used this term with clear violent undertones in reference to the Poles as far back as before the Fin De Siecle period.

Balmoral95
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3140
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Balmoral95 » Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:30 am

Jeff_36 wrote:
Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:05 am
recall that Bismark used this term with clear violent undertones in reference to the Poles as far back as before the Fin De Siecle period.
Yes, but the question is from what date Balsamo dates it as "modern" and popularly understood as such...

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

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Sergey_Romanov » Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:01 pm

The point is, the meaning did not change.

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

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Balsamo » Tue Nov 06, 2018 7:23 pm

Balmoral95 wrote:
Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:03 am
Point of clarification, Balsamo: When you say "modern", from what date are you referring to?
Modern is probably not the best expression.
But in more recent dictionaries, and if i asked my mum, the dictionary - all available online - will propose to exterminate as the first definition, and my mum would answer "to kill" as first spontaneous answer. Well in more older dictionary, as i said, one finds to exterminate, but never as the first definition.
Etymologically, the closer verb would be "to eradicate".


Jeff36:
recall that Bismark used this term with clear violent undertones in reference to the Poles as far back as before the Fin De Siecle period.
Well i do not recall the specific quote, but yes as i said it could already be used as "extermination" in certain circumstances, as i said depending on the nature of the object. And of course, the term is extremely violent, no question about that.

Sergey:
The point is, the meaning did not change.
Really?
Well strangely enough, the google translate test for "Ausrottung des Judentums" will give a strange expression which is never used:
The extermination of Judaism! Note that GT would the same way "exterminate" any other religion not only Judaism, but is still kind enough to "eradicate diseases"...
Has anyone ever "exterminated" a religion?
Come on!

I will ask my question again: does the translation of "Ausrottung des Judentums" into "extermination of the Jews" seem correct to you?

User avatar
Io
Poster
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Io » Tue Nov 06, 2018 7:31 pm

Every time this post bubbles to the top I'm disappointed there are still no tights.

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

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Balsamo » Tue Nov 06, 2018 7:51 pm

Io wrote:
Tue Nov 06, 2018 7:31 pm
Every time this post bubbles to the top I'm disappointed there are still no tights.
:lol:

I just suggested that the term "ausrottung" should be replaced by "liquidierung" as more appropriate to illustrate Denier's absurdity.

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

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Sergey_Romanov » Tue Nov 06, 2018 8:47 pm

> Really?

Really. I've given you the evidence, you have failed to respond so far.
b-38-detail.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Balsamo » Wed Nov 07, 2018 12:35 am

Sergey_Romanov wrote:
Tue Nov 06, 2018 8:47 pm
> Really?

Really. I've given you the evidence, you have failed to respond so far.

b-38-detail.jpg
Would you mind sharing the reference of this dictionary ?
Is it a small pocket one ? I mean a dictionary giving only one definition, and disregarding terms like the verb Ausrotten, the substantive Ausrotter, the adjective Ausrottbar.
Going straight from Ausrodung to Ausrottung then ausruf.
Seriously?

I have not posted any copy of dictionaries, as i am already suspect enough to play the denier.
Your dictionary has the merit not to bother with such things as nuances. "Alles" is completely destroyed.
So in the case of
" Die Ausrottung Des Protestantismus in Salzburg " = die vollige vernichtung des protestantismus in Salzburg = The complete destruction of Protestantism in Salzburg = the extermination of the Protestants in Salzburg?
or
"Die Ausrottung des Armuts in Europa" = the complete destruction of poverty in Europe = should be what ? = the extermination of the poors?

I am being cynic here, but you could make a small effort, even if you are a man of few words on this forum.

The question remains:
When one reads or hear such a comparable sentence as "Die Ausrottung Des Protestantismus in Salzburg", It is clear that the consequence was that Salzburg became 100% catholic, but do you honestly picture instantly how the result had been achieved?
Now of course, if the sentence had been, "The extermination of the Protestants in Salzburg", the consequence would still obvious and the city would still has become 100% catholic, but so are the means used in order to achieve the conversion. One would clearly picture the Protestants being slaughtered.

So again, can the second sentence be used to translate the first one?

PS: I would gladly answer whatever was the question you asked me. I have not noticed one though.

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

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Balsamo » Wed Nov 07, 2018 1:55 am

Sergey:
Why are you repeating the deniers' talking points?
Was this the question?
Well then, the answer is easy. Whatever the deniers used this argument, and they do it badly anyway, especially when they come up with the "extirpate" bogus, which is one of the translation but never meant for the context used by the Nazis or whatever 19th century using the term for sociological or political issue.
So basically i don't care.

But if one just take the example you posted, that is the phdn translation of the Posen speech of the 4th of october, the nasty effect of "interpretative translation" is obvious.
Himmler:
Ich meine die "Judenevakuierung": die Ausrottung des jüdischen Volkes.
...ganz klar, steht in unserem Programm drin, Ausschaltung der Juden, Ausrottung, machen wir...

Phdn translation:
I am talking about the "Jewish evacuation": the extermination of the Jewish people.
...perfectly clear, it's part of our plans, we're eliminating the Jews, exterminating them...

What we have here in the first sentence is two of the metaphors that had been used, code name or whatever, the first being the "false method" and the second the objective. The problem is that the word extermination already implies the method, which is mass murder.

And of course, the second line would basically say that the mass murder of the Jewish people was something that (1) was CLEARLY in some Nazi political program (which it was not) (2) that every party comrades would speak lightly about (since when ? since the term was first used?) while the whole point Himmler is making is that by using terms like "ausschaltung" (curiously translated into "elimination") or "ausrottung" none of them (the naive parteigenosse) fully realized what the task involved, that is mass murder and killing.Of course, Himmler does not include his audience, all brave SS generals, but the others.
(3) the strange way of translating the "machen wir" into some strange "we are exterminating" "we are eleminating" while Himmler speaks about those "naive" 80 million Germans and their "prima Juden"...

Himmler knows very well, and its is the whole point of this auto congratulation speech, that those "parteigenosse" or "the German Jews" DID NOT PARTICIPATE, HAD NOT THE GUTS OR THE DISCIPLINE required to fulfill the "historical task", that is the mass murder of the Jews.

The way phdn translate the speech gives the wrong feeling that he said that genocide was in some Nazi political program, that every member or the party or even the whole population did participate to the "elimination" or the "extermination" of the Jews, as the two terms used were of course clear to everyone that whenever they had heard "ausrottung des Judentums" or "ausrottung des Judischen Volkes" meant the mass killing of men, women, children, elderly, and that they all queued to take part of it.

Translated as it is this speech makes no sense at all.
I am talking about the "Jewish evacuation": the extermination of the Jewish people.
It is one of those things that is easily said. "The Jewish people is being exterminated," every Party member will tell you, "perfectly clear, it's part of our plans, we're eliminating the Jews, exterminating them, ha!, a small matter."

And then along they all come, all the 80 million upright Germans, and each one has his decent Jew. They say: all the others are swine, but here is a first-class Jew.
And none of them has seen it, has endured it
Do the contradictions not strike you?

Now here is an alternative translation:
" I am talking about the "Jewish evacuation", the eradication of the Jewish people...It is one thing that is easily said: The Jewish people is being eradicated, says each party comrade, " of course, it is in our program, elimination of the Jews, eradication, let's do it...no big deal!
And they come, all those brave 80 million Germans, and everyone has his own respectable Jew, says all the others are pigs, but this Jew is a good one.
And/But none of them has ever watched, has ever endured it...BUT YOU, MOST OF YOU, know how it feels when hundreds of corpses lie in row, when 500 or 1000 lie there..."

To be understood as they (party comrades and the Germans) did not know what was behind the words, what those words really implied, so it easy for them to speak lightly about - i mean, really, i am repeating myself, but even the common Nazis would not have spoken about genocide lightly - had they done that, one would wonder why measures of secrecy were taken, why code words were used - BUT GERMANY could count on its SS.

Now i am looking for even the partial transcript of the speech of the 6th of October, if anyone has some extracts?

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

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Sergey_Romanov » Wed Nov 07, 2018 6:21 am

> I mean a dictionary giving only one definition

Yes, the main one.

> "Die Ausrottung des Armuts in Europa" = the complete destruction of poverty in Europe = should be what ? = the extermination of the poors?

Try to burn down your strawmen before I get to them.

> Translated as it is this speech makes no sense at all.

Actually it does. It is an exaggerated and thus an incorrect claim by Himmler, that doesn't mean it makes no sense.

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

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Sergey_Romanov » Wed Nov 07, 2018 6:29 am

Oozy_Substance wrote:
Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:47 am
I just came up with another absurdity.

The Nazis gassed their own people in the T-4 program. Deniers don't deny it.
Then, when the Nazis addressed the "Jewish Problem" which they saw as extremely severe, they merely deported the Jews away, and absolutely did not gas them.

Absurd.
Consider that there was a period of time when all of the following was true:

1. Extermination program against the disabled.
2. No extermination program against Jews.
3. Deportation program against Jews.

User avatar
Oozy_Substance
Poster
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:48 am

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Oozy_Substance » Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:22 pm

Sergey_Romanov wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 6:29 am
Oozy_Substance wrote:
Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:47 am
I just came up with another absurdity.

The Nazis gassed their own people in the T-4 program. Deniers don't deny it.
Then, when the Nazis addressed the "Jewish Problem" which they saw as extremely severe, they merely deported the Jews away, and absolutely did not gas them.

Absurd.
Consider that there was a period of time when all of the following was true:

1. Extermination program against the disabled.
2. No extermination program against Jews.
3. Deportation program against Jews.
The "official" extermination plan didn't kick in yet, but scores of Jews were hunted down by the Einsatzgruppen.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26862
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:21 pm

Blake is just now learning about that. It's mind-boggling.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

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

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Sergey_Romanov » Wed Nov 07, 2018 5:41 pm

Oozy_Substance wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:22 pm
Sergey_Romanov wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 6:29 am
Oozy_Substance wrote:
Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:47 am
I just came up with another absurdity.

The Nazis gassed their own people in the T-4 program. Deniers don't deny it.
Then, when the Nazis addressed the "Jewish Problem" which they saw as extremely severe, they merely deported the Jews away, and absolutely did not gas them.

Absurd.
Consider that there was a period of time when all of the following was true:

1. Extermination program against the disabled.
2. No extermination program against Jews.
3. Deportation program against Jews.
The "official" extermination plan didn't kick in yet, but scores of Jews were hunted down by the Einsatzgruppen.
Not sure why you wrote this as this doesn't deal with the point I have made.

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

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Balsamo » Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:02 pm

Sergey_Romanov wrote:
Wed Nov 07, 2018 6:21 am
> I mean a dictionary giving only one definition

Yes, the main one.

> "Die Ausrottung des Armuts in Europa" = the complete destruction of poverty in Europe = should be what ? = the extermination of the poors?

Try to burn down your strawmen before I get to them.

> Translated as it is this speech makes no sense at all.

Actually it does. It is an exaggerated and thus an incorrect claim by Himmler, that doesn't mean it makes no sense.
The aurottung des armuts was the cynical parts, the protestantismus was not.

Here is the book, published in 2012, based on a book published in 1901,
https://www.amazon.de/Ausrottung-Protes ... 993&sr=1-3

to spare yourself time, in 1731 or so, the so called Protestants in Salzburg were given the choice between conversion and oath to the Bishop OR expulsion of the city. many chose to leave disorganizing the local economy.

In a more recent wiki article about the Ukraine:
„die Ausrottung der Kulturbestrebungen aller Volksgruppen und Völker aus ideologischen Gründen“
Would you really translate this sentence into "the complete destruction" of the cultural aspirations of all ethnic groups and of all the people because of ideological motives?
Would that really be how one would say it in English?

So i guess that i won't get the reference of the dictionary...was it written by Arnold Schwarzenegger grand father?
Actually it does. It is an exaggerated and thus an incorrect claim by Himmler, that doesn't mean it makes no sense.
Exaggeration?
You mean when he says that it is easy to talk lightly about such things genocide, as everyone in Germany did, while is approach of the issue is serious and dramatic?

So it makes sense to you that he starts the issue almost on a solemn tone:
I also want to mention a very difficult chapter before you here, completely openly.

It should be discussed amongst us, and yet, nevertheless, we will never speak about it in public.
Why not joining the Parteigenosse? Why keeping such a pompous secrecy about a topic that was in the program?
Then comparing this "sacred mission" to the murder of old comrades during the night of the long knives - was it also in the program? - again he repeats:
About which we have never spoken, and never will speak.
only to then naming what he is talking about:
Ich meine die "Judenevakuierung": die Ausrottung des jüdischen Volkes.
Which all of a sudden becomes "something that is easily said and spoken lightly about?

And i guess you have no issues with all those funny translations, neither?
"Es steht in unserem Programm" becoming "It is part of our Plan", when actually the German word for Plan, as you know, is...Plan...when it actually means " it is mentioned in our program".
The creation of continuous tense with "Ausrottung, machen wir" becoming " we are exterminating them", as if anyone would say in German "Wir machen Ausrottung".

You are right, interpretative translation and a good dictionary makes life easier. :mrgreen:
I have noticed that rearranging the order of the paragraphs also helps to clarify the speech.

I was, of course, a fool. i thought the apparent contradiction were due to the weird translation when in fact, as you clearly demonstrated, it was due to Himmler's exaggerations.

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

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Sergey_Romanov » Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:22 pm

> to spare yourself time, in 1731 or so, the so called Protestants in Salzburg were given the choice between conversion and oath to the Bishop OR expulsion of the city. many chose to leave disorganizing the local economy.

Seems like for the lack of an argument you're just throwing in random meaningless bits.

> Would that really be how one would say it in English?

Complete destruction.

> So i guess that i won't get the reference of the dictionary...was it written by Arnold Schwarzenegger grand father?

You've been given all the references.

> You mean when he says that it is easy to talk lightly about such things genocide, as everyone in Germany did, while is approach of the issue is serious and dramatic?

Sure. *Talking* about it is easy, in Himmler's little parable. It's doing it that's hard.

> Why keeping such a pompous secrecy about a topic that was in the program?

I guess you are not aware that neither extermination, nor "eradication" of Jews or Judaism was in the official party program?

In the end you still got caught mindlessly regurgitating denier talking points and failed to deal with the actual dictionary definitions from before the Holocaust.

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

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Balsamo » Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:57 am

My lack of arguments, my lord ?
Here are the compilation of yours in this thread:
Nov 5th:
No, they did not.
Just as it can always be used in that meaning, as any word meaning literal killing can. What does this have to do with anything?
Nov 6th, with a picture of Schwarzy dictionary:
Really. I've given you the evidence, you have failed to respond so far.
Nov 7th:
Yes, the main one.
Try to burn down your strawmen before I get to them.
Actually it does. It is an exaggerated and thus an incorrect claim by Himmler, that doesn't mean it makes no sense.
Concluding wisely in your last post:
Seems like for the lack of an argument you're just throwing in random meaningless bits.
and
You've been given all the references.
You mean this : b-38-detail.jpg (8.99 KiB) Viewed 44 times ?
I guess you are not aware that neither extermination, nor "eradication" of Jews or Judaism was in the official party program?
How do you understand "eradication", Sergey? What does the Schwarzy pocket dictionary say about it?
Complete distruction?
From Latin: eradicare = to tear off = to remove
from the prefix "ex" here "e" and "radix" (accusative "radicem") which means "root"...
I am not saying that Ausrotten is to be understood as "to root out" of course, all i am saying is that the expression "ausrottung des Judentums" gave the opportunity to the listener to avoid asking himself how the process was going to take place. Because both eradication, globally, or "ausrottung" associate with a non physical context like Jewry or even "Volk" focus on the objective without describing the means. That is about it. I gave you two examples of how ausrottung could designated eradication without involving systematically mass murder and genocide, and i could keep on...
you choose to see "complete destruction", and consider that "complete destruction" means systematically mass murder and genocide...well, good for you. But then you would still have to explain how complete destruction of something like Protestantism or Jewry systematically implies mass murder and genocide.

But yes, if the "ausrottung des Judentums" could be understood like the "Ausrottung Des Protestantismus in Salzburg", then yes, it was in the Nazi program from the start. The same way, it was in numerous articles in Nazi newspaper, in various speeches, from the Fuhrer and other. Of course the "Ausrottung des Judentums" was in the program. What was NOT was how this would be achieve.
But i agree, eradication of Jewry through physical extermination and mass murders was NOT in the program.
In the end you still got caught mindlessly regurgitating denier talking points and failed to deal with the actual dictionary definitions from before the Holocaust.
You know, the silly part of all this discussion is that it is not like the whole historiography of the holocaust was depending on the bloody unilateral translation of this bloody term.
We all know what was behind this term, but it is not a reason to pretend that there is only one possible interpretation of the term, and to allow whatever lousy "interpretative" translation that should be untouchable.

The way the Posen speech is translated by the Phdn site is really a shame, and should be considered as such by everyone having some basic knowledge of German.
It does not affect in anyway how the speech is to be interpreted, it is just a matter of recognizing that some rigid posture are really out of date.




Thanks for reminding me i have so much to learn when it comes to argumentation.
Your contributions really made me reconsider everything.
Thanks again.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26862
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:45 am

Balsamo wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:57 am
How do you understand "eradication", Sergey? What does the Schwarzy pocket dictionary say about it?
Complete distruction?
From Latin: eradicare = to tear off = to remove
from the prefix "ex" here "e" and "radix" (accusative "radicem") which means "root"...
I am not saying that Ausrotten is to be understood as "to root out" of course
Be all that as it may, in common usage, yes, the "word" eradicate in English, whatever its etymology, connotes the complete destruction of something, even a population. To eradicate a disease is to wipe it out - it no longer exists. If a species is eradicated, it is wiped off the face of the earth, or destroyed in a region, gone from there, utterly destroyed. My local pest control company will visit my house to eradicate all the unwanted insects that have invaded it: Terminix bills itself like this - "Local Pest Control & Termite Inspections | Exterminators."

Annihilate, obliterate, exterminate are among the synonyms.

That's eradicate in English - I can't speak to Ausrottung - but when an English speaker says something was eradicated, he or she means that it was completely wiped out.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26862
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Nov 08, 2018 2:20 pm

Two denier non sequiturs regarding the Einsatzgruppen:

1. Deniers argue that the EGs couldn’t have been conducting killing actions of many 1000s and achieved death tolls of 100s of 1000s cumulatively because the squads had so few members (only 3000 in total).

But they also argue that there was a massive and well-organized partisan threat in the East from the outset of Barbarossa and these too-small squads were organized to defeat it.

The two arguments contradict each other.

2. Deniers claim that the EG commanders wildly inflated the death tolls of Jews in their reports to higher officials in Berlin and that it is these exaggerated Jewish death tolls that appear in the EMs.

But they also claim that higher officials in Berlin had no policy for or intention of large-scale executions of Jews throughout the occupied USSR.

The two claims are in contradiction.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3074
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Nessie » Thu Nov 08, 2018 3:52 pm

The latest hypothesis is

https://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php? ... 50#p135238

"From what I have read they never stayed at the transit camps except for a night before settling into their farms the next day depending on weather conditions and so on."

By transit camps, he means AR camps and he read that crazy hypothesis off another denier, rather than from any evidence.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26862
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:33 pm

But of course Treblinka "steam" chambers; recall that deniers base their use of the "steam" chamber claim principally on the Polish charge submitted to the IMT (Cyprian's document); but here are some excerpts from the only testimony about what went on in the Treblinka camp given by a witness from the camp during the IMT:
MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: I beg you to describe this camp to the Tribunal.

RAJZMAN: Transports arrived there every day; their number depended on the number of trains arriving; sometimes three, four, or five trains filled exclusively with Jews -- from Czechoslovakia, Germany, Greece, and Poland. Immediately after their arrival, the people had to leave the trains in 5 minutes and line up on the platform. All those who were driven from the cars were divided into groups -- men, children, and women, all separate. They were all forced to strip immediately, and this procedure continued under the lashes of the German guards' whips. Workers who were employed in this operation immediately picked up all the clothes and carried them away to barracks. Then the people were obliged to walk naked through the street to the gas chambers. . . .

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Yes, I also believe that it is not really necessary.

Please tell us, how long did a person live after he had arrived in the Treblinka Camp?

RAJZMAN: The whole process of undressing and the walk down to the gas chambers lasted, for the men 8 or 10 minutes, and for the women some 15 minutes. The women took 15 minutes because they had to have their hair shaved off before they went to the gas chambers. . . .

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: Did I rightly understand you, Witness, that a kind of make-believe station was built with signboards and train schedules, with indications of platforms for train departures to Suwalki, and so forth?

RAJZMAN: When the persons descended from the trains, they really had the impression that they were at a very good station from where they could go to Suwalki, Vienna, Grodno, or other cities.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And what happened later on to these people?

RAJZMAN: These people were taken directly along the Himmelfahrtstrasse to the gas chambers.

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: And tell us, please, how did the Germans behave while killing their victims in Treblinka?

RAJZMAN: If you mean the actual executions, every German guard had his special job. I shall cite only one example. We had a ScharFuehrer Menz, whose special job was to guard the so-called "Lazarett." In this "Lazarett" all weak women and little children were exterminated who had not the strength to go themselves to the gas chambers. . . .

RAJZMAN: At first my work was to load the clothes of the murdered persons on the trains. When I had been in the camp 2 days, my mother, my sister, and two brothers were brought to the camp from the town of Vinegrova. I had to watch them being led away to the gas chambers. Several days later, when I was loading clothes on the freight cars, my comrades found my wife's documents and a photograph of my wife and child. That is all I have left of my family, only a photograph. . . .

MR. COUNSELLOR SMIRNOV: In how many gas chambers did the killings take place?

RAJZMAN: At first there were only 3 gas chambers, but then they built 10 more chambers. . . .
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/02-27-46.asp

The IMT does not seem to have been under the impression that Jews were killed in "steam" chambers at Treblinka; in fact, the judgment said specifically of the Jewish persecution and the camps: "All who were fit to work were used as slave labourers in the concentration camps; all who were not fit to work were destroyed in gas chambers and their bodies burnt. Certain concentration camps such as Treblinka and Auschwitz were set aside for this main purpose." http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judwarcr.asp#persecution
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

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

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Sergey_Romanov » Thu Nov 08, 2018 5:56 pm

> My lack of arguments, my lord ?

You don't lack in strawmen (like when you tried to use the verb applied to abstract entities like Judaism and poverty as a counterexample lol), but real arguments? You gotta work on that.

So far you couldn't respond to the evidence that has been provided to you, and have also failed at English, as SM has shown.

> , all i am saying is that the expression "ausrottung des Judentums" gave the opportunity to the listener to avoid asking himself how the process was going to take place.

No, we are not discussing this particular ambiguous phrase, we are discussing your claim about the meaning of ausrotten:

"It is actually the Nazis who gave the meaning it has today in "modern" German."

As has already been shown to you, the meaning of the word did not change from before the war. Both before and after the war the meaning - complete destruction - would depend on context, i.e. whether it is applied to concepts, living beings etc. Same applies to all other similar words, including "kill". The Nazis did not change the meaning, whatever it is.


> The way the Posen speech is translated by the Phdn site is really a shame

Your allergy to facts is not anybody else's problem.

There's not much to say aside from this.

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

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Balsamo » Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:59 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:45 am
Balsamo wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:57 am
How do you understand "eradication", Sergey? What does the Schwarzy pocket dictionary say about it?
Complete distruction?
From Latin: eradicare = to tear off = to remove
from the prefix "ex" here "e" and "radix" (accusative "radicem") which means "root"...
I am not saying that Ausrotten is to be understood as "to root out" of course
Be all that as it may, in common usage, yes, the "word" eradicate in English, whatever its etymology, connotes the complete destruction of something, even a population. To eradicate a disease is to wipe it out - it no longer exists. If a species is eradicated, it is wiped off the face of the earth, or destroyed in a region, gone from there, utterly destroyed. My local pest control company will visit my house to eradicate all the unwanted insects that have invaded it: Terminix bills itself like this - "Local Pest Control & Termite Inspections | Exterminators."


Annihilate, obliterate, exterminate are among the synonyms.

That's eradicate in English - I can't speak to Ausrottung - but when an English speaker says something was eradicated, he or she means that it was completely wiped out.
Of course, Stat, but that is not what is in dispute.
In my very first post, i wrote that when the term "Ausrottung" is followed by a physical object, like persons, as in "Die Ausrottung der Juden", it had to be understood as "to kill" or even to "exterminate" as there are no real alternative to what can happen to an ausgerottet person.

But things are quite different when the object is not physical, but - i don't know how to say that in English - conceptual. That is "protestantismus" instead of Protestants, "Judentum" or Judaism instead of Jews, Christianity instead of Christians, etc, or even Belgischen Volk instead of Belgians.

Of course, in the end, those concepts would cease to exist within the concerns territory, but as shown by my "Ausrottung des Protestantismus in Salzburg", the means used to achieve the "destruction" of Protestantism is not revealed, and has no consequence on the appellation.
As i tried to say, had the Bishop killed half of them and put the other half starving in jail, the title of the book would have been the same.
But one has to read the book in order to know how this destruction has been achieved. In this specific case, it did not involved mass slaughters, but as i said, it could have.

I will provide another example:
In 1768 a book called " Zweifel eines Jtalieners uber das Bedenken wegen Ausrottung der Jesuiten aus der ganzen Welt" which is of course translated by google into " Doubts of an Italian on concerns about extermination of the Jesuits from all over the world"

This is a kind of exception because the term Jesuiten is pysical and therefore could be understood as a massive slaughter, but it is just a designation of the Religious Order, and therefore has to be understood as its usual use when it comes to Religion.

three years earlier, the french philosopher d'Alembert wrote an essay called " On the Destruction of the Jesuits in France" (Sur la destruction des Jesuites en France).

In other times, it could have been a massacre, but by 1760, most of the States chose to confiscate the properties and wealth of the Order, to close colleges and universities and to banish its members.
The result was indeed the complete disappearance of the Jesuits from Portugal, France, Spain, Italy, etc, and one could say that the Order had been wipe out and destroyed. Ten years later, the order would be officially prohibited by the Pope.
Again the means used to achieve this "destruction" would not have had influence on the title of those books. But in this case, there had been no bloodshed.

In many cases of course, the Ausrottung of Heretics by the Holy Inquisition meant just that they were burned alive. The "Cathar" had been genocided, the Jesuits were not.

Do you understand the nuance i am trying to defend here. I am not saying that the term excludes the use of mas murder and genocide, i am saying that it remains silent on how the objective is achieved, and the relation between the term and physical extermination is not systematic, and therefore a systematic translation is wrong.

As shown above, the term Ausrottung is the word used when it comes to persecution of religious minorities (and of course later of national minorities), so one speak of
- Die Ausrottung der Katharer in the XIII century.
Lothar Baier: Die große Ketzerei: Verfolgung und Ausrottung der Katharer durch Kirche und Wissenschaft. Wagenbach, Berlin 2002.

- Die Ausrottung der Jesuiten, around 1760

- Die Ausrottung des Protestantismus in Salzburg, (published in 1901)

- Some i don't know about like this one :
" Ausrottung der Ukrainer in Poland" ( Zentral Exekutivausschuss der Vertreter der Organisationen der Ukrainischen Emigration in der Tschechoslowakei, 1930)
https://books.google.com.pa/books/about ... edir_esc=y

- Die Ausrottung des Judentums (world war II)

Out of those five, only two turned out to be a real genocide. so it is obvious that a systematic translation into "extermination of members of the target group" is just obviously impossible. So while it is of course correct to speak about "the extermination of the Cathar" and "The extermination of the Jews", the term "extermination of " cannot be systematically used as a translation.

In all cases, one can speak of "destruction", as there no longer Cathar in Southern France, no longer Jesuits in Portugal, Spain, France, etc. and of course, Salzburg became a 100% catholic city, if one keep in mind that the even the term "destruction" contains nuances.


Of course, a quick search into "google books" shows that the main use of the term Ausrottung refers to the eradication of diseases. So in this context, one can even speak of extermination, as we are talking about virus or bacteria, but even then, one can say that it focuses on the result than the means.
If one talk about the eradication of the well known "mad cow disease", i personally cannot conclude from this sentence HOW the disease had been eradicated. I would have to read further to learn that it involved the killing of hundreds of thousands of cows. You need to be an epidemiologist to fully understand the process.

But what is important is that when confronted with a Nazi documents mentioning Ausrottung along with some comparison with virus, then the meaning of ausrottung makes no doubt at all, as of course, the eradication of the Jews who are compared to bacillus, can clearly be translated by "extermination of the Jews".

So again, it greatly depend on the context in which the term is used.

The principle question is this: Did the common German listeners of Hitler's and other Nazi's speeches mentioning "Die Ausrottung des Judentums", did the readers of Nazis press, did the world watching the newsreels, did all of them clearly understood in their mind that what was talked, proclaimed, written, was without doubt the "extermination of the Jews", that is the physical extermination?

Did they react to the 1939 speech like "Did you hear, the Fuhrer just spoke to exterminate all the Jews!", did they in the early 1942? In other words, was the expression used so perfectly clear to anyone, that no doubts could be allowed?

Because if no doubts are allowed in the understanding of "Ausrotten des Judentums", if this term explicitly means - and therefore can legitimately translated into - "the extermination of the Jews", then this extermination should be considered as a clear and open State policy, that was known by everyone in Germany and beyond.
This was the unanswered question i asked!
Which to me sounds like a complete return to the "intenationalist" approach and comprehension of the Holocaust.
It is of course the right of everyone to stick to this approach, but then, as Nessie would say, it needs to be backed with evidence.

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 12178
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am
Custom Title: Lost in Translation
Location: Safely stored in my own mind

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Thu Nov 08, 2018 8:08 pm

Can we give this conversation a mercy killing?
Question for Groening by a reporter:
“Mr. Groening, what do you say to those who still deny the Holocaust?”

Groening:
“Nothing. They are hopelessly lost.”


Hhhhhhhmmmmmm, is it possible that Carlo Mattogno is the greatest scholar the world has ever known?
:lol: :lol:
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=31585&p=713843#p713843

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26862
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Denier Absurdities

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Nov 08, 2018 8:22 pm

Balsamo wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:59 pm
Of course, Stat, but that is not what is in dispute.
But you asked how eradicate is used in English, and that is what I replied. You're making distinctions that don't exist in English concerning the use of eradicate.
Balsamo wrote:
Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:59 pm
In my very first post, i wrote that when the term "Ausrottung" is followed by a physical object, like persons, as in "Die Ausrottung der Juden", it had to be understood as "to kill" or even to "exterminate" as there are no real alternative to what can happen to an ausgerottet person.

But things are quite different when the object is not physical, but - i don't know how to say that in English - conceptual. That is "protestantismus" instead of Protestants, "Judentum" or Judaism instead of Jews, Christianity instead of Christians, etc, or even Belgischen Volk instead of Belgians.
In English one would indeed say eradicate ideas or beliefs - meaning eliminate them, obliterate them, make them cease to exist. The object need not be physical. There might be an effort to eradicate illiteracy or as I said disease. Or corruption. Or bad attitudes or negative feelings. Or discrimination. In all these cases eradicate means to completely destroy or to make disappear or to make be no more.

OTOH, you had written, "to exterminate has clear physical implications which a term like 'eradication' has not." That's not correct, as I said, using examples like pests, people, populations, species, etc. Climate change might eradicate a species meaning, well, to completely destroy it or to make it disappear or to make it be no more.

Sergey paired exterminate and eradicate, which you asked about; that is a proper pairing and he used eradicate the way an English speaker would use the verb.

Seriously why are you telling me about how to use the verb eradicate? It is a bit odd, but it seems like you're trying to shoehorn it into a view you have.

Anyway, I read your post where you asked about the usage and connotations of eradicate in English. I am sensing that you don't quite have them down.

As noted, I don't know about the German - unlike English, I not only never taught German but I don't speak the language - but as to English the meaning of eradicate is, as I said, synonymous with exterminate, obliterate, annihilate ... or completely destroy.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Thu Nov 08, 2018 8:33 pm, edited 4 times in total.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .