Almost no "revisionists" can speak German. But funny enough, one of the very few who can—Carlos Porter—provided a translation of the exact speech Chugger cited, Himmler's 4 October 1943 Posen speech for CODOH.
https://codoh.com/library/document/heinrich-himmlers-posen-speech-from-04101943/en/
This utter calumny needs addressing.
From a cursory survey of the international institute for historical review. Revisionists who can speak German;
Carlo Mattogno
Germar Rudolf
Jurgen Graf
Michael Hoffman
Ernst Zundel
Klaus Schwesen
1/ Why do persist in trying to slip in little lies like this?
2/ Do you think Mike Enoch won't notice these tricks?
I quote Himmler, from Porter's "revisionist approved" translation (bolding mine):
Here, Himmler clearly evinces a genocidal attitude towards Slavic populations.
This remark by Himmler corroborates Lebensborn—the practice of kidnapping of supposedly Aryan children from Polish parents for Germanization—and the policy of killing Slavs or working them to death whenever it was beneficial for the war effort.
Indeed. If necessary. It's entirely conceivable that racially alike children from orphanages would be taken but it's all rather vague. Germans certainly put nordicist or aryan interests above all others and everyone can agree that that is completely acceptable.
Here Himmler expresses indifference to working ten thousand white female civilians to death. My god were the Nazis anti-white, worst practitioners of white genocide (or more specifically Slavic genocide) in history.
Himmler also here alludes to the Nazi vision of Eastern Europe after a German victory in the war, one in which Poles, Russians, Ukrainians, etc were reduced to slaves for Germany.
Yes. Are you saying that by having disregard for Slavs the germans were anti white? Were the germans anti German?
Think of it another way. In the cockerill house when you were child. Were you anti cockerill?
You obviously fought in the house, but when you left the house, were you pro cockerill or anti cockerill in regard to any threats to that household?
Here, Himmler reassures his listener that the SS will not be gratuitously cruel to Slavs, provided it is not necessary, but will behave 'decently'.
Cold comfort after he has already advocated enslaving and working to death these eastern european populations, but it's a change of tone.
Yes. Cold comforts are nevertheless comforts. We agree.
Here, Himmler expresses contempt for the weak souls who say it is inhumane to work Slavic children and women to death for Germany. These frivolous humanitarians, Himmler scoffs, are 'murderers of their own blood.'
Yes. He is abjectly pro German.
Rizoli is a crank even by your standards. Here he is calling your boy Mike Enoch a Jew with the same casual confidence he says hundreds of thousands of documents were forged
https://youtu.be/aRpWoY8IRdw?t=7610
LMAO.
Yeeeaahh I don't think he is particularly assiduous about matters. As such he is perfect for you guys to have a romping discussion around topics with. HS obviously has. Why don't you?
For that matter, I'm sure youd take great pleasure in crushing Germar Rudolf. Have you thought about this?
yes a cope out. He thinks that there's a good chance he'll be voice doxxed from a video that (assuming I even put it up) would only be viewed a couple thousand times. And he could use a voice changer anyway, which is good enough for offending pedophiles.
It's cop out. But I get your point.
For goodness sake. There are many right wing or nazi streamers you could talk to. While obviously talking to you irl would set things straight im fascinated now by your interest in talking with me.
Do you perhaps think I will fold or make a conclusion in your favour? How do you imagine this could occur? Perhaps you will all me where all the jews went and I'll cough and splutter until finally giving up and admitting that they are indeed buried in Belzec?
It's genocidal in context. Himmler says in the same speech (Porter's translation):
"The Russian army was driven together into great pockets, destroyed, taken prisoner. We did not then value the mass man as we do now, as raw material, as manpower. Which is not a shame in the end, if one thinks in terms of generations, but it is regrettable today due to the loss of manpower: the prisoners died by the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands from exhaustion, from hunger."
So they had millions of POWs and could have theoretically fed them but decided not to because they did not value their labor at the time. According to German documents most of these POWs died in the first year of the war, at a death rate matching or exceeding the Holocaust at its greatest intensity. And the line "If one thinks in terms of generations", he's saying this mass dying off was not regrettable in a biological or existential sense.
It's indifferent in context. Again undermining your whole schtick.
Ive been reading about this speech again since you two remain so invested in it and I really enjoy drilling down one particular detail of a subject.
You say " ...could theoretically have fed them...." and they "...decided not to..."
Then you assert they died at a equal or better rate than the holocaust just by starvation and exposure. Thus undermining the holocaust theory itself.
Then you tell us he doesn't see their deaths in the long term as a problem for Germany.
In what possible way would he see their deaths as a problem except in these terms? How does this mean he wanted them all dead at the time?
Zo, I think you should attend to this remark by Himmler, the head of the SS and the ultimate authority over the concentration camps. For what Himmler says here is also relevant to one of your fixations, "health care" in Auschwitz.
In 1941 the Germans were killing millions of Soviet POWs through deliberate neglect and starvation, and by 1942 they were killing all the Jews they could get their hands on. They did this for racial reasons; as Himmler says here, the death of the Russian POWs in Nazi custody "is not a shame in the end, if one thinks in terms of generations."
Yes. The passage shows that the nazis saw the deaths of their captives as a short term problem and a long term boon.
Can you explain what your problem with this is HS?
And why are you just adding in this stuff about killing Jews? We've been over this. Are you just repeating these stupid lines to make sure everyone gets you?
However, by 1943 the Germans were losing the war and increasingly desperate for manpower. Thus did they change their policy towards Soviet POWs and able-bodied Jews,* who would now be fed and given health care so long as they could work (and in the case of the Soviet POWs, fight for the Germans).
Why this change in policy? Himmler talks about it in the quoted paragraph, at least in regard to Soviet POWs. The Germans needed the labor.
There was no desire to keep Soviet POWs—much less Jews—alive for humanitarian reasons.
*Even in 1943, non-able bodied Jews at for example Auschwitz—who comprised 80% of arrivals—were of course gassed upon arrival.
What change in policy? You're talking about two completely different circumstances.
One being the initial thrust into the east, with resultant encircled troops and interned Jews before facilities existed to handle these numbers.
The second being when the front was more stable and resources were put into a more productive strategy.
Anyway, it wasn't a strict requirement to be fed for work. You wouldn't starve if you didn't work. Work instead was incentivised and exhorted.
And why are you again telling me this nonsense about Jews being gassed on arrival? Its me remember? If you want to go over this stuff again that's fine but we've been through and your argument didn't hold up the first time so just repeating these claims without bodies is pure black propaganda foisted on members of this forum reading this thread.
As for Himmler and his wish to kill Slavs;
"Foreigners in the Reich
We must be also clear in our minds that we have 6 or 7 million foreigners in Germany. There may even be 8 million. We have prisoners in Germany. They are not all dangerous, as long as we strike hard at the smallest minor problem. It's a small matter to shoot 10 Poles today, instead of maybe having to shoot tens of thousands in their place later, and compared to the fact that shooting those tens of thousands would also cost German blood, too
…."
Wait a minute. He doesn't want to shoot tens of thousands now?
"Communists in the Reich
I don't believe that the Communists will try anything, because their leaders, just like most other criminals in our country, are in concentration camps. Something must be said here: only after the war will it be seen what a blessing it was for Germany — all humanitarian drivel to the contrary notwithstanding — that we locked this whole criminal underclass up in the concentration camps — I'll take care of that myself. If they were running around loose, it would be much harder for us. Particularly since the subhumans would then have their subordinate officers and commanders; they'd have their workers' councils and soldiers' councils. But this way, they're all locked up, and are making grenades, artillery shells, or other important things, and are very useful members of human society.
"
Wait shouldn't he be telling them to kill them as the sub human communists they are?
