The Holocaust Thread - The Great Debate Between Affirmers, Revisionists and Deniers

[Bonesjones]

Hey look you keep doing that thing you've been doing the whole time. You have nothing proving the holocaust is real, so you dig for the worst possible reading of anyone saying anything that can be remotely misconstrued.

The only remotely good point you bring up is the lack of evidence of Soviet involvement in the relocation of Polish people.

 

[Lemmingwise]

How? Tell me any other way you can interpret "Ausrottung des jüdischen Volkes".

Then you'd need to say something like "Ausrottung des Judentum", "Ausrottung der jüdischen Einflüße", etc..
This is completely unambiguous.

And what public speech used "Ausrottung des jüdischen Volkes"?

This is resolved easily. What does ausrottung mean?

So the German thieves want to kill the German people?

Considering the same rhetoric is being used present day that the unvaxed are at risk of causing deaths among the vaxed, it should be easy to understand.

The word volk can relate to grand concepts like races of people, but it can also just mean people as in the sentence "he never pays his bar tab on time, he's bad people". The word people there even referring to a single person. Dutch has the same "slecht volk" or rowdy/bad people, which could be just a group of five.

And I've already related how he considers thieves a threat. Do you want me to repeat myself?

 

[byuu]

Hitler 30.1.42: "We are fully aware that this war can end either in the extermination of the Aryan people or in the disappearance of Jewry from Europe. I said as much before the German Reichstag on September 1, 1939. I wish to avoid making hasty prophesies, but this war will not end as the Jews imagine, namely, in the extermination of the European-Aryan people; instead, the result of this war will be the annihilation of Jewry. For the first time, the old, truly Jewish rule of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” will obtain"

The original would help, I need to guess how it was translated.
I'm guessing you're talking about "annihilation of Jewry"? That is very likely translated from "Judentum" which can mean Jewish culture/faith and how I would I interpret it. That's ambiguous contrary to "jüdische Volk".

but the Jew will be exterminated.

"aber der Jude wird ausgerottet"? It's less ambiguous but that could be interpreted like the "the Christian will be exterminated", not really referring to the people.
Again, with "jüdische Volk" there really is no room for interpretation.

This is resolved easily. What does ausrottung mean?

Exterminate, eradicate, destroy something (e.g. a weed) along with its root.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Exterminate, eradicate, destroy something (e.g. a weed) along with its root.

What is the most common meaning of the word that you have not yet mentioned?

Here, google translate still knows right now if you reverse it. Check it for yourself when you put in "uprooting". 5 years ago google translate gave uprooting as the most common translation for ausrottung, now it doesn't even mention it unless you search for the reverse.

This is he best opportunity anyone has today to see how effective this propaganda machine is. Because in 2-5 years time, the reverse translation won't work anymore either.

Everyone reading this can see in real time how even online dictionaries hide the meaning of words, because the support of the official version of the holocaust narrative is so flawed and dishonest that it's hard to take serious without fucking with dictionaries.

Google Translate

archived 15 Oct 2021 21:17:50 UTC

archive.is

 

[byuu]

What is the most common meaning of the word that you have not yet mentioned?

I have not the slightest idea what you mean.
Even consulted the Duden (the standard of the German language). There are no other meanings to this word.

What is the most common meaning of the word that you have not yet mentioned?

Here, google translate still knows right now if you reverse it. Check it for yourself when you put in "uprooting". 5 years ago google translate gave uprooting as the most common translation for ausrottung, now it doesn't even mention it unless you search for the reverse.

Is Google Translate now an authority on the German language lol?
uproot is "entwurzeln"
ausrotten can include uprooting, since it's destruction with its root as I mentioned.

But you'd never ever use "ausrotten" in the sense that you uproot a plant and then plant it somewhere else.
It's only ausrotten if you uproot and then trash/destroy everything, otherwise it's entwurzeln

It's funny how fucking obsessed you are with propaganda that you try to teach a native German about his own fucking language.

 

[Chugger]

Considering the same rhetoric is being used present day that the unvaxed are at risk of causing deaths among the vaxed, it should be easy to understand.

The word volk can relate to grand concepts like races of people, but it can also just mean people as in the sentence "he never pays his bar tab on time, he's bad people". The word people there even referring to a single person. Dutch has the same "slecht volk" or rowdy/bad people, which could be just a group of five.

And I've already related how he considers thieves a threat. Do you want me to repeat myself?

I can understand how some might say the unvaccinated were 'killing' people by literally infecting them with a sometimes fatal disease, but to say thieves were killing the German people is a stretch. Now you're inferring that killing is a code word for something else lol. But whatever, if this is the hill you wish to die on, people can judge our arguments for they are

But I should quote a few other Himmler speeches people may or may not heard of

From wikipedia which has excerpts + additional recordings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posen_speeches

On 6 October he helpfully defines extermination for everyone.

6 October 1943​

I ask of you that that which I say to you in this circle be really only heard and not ever discussed. We were faced with the question: what about the women and children? – I decided to find a clear solution to this problem too. I did not consider myself justified to exterminate the men – in other words, to kill them or have them killed and allow the avengers of our sons and grandsons in the form of their children to grow up. The difficult decision had to be made to have this people disappear from the earth. For the organisation which had to execute this task, it was the most difficult which we had ever had. [...] I felt obliged to you, as the most superior dignitary, as the most superior dignitary of the party, this political order, this political instrument of the Führer, to also speak about this question quite openly and to say how it has been. The Jewish question in the countries that we occupy will be solved by the end of this year. Only remainders of odd Jews that managed to find hiding places will be left over.​

​

5 May 1944​

The Jewish question has been solved within Germany itself and in general within the countries occupied by Germany. [...] You can understand how difficult it was for me to carry out this military order which I was given and which I implemented out of a sense of obedience and absolute conviction. If you say: 'we can understand as far as the men are concerned but not about the children', then I must remind you of what I said at the beginning. [...] In my view, we as Germans, however deeply we may feel in our hearts, are not entitled to allow a generation of avengers filled with hatred to grow up with whom our children and grandchildren will have to deal because we, too weak and cowardly, left it to them​

​

24 May 1944​

Another question which was decisive for the inner security of the Reich and Europe, was the Jewish question. It was uncompromisingly solved after orders and rational recognition. I believe, gentlemen, that you know me well enough to know that I am not a bloodthirsty person; I am not a man who takes pleasure or joy when something rough must be done. However on the other hand, I have such good nerves and such a developed sense of duty – I can say that much for myself – that when I recognise something as necessary I can implement it without compromise. I have not considered myself entitled – this concerns especially the Jewish women and children – to allow the children to grow into the avengers who will then murder our children and our grandchildren. That would have been cowardly. Consequently the question was uncompromisingly resolved.​

So you think people like me are absolutely crazy, dingbats, nutjobs for reading these statements, as possible or likely evidence for a plan of mass murder?

 

[Lemmingwise]

I have not the slightest idea what you mean.
Even consulted the Duden (the standard of the German language). There are no other meanings to this word.

Yes I'm sure checking a modern dictionary of the country that has hundreds of american army bases, where its own politicians can sometimes say that germany exists only for the benefit of the jewish people, has 100% accurate dictionaries in regards to what a pivotal word means to proving the intent to the destruction of jewish people.

I went into this thread believing that only the numbers and methods were off, but the constant dishonesty or failures makes me start to reconsider even that... though not strongly enough quite yet.

It's funny how fucking obsessed you are with propaganda that you try to teach a native German about his fucking own language

You're not a 1945 native german speaker. Considering your avatar, you're probably a zoomer. In the past ausrotten only meant to uproot, and the other meaning, the destruction or vernichting slowly also gained traction since the 18th century and more examples of it being used that way were in 1930s.

That's why it's an ambiguous word. Now thank me for teaching you something about your own language.

Now you're saying that killing is a code word for something else lol

No I don't, what the fuck are you smoking?

But I should quote a few other Himmler speeches

Fascinating how you wanted to bore us all with getting one or two details of statements precise wtih @Rapechu with multiple posts of clarification instead of just getting into it. But then as we get into one or two details, you need to throw entire new links and speeches at the wall in order to make your point work. Let's just focus on this speech. Just admit the truth: is speech is inconclusive. Not only that: there are clear signs of rewriting translations and dictionaries as I've already shown. To such a degree that a fucking zoomer German is unaware of the old meaning.

And lacks the mental capacity to check more than a single source in his investigation.

thieves were killing the German people is a stretch.

To say people who steal 1 mark for themselves should be killed is also a stretch, but that's what he said. To say to act like that is a disease that would cause german people to become like jews is also insane speak, but that's what he said.

I find it interesting in the same way I find antifa, or yourself interesting,I am fascinated by what people mean from their own perspective, no matter how insane it might be.

 

[Chugger]

No I don't, what the fuck are you smoking?


To say people who steal 1 mark for themselves should be killed is also a stretch, but that's what he said. To say to act like that is a disease that would cause german people to become like jews is also insane speak, but that's what he said.

I find it interesting in the same way I find antifa, or yourself interesting,I am fascinated by what people mean from their own perspective, no matter how insane it might be.

The part I am concerned with is where he says these supposed thieves "wanted to kill us", here the meaning of the word abruptly changes?

again:

... wir hatten die Pflicht unserem Volk gegenüber das zu tun, dieses Volk, das uns umbringen wollte, umzubringen.

... we had the duty to our people to do it, to kill this people who wanted to kill us.

Yes I'm sure checking a modern dictionary of the country that has hundreds of american army bases, where its own politicians can sometimes say that germany exists only for the benefit of the jewish people, has 100% accurate dictionaries in regards to what a pivotal word means to proving the intent to the destruction of jewish people.

I went into this thread believing that only the numbers and methods were off, but the constant dishonesty or failures makes me start to reconsider even that... though not strongly enough quite yet.



You're not a 1945 native german speaker. Considering your avatar, you're probably a zoomer. In the past ausrotten only meant to uproot, and the other meaning, the destruction or vernichting slowly also gained traction since the 18th century and more examples of it being used that way were in 1930s.

That's why it's an ambiguous word. Now thank me for teaching you something about your own language.

You should chill out man. Even if you're correct about a drastic change in the language since 1945, this might be an easy mistake for someone to make. No need to call them dishonest. I wouldn't call you or most other amateur revisionists that. I might call you victims, but not much worse than that.

 

[Lemmingwise]

You should chill out man. Even if you're correct about a drastic change in the language since 1945, this might be an easy mistake for someone to make. No need to call them dishonest. I wouldn't call you or most other amateur revisionists that. I might call you victims, but not much worse than that.

If you want to claim a moral highground, try to do it without condescending.

The part I am concerned with is where he says these supposed thieves "wanted to kill us", here the meaning of the word abruptly changes?

Does this mean you now abandon both ausrottung and auschaltung as ironclad synonyms of vernichting and are now depending on this single statement of umbringen to support your claim of this speech proving the german command intent to exterminate the jewish people?

 

[byuu]

You're not a 1945 native german speaker. Considering your avatar, you're probably a zoomer. In the past ausrotten only meant to uproot, and the other meaning, the destruction or vernichting slowly also gained traction since the 18th century and more examples of it being used that way were in 1930s.

That's why it's an ambiguous word. Now thank me for teaching you something about your own language.

So the "most common usage" you were talking about fell out of use three hundred years ago?
Yeah, sorry I'm less old than that.

And yeah, I'm gonna need a source on that still being common use in the 20th century.
Here's an old Duden I could find: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.14880/
It says 'vernichten' (destroy). But it's from the 50s so I guess the Jews already got to it.

Edit: Found something better: https://fwb-online.de/lemma/ausrotten.s.3v
1: "eliminate (a plant or similar) by ripping, picking, or cutting out or clearing out (as in a forest)"
Examples start with the Luther bible (1545): cutting down some asshole's grove, rip out a plant then it withers, destroy some weeds.
So the destructive kind of uprooting that I mentioned

2. "obliterate, eradicate"
Earliest example from 1499
3. "kill, destroy"
Earliest example from 1699

Nothing but destructive processes for "ausrotten" for 500 years.

 

[Chugger]

Does this mean you now abandon both ausrottung and auschaltung as ironclad synonyms of vernichting and are now depending on this single statement of umbringen to support your claim of this speech proving the german command intent to exterminate the jewish people?

I think you missed my post here, https://kiwifarms.net/threads/the-holocaust-thread.68380/post-10219525

Where I say explicitly I thought these terms are not ironclad, and then I had a short back and forth with our native german speaker on this point.

The other part of the speech that strikes me is the secrecy surrounding this task, (read the full speech here: https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-human-behavior/himmler-speech-posen-1943) and also the 'moral' difficulty of it, which does not jibe with mere relocation of Jews. He also talks explicitly of 'bodies'

'Most of you will know what it means when 100 bodies lie together, when 500 are there or when there are 1000.'

In addition the other speeches I quoted voice similar sentiments, and are even more explicit. On Oct 6, he even defines extermination as murder. So yeah it's very likely that's what he's talking about https://kiwifarms.net/threads/the-holocaust-thread.68380/post-10220283

Also and this important--I think it is wrongheaded to look for 'single' pieces of evidence to 'prove' an event like the Holocaust, because any conceivable piece of evidence could be fabricated. Rather a constellation of evidence makes the event likely, and the more you've got the likelier it becomes. At a certain point you stack up the various hypotheses for what happened and pick the most evidenced one. Based on my review of the overall evidence, if the Posen speech was gone it wouldn't really weaken the case at all. For me it's most important for the insight it gives into how SS leaders spoke about the event.

If you want to claim a moral highground, try to do it without condescending.

I'm sorry if I come off as condescending, you guys just amuse me a little and I can't help myself I guess.

But I don't think I have the moral high ground whatsoever. In my opinion you've arrived at your beliefs not because you are a bad person or dishonest or anything like that, but because you were taken in by misinformation from charismatic personalities or clever meme makers. So many people fall for this shit in all walks of life, I don't view you as being fundamentally different from like people who were convinced (or still are?) that Trump was an agent of Putin. It's not even a question of intelligence really.

I might not be here for the next few days but I would suggest in the meantime that anyone interested check out my google drive, which has both revisionist and orthodox books

nazi books - Google Drive

drive.google.com

In particular 'Eichmann Before Jerusalem' is an interesting read, because in my mind his Argentina material is the best 'single' piece of Holocaust evidence. Himmler's speeches would be easy enough to fabricate with a skilled voice impersonator, but it's a harder sell that the holocaust propagandists would get an Eichmann impersonator to do 18 hours of impromptu seeming conversation with a bunch of other people impersonating the very real members of the Sassen group, record that to tape + transcribe the recordings with handwritten notes which might be further questioned + produce Eichmann "memoirs" saying basically the same thing, with Eichmann's handwriting all over it, good enough to fool David Irving apparently

If you're looking for the closest thing to proof, this is it, unless you believe the Mossad or something would be capable of this, at a time when the state of Israel already existed, Holocaust was an accepted historical fact and revisionism as a public movement did not yet really exist

edit: the tapes are 29 hours apparently, with the total transcripts being much longer since the tapes were repeatedly copied over

"Willem Sassen also used tape for his own texts and was plainly fascinated by its possibilities. At the time, the tape recorder was a very modern piece of technology. He started using it as a matter of course, and played with it in private as well, recording plays, dance music, and his own singing and whistling, which can still be heard on the few surviving tapes. Together with the transcripts and Eichmann’s corrections, the recordings that reemerged in the late 1990s present a very precise picture of Sassen’s working methods. The tapes were typed up relatively quickly by various helpers, then recorded over. New tapes were expensive, both in Buenos Aires and elsewhere, and they weren’t easy to get hold of. Today we have around one thousand pages of the transcript (including the pages of corrections) and twenty-nine hours of recordings, including doubles of tapes that were copied later. Not only do they prove that the transcripts are an authentic source; they are also a window into the year 1957—and the front room of the Sassen house."

So the "most common usage" you were talking about fell out of use three hundred years ago?
Yeah, sorry I'm less old than that.

And yeah, I'm gonna need a source on that still being common use in the 20th century.
Here's an old Duden I could find: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.14880/
It says 'vernichten' (destroy). But it's from the 50s so I guess the Jews already got to it.

Edit: Found something better: https://fwb-online.de/lemma/ausrotten.s.3v
1: "eliminate (a plant or similar) by ripping, picking, or cutting out or clearing out (as in a forest)"
Examples start with the Luther bible (1545): cutting down some asshole's grove, rip out a plant then it withers, destroy some weeds.
So the destructive kind of uprooting that I mentioned

2. "obliterate, eradicate"
Earliest example from 1499
3. "kill, destroy"
Earliest example from 1699

Nothing but destructive processes for "ausrotten" for 500 years.

This article finds dictionary entries from 1935 and 1906. https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/himmler-poznan/ausrotten.shtml

Revisionists will continue to say this language is completely innocent and figurative, having little relevance to overall policy, apparently even the term 'biological eradication' (biologische Ausmerzung)

Biological eradication (biologische Ausmerzung)

Exploring Holocaust history. Debunking Holocaust denial.

holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com

 

[Lemmingwise]

So the "most common usage" you were talking about fell out of use three hundred years ago?

No, it gained the new meaning for the first time 300 hundred years ago. You think it overnight supplanted the original meaning overnight, in a pre internet, pre radio time for the entire german speaking world?

Even 5 years ago using various online german dictionaries and also translations root out/entwurzeln was more common than destroy/vernichten. Yes, that was just a small sample I took, but the fact that I found both answers does tell about the ambiguity.

If you can't be intellectually honest and admit that, I see little point for continuing.

I remind you, you are talking to someone who believes there was a targeted genocide, just not an effective one on the scale claimed and one without mass gas chambers.

This article finds dictionary entries from 1935 and 1906.

If you do no independant search, and only use entries found by holocaust websites, then of course your sample is going to be tainted,just like if someone only uses say, stormfront as their source or most common source. This is one of the problems of being a "document guy" when you don't put in the time going to archives and seeking out documents that have not been prepared and preselected for you.

Considering you are not willing to give a simple straightforward answer to my question. I've already proven that it also means to uproot. I have a number of other sources ready to prove it, but the fact that the one I showed is ignored and pretended to not be there tells me all I need to know about both of you.

I am not really a fan of either, but I do have a slight prefference to nazis, because they at least get a guilty smile or something comparable when I catch them in a lie. They at some level still agree that lying is wrong.

So yeah, I'll call both of you intellectually dishonest for ignoring the evidence that it is ambiguous. What is the point of going into the "umbringen" statement if you can't even accept dictionary definitions for both words, not just ausrottung, mind you, but also auschaltung.

Go be dishonest somewhere else.

 

[Chugger]

lol this here lemming is really trying to pull us into the proverbial and literal weeds--the jews changed the internet to save the crumbling holocaust myth

but really the lemming should https://twitter.com/stephenasmith/status/1384524776966926336?lang=en

 

[Bonesjones]

Yeah no one ever retroactively went back and pretended words mean something else. Definitely not in recent history. Definitely not something with worldwide scope and obvious ill intent.

Oh wait it's happening with words like "vaccine" and "herd immunity".

The best you've got is speeches with ambiguous meaning at best. This is your proof, the smoking gun?

Then you pretend like the compelled speech of a guy 20 years out means anything as well. Since it could easily be arranged to leave his family alone in exchange for the renunciation of his Nazi past.

Also you even admit these tapes were recorded over and destroyed as record. Convenient. Weird how so much primary evidence is destroyed and misplaced. This is supposed to be the most documented fact in history, beyond reproach in its truthfulness, illegal in what, 16 countries to deny?

 

[Lemmingwise]

lol this here lemming is really trying to pull us into the proverbial and literal weeds--the jews changed the internet to save the crumbling holocaust myth

but really the lemming should https://twitter.com/stephenasmith/status/1384524776966926336?lang=en

If you aren't being dishonest about ausrottung and auschaltung.....

1. Why didn't you acknowledge the alternate meaning when I provided evidence for it?

2. Why are you unable to find evidence for it yourself when there are still a number of ways to find it?

 

[Chugger]

Yeah no one ever retroactively went back and pretended words mean something else. Definitely not in recent history. Definitely not something with worldwide scope and obvious ill intent.

Oh wait it's happening with words like "vaccine" and "herd immunity".

The best you've got is speeches with ambiguous meaning at best. This is your proof, the smoking gun?

Then you pretend like the compelled speech of a guy 20 years out means anything as well. Since it could easily be arranged to leave his family alone in exchange for the renunciation of his Nazi past.

Also you even admit these tapes were recorded over and destroyed as record. Convenient. Weird how so much primary evidence is destroyed and misplaced. This is supposed to be the most documented fact in history, beyond reproach in its truthfulness, illegal in what, 16 countries to deny?

wow so the Jews forced Eichmann to go disturb and agitate a bunch of German expats for weeks with holocaust stories they really didn't want to hear, and then used none of it in the trial. sounds like a good episode of Curb

Curb Your Enthusiasm: Survivor Fight

From Season 4, Episode 9 - The SurvivorAired on HBO: 2004.03.07 A couple of survivors compare stories at the Davids' dinner party.This highlight clip is inte...

www.youtube.com

Oh yeah, can you read? "Today we have around . . .twenty-nine hours of recordings"

 

[Lemmingwise]

Edit: Found something better: https://fwb-online.de/lemma/ausrotten.s.3v
1: "eliminate (a plant or similar) by ripping, picking, or cutting out or clearing out (as in a forest)"
Examples start with the Luther bible (1545): cutting down some asshole's grove, rip out a plant then it withers, destroy some weeds.
So the destructive kind of uprooting that I mentioned

2. "obliterate, eradicate"
Earliest example from 1499
3. "kill, destroy"
Earliest example from 1699

Nothing but destructive processes for "ausrotten" for 500 years.

Thanks for that one, I did not previously know that meaning also went back that far.

You haven't yet thanked me for teaching you something about your language. Maybe I'm wrong about you, but it seems you only have an interest in acknowledging one side of the word.
Here's another example:

uproot in Middle High German (ca. 1050-1500) - English-Middle High Ge…

archived 16 Oct 2021 09:36:15 UTC

archive.is

 

[Bonesjones]

Oh yeah, can you read? "Today we have around . . .twenty-nine hours of recordings"

Yeah that you literally admitted was taped over, destroyed. These recordings are so vital and important to historical record they are gone forever.

Its weird how this keeps happening, almost like there is an intentional cover up.

 

[byuu]

You haven't yet thanked me for teaching you something about your language. Maybe I'm wrong about you, but it seems you only have an interest in acknowledging one side of the word.

All you have taught me is complete and utter bullshit.

ALL you have given me are awkward English translations. While I present you with many standard works on the German language. Even stuff sourced from the fucking Luther Bible, which is only most important and influential book of the modern German language.
Hell, here's another one to cover the more Southern usage as well (and because I like the name): The Swiss Idiotikon:
https://digital.idiotikon.ch/idtkn/id6.htm#!page/61793/mode/1up (scan of the 1908 edition)

The old obsolete meaning of "ausrotten" is "ausroden/roden" aka cutting down a forest/clearing a land. Again, it's destructive.
You are simply fucking wrong. Ask any other German. Even a German Holocaust denier would come up with a better cope like how it's faked or something.

I am STILL waiting on you to provide me on any source on the common usage of "ausrotten" in a non-destructive way in 1930.
You did claim there is evidence of that. So until you can make good on your claims, you can fuck off with this nonsense.

 

[Uncle Warren]