Archie fails to explain how all my replies beg the question. The question was, what does ausrotten refer to, in the context of Generalplan Ost. So-called revisionists say it was about rooting out Jews, not exterminating them and the use of that term is not evidence of mass executions.Nessie, the whole point here is whether such language can be cited as proof of mass executions or if other interpretations are possible. You made seven posts to this thread, all begging the question. This is the same crap you tried in the chemistry threads. Enough. You will be serving a stint with Keen in Quarantine.
My point was that to find out what the users of ausrotten meant, look at the evidence, from eyewitnesses, documents etc, the normal forms of evidence used to prove any historical event. Did Generalplan Ost result in Jews being rooted out, as in identified and removed from their homes? Yes, as that is well evidenced, and no so-called revisionist would disagree. There is a non-literal, non-homicidal interpretation, that is evidenced to have happened. But, ausrotten does not just mean root out.
It also means exterminate. Is there evidence of extermination? Yes there is, Himmler had diarised that Jews were to be "exterminated as partisans" in December 1942;
https://holocausthistory.site/1941-12-1 ... partisans/
So-called revisionists do not normally deny that Jews were shot as partisans, though some deny some mass shootings, such as at Babi Yar, despite that being due to partisan activity in Kyiv. The wealth of eyewitness, documented, photographed evidence of mass shootings in the east, 1941-2, means that ausrotten, also referred to extermination. That is evidenced, it is not begging the question.