The holocaust inside Generalplan Ost

[bombsaway]

Merry Christmas

"What is not established anywhere is that this word was being used to mean literal killing by Germans in WW2. It was likely never used in this way, "

and yet he used it in this way,

I did not consider myself entitled to exterminate the men – that is, to kill them or have them killed

He is clarifying what he means by the term

[Callafangers]

Merry Christmas

"What is not established anywhere is that this word was being used to mean literal killing by Germans in WW2. It was likely never used in this way, "

and yet he used it in this way,

I did not consider myself entitled to exterminate the men – that is, to kill them or have them killed

He is clarifying what he means by the term

No, because he didn't use the word "exterminate" -- he used the word "auszurotten" and we have just went over what that meant.

[bombsaway]

Merry Christmas

"What is not established anywhere is that this word was being used to mean literal killing by Germans in WW2. It was likely never used in this way, "

and yet he used it in this way,

I did not consider myself entitled to exterminate the men – that is, to kill them or have them killed

He is clarifying what he means by the term

No, because he didn't use the word "exterminate" -- he used the word "auszurotten" and we have just went over what that meant.

let me rephrase

"What is not established anywhere is that this word was being used to mean literal killing by Germans in WW2. It was likely never used in this way, "

and yet he used it in this way,

auszurotten = umbringen "sprich also, umbringen"

[Callafangers]

let me rephrase

"What is not established anywhere is that this word was being used to mean literal killing by Germans in WW2. It was likely never used in this way, "

and yet he used it in this way,

auszurotten = umbringen "sprich also, umbringen"

He is not saying auszurotten = umzubringen.

The term "sprich also..." ("that is to say...") most often entails a refinement in situations where the initial term/phrase lacks clarity.

It was not sufficient to say "auszurotten" if he meant "killing". The fact that you see "umzubringen" at all is because "auszurotten" is inadequate to entail "killing".

"I did not think it right to destroy my opponent."

What does "destroy" mean above? It's unclear. But we can make it clearer:

"I did not think it right to destroy my opponent -- that is to say, to kill him."

Without this clarification, "destroy" can mean dominate, defeat, etc.

It is worth noting, though, that "destroy" is much closer to "literally kill/exterminate" than "auszurotten" was.

[bombsaway]

"I did not think it right to destroy my opponent."

What does "destroy" mean above? It's unclear. But we can make it clearer:

"I did not think it right to destroy my opponent -- that is to say, to kill him."

Without this clarification, "destroy" can mean dominate, defeat, etc.

So in the first quote the meaning of destroy is unclear. But you, as the speaker, had a meaning in mind when you used the word 'destroy' right?

[Stubble]

That we are down to quibbling about innuendo, in my opinion, is very telling about the whole situation.

We aren't looking at Huge Mass Graves, we aren't looking at the names of the missing, no, nothing of the sort. We are looking at words and saying, 'well, there was an implication of genocide if you squint'...

Also, Merry Christmas everyone.

[bombsaway]

That we are down to quibbling about innuendo, in my opinion, is very telling about the whole situation.

We aren't looking at Huge Mass Graves, we aren't looking at the names of the missing, no, nothing of the sort. We are looking at words and saying, 'well, there was an implication of genocide if you squint'...

Also, Merry Christmas everyone.

I think the issue I have is you guys saying this is nothing more than vague innuendo.

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.

We've talked about mass graves at length. You've been researching resettlement in occupied USSR for a year. Have you found any evidence of any resettlement there outside the ghettos (which were massively depopulated by the end of 1942) ?

[Stubble]

[...]. You've been researching resettlement in occupied USSR for a year. Have you found any evidence of any resettlement there outside the ghettos (which were massively depopulated by the end of 1942) ?

Of course I'm finding things, I don't have a concise enough picture for a thread yet, and I have to quantify and qualify what I have. You've also got me chasing down T4 stuff and I keep running down the testimony rabbit hole.

One of the problems I'm having is that my brains get like tapioca after a while winnowing the literal millions of documents I'm looking at and building a picture out of them is hard man.

Yes, it's been a year. Proving resettlement is a tall ask. I will get you proof here on the board. I need to put the puzzle together first man, not just lay out a bunch of scrambled pieces.

[Callafangers]

"I did not think it right to destroy my opponent."

What does "destroy" mean above? It's unclear. But we can make it clearer:

"I did not think it right to destroy my opponent -- that is to say, to kill him."

Without this clarification, "destroy" can mean dominate, defeat, etc.

So in the first quote the meaning of destroy is unclear. But you, as the speaker, had a meaning in mind when you used the word 'destroy' right?

Yes, but for your interpretation to be true, Himmler would need to be visualizing bullets piercing the brains of Jews, or bloody piles of Jewish corpses -- stuff like that -- rather than just a more generalized 'destruction' via 'rooting out'. This is precisely where your interpretation falls off. 'Auszurotten' simply was not used in this way, which is why Himmler brought in 'umzubringen' instead, to make his point.

Auszurotten:
Rooting out --> Possibly until total destruction --> Not used literally

Umzubringen:
Straight-up killing

Given the frequent use of "auszurotten" for describing Jews, this is likely the first term that came to mind for Himmler (and 'umzubringen' does indeed entail destruction via rooting out). But he immediately realized this word was not sufficient for what he was describing, thus he clarified.

'Umzubringen' requires 'auszurotten' -- the same is not true the other way around.

I think the issue I have is you guys saying this is nothing more than vague innuendo.

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.

I don't think anyone has said "this is nothing more than vague innuendo". In fact, I have broken down all of this language in great detail, here:

viewtopic.php?p=8846#p8846

There is nothing vague about it. It's very clear what Himmler means, here, and he only discusses killing in the context of a hypothetical (i.e. something that didn't actually happen) regarding Jewish men. He is otherwise discussing rooting out (evacuation/expulsion) of Jews, exclusively.

We've talked about mass graves at length. You've been researching resettlement in occupied USSR for a year. Have you found any evidence of any resettlement there outside the ghettos (which were massively depopulated by the end of 1942) ?

I'm guessing this is directed at Stubble, specifically. That said, the leading experts on Soviet archives openly admit there are many libraries/archives that will never see the light of day, and even those that are released are suspect. Goebbels' diary refers specifically to Jews in isolated "quarantine" in the East right as policies in the region reflect the intent to greatly consolidate the Jewish presence. Meanwhile, Jewish labor utilization remained ongoing and often unreported (undocumented) due to complex, fragmented, or non-existent administrative structures. All of this took place as the Soviets gained ground in the East (especially as of 1943), capturing many of the areas Jews were [presumably] being held (some Jews retreating West with the Germans along the way, known to have occurred but poorly documented). The Soviet Union thereafter recognized the importance of further 'vanishing' any surviving Jews (and 'Soviet citizens' in general), while also working hard to dissolve unique identities in recorded demographics and with forced assimilation, behind an Iron Curtain. Jews surviving in the Soviet Union (likely a fraction by the late-1940s, given continuing starvation/exposure/disease) lacked the resources, support, etc. to even uphold their Jewish identities, let alone to document their unique travels (which no one was interested in regardless). Only several decades later (~80s-90s) was comprehensive research into 'Holocaust' gradually underway, and even then only sanctioned by 'pro-Holocaust' organizations (e.g. Wiesenthal, Spielberg, university programs, etc.).

All throughout the postwar years, Jews dispersed through innumerable channels and into several dozen different countries and many thousands of unique destinations, barely documented and thereafter increasingly exposed to Holocaust lore as a ticket to social, personal, and group ideological advancement. There is also the matter of Zionism and its international adherents and conspirators, who were dead-set on the acquisition of as many Jews as possible who could be sent to Israel, in support of the Zionist vision of conquest. Doing so quietly helped to minimize global backlash and support 'extermination' narratives which benefit Jewish ideological ambitions/portrayals.

The bottom-line is that no one with a critical perspective and outlook has been permitted to investigate (let alone interrogate) 'Holocaust survivors' and their travels, residences, and timelines, except by way of suppressed revisionist attempts lacking resources and institutional access and support (or even legal permission). Spielberg's USC Shoah Foundation and other testimonial-gathering initiatives are firmly in the hands of those with personal, political, ideological motivation to perpetuate the establishment narrative. It is akin to a trial where no cross-examination is permitted and witnesses and evidence for the defense is heavily restricted. No reasonable person can claim confidence in any allegations made, here.

This is of course off-topic, since we are mainly focused on allegedly insidious language about 'extermination'. Feel free to quote any of the above into a new thread, if we are to continue discussion of "where Jews went."

[bombsaway]

"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."

LOL at the idea that the most difficult decision the SS ever had to make was to expel the Jews. Do you buy this Stubble?

Proving resettlement is a tall ask. I will get you proof here on the board.

What happens if you never do?

[Callafangers]

"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."

LOL at the idea that the most difficult decision the SS ever had to make was to expel the Jews. Do you buy this Stubble?

Unfortunately for you, bombsaway, Himmler explains exactly why they found this decision so difficult, in the same speech -- all of this is broken down in-detail in the link I have already twice provided you and which you pretend to ignore to save your argument.

Himmler, in the same couple paragraphs where he mentions it being the "most difficult task", clarifies that this is because of the compassion the German people each individually have for their respective "one good Jew". Germans in general, despite the atrocities Jews brought upon them, still had a "soft spot" for individual Jews, in many cases. Thus, to do something as horrific as to dispossess and uproot all of them from their homes (children and all) was indeed the most difficult task the SS had yet faced. Jews had not been treated so brutally up until this point.

Can you name a task the SS would have found more difficult by this time?

[Hektor]

"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."

LOL at the idea that the most difficult decision the SS ever had to make was to expel the Jews. Do you buy this Stubble?

Unfortunately for you, bombsaway, Himmler explains exactly why they found this decision so difficult, in the same speech -- all of this is broken down in-detail in the link I have already twice provided you and which you pretend to ignore to save your argument.

Himmler, in the same couple paragraphs where he mentions it being the "most difficult task", clarifies that this is because of the compassion the German people each individually have for their respective "one good Jew". Germans in general, despite the atrocities Jews brought upon them, still had a "soft spot" for individual Jews, in many cases. Thus, to do something as horrific as to dispossess and uproot all of them from their homes (children and all) was indeed the most difficult task the SS had yet faced. Jews had not been treated so brutally up until this point.

Can you name a task the SS would have found more difficult by this time?

Indeed. Also plenty of evidence in this regard. And it gets ignored, well it has to. As the Posen speech records server as 'smoking gun' to many, which they actually are not for a number of reasons.

[Stubble]

The war in the East was most definitely difficult. Add to that antipartisan operations and expatriation/expropriation, and yes, it was one of the most difficult tasks imaginable.

Look at an evacuation in the donbas some time, either side, it ain't easy work, under fire...

[bombsaway]

Can you name a task the SS would have found more difficult by this time?

The involuntary euthanasia program, which included killing Germans

The Night of the Long Knives in which they mass killed not only political opponents but their own comrades

From the previous Posen speech which I think you were conflating this one with (please provide the full Oct 6 speech if not)

I also want to speak to you here, in complete frankness, of a really grave
chapter. Amongst ourselves, for once, it shall be said quite openly, but all the
same we will never speak about it in public. Just as we did not hesitate on
June 30, 1934,* to do our duty as we were ordered, and to stand comrades
who had erred against the wall and shoot them, and we never spoke about it
and we never will speak about it. It was a matter of natural tact that is alive in
us, thank God, that we never talked about it amongst ourselves, that we never
discussed it. Each of us shuddered and yet each of us knew clearly that the
next time he would do it again if it were an order, and if it were necessary.
I am referring here to the evacuation of the Jews, the [extirpation] of the
Jewish people

[...]

This is an unwritten and never-to-be-written page of glory in our
history, for we know how difficult it would be for us if today - under bombing
raids and the hardships and deprivations of war - if we were still to have the
Jews in every city as secret saboteurs, agitators, and inciters. If the Jews
were still lodged in the body of the German nation, we would probably by now
have reached the stage of 1916-17.

[...]

All in all, however, we can say that we have carried out this most difficult of tasks in a spirit of love for our people. And we have suffered no harm to our inner being, our soul, our character....

This is how he talked about the Night of the Long Knives and also the "evacuation" of the Jews So not only is was this the most difficult decision and task, but a secret "unwritten and never-to-be-written page of glory"

Round peg square hole situation this is, expulsion (which everyone knew was happening, even thousands of miles away) does not fit here. You treat your interpretation as obvious and the only possible one, but I think you're the first one to make it

see here the more typical revisionist interpretation

In truth, Himmler was something of a babbler who loved to hear himself talk tough. Despite all the talk about not spreading the word about what he was about to say, he had it all recorded for posterity to read and hear! It is clear that Himmler was a security liability for the Third Reich. Hitler wised up to him only toward the end of the war, when he had the secretive Heinrich Müller take over for Himmler.

https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/event ... eches/563/

There's a lot of groupthink on this forum, but I do wonder if most revisionist members will really be able to endorse Callafangers here.

[bombsaway]

The war in the East was most definitely difficult. Add to that antipartisan operations and expatriation/expropriation, and yes, it was one of the most difficult tasks imaginable.

Look at an evacuation in the donbas some time, either side, it ain't easy work, under fire...

So to be clear

in this passage

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.

you agree with Callafangers that he is actually unambiguously stating the men were NOT killed because that would have meant they would have to kill the women and children. And so instead of this they decided to expel the Jews.