The holocaust inside Generalplan Ost

[HansHill]

So, is the evidence that during WWII, the Nazis rooted out and removed the Jews or did they destroyed them? The answer is both.

Wrong as always, genius. That's not evidence, that's what's claimed. What's often presented as "evidence" (because you don't have anything better), is this word. So it's utterly circular to state this word is evidence of the claim, because it's evidenced to have happened, when the evidence is this word.

[Nessie]

So, is the evidence that during WWII, the Nazis rooted out and removed the Jews or did they destroyed them? The answer is both.

Wrong as always, genius. That's not evidence, that's what's claimed. What's often presented as "evidence" (because you don't have anything better), is this word. So it's utterly circular to state this word is evidence of the claim, because it's evidenced to have happened, when the evidence is this word.

What is presented as evidence as to what happened to the Jews during WWII, are eyewitnesses, documents, photos, film, circumstances etc. The same type of evidence that is used to evidence every historical event.

You have created a strawman version, as you cannot argue against my normal use of evidence. You accept eyewitnesses, documents etc, when it comes to Jews being rooted out of Denmark in 1943, as they fled to Sweden, when news of arrests came through. You accept the same for the Hungarian Jews, put into mass transports to Birkenau in 1944. You then deny and refuse to accept that type of evidence, when it comes to Jews being gassed. I consistently use evidence the same way, no matter the event. You do not.

[HansHill]

are eyewitnesses, documents, photos, film, circumstances etc.

You have created a strawman version

Reported.

I, unlike you, am discussing the topic at hand. To remind you:

This thread is about the Holocaust in the Generalplan Ost, and more specifically, references that could demonstrate the Nazis' desire to commit genocide.

This thread, is about the interpretation of words within speeches or otherwise used b the NSDAP, and them being presented as such, as evidence of genocide.

[Nessie]

are eyewitnesses, documents, photos, film, circumstances etc.

You have created a strawman version

Reported.

I, unlike you, am discussing the topic at hand. To remind you:

This thread is about the Holocaust in the Generalplan Ost, and more specifically, references that could demonstrate the Nazis' desire to commit genocide.

This thread, is about the interpretation of words within speeches or otherwise used b the NSDAP, and them being presented as such, as evidence of genocide.

Use of the word ausrotten, that before WWII could refer to both;



...rooting out and exterminating, continued to refer to both, when used by the Nazis during the war. We know that because both are evidenced to have happened. Genocides involve the rooting out and exterminating of a people, because they are in a particular group. Generalplan Ost, was the plan to rid a large part of Eastern Europe of Jews, and others, and for land to be settled by Germans.

[Archie]

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.

[Callafangers]

I think Nessie has terribly underestimated (or is unaware of) just how often 'Holocaust historians' have cited/assumed "ausrotten" (and its various conjugations) to necessarily mean "extermination".

[TlsMS93]

In other words, Nessie admits that Nazi speeches are not proof of genocide, and therefore Wikipedias and other classic "Holocaust evidence" answer entries should be modified to remove "Nazi speeches" as an argument.

"is to look at the evidence as to what happened next"

This is where you fail miserably: you don't provide the alleged amount of ashes from the number of bodies cremated, you don't state the origin of the fuel or agree on what type it was, you don't have photos of the cremations behind the Eastern Front, you don't have aerial photos of the extermination of Hungarian Jews, you cling to archaeological research without peer review, you extrapolate findings to fit what you want, etc.

[DavidM]

Words can change, or gain different meanings, depending on context and usage. Austrottung now means extermination, because of its context and usage by the Nazis during WWII.

Hall Of Fame post, please mods.

"We changed the meaning of this word to what we need because the Nazis used it"

Q to google - do words change their meaning over time?
A - Yes, words absolutely change their meaning over time, a process called semantic change, due to social shifts, new technologies, different usage contexts, and cultural evolution.

Q to google - did austrotten mean something other than extermination?
A - The German word "ausrotten" primarily and historically means "to exterminate," "to extirpate," or "to wipe out completely". It has consistently held this meaning, especially when used in the context of people or a disease.
Claims that "ausrotten" meant something less severe, like merely "stamping out" or "rooting out" with the intent of transportation rather than killing, have been consistently debunked by historians and German language experts.

Historical Meaning: Historical German dictionaries confirm that "ausrotten" has always meant "exterminate".
Nazi Usage: Adolf Hitler and other high-ranking Nazis frequently used the term, alongside similar words like vernichten (annihilate) and auslöschen (wipe out), to refer to the physical destruction of the Jewish people.
Context: The context of Nazi speeches and written documents makes clear that the intent was mass murder. For example, Joseph Goebbels explicitly stated in a speech that the Jewish people were "suffering a gradual process of extermination"

The Jewish population of Germany was shrinking in a gradual process....
"In January 1933, roughly 525,000 Jews lived in Germany. About 60% (numbering around 304,000) emigrated during the first six years of the Nazi dictatorship. Only roughly 214,000 Jews were left in Germany proper (1937 borders) on the eve of World War II.[9]
looks like extermination does NOT mean murder if it applied to pre-1942 German policy.

[Monsieur Sceptique]

Hitler, in speeches, said he was firmly convinced he could destroy France in a month and a half. Does this mean France ceased to exist physically or biologically? No, it simply became harmless. The same would apply to the Jews; eradicating them doesn't mean suffocating or shooting them, but rather preventing them from corrupting society or hindering the war effort.

Non sequitur. Just because when Hitler said he could destroy France, he did not mean France would cease to exist, does not therefore mean if he said he could destroy the Jews, that would not mean they would cease to exist.

The correct way to determine what Hitler meant, is to look at the evidence as to what happened next. The evidence is that France did not disappear and in fact in remained intact, with a large part still government by the French and millions of French people did not vanish after being arrested and sent to camps. That means Hitler was being hyperbolic and his words should not be taken literally.

After all, why did Hitler believe that eradicating the Jews could end the war? What value did they have to produce this effect? ​​Because they were major saboteurs of the war effort.

Nazi attitudes towards the Jews, were very different from attitudes towards the French. As you admit, they were regarded as a dangerous enemy, who could cause great damage to Germany. Hence, Himmler's service diary entry of December 1942,

https://holocausthistory.site/1941-12-1 ... partisans/

“Jewish Question. | To be exterminated as partisans.”. So-called revisionists accept the Nazis killed partisans and attribute Einsatzgruppen mass shootings of Jews, as a partisan action. That is evidence of motive, as well as evidence to prove what certain words meant, when they applied to the Jews, rather than the French.

In the plans for the Third Reich, particularly in Himmler's proposals, there was a proposal to create a Burgundian state (where the languages would be French and German and the French who recognised Hitler as the Führer would have been granted citizenship), to make Brittany independent and to turn the rest of France into a Gallic state. There have been archaeological attempts to prove that France was an artificial state and to destroy France so that it could never again be a threat to Europe. I think that in this case, the idea of destroying France was real but was to be carried out after the war. It was therefore not hyperbolic.
You can find it here
https://archive.org/details/kerstenmemo ... q=burgundy

[Monsieur Sceptique]

In 1887, ausrotten had various, similar meanings;



Root out, eradicate, extirpate, exterminate, destroy.

During WWII, when applying that word to the Jews, did they mean just root out, as in remove?



Callafangers states "Just to make clear that 'extirpate' in English was also interpreted as uprooting or rooting out, here is the 1903 English definition and breakdown (note the Latin origin/breakdown)" but he ignores where it means to destroy totally, to exterminate.

So, is the evidence that during WWII, the Nazis rooted out and removed the Jews or did they destroyed them? The answer is both. Like the word ausrotten has more than one meaning, the Nazis had more than one policy. Many Jews were allowed to leave occupied Europe, usually having to buy their way out. There was no issue where Jews fled, such as the Danes who escaped to Sweden. There was also a policy to destroy, exterminate, such as Himmler's diary entry that Jews were to be treated as partisans and partisans were to be shot. The mass murder of Jews, by shooting and gassing, is well evidenced, so it is ridiculous to cherry-pick one usage of the word ausrotten and ignore the rest. Ausrotten meant to both root out and destroy the Jews, which is exactly what the Nazis are evidenced to have done.

A sentence can only have one meaning, and a word cannot mean two different things in the same sentence. It is either one or the other. One solution automatically excludes the other, because why apply a policy of expulsion when you have a policy of extermination and the problem will be solved? And why would you want to apply an extermination policy when the problem is being solved by expulsion? You might respond that German policy changed after the Wannsee Conference and the language used by the Nazis. That is the question currently at stake. How should we interpret a polysemic term that can have several meanings and can point in opposite directions depending on how we interpret its meaning? This is a problem that many historians face in the course of their careers. Please try to explain how you interpret this sentence and provide the information needed to determine who is right and who is wrong. I am all ears for your response. Thank you

[HansHill]

I see your points MS, and to an extent I agree with you, especially this part:

A sentence can only have one meaning, and a word cannot mean two different things in the same sentence. It is either one or the other. One solution automatically excludes the other

However, just a comment on the line of argument of "destroying" France. While technically this is correct in that the Nation (comprising it's system of government and institutions) would be "destroyed", this is an unusual way to phrase it in English. "To destroy" almost certainly doesn't work in this context, and absolutely holds no parallel to the physical killing of a human being, viz-a-viz, murder.

A more commonly used phraseology here, depending on the speaker of course, might be something more like "to carve France up", which gives us the same net result (the cessation of its forms of governments, institutions etc) with the added benefit of conveying that it has been broken into smaller parts. This language clearly also has no parallel to killing a human, and if anything, would more closely resemble the butchering of an animal carcass for eating. Just quirks of the language!

Note that around this time (as well as many other eras of history) many many many countries were "carved up", including Germany itself into four after then war (and later two).

Also as an FYI, Nessie currently is temporarily restricted from posting here. So if / when he replies to you, it will be in the Quarantine section.

[bombsaway]

It's kind of funny because we don't need to go to arcane dictionary or post war references to determine definitions

Himmler defines it here:

Ich hielt mich nämlich nicht für berechtigt, die Männer auszurotten – sprich also, umzubringen oder umbringen zu lassen

I did not consider myself justified to exterminate the men – in other words, to kill them or have them killed

It's also obvious that words have multiple definitions so revisionists can always cling to that. W liquidate when referring to humans it means kill almost always. Callafanger's example of 'liquidate the Jewish danger' doesn't really help here because it's pretty ambiguous whether danger refers to Jewish people or rather threat posed by them (I think this is more literally accurate). A danger is not alive, therefore it cannot be killed.

Don't know what this has to do with Generalplan Ost, other than Jews not being included in the mass deportation tabulations after 1941, despite still being heavily present in Axis territories.

[Callafangers]

Himmler defines it here:

Ich hielt mich nämlich nicht für berechtigt, die Männer auszurotten – sprich also, umzubringen oder umbringen zu lassen

I did not consider myself justified to exterminate the men – in other words, to kill them or have them killed

Here is Himmler's complete sentence:

I did not believe that I had the right to wipe out ["auszurotten"] the men — rather I should say, kill ["umzubringen"] them or have them killed — and let their children grow up to avenge themselves on our sons and grandsons.

Why did Himmler feel a need to clarify his meaning with "umzubringen"? It's because his audience would have otherwise interpreted "auszurotten" to not mean "killing".

More on this speech (Himmler's Posen speeches):

viewtopic.php?p=8846#p8846

[bombsaway]

Himmler defines it here:

Ich hielt mich nämlich nicht für berechtigt, die Männer auszurotten – sprich also, umzubringen oder umbringen zu lassen

I did not consider myself justified to exterminate the men – in other words, to kill them or have them killed

Here is Himmler's complete sentence:

I did not believe that I had the right to wipe out ["auszurotten"] the men — rather I should say, kill ["umzubringen"] them or have them killed — and let their children grow up to avenge themselves on our sons and grandsons.

Why did Himmler feel a need to clarify his meaning with "umzubringen"? It's because his audience would have otherwise interpreted "auszurotten" to not mean "killing".

More on this speech (Himmler's Posen speeches):

viewtopic.php?p=8846#p8846

Why would he use auszurotten at all then? Just a slip?

[Callafangers]

Here is Himmler's complete sentence:

I did not believe that I had the right to wipe out ["auszurotten"] the men — rather I should say, kill ["umzubringen"] them or have them killed — and let their children grow up to avenge themselves on our sons and grandsons.

Why did Himmler feel a need to clarify his meaning with "umzubringen"? It's because his audience would have otherwise interpreted "auszurotten" to not mean "killing".

More on this speech (Himmler's Posen speeches):

viewtopic.php?p=8846#p8846

Why would he use auszurotten at all then? Just a slip?

Merry Christmas, bombsaway.

No one challenges that "auszurotten" is associated with destruction (even if only by harsh removal or uprooting). 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, since the definition:

1. Forbids a literal interpretation [at least as of 1854], and
2. Prioritizes non-lethal interpretation [rooting out]

Himmler's change in phrasing is a direct reflection of this: he is well-adjusted to speaking of a policy of Jews and their "ausrottung" (uprooting) -- he does this in the first Posen speech on October 4, two days before the October 6 speech we are discussing, in which he explicitly associates "Ausrottung" with "Judenevakuierung" (evacuation):

I am thinking now of the evacuation of the Jews [Judenevakuierung], the extirpation [Ausrottung] of the Jewish people.

In the October 6 speech, however, he is instead speaking of literal killing (in a hypothetical reflection about treatment of Jewish men). This is why he switches to "umbzubringen", since using "auszurotten" here would make his statement unclear or confusing.

There is not a single instance of a Nazi anywhere referring to the Final Solution or Jewish evacuation as a policy of "umbzubringen".

The biggest problem you face, perhaps, is that all of these words:

Ausrottung/Auszurotten (rooting out)
Evakuierung (evacuation)
Ausgerottet (eradication/uprooting)
Umsiedlung (resettlement)

• Primarily entail "uproot/remove"
• Have been misrepresented as evidence of 'extermination' (with non-lethal interpretations brainwashed out of the public consciousness)
• Are consistent and convergent in demonstrating what Jewish policy of the Final Solution actually entailed

These words and their converging meaning are direct evidence against 'extermination' claims, and direct support for literal evacuation/resettlement.