A proper Sonthofen thread (Himmler's speeches)

[Callafangers]

Upon making some revisions to the Wiki article on Himmler's Sonthofen speeches, I came to recognize that most members here have likely never seen the relevant portions of the Sonthofen speeches at all. This is not surprising as I was only ever able to find tiny snippets of these online (with exterminationist framing) and eventually had to dig into the actual Bundesarchiv to capture and translate (via Google) the raw German transcripts myself, a year or so ago.

The relevant sections I captured from the transcripts are originally shared at RODOH (if you do not already have an account on RODOH, I would highly recommend joining; there is not as much activity there lately but there are outstanding contributors who check-in regularly, should you seek additional perspectives on any topic/question):

What Himmler Says: Posen, Sonthofen and More
https://rodoh.info/thread/693/himmler-s ... hofen-more

Here are the most 'incriminating' excerpts for each of the Sonthofen speeches' transcripts (some surrounding text included to show overall context; also, some minor corrections made):

5 May 1944 (BA NS 19/4013):

We took precautions here by locking up and isolating all those who could or might become dangerous years beforehand, as I told you. But we are also secured against this in other ways, and in general we can say that should an old Russian agent, an old German Communist get away - we usually know this beforehand. We pick them up. They can't form cells, and after all, it's remarkable that we take it for granted that in the course of five years of war we haven't had the slightest quarrel. In the occupied countries we once had a major conflict in the Netherlands. It began on Friday, and on Monday afternoon we were back at work. I want to speak quite frankly here. We did not cause a major bloodbath. A total of 200 people were shot dead, a whole 9 million Dutch people in a general strike that encompassed everything. Then there were some strikes in Turin and Milan, of course. They were over shortly after the occupation. These were and still are communist strongholds, and of course we had gotten food. These strikes were also settled brutally but in a psychologically correct way, usually within 24 hours.

In Germany itself there was and is no such phenomenon. But you can be assured of one thing: we have the nerve and know our command and our duty, even if it were people we loved, at the smallest point, the smallest fire that was smoldering somewhere would arise and be extinguished, if necessary with death. I have to hurt this and that person, I'm sorry about that, but the lives of 90 million people require it.

I'll come to a question that was decisive for the war, which I want to answer here - I've already spoken about it in a similar narrow circle - in a few sentences: the Jewish question.

You can be sure of that: If we had not eliminated [ausgeschieden] the Jews in Germany, it would not have been possible to sustain the bombing war, despite the decency of the German people. It was announced to the Jews by the Führer at the beginning of the war or before the war: "If you once again set the European peoples against each other in a war, it will not mean the extermination [Ausrottung] of the German people, but the extermination [Ausrottung] of the Jews." The Jewish question has been solved in Germany and generally in the countries occupied by Germany. It has been resolved uncompromisingly in accordance with the life struggle of our people, which is about the existence of our blood. I say this to you as a comrade. We are all soldiers, no matter what coat we wear. You may feel for me how difficult it was to fulfill this soldierly order given to me, which I obeyed and carried out out of obedience and full conviction. When you say: We understand that with men, but not with children, then let me remind you of what I said in my first statements. In this confrontation with Asia [Russia], we must get used to condemning to oblivion the rules of the game and the customs that have become dear to us, the customs of past European wars that are much closer to us. In my opinion, even as Germans, we are not entitled to let the hate-filled avengers grow up so that our children and grandchildren will have to deal with them because we, the fathers or grandfathers, were too weak and too cowardly to allow them to survive.

Let us never forget that every few millennia fate, the Lord God, is so merciful that he sends a people the leader we have in Adolf Hitler. The history of our empire, ever since it has existed, and the history of the Germanic peoples, ever since they have existed, is such an appalling textbook on greatness and littleness, on strength and glory and on weakness and decay, rising and falling in the eternal undulations of life, that we cannot expect, cannot be so presumptuous as to think, that in the next centuries or millennia someone of the greatness and strength and heart of Adolf Hitler will come again. And that is why we are not entitled to save up any of the hard and difficult things that can be done today and say "those after us should do it" - but we have to do it, we were to blame in 1918, all of us, whether we were young or old at the time, victory was snatched from us, we were overrun by the soldiers' redness, they broke our flag, and we have to make up for it. Just as mercilessly as victory was snatched from us back then, so mercilessly is the battle being fought now. It's hard and it's terribly difficult for the troops who have to do it, but they have to do it and they have done it. And I can say something to myself - this is something that can only be said in such a small circle: that they were able to get through it without any of the leaders or their souls suffering damage, that is what I, as the founder of this and as Reichsführer-SS, count as the hardest and the most important thing in the balance. That, you believe, is the hardest.

The Asian [Russian], in his advance from Asia, which you have to fend off at the front and are allowed to fend off, will not be able to set up an enemy at your back, neither among your own people nor as a serious danger - apart from small bandits - which always exist in the countries we occupy.

24 May 1944 (BA NS 19/4014):

One more word about the concentration camps. The number of German people we have in the concentration camps has been wrongly estimated by the outside world. I would like to give you a figure here. There are political and criminal criminals with antisocial vagrants, around 40 - 50,000. That is a ridiculously small number for a nation of 90 million.

But with these 40 or 50,000, who make up our non-commissioned officer corps, I would like to say, we have several hundred thousand Russians, Poles, Czechs, French and Red Spaniards and whatever other rabble we have caught in Europe in the concentration camps. With them we do many tens of millions of hours of armament work per month. I can also assure you that there is no sabotage in our factories and that, as all the places we report to confirm, we have almost no waste. I have a guard ratio of 1:30, one man for 30 prisoners. The "leading corps" among the prisoners are the German professional criminals. I cannot put it any other way: even among these last ones, the Germans are still far superior to the others. Gentlemen, without the establishment of the so-called Kapos, the above-mentioned guard service would not be possible. Among the German professional criminals there are sometimes the bravest soldiers from the last war with the EK I. But they cannot, let's say, stop breaking into the cash registers, they just make their second, third, fourth. It is terribly difficult to go after such a man and catch him again. They are not stupid people, but the most clever, but asocial elements. They are now employed as leadership elements, because otherwise I could not manage with the low manpower. Furthermore, it is natural that a Pole is the foreman for the Russian, that a Frenchman is the foreman for the Italian. One nation is always played off against the other. In any case, however, the result is that the idea of Europe, which would otherwise threaten the security of the Reich and without which a bombing war could not be carried out, is harnessed to our war effort as the best armaments workers and works not against it, but for it as the best armaments work.

Another question that was decisive for the internal security of the Reich and Europe was the Jewish question. It was solved without compromise according to orders and rational knowledge. I believe, gentlemen, that you know me well enough to know that I am not a bloodthirsty person and not a man who takes pleasure or fun in any task that he has to do. On the other hand, however, I have such good nerves and such a great sense of duty - I can claim this for myself - that when I recognize a matter as necessary, I carry it out without compromise. I did not consider myself entitled - this concerns Jewish women and children - to let the children grow up to be avengers who would then kill our fathers and our grandchildren. I would have considered that cowardly. Consequently, the question was resolved without compromise. At the moment, however - it is strange in this war - we are initially bringing 100,000, and later another 100,000, male Jews from Hungary into concentration camps, with whom we are building underground factories. But not one of them comes into the field of vision of the German people. But I am convinced that I would see things in a negative light for the front that has been built up in the east of the General Government if we had not solved the Jewish question there, if the ghetto in Lublin still existed and the huge ghetto with 500,000 people in Warsaw, the clearing of which, gentlemen, cost us five weeks of street fighting last year with armored cars and with all weapons, where we stormed around 700 houses in bunkers in the middle of this fenced-off ghetto. - Of course we have gangs. The Russians have them too. They're just as unpleasant with them. You can't take it tragically, you have to take it seriously. If you have courage, take action, take action prudently and sensibly, namely by being prepared, then gangs can never be a decisive danger. They never decide a war.
Now you will understand one thing. These measures in the interior of the Reich cannot be carried out by a police force consisting only of civil servants. A corps that has only taken its oath as a civil servant would not have the strength to do so. These measures could only be carried out and implemented by an organization that had been consolidated to the utmost, by fanatical and deeply convinced National Socialists. The SS counted itself among them and claimed to be suitable for the task. But it would have been the death and the end of this organization if it had only had internal tasks during the war. Because every organization - it could be made up of the most ideal people - would be destroyed. For one thing, anyone who is a man and wants to fight at the front would avoid this organization. On the other hand, even those who would stick with it out of a deep sense of duty would gradually become dull. Secondly, and this is even more decisive, they would not have the moral authority before the people to crack down. I do not believe that this will be necessary one day. But I can assure you that we would. If it were necessary, in order to ward off any danger to Germany and the entire German people, we would not shy away from taking even bloody action in Germany if a fire were to start somewhere. But we can only do this with a force, with an organization that has bled on the front at least as much as everyone else, that has earned its honor and reputation in battle with the external enemy. Only this organization has the moral authority to take tough action in front of men and women, in front of the fathers and mothers of the people, if necessary, and put someone up against the wall.

21 June 1944 (BA NS 19/4014):

Why do you let a man like that walk around? - I wouldn't have the nerve to say to a man like that: Excuse me, I have to wait until the crime has been committed. Only then can I lock him up. Then he'll get a year or a year and a half. Then he gets out again and we have to wait until he commits another crime. - I don't want that, because back then I put myself in the shoes of a father like that and in the parents' hearts. I said: That's out of the question. Whether it's legal or illegal, I couldn't care less. These people are coming in.

By this consistent approach we achieved that as early as 1938 - then it shot up a little because the East Mark was added, which hadn't been so thoroughly combed through - that when we entered the new world war we had the lowest crime rate since the Reich was founded and the lowest crime rate in the world.

I am convinced that such measures will no longer be necessary to the same extent in the future. Not because I am now softer or because I said: No, no, I won't do that anymore - whatever is necessary for Germany, no matter how terrible it may be, it will be done - but I believe it because the beneficial laws of the National Socialist Reich will have an effect. The sterilization law will mean that the worthless lives of those with hereditary diseases and asocials on a diseased basis will no longer reproduce. This means that the next generation of criminals will never be born. Despite all of this - we must be clear about this - there will always be a residue in our people. Despite all of this, the state will have to take ruthless action here. We are also following in the footsteps of the best German tradition. There were normal prisons under the Old Fritz regime. There were other occasions when criminals came to Spandau and were chained to a cart. That was the concentration camp of that time. The state of that time pursued the same goal and achieved the same goal. Whether it was concentration camps or pushing carts in Spandau or Küstring is irrelevant.

In addition to these measures, through which we freed Germany of criminal and antisocial elements, the police as such, the security police, was of course brought to a high standard. This was above all thanks to the fallen SS Obergruppenführer Heydrich.

Another major question still had to be resolved. It was the most terrible task and the most terrible order that an organization could receive: the order to solve the Jewish question. I can say this again in this circle in all openness in a few sentences. It is good that we had the strength to eradicate [auszurotten] the Jews in our area. Do not ask how difficult that was, but as soldiers - I would almost say - understand how difficult such an order is to carry out. But even after the most critical examination, thinking only as soldiers for Germany, draw the logical conclusion that it was necessary. The bombing war alone would not have been viable if we had still had the Jewish people in our cities. I am also convinced that the front at Lemberg in the General Government would not have been viable if we had still had the large ghettos in Lemberg, Krakow, Lublin and Warsaw. The time when we cleared out the last large ghetto in Warsaw - I'll tell you the number - with over 500,000 Jews in five weeks of street fighting in the summer of 1943 was at precisely the last moment. The ghettos, however closed they may have been, were the headquarters of every partisan and every gang movement. They were an extraordinary poison for the morale of the rear. We no longer used the word "stage" in this war. I believe that this word should be used more often, that rear organizations, which are necessary at the moment when they puff themselves up, suffocate in their well-being and then behave like pigs during a retreat or a withdrawal movement, should be called something they don't like to hear. That is the stage. Unfortunately, I have been able to observe many examples - I would just like to speak here of my own area, of the SS and the police - where men who had to guard ghettos, sooner or later, if they were not entirely of strong character, accepted bribes, accepted money, got involved with seductive and provocative Jewish women and were then blackmailed. In every case, because all the men were warned beforehand, I had a merciless court held. Thank God these were only isolated cases. - I told all my men: Firstly, we have orders and secondly our conscience tells us to carry out this harsh purge. If we find it difficult, then we should think of the children who die before they even have a chance to live because of this bombing terror, which is ultimately organized by the Jews. We are entitled to do this, we must do this.

I would also like to answer a question that you are surely thinking. The question is: Yes, I know that you are killing [umbringen] adult male Jews, I understand that, but the women and children...? I have to tell you something: the children will grow up one day. Do we want to be so indecent that we say: no, no, we are too weak for that, but our children can deal with them. They should fight it out one day. Then this Jewish hatred, small avengers today and grown-up later, would attack our children and grandchildren, so that they would have to solve the same problem again, but then at a time when Adolf Hitler is no longer alive. No, we cannot take responsibility for that. That would have been cowardly, and that is why we preferred a clear solution, difficult as it was.

I will come back to an idea I mentioned earlier. The Jew tried to poison people from his headquarters. You could see that in the individual examples that I experienced here and there in my ranks, where a man enriched himself. That was not acceptable. That is not clean, whether it is a mark or a valuable piece of jewelry. That will cost him his head. Because it is not about the values themselves, it is about cleanliness and the principle. I can tell you something: you have no idea. I have never seen so much gold in one pile in my life. It is unimaginable if you have not seen it. Whether it was American gold pieces, German 20 and 10 mark pieces, Austrian crown pieces, or Russian rubles, they were large, large piles that you could not see over if you had the gold from just one ghetto pooled together. It is unimaginable.

As I said, in Warsaw we had five weeks of house-to-house fighting and cleared out 700 bunkers, basement bunkers, sometimes two on top of each other. When a block of houses was finished, they suddenly came out the back again. The Jew always has catacombs, passageways, canals. It is an ancient system. He is an ancient nomad. - As I said, it was the last moment, because I do not believe that the front in the General Government would have been so easy to hold.

I can now conclude this question of internal security, about the development and origins of which I have told you a few things. Despite the seven million foreigners and despite the bombing terror, we can speak of absolute internal security in the Reich and of an absolutely free rear of the front. Even if prisoners escape or if a major capital crime is committed here and there, these individual cases are always a test for us, and fortunately they are proof that our security police and the police as a whole are still in order. You will believe me that this is not easy to keep in order. Because I have an unimaginably small percentage of the peacetime police force in the Reich, both in the security police and in the public order police. So there are considerably fewer than I have in peacetime; because I have set up around 20 regiments from the ranks of the police for the occupied territories and for the front. And despite this small police force, we can be satisfied. Because we uncover capital crimes within two or three months at the latest and arrest the criminals. It would be a lecture in itself to have some expert, one of my colleagues, explain to you how difficult it is to commit a capital crime, a murder or a burglary...

For detailed discussion of each of these speech excerpts, see the RODOH link already provided.

As for the audio recordings of these speeches, some major concerns are addressed here: viewtopic.php?p=20359#p20359

The bottom-line of these speeches is that Himmler is speaking about internal security and brutality against partisans, and felt a particular need to explain why the SS was killing Jewish families/children at all in these harsh reprisals. This is distinct from broader Final Solution policy which is only mentioned as part of Himmler's introduction to the topic, at Sonthofen (notice no mention of "evacuation" or "deportations to the East", here). In his other speeches around this time, he is very clear and explicit that the Final Solution for Jews across Europe entails actual emigration/evacuation to the East.

For additional information on Sonthofen, see the Wiki article:

Himmler's Sonthofen Speeches
https://wiki.codohforum.com/pages/index ... n_Speeches

Thoughts/feedback welcomed.

[bombsaway]

Who here really thinks these quotes support the revisionist story over the orthodox one?

Constant mentions of killing women and children, a repetition of the same beat heard at Posen, except with mentions of eliminating "the Jews in Germany", the "Jews in our area" then clearing out the ghettos of the General Government, one mention of solving the Jewish question East of the GG, through killing.

No mention of any resettlement or storage of the Jews east of the GG, except with language that Himmler clarified meant killing in the second Posen speech.

I'm not really interested in Callafangers response here, he'll read the speeches how he wants to read them, but does anyone else have anything to say about it, that it better confirms revisionism than orthodoxy? I think the inability to see this as damning (at least in an isolated sense) to the revisionist narrative is the issue with you guys, though admittedly discussion here has been beaten to death. But it would be simple enough to say, it doesn't look good, probably the speeches were fabricated.

[Callafangers]

bombsaway has failed to refute revisionist arguments so now dedicates most of his time trying to promote infighting here. Very strange behavior.

[bombsaway]

bombsaway has failed to refute revisionist arguments so now dedicates most of his time trying to promote infighting here. Very strange behavior.

Or I just don't think I can have a productive discussion with you (based on past experiences) so would rather talk to others. Don't take that as a value statement on your character or aptitude, I've called you names before as have you me, but I'm not doing that now.

For what it's worth, thanks for providing more complete text for these speeches. To me they are as interesting (and important as evidence) as the Posen speeches, and all the speeches together give a clearer picture of Himmler or at least what he was trying to convey.

[Callafangers]

Or I just don't think I can have a productive discussion with you (based on past experiences) so would rather talk to others. Don't take that as a value statement on your character or aptitude, I've called you names before as have you me, but I'm not doing that now.

For what it's worth, thanks for providing more complete text for these speeches. To me they are as interesting (and important as evidence) as the Posen speeches, and all the speeches together give a clearer picture of Himmler or at least what he was trying to convey.

Mr. bombsaway, I don't take anything you say personally. You are someone I consider misguided at best, and more than likely a member of the "tribe" here doing damage control, like so many before you. A zebra is a zebra, a fox is a fox, I do not expect you to change your stripes. But when you behave as you often do, I will be here to point it out. No hard feelings at all, and I am glad you find value in the translations provided.

[bombsaway]

Do you think people come to this forum to do damage control? What is their motivation?

[Callafangers]

Do you think people come to this forum to do damage control? What is their motivation?

That's a great question for ConfusedJew. I would guess things like "Yiddishkeit", "tikkun olam", stuff like that.

[bombsaway]

Do you think people come to this forum to do damage control? What is their motivation?

That's a great question for ConfusedJew. I would guess things like "Yiddishkeit", "tikkun olam", stuff like that.

Tikkun Olam means "repairing the world", why do think this is damage control? That may be your perspective, but it's not theirs - unless you think they're defending a narrative they believe is false.

[TlsMS93]

Who benefited from Himmler's efforts to appease consciences about the need to sacrifice children? The Wehrmacht generals? As far as we know, they did not participate in the extermination process. If the speech was directed at them, then the context is an anti-partisan war and not about the universality of Jews. This explains why he started with the executions of men, who were the overwhelming majority of guerrilla acts. Their children knowing about these German reprisals justifies Himmler's concern to some extent; that is, there is no proof that he was referring to the Jewish community as a whole.

It is incriminating in Himmler's case because extrajudicial executions of civilians are not legal under the laws of war. However, if the issue is genocide, however bloody the speech may be, it does not seem to encompass the Jewish question in general.

[Archie]

Who here really thinks these quotes support the revisionist story over the orthodox one?

Constant mentions of killing women and children, a repetition of the same beat heard at Posen, except with mentions of eliminating "the Jews in Germany", the "Jews in our area" then clearing out the ghettos of the General Government, one mention of solving the Jewish question East of the GG, through killing.

No mention of any resettlement or storage of the Jews east of the GG, except with language that Himmler clarified meant killing in the second Posen speech.

I'm not really interested in Callafangers response here, he'll read the speeches how he wants to read them, but does anyone else have anything to say about it, that it better confirms revisionism than orthodoxy? I think the inability to see this as damning (at least in an isolated sense) to the revisionist narrative is the issue with you guys, though admittedly discussion here has been beaten to death. But it would be simple enough to say, it doesn't look good, probably the speeches were fabricated.

You are making the assumption that "killing women and children" refers to a universal extermination order to kill all Jews, but other statements by Himmler strongly contradict that interpretation. This speech, for example.

Whenever I was forced to take steps against the partisans and Jewish commissars in some village – I’ll say it for the information of this group only – I made it a point to give the order to kill the women and children of these partisans and commissars. I would have been a weakling and I would be committing a crime against our descendants if I allowed the hate-filled sons of the subhumans we have liquidated in this struggle of humanity against subhumanity to grow up. (Himmler speech, 16 Dec 1943)

How do you square the narrow scope above with your belief in a blanket extermination order?

It seems to me that in speeches where the scope is left ambiguous you assume as wide a scope as possible (which your position compels you to do) and you ignore the instances which specifically say the scope was narrower.

Himmler's notes from his meeting with Mussolini also mention the women and children but again the scope specifically contradicts your interpretation (even more strongly, in fact).

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=2147&#p2147

I will add as well that "eliminating the Jews in Germany" is likewise unconvincing. Even according to the mainstream, most of the 500,000+ German Jews were not murdered by Hitler but simply left before the war. And even after the war, your side is forced to posit the convoluted theory that numerous exceptions were made for many German Jews (vs the Ostjuden). Goebbels was complaining in his diaries that there were still 4,000 Jews living openly in Berlin at the end of the war. Some extermination program if they can't even kill all the Jews in the capital of the Reich.

From additional context on my views see here
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=340

[HansHill]

The main problem with this sort of quotefare is that Orthodoxy often introduces these speeches (in reality, speeches distilled down to individual words) as proof of genocide.

Bombsaway has asked for peoples' opinions above, and I can give mine but I would appreciate it first if Bombsaway will clarify does he consider key words from these speeches (eg "Ausrottung") as proof of genocide?

If so, does he value this proof of genocide completely independently of the murder weapon (eg Kula Columns), physical remnants (introduction holes) and the bodies? If so why, and if not why not?

TL:DR does use of the word "Ausrottung" support the entire Holocaust narrative without need for the above supporting evidence?

[bombsaway]

The main problem with this sort of quotefare is that Orthodoxy often introduces these speeches (in reality, speeches distilled down to individual words) as proof of genocide.

Bombsaway has asked for peoples' opinions above, and I can give mine but I would appreciate it first if Bombsaway will clarify does he consider key words from these speeches (eg "Ausrottung") as proof of genocide?

Ausrottung is a word with different meanings, uproot, eradicate, extirpate, destroy

Using it as substitute for 'kill' is perhaps euphemistic but it was understood as that by the audience

The clearest example here is in the first speech Callafangers quoted

I'll come to a question that was decisive for the war, which I want to answer here - I've already spoken about it in a similar narrow circle - in a few sentences: the Jewish question.

You can be sure of that: If we had not eliminated [ausgeschieden] the Jews in Germany, it would not have been possible to sustain the bombing war, despite the decency of the German people. It was announced to the Jews by the Führer at the beginning of the war or before the war: "If you once again set the European peoples against each other in a war, it will not mean the extermination [Ausrottung] of the German people, but the extermination [Ausrottung] of the Jews." The Jewish question has been solved in Germany and generally in the countries occupied by Germany. It has been resolved uncompromisingly in accordance with the life struggle of our people, which is about the existence of our blood. I say this to you as a comrade. We are all soldiers, no matter what coat we wear. You may feel for me how difficult it was to fulfill this soldierly order given to me, which I obeyed and carried out out of obedience and full conviction. When you say: We understand that with men, but not with children, then let me remind you of what I said in my first statements. In this confrontation with Asia [Russia], we must get used to condemning to oblivion the rules of the game and the customs that have become dear to us, the customs of past European wars that are much closer to us. In my opinion, even as Germans, we are not entitled to let the hate-filled avengers grow up so that our children and grandchildren will have to deal with them because we, the fathers or grandfathers, were too weak and too cowardly to allow them to survive.

He is describing the solution to the Jewish question, and specifically references Hitler's pre-war speech. Now I don't think Hitler 'meant' kill in that speech, genocide wasn't decided on until 1941, he meant destroy generally, but it is clear from this that 'killing' falls under the umbrella of that term.

The speech isn't 100% proof of genocide, because it could be fabricated, they could have even gotten a Himmler impersonator to do it. If the speeches are authentic, it is as strong evidence as we could reasonably expect from a statement by an official

like here he is talking about the solution

The Jewish question has been solved in Germany and generally in the countries occupied by Germany. It has been resolved uncompromisingly in accordance with the life struggle of our people, which is about the existence of our blood. I say this to you as a comrade. We are all soldiers, no matter what coat we wear. You may feel for me how difficult it was to fulfill this soldierly order given to me,

and then the soldierly order is given as killing. It's as if he said we solved the Jewish question by killing them.

If so, does he value this proof of genocide completely independently of the murder weapon (eg Kula Columns), physical remnants (introduction holes) and the bodies? If so why, and if not why not?

I believe the Holocaust happened and can't seriously entertain the revisionist version of history due to lack of evidence. I've heard most of the deboonks and they remind me of all the other deboonks that are common in every conspiracy. So I focus on the parts of the history that interest me the most, it's not aerial photographs and the study of optical distortions and so on.

[HansHill]

The speech isn't 100% proof of genocide, because it could be fabricated, they could have even gotten a Himmler impersonator to do it. If the speeches are authentic, it is as strong evidence as we could reasonably expect from a statement by an official

Not really sure what to make from this set of answers, it doesn't really clarify much of what I had asked, and seems to support the idea that you are asserting "ausrottung" as genoicde because you already believe in the Holocaust, which is obviously circular, yet then saying it stands alone as the strongest possible evidence we could expect from any member of the NSDAP, whilst simultaneously deriding the lack of bodies, Prussian Blue or introduction holes as "deboonks", whatever that means although contextually this seems arrogant.

Personally I find this to be a wild and arrogant over-reach, and CF's efforts in this and other threads are far more appealing than the alternative.

Specifically on the quotefare aspect; when Mike Peinovich debated Matthew Cockerill this point inevitably arose. Peinovich asked Matt whether the Churchill quote about exterminating Germany should be considered as proof of genocide:

Churchill "When I look round to see how we can win the war, I see that there is only one sure path … There is one thing that will bring him back and bring him down, and that is an absolutely devastating, exterminating attack by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland."

https://winstonchurchill.org/publicatio ... ng-policy/

Peinovich asked Matt a very poignant question which wasn't really answered and that is: What is to stop me from applying Himmler-logic to Churchill and playing endless whataboutery? What specifically about Churchill's exterminating attack, precludes it from meaning a literal genocide of the German Nation? And again please be specific? Is it the context? Is it the lack of bodies? Is it the lack of a murder weapon? Why does exterminate =/= exterminate?

[bombsaway]

The speech isn't 100% proof of genocide, because it could be fabricated, they could have even gotten a Himmler impersonator to do it. If the speeches are authentic, it is as strong evidence as we could reasonably expect from a statement by an official

Not really sure what to make from this set of answers, it doesn't really clarify much of what I had asked, and seems to support the idea that you are asserting "ausrottung" as genoicde because you already believe in the Holocaust, which is obviously circular, yet then saying it stands alone as the strongest possible evidence we could expect from any member of the NSDAP, whilst simultaneously deriding the lack of bodies, Prussian Blue or introduction holes as "deboonks", whatever that means although contextually this seems arrogant.

Personally I find this to be a wild and arrogant over-reach, and CF's efforts in this and other threads are far more appealing than the alternative.

Specifically on the quotefare aspect; when Mike Peinovich debated Matthew Cockerill this point inevitably arose. Peinovich asked Matt whether the Churchill quote about exterminating Germany should be considered as proof of genocide:

Churchill "When I look round to see how we can win the war, I see that there is only one sure path … There is one thing that will bring him back and bring him down, and that is an absolutely devastating, exterminating attack by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland."

https://winstonchurchill.org/publicatio ... ng-policy/

Peinovich asked Matt a very poignant question which wasn't really answered and that is: What is to stop me from applying Himmler-logic to Churchill and playing endless whataboutery? What specifically about Churchill's exterminating attack, precludes it from meaning a literal genocide of the German Nation? And again please be specific? Is it the context? Is it the lack of bodies? Is it the lack of a murder weapon? Why does exterminate =/= exterminate?

I can give you a direct answer to the Churchill quote - I do think it was genocidal, they were trying to kill as many Germans as possible- I also think the war in Gaza is genocidal, and Israel's policy on the whole is genocidal, though there are degrees of severity and justification to genocide, not all genocides are equal, either practically or in terms of ethical consideration. The firebombing of German cities probably shortened the war considerably. I think the killing of Palestinians is the opposite of beneficial for Israelis.

My only contention re "ausrottung" is that killing is a possible meaning, the word itself is proof of nothing, but the context is clear with the Himmler quote. He's also saying that Jews in Germany and every territory they occupied were targeted. This is not just about some war against the partisans in occupied USSR. To say that people were targeted for killing is not to say everyone was killed, some were put to work, some were resettled. The evidence for millions of Jews being maintained in occupied USSR is nil, so I don't think that happened. Nothing in these Himmler speeches suggest even a small number of Jews were resettled there.

[Callafangers]

The clearest example here is in the first speech Callafangers quoted

I'll come to a question that was decisive for the war, which I want to answer here - I've already spoken about it in a similar narrow circle - in a few sentences: the Jewish question.

You can be sure of that: If we had not eliminated [ausgeschieden] the Jews in Germany, it would not have been possible to sustain the bombing war, despite the decency of the German people. It was announced to the Jews by the Führer at the beginning of the war or before the war: "If you once again set the European peoples against each other in a war, it will not mean the extermination [Ausrottung] of the German people, but the extermination [Ausrottung] of the Jews." The Jewish question has been solved in Germany and generally in the countries occupied by Germany. It has been resolved uncompromisingly in accordance with the life struggle of our people, which is about the existence of our blood. I say this to you as a comrade. We are all soldiers, no matter what coat we wear. You may feel for me how difficult it was to fulfill this soldierly order given to me, which I obeyed and carried out out of obedience and full conviction. When you say: We understand that with men, but not with children, then let me remind you of what I said in my first statements. In this confrontation with Asia [Russia], we must get used to condemning to oblivion the rules of the game and the customs that have become dear to us, the customs of past European wars that are much closer to us. In my opinion, even as Germans, we are not entitled to let the hate-filled avengers grow up so that our children and grandchildren will have to deal with them because we, the fathers or grandfathers, were too weak and too cowardly to allow them to survive.

Himmler doesn't even allude to killing in the first half of this quote (only says Jews were "eliminated/removed" in Germany and then refers to the 1939 prophecy quote where Hitler clearly spoke only of elimination as well). Only in the latter part of the quote, where Himmler directly ties the issue to the "confrontation with Asia [Russia]" and the "hate-filled avengers" does the matter of killing become implied. But Himmler is not saying here that the "order" he refers to entails killing all Jews -- there is nothing here supporting that conclusion. Instead, the matter of uprooting/expelling Jews and killing them are necessarily conflated, since this process of evacuation inevitably led to partisan battles (e.g. Warsaw) which are the central topic of these speeches.

Moreover, you are clearly cherry-picking. You have to explain Himmler's statements here within the context of all of his related statements of the surrounding period. How do you explain his multiple speeches in October-December 1943, where he explicitly describes Jewish policy as being evacuation/deportation to the East? To hand-wave this as "he's using code words" is the exact kind of 'deboonkery' any reasonable person will object to.

The speech isn't 100% proof of genocide, because it could be fabricated, they could have even gotten a Himmler impersonator to do it. If the speeches are authentic, it is as strong evidence as we could reasonably expect from a statement by an official

This is an obvious false dichotomy (fallacy), and a sneaky one at that. Stuff like this is precisely why I have had some doubts of your integrity.

"Either the speech was fake, or it's 100% proof of genocide."

Laughable.

What we could reasonably expect as proof of genocide is a murder weapon, graves chock-full of bone chips (or half-full? one-third?), contemporary wartime admissions indisputably reflecting the scale and nature of what is claimed, postwar powers welcoming debate and criticism of their narratives, etc. You lack all of this, so you point to this speech specifically about partisans/warfare, addressed to the Wehrmacht generals and insist it's about global Jewish policy (every Jew, everywhere).

Nevermind that Himmler's speeches to actual SS leadership (e.g. at Krakow, Posen) explicitly describe Jewish policy as "deportation to the East", directly tie to the NSDAP program which is only about expulsion, and align with Goebbels' private diary where he emphasizes literal evacuation/quarantine/resettlement as the official policy well-into 1942-3.

I believe the Holocaust happened and can't seriously entertain the revisionist version of history due to lack of evidence. I've heard most of the deboonks and they remind me of all the other deboonks that are common in every conspiracy. So I focus on the parts of the history that interest me the most, it's not aerial photographs and the study of optical distortions and so on.

Ironically, "deboonking" is a claimed practice of those who defend establishment narratives ("we are deboonking the conspiracy theories! "); not those who challenge them. It's damage control.