As for this Churchill quote;
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=20410#p20410
"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."
He means that he thinks hugely damaging bombing raids on Germany will cause Hitler to surrender. To put it into context, Churchill never made speeches about the extermination, or liquidation of the German people, or the ending of a German presence in Europe, or that there would be no more Germany. So, he is clearly just referring to how devastating he believed the bombing raids would need to be, before Hitler would back down.
Comments on other threads.
Re: Comments on other threads.
HansHill said
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=20434#p20434
Just like many words, it has more than one meaning. When someone uses the word, context and evidence determines what they meant, if they do not make it absolutely apparent themselves.
When Churchill said "an absolutely devastating, exterminating attack by very heavy bombers" to win the war and bring Hitler down, he was referring to the use of air raids to defeat Hitler, not the total destruction of Germany and all Germans. We know that, because he never spoke about the destruction of Germany as a country and ridding Europe of all Germans.
When senior Nazis referred to the extermination of Jews, the context is a policy to rid Europe of all Jews, so that none were left. Ausrotten meant both root out, as in find and remove and kill. Both methods were evidenced have been used, with some Jews allowed to emigrate and others being shot as it they were partisans and many gassed.
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=20434#p20434
Here is what ausrotten means;...Archie is right though, you have veered headlong into WW2 Revisionism that I would imagine many of your fellow travelers would be very uncomfortable to see. Actually I don't even have to imagine much, because already your buddie Nessie in the slop forum has just now defended "exterminate = destroy infrastructure".
Perhaps you guys should duke it out and ascertain exactly what "exterminating" means then come back to us.
Just like many words, it has more than one meaning. When someone uses the word, context and evidence determines what they meant, if they do not make it absolutely apparent themselves.
When Churchill said "an absolutely devastating, exterminating attack by very heavy bombers" to win the war and bring Hitler down, he was referring to the use of air raids to defeat Hitler, not the total destruction of Germany and all Germans. We know that, because he never spoke about the destruction of Germany as a country and ridding Europe of all Germans.
When senior Nazis referred to the extermination of Jews, the context is a policy to rid Europe of all Jews, so that none were left. Ausrotten meant both root out, as in find and remove and kill. Both methods were evidenced have been used, with some Jews allowed to emigrate and others being shot as it they were partisans and many gassed.
Re: Comments on other threads.
HansHill again,
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=20437#p20437
Himmler said that Jews were to exterminated as partisans, when partisans were being shot, he reported on the mass execution of hundreds of thousands of Jews to Hitler and he issued orders regarding the entire Jewish population, who he wanted rid of, from all occupied land. Europe was to be made Jew free.
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=20437#p20437
The answer is that Churchill never advocated the destruction of Germany, so that it ceased to exist and the extermination, or rooting out of all Germans, to make Europe German free.Splitting this off from Callafanger's Sonthofen thread as I don't want to derail that thread any more than I already have.
The discussion in that thread was: What specifically about Churchill's speech precludes it from being a literal genocide of the German Nation? What specifically is to prevent a Holocaust Revisionist from applying Himmler-goggles to this speech and infer a literal genocide was planned / performed on the German people?"...But 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/
Himmler said that Jews were to exterminated as partisans, when partisans were being shot, he reported on the mass execution of hundreds of thousands of Jews to Hitler and he issued orders regarding the entire Jewish population, who he wanted rid of, from all occupied land. Europe was to be made Jew free.
Re: Comments on other threads.
"Hundreds of thousands"?
What happened to "6 million"?
How many of these alleged "hundreds of thousands" of "executed" jews ended up in the 100 fraudulently alleged "huge mass graves" of Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II?
Break it down for us Roberto.
How many "executed" jews ended up in the 33 alleged "huge mass graves" of Belzec?
How many "executed" jews ended up in the 21 alleged "huge mass graves" of Chelmno?
How many "executed" jews ended up in the 7 alleged "huge mass graves" of Ponary?
How many "executed" jews ended up in the 24 alleged "huge mass graves" of Sobibor?
How many "executed" jews ended up in the 15 alleged "huge mass graves" of Sobibor?
If the physical evidence for a claim that - HAS TO EXIST - in order for the claim to be true - DOES NOT EXIST - then that claim is false.
Re: Comments on other threads.
Callanfangers;
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=20449#p20449
The actual huge problem, is why did Himmler avoid giving any detail about supposed resettlement? It would need a lot of organisation and resources, which is absent from his speeches. Plus, there is the obvious lack of evidence of millions of Jews resettled in the East in 1943-4. Using code words for an innocuous resettlement programme, is far more of a problem than using code words for a criminal act.
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=20449#p20449
No it is not. Historians use evidence to prove that claims about deportation, were not claims about resettlement. They were claims about moving Jews into the highly controlled Eastern Europe, of what was Poland, the Baltic states and Ukraine and the use of Jews as slave labourers and those not needed were killed. Not being open about gassing, is not an issue, because what Nazi was open about mass murders? The Nazis did not take over total control in the West and saw a future of strong alignment with France, the Dutch and even unoccupied countries like the UK and USA. How would that work if they had been openly boasting about mass murdering Jews in gas chambers? Instead, they hoped the leaked reports getting to the Western press would be regarded as atrocity stories that they could control, by means such as staged visits by a compliant Red Cross not finding anything.So yes, bombsaway, Himmler's late-1943 speeches (i.e. Posen, Krakow) saying "deportation to the East" and not "sent to be gassed at Reinhardt camps" is a huge problem for you.
The actual huge problem, is why did Himmler avoid giving any detail about supposed resettlement? It would need a lot of organisation and resources, which is absent from his speeches. Plus, there is the obvious lack of evidence of millions of Jews resettled in the East in 1943-4. Using code words for an innocuous resettlement programme, is far more of a problem than using code words for a criminal act.
Re: Comments on other threads.
Callanfangers;
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=20451#p20451
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=20451#p20451
That is Holocaust denial. It denies the corroborating evidence of mass graves at the AR camps and then makes the false claim everything else is evidenced. He cannot evidence what did take place inside the AR camps, quantify how many are buried there, or hundreds of thousands of people leaving them alive and what happened to them next....especially given that your Reinhardt camps are missing millions of corpses. You cannot even rely on inference due to the fact that excavations were conducted and show nothing remotely near even an order of magnitude less than what you claim there. The 'Holocaust' was dead in that moment. Everything else is supporting evidence.
Re: Comments on other threads.
Roberto's daily lie that there is no evidence of resettlment.
The fact that the 2.145 million jews fraudulently alleged to have been buried in 100 "huge mass graves" at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblkna II are not in those "graves" is not only evidence, but proof that your unsubstantiated allegations of mass murder in those camps is a big-lie. A PROVEN, nonsensical big-lie.
The fact remains:
Despite all the deceptive, unsubstantiated allegations to the contrary, the truth is, the largest (in terms of quantity of remains) of the 100 graves in question that are fraudulently alleged to have been “scientifically proven” to currently exist at these five sites, in which verified human remains have been uncovered / tangibly located via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented archaeology, contained the remains of - ONLY SIX PEOPLE.
Now let's watch Roberto continue to delusionally deny reality some more.
If the physical evidence for a claim that - HAS TO EXIST - in order for the claim to be true - DOES NOT EXIST - then that claim is false.
Re: Comments on other threads.
Says the delusional liar who cravenly refuses to quantify how many jews are buried in any of the 100 fraudulently alleged "huge mass graves" of Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II.
Nessie:
The Nazis were not trying to magically disappear the corpses and the graves.
All the mass graves dug by the Nazis, and the corpses they cremated, are still at the AR camps.
Mass graves are proven. By all normal standards of evidencing, they are proven.
I can point to them in the ground.
Point to the one grave of the 100 that you can prove contains the most human remains.
What are you waiting for Roberto?
What are you so afraid of?
If the physical evidence for a claim that - HAS TO EXIST - in order for the claim to be true - DOES NOT EXIST - then that claim is false.
Re: Comments on other threads.
I'll post this here so Nessie has a fair chance to respond: Nessie how do you feel about Bombsaway's insistence that Churchill was speaking genocidally?
Re: Comments on other threads.
A New Years reminder to Keen that I would debate him, if he cuts the abuse, refers to me only as Nessie, only as a male, that he debates me answering questions one at a time, rather than he presents a list and expects an answer to everything whilst dodging my points. I have answered pretty much everything already, which he ignores and just asks again.
Re: Comments on other threads.
I disagree. I say he was using hyperbole, believing that massive air raids would defeat Hitler. Churchill never expressed genocidal language about Germany and the Germans. He said nothing about ridding Europe of Germany and the Germans, or liquidating, or otherwise destroying them. He never wished for a Europe free of all Germans.
His language towards Germans was totally unlike the language used by Hitler and senior Nazis against the Jews.
Re: Comments on other threads.
Thank you Nessie and Happy New Year, i look forward to many more debates with you in 2026.
Re: Comments on other threads.
HansHill, happy New Year.
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=20487#p20487
The context of the one time you can find Churchill using exterminate, is very different to the context of the multiple times senior Nazis used ausrotten. Those Nazis also used the word, to mean either root our, or exterminate and it could mean kill, or not.
There is no one, "proper" context.
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=20487#p20487
As bombsaway said "You have a cartoon approach to history where words can only mean one thing". WWII was massive, spanning many events and years, so why do you think context will not vary? Ausrotten has slightly different meanings, where root out does not necessary mean kill, but exterminate or destroy would very likely mean kill, when applied to people.This is disastrous for you, because once applied to Churchill, we understand "Ausrotten" in it's proper context.
The context of the one time you can find Churchill using exterminate, is very different to the context of the multiple times senior Nazis used ausrotten. Those Nazis also used the word, to mean either root our, or exterminate and it could mean kill, or not.
There is no one, "proper" context.
Re: Comments on other threads.
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=20370#p20370
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=19979#p19979
If the physical evidence for a claim that - HAS TO EXIST - in order for the claim to be true - DOES NOT EXIST - then that claim is false.
Re: Comments on other threads.
Nesserto:
Nesserto:
I have had Keen on ignore, so I cannot see his posts...
A New Years reminder to Keen...
Nesserto:
viewtopic.php?p=14176#p14176I would debate him...
If the physical evidence for a claim that - HAS TO EXIST - in order for the claim to be true - DOES NOT EXIST - then that claim is false.