Churchill's "Exterminating Attack"

[HansHill]

I can give you a direct answer to the Churchill quote - I do think it was genocidal

[bombsaway]

And yet I said Nessie's interpretation was also possible. So there is no insistence.

The reason I think Churchill was referring to killing civilians en masse (my definition of genocide) is because these aims were clearly part of British doctrine. That's documented, like in the quote I provided on the last page. We can see this as well in Nazi documents (for killing Jews) but even if I just restrict myself to Himmler's speeches, he makes this clear. His meaning when using 'extermination / uprooting' is killing, and this includes civilians, people who pose no immediate threat but rather one many years into the future (that his children would have to deal with).

[HansHill]

For those only loosely paying attention, here is a summary of events spanning two threads. Here is BA insisting that Himmler's use of "Ausrottung" must have one interpretation and any other interpretation is "an issue"

30/12/2025 @ timestamp 1

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

This is followed by his assertion that Churchill's exterminating attack is indeed genocidal:

30/12/2025 @ Timestamp 2

I can give you a direct answer to the Churchill quote - I do think it was genocidal

After rebuttals from both Archie and I (30/12/2025 and 31/12/2025 respectively) that Bombsaway was undermining the modern Nuremberg consensus, and after Nessie had offered up a non-genocidal interpretation in the slop-forum (31/12/2025 timestamp 1), Bombsaway then admits (31/12/2025 timestamp 2) a second interpretation is possible, yet doubles down by asserting a priori yet again it indeed was a genocide:

A stated aim of the bombings was to harm German industrial production, therefore Nessie's reading is also possible.

But let's assume it was about killing people. The goal was to win the war and it helped them win the war substantially. There was a valid military objective to the genocide, it saved lives in the long run etc.

This, my friends, is called having your cake and eating it too.

i) Himmler's Ausrottung must be perceived genocidally and anything else is an issue, meanwhile
ii) Churchill's Exterminating Attack will be permitted to have multiple interpretations simultaneously so I can't be pinned down, and despite me doubling down that it's a genocide therefore so is Himmler

Bombsaway, you have still not answered Archie's challenge about Churchill's genocide gone unpunished by the Nuremberg proceedings, and you have not yet engaged Nessie directly as to why he's wrong in his non-genocidal interpretation. Somebody said he is British so probably holds high opinions of Churchill so good luck.

[Archie]

I will repost a prior comment of mine regarding double-standards.

There are double standards galore here since exterminationist language in other contexts is routinely dismissed as hyperbolic. It entirely depends on which groups are involved. See the article below for example on the exterminationist song "Kill the Boer!" which blacks chant in South Africa. Is this proof of "white genocide" in South Africa? The mainstream media assures us it is not. That's just a "conspiracy theory." The language in the song "should not be taken literally." In this case. But if Goebbels had led such chants, that would be exhibit A in Holocaust proofs.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/02/worl ... -song.html

This silly Churchill gambit is bombsaway's attempt to avoid this double-standard trap. He's trying to be "consistent," but I don't think he's thought this through.

[bombsaway]

i) Himmler's Ausrottung must be perceived genocidally and anything else is an issue, meanwhile
ii) Churchill's Exterminating Attack will be permitted to have multiple interpretations simultaneously so I can't be pinned down, and despite me doubling down that it's a genocide therefore so is Himmler

Bro, I explicitly said "The reason I think Churchill was referring to killing civilians en masse (my definition of genocide) is because these aims were clearly part of British doctrine."

Are you this daft? My belief that it is genocide, that Churchill supported a policy of genocide, is evident through the documents, and then my definition of genocide, provided above.

I also said why I thought Himmler meant Ausrottung genocidally. He says it means killing, and was talking about killing women and children, en masse you're just ignoring this point. Motivated reasoning also filters out evidence which doesn't support your case?

I did respond to Archie. There obviously is a double standard, one that is true any conflict where one side is vanquished.

Here we see a curiously unorthodox maneuver from BA. Throwing Churchill under the bus like this does not fit well with the usual Anglo-American triumphalist accounts of WWII and Nuremberg since implicitly this admits that both sides were war criminals but that only one side was prosecuted (the side that lost). It seems to me this feeds dangerously into revisionist narratives about the illegitimacy of Nuremberg.

When has the victorious side ever been prosecuted? Don't understand this line at all. This is not evidence of a conspiracy to fabricate or suppress evidence.

This is ridiculous.

[Callafangers]

When has the victorious side ever been prosecuted? Don't understand this line at all. This is not evidence of a conspiracy to fabricate or suppress evidence.

This is ridiculous.

Glad to see bombsaway finally calling out his posts for what they are.

[Archie]

i) Himmler's Ausrottung must be perceived genocidally and anything else is an issue, meanwhile
ii) Churchill's Exterminating Attack will be permitted to have multiple interpretations simultaneously so I can't be pinned down, and despite me doubling down that it's a genocide therefore so is Himmler

Bro, I explicitly said "The reason I think Churchill was referring to killing civilians en masse (my definition of genocide) is because these aims were clearly part of British doctrine."

Are you this daft? My belief that it is genocide, that Churchill supported a policy of genocide, is evident through the documents, and then my definition of genocide, provided above.

I also said why I thought Himmler meant Ausrottung genocidally. He says it means killing, and was talking about killing women and children, en masse you're just ignoring this point. Motivated reasoning also filters out evidence which doesn't support your case?

I did respond to Archie. There obviously is a double standard, one that is true any conflict where one side is vanquished.

Here we see a curiously unorthodox maneuver from BA. Throwing Churchill under the bus like this does not fit well with the usual Anglo-American triumphalist accounts of WWII and Nuremberg since implicitly this admits that both sides were war criminals but that only one side was prosecuted (the side that lost). It seems to me this feeds dangerously into revisionist narratives about the illegitimacy of Nuremberg.

When has the victorious side ever been prosecuted? Don't understand this line at all. This is not evidence of a conspiracy to fabricate or suppress evidence.

This is ridiculous.

You replied but you did not meaningfully address it.

"When has the victorious side ever been prosecuted?" Uh, this is a problem revisionists have been pointing out for decades. That Nuremberg was victor's justice and was hypocritical and biased. This is Revisionism 101 stuff.

Are you new here?

[bombsaway]

i) Himmler's Ausrottung must be perceived genocidally and anything else is an issue, meanwhile
ii) Churchill's Exterminating Attack will be permitted to have multiple interpretations simultaneously so I can't be pinned down, and despite me doubling down that it's a genocide therefore so is Himmler

Bro, I explicitly said "The reason I think Churchill was referring to killing civilians en masse (my definition of genocide) is because these aims were clearly part of British doctrine."

Are you this daft? My belief that it is genocide, that Churchill supported a policy of genocide, is evident through the documents, and then my definition of genocide, provided above.

I also said why I thought Himmler meant Ausrottung genocidally. He says it means killing, and was talking about killing women and children, en masse you're just ignoring this point. Motivated reasoning also filters out evidence which doesn't support your case?

I did respond to Archie. There obviously is a double standard, one that is true any conflict where one side is vanquished.

When has the victorious side ever been prosecuted? Don't understand this line at all. This is not evidence of a conspiracy to fabricate or suppress evidence.

This is ridiculous.

You replied but you did not meaningfully address it.

"When has the victorious side ever been prosecuted?" Uh, this is a problem revisionists have been pointing out for decades. That Nuremberg was victor's justice and was hypocritical and biased. This is Revisionism 101 stuff.

Are you new here?

So what if Nuremberg was hypocritical and biased? I'll admit this is indeed circumstantial evidence for the conspiracy you believe in, but it is exceedingly weak circumstantial evidence. To me it's like saying you should believe the Holocaust happened because the Nazis were anti semitic. Maybe that's enough for some people, but there are dumb revisionists too.

[Wahrheitssucher]

the conspiracy you believe in...
To me it's like saying ‘you should believe the Holocaust happened because’…

This is ridiculous.

…Nuremberg was victor's justice and was hypocritical and biased.
This is Revisionism 101 stuff.
Are you new here?

Don’t you get it yet, Archie?

Bombsaway is an online HolyH promoter.
So when his arguments are defeated he resorts to the strawman misrepresentation that presents revisionists as:
a.) ‘conspiracy theorists’ who are arguing that
b.) NONE of the WW2 experience of Jews in Europe — viz. ‘the holocaust’ — “happened”.

He’s OBVIOUSLY never arguing in good faith.

Yet you (and others here) are always discussing as if he is.

[HansHill]

Talk about screwing the pooch.

I wonder what odds we can get on Dr Terry showing up to clean up Bombsaway's little doozey, and tell us why exactly the UK wasn't exterminating ethnic Germans?

TBH Bombsaway would probably still just say "well i choose to interpret it as genocide anyway", hilariously demonstrating yet again that words stripped of context can be interpreted in wildly divergent ways no matter how hard one strains

Just not Himmler's

[bombsaway]

Maybe you can talk about the difference between wanting to kill civilians of a certain nationality en masse on purpose (which the brits for sure are guilty of) and genocide. The common way to interpret that is 'not genocide' because of the military justification, but i dont agree with that

w your words 'stripped of context' charade, which you continue with in the manner of a headless chicken, I should remind you of the quotes you have not addressed, maybe not even fully perceived, because your filters are so high. I'm interested, in a psychological perspective, so I'll give them to you again.

"The aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive and the part which Bomber Command is required by agreed British-US strategy to play in it, should be unambiguously and publicly stated. That aim is [among other things] ... the killing of German workers"

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

[Archie]

I wonder what odds we can get on Dr Terry showing up to clean up Bombsaway's little doozey, and tell us why exactly the UK wasn't exterminating ethnic Germans?

Maybe he will drop by again one of these days but it's impossible to say when. There's a decent chance he still lurks (I know he used to monitor the old forum religiously even though he hadn't posted in years). He currently posts some at Skeptic Forum. He was active on RODOH in 2024 and continued here, especially in the first few months. Perhaps not coincidently these periods were when the numbers were relatively favorable for the anti-revisionist side (as not all the revisionists had rejoined). I would definitely like to recruit some better talent on the anti-revisionist side, but the "high-end" Holocaust defenders do not seem eager to test the waters here even though nothing is stopping them and they've been complaining for years about "censorship" on CODOH. Some of them might have simply gotten tired with the whole debating-the-H-online scene (many have been at it for over 20 years) and there don't seem to be any up-and-comers to carry the torch. (I had high hopes for CJ but, alas, he was a bust). They also might have some concern about giving CODOH a lot of traffic and activity as that would ultimately help us (unless they actually got the better of us in the exchanges). Perhaps the logic is that having Nessie or bombsaway blow some smoke is thought to be sufficient.

From what I have noticed, Nick tends not to participate in the more technical topics. He prefers to play to his strengths and argue the history.

[Stubble]

I'm hoping the guy is looking for 'where'd they go'.

If he finds the camps east of the Bug river before I do, I won't be offended, unless he says that the jews were all murdered there in some novel way.

When the jews are finally tracked past the Bug River Camps (a nod here to Mr Wraith and Herr Fangers for their work in showing the existence of the camps east of the Bug and also evidence of disembarkation prior to the arrival of trains to the Bug River Camps, thank you!), hopefully, the debate will finally be over and we will all be able to agree a radical reassessment of the history and how it came to be accepted is in order...

He is very likely just enjoying some of his free time on holiday with his family and friends.