The CODOH Revisionist Forum

In a recent, very poor quality thread, a new poster, after much delay and dithering, finally got around to citing some specific evidence, and trotted out ... (drumroll)... the Posen speech and the Mar 27 Goebbels diary.
https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=8774#p8774

These are of course probably the most cited prooftexts in favor of the Holocaust. Most people will encounter these very early on when investigating this topic. Much has and will continue to be said about those specific documents, but here I would like to make some more general comments on prooftexts, smoking guns, slam dunks, gotchas, mic drops, whatever term you want to use.

I am borrowing the term prooftext from religion. It refers to citing Bible passages to support a particular religious viewpoint. Anyone who has experience arguing over the Bible will know that people will cite prooftexts for all sorts of contradictory positions. Other useful terms from religion would be hermeneutics and exegesis which relate to the interpretation of scripture. (I definitely do NOT want to get into the Bible or religion in this thread, but the terms and concepts are useful here.)

Holocaust Hermeneutics

Here is how I would describe Holocaust hermeneutics, in brief.

• Take the Holocaust story, more or less, as given (the six million, the final solution, the gas chambers, etc). All documents are to be interpreted a priori under the assumption that this underlying story is true.
• Create strong priors among the public using psychological warfare techniques ("priming")
• Cherry-pick through all the documents (millions of pages) looking for favored "keywords" (e.g. ausrottung) that activate the priming.

In criminal law, there are protections in the rules of evidence to limit the use of prejudicial material. This often overlaps with "character evidence," i.e., where the prosecution attacks your character in general rather than present specific proof of an actual crime. Judges will often exclude evidence that is deemed to be overly prejudicial if the risk of biasing the jury would be too high relative to the probative value. This is to force the prosecution to provide evidence for the actual crime alleged rather just trying to generally bias the jury against the defendant.

Quite a few of the common Holocaust prooftexts rely on highly prejudicial language and word associations.

For the many documents that contradict the story, they have a few escape tricks that make the story essentially unfalsifiable.

• Assuming code language and euphemism (but NEVER hyperbole)
• Playing games with the timeline (see for example discussions of the final solution or the Birkenau crematoria construction)
• Playing games with who was or wasn't in the loop
• Drawing distinctions between groups of Jews. Labor vs unemployable is a big one. German Jews vs Eastern Jews is another.
• Positing ever more disorganized and improvised scenarios to explain why there is so much missing documentation

Individual Documents are Parts of a Much Larger Whole

First, we must recognize that are there millions of pages of potentially relevant documents. And the documents that are most known and discussed are skewed toward those that were useful for war crimes prosecutors and later Holocaust historians.

Isolating a document or a single phrase within a document is an unsound historical approach. We want the story that best fits the entire body of relevant documents (and evidence). And that's "best fits," not "perfectly fits every single document," which is typically impossible with anything major and complex. It is somewhat like a line of best fit in statistics. You want the minimum variance overall, not the smallest residual on one isolated data point. As a corollary, some individual documents may well have a "high residual" even if the theory is generally quite sound. The tendency on both sides of the Holocaust debate is to project extreme confidence on every single document and argument, but in fact there won't necessarily be an entirely satisfactory, non-speculative explanation for every individual document since there may not always be sufficient context.

If you are citing a passage from Himmler or Goebbels as your prooftext, you should, at minimum, consider other statements by these same people to see if these also fit your interpretation. Like Himmler's statements to Mussolini, for example.
viewtopic.php?p=2147#p2147

Additionally, the prooftext, if legitimate, should echo what is found in the documentation more generally. Really, we should see the evidence for this extermination program all through the German documents. Do we? No. And in fact the documents contradict the traditional story so sharply that they have had to change it rather radically over the years.

Read some of these documents discussing the "final solution" and it becomes quite clear that the term simply did not mean what Jews say it means.
https://archive.codohforum.com/20230609 ... 23c-2.html
https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=70
https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=38

Word Associations - Exterminationist Language

Quite a few of the Holocaust prooftexts hinge on the interpretation of certain words like ausrottung, vernichtung, and the like. I do remember when I first encountered the Posen speech. I initially thought it sounded somewhat convincing, but it was not nearly enough to settle the matter. I do not "dismiss" it, but I simply don't find it strong or robust enough to make up for the more serious deficiencies with the rest of the case. To me, a document that "sounds bad" would be reasonable to cite as a prima facie case, but it is not very robust proof considering the scale of events we are talking about (millions of people executed in gas chambers and vaporized). If that really happened, we would know, and the evidence for it would not hinge a secret speech, a postwar confession, etc.

It is important to realize that exterminationist language is quite common and it was used a lot by both Germans and Jews well before the Holocaust is said to have begun. Jews have been claiming for centuries now that are always being "exterminated." Once you realize this context, most of the prooftexts become decidedly less impressive (and many of them even become problematic because they introduce timeline problems).

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

I would encourage people to read Hitler's January 1939 speech. This is the one that has his "prophecy" about the "annihilation" of Jewry. It has routinely been cited as proof for the Holocaust, especially in older sources. But this interpretation falls apart upon further consideration. 1) The speech was made IN PUBLIC and hence the literal interpretation would contradict the careful code language excuse that is used for all the other documents. 2) If you read the whole speech, not just the cherry-picked passage, Hitler makes several references to banishing/exiling Jews rather than killing them, undermining the literal interpretation. 3) This speech is too early for such a meaning, especially given modern interpretations which have pushed the extermination decision all the way to late 1941 (these are the sort of timeline problems I was referred to).

For more, see the Holocaust Encyclopedia entry on "Extirpation." Note in particular the quotes about how Hitler was "exterminating" the Jews in 1933. Such examples should give everyone pause about the coarse "keyword" method of history.

More Word Associations with Gas

We also see this keyword/word association game with the gas chambers. The Vergasungskeller document is the obvious one here. (Pressac's "gas-tight" doors would be another). The argument can sound superficially convincing, but when you read the Vergasungskeller document it is clear they were eager to begin using at least one of the cellars for morgue space. This does not fit the orthodox interpretation which requires both cellars to be free for the gassing procedure.

Probably my favorite example of the potential for misinterpretation with word associations is the quote from Mein Kampf where Hitler wishes that a few thousand of "these Hebrew corrupters of the nation had been subjected to poison gas." Omg, Hitler's is explicitly saying he wants to gas Jews! Except in context Hitler is obviously talking about chemical warfare in WWI and he's saying Jews didn't do their part in the fighting. This MK passage is cited (by noobs) as proof for the Holocaust, but this interpretation would require us to believe that Hitler had planned the Holocaust and the means (gas chambers) nearly 15 years before the war. And then to square this with the modern theories that the Holocaust "evolved" during the war and was NOT planned way in advance. Not only is that passage not proof for the Holocaust, it is a fine demonstration of why prooftexts can be misleading.

Robustness of Evidence

In forming a conclusion on a topic like this, I think robustness is an underrated criterion. If a conclusion is robust, this means that it is highly stable and is not vulnerable to sensitivity in assumptions. Gotcha documents are almost by definition not very robust since the conclusion is highly sensitive to the interpretation (and authenticity) of that one document. It is important also that the proof be commensurate with the scale of what's alleged. If I told you that California sank into the sea, you would probably not accept this based on a signed affidavit. It is not commensurate or robust. If California sank into the sea, everyone would know about this. Yet so often with the Holocaust we are presented with extremely not robust proofs like Franz Stangl's supposed deathbed confession with Gitta Sereny. In the case of that proof, we are being asked to rely on statements supposedly made decades after the fact to prove a California-scale story.

There are documents on both sides that can be pointed to that may present difficulties or where a conclusive interpretation is not possible. But the revisionist interpretations I think are far more robust vs the orthodox side which is based on a whole stack of fragile assumptions and associations.

Archie wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 6:13 pmI would encourage people to read Hitler's January 1939 speech. This is the one that has his "prophecy" about the "annihilation" of Jewry. It has routinely been cited as proof for the Holocaust, especially in older sources. But this interpretation falls apart upon further consideration. 1) The speech was made IN PUBLIC and hence the literal interpretation would contradict the careful code language excuse that is used for all the other documents. 2) If you read the whole speech, not just the cherry-picked passage, Hitler makes several references to banishing/exiling Jews rather than killing them, undermining the literal interpretation. 3) This speech is too early for such a meaning, especially given modern interpretations which have pushed the extermination decision all the way to late 1941 (these are the sort of timeline problems I was referred to).

This 'prophecy' speech has been understated in its significance for revisionism. Understanding the true meaning here radically changes interpretations of claimed 'Holocaust' admissions for years that follow, not only for Hitler's statements but for others (e.g. Goebbels) as well. I think I'll need to create a separate thread just on this. Tons which can be said, here.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 7:34 pm

Archie wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 6:13 pmI would encourage people to read Hitler's January 1939 speech. This is the one that has his "prophecy" about the "annihilation" of Jewry. It has routinely been cited as proof for the Holocaust, especially in older sources. But this interpretation falls apart upon further consideration. 1) The speech was made IN PUBLIC and hence the literal interpretation would contradict the careful code language excuse that is used for all the other documents. 2) If you read the whole speech, not just the cherry-picked passage, Hitler makes several references to banishing/exiling Jews rather than killing them, undermining the literal interpretation. 3) This speech is too early for such a meaning, especially given modern interpretations which have pushed the extermination decision all the way to late 1941 (these are the sort of timeline problems I was referred to).

This 'prophecy' speech has been understated in its significance for revisionism. Understanding the true meaning here radically changes interpretations of claimed 'Holocaust' admissions for years that follow, not only for Hitler's statements but for others (e.g. Goebbels) as well. I think I'll need to create a separate thread just on this. Tons which can be said, here.

Absolutely. It's worth noting that even mainstream historians admit the 'Hitler prophecy' isn't a serious prooftext for the Holocaust. Joseph Billig, for example, stated (from HH#18):

"The term ‘Vernichtung’ (annihilation, destruction) referred to the absolutely negative attitude towards a Jewish presence in the Reich. Being absolute, this attitude embraced the readiness, if necessary, to go to extreme ends. The term in question did not mean that one had already reached the stage of an extermination nor did it signify that there was a deliberate intention to arrive there.

A few days before the speech quoted [the speech of January 30, 1939], Hitler received the Foreign Minister of Czechoslovakia. He reproached his guest for the lack of energy on the part of the Prague government in its efforts to reach an understanding with the Reich and recommended to him, in particular, energetic measures against the Jews.

In this regard, he declared for example: ‘Over here, they are being annihilated’ (bei uns werden sie vernichtet). Are we to believe that, during a diplomatic conversation, which would be recorded in the archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Hitler would have confidentially alluded to a massacre in the Third Reich – which, moreover, would have been incorrect for that moment in time?

Two years later, on January 30, 1941, Hitler returned to his ‘prophecy’ of 1939. But this time, he explained the meaning as follows: ‘… and I do not wish to forget the indication I have given once before in the Reichstag, namely that if the rest of the world (die andere Welt) is driven into a war, Jewry will have completely ended its role in Europe…’

In his conversation with the Czechoslovak minister, Hitler mentioned England and the United States which, in his opinion, would be in a position to offer regions suitable for Jewish settlers.

In January of 1941 he stated that the role of the Jews in Europe would come to an end and added that this would come about because the other European peoples would understand this need for their own countries. At that time, one believed in the creation of a Jewish reserve. But for Hitler such a reserve was acceptable only outside of Europe. [Thus] we have just noted that, on January 30, 1941, Hitler did nothing but announce the liquidation of the role of the Jews in Europe."

It all goes to show that 'priming' plays a major role in our perception of evidence and our understanding of language, as noted by Archie. Hitler's prophecy, of course, dated from 1939 and was repeated many times by both Hitler himself and other people throughout the war. But no serious person believes that the fabled Fuehrerbefehl or 'Extermination Order' originated in 1939 but rather, according to most modern historians, in 1942.

In regards to the Posen Speech, the single best breakdown I've read is by Callafangers in a thread on the old forum (was it reposted on the new forum?). The Posen Speech, in my opinion, is one of those instances, similar to the Goebbels and Hans Frank diary entries, that really requires a depth of understanding of the rhetoric of National Socialism and the mindset of leading figures in the NSDAP and the SS during the war to fully comprehend in regards to their impact on the Holocaust story as opposed to the resettlement theory, but while I think the significance of the Goebbels diary entry is somewhat overstated, I'll repeat what Frank said during his trial when confronted about one of the entries from his diary:

"I did not destroy the 43 volumes of my diary, which report on all these events and the share I had in them; but of my own accord I handed them voluntarily to the officers of the American Army who arrested me. [...] One has to take the diary as a whole. You can not go through 43 volumes and pick out single sentences and separate them from their context. I would like to say here that I do not want to argue or quibble about individual phrases. It was a wild and stormy period filled with terrible passions, and when a whole country is on fire and a life and death struggle is going on, such words may easily be used."

curioussoul wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 8:14 pm In regards to the Posen Speech, the single best breakdown I've read is by Callafangers in a thread on the old forum (was it reposted on the new forum?).

Much appreciated. I think you're referring to this:

Himmler's Posen Speeches and the Jews

Here's a large excerpt of the 6 October [1943] Posen speech. Read through it all but pay very close attention to the bolded segments:

All of you gladly take it for granted that there are no longer any Jews in your administrative districts. All Germans — with a few individual exceptions — are aware that we could not have endured the bombings, the hardships of the fourth year of the war, and could not endure fifth and sixth years of war that are perhaps yet to come, if we still had this demoralizing pest in our national body. "The Jews must be eradicated ["ausgerottet"]." This brief sentence is easily said. But for the man who must carry out what it calls for, it is the gravest and hardest thing in existence. Now, look, after all they're Jews, only Jews. That's plain enough. But just think about how many people — including Party comrades — have addressed to me and other officials those famous petitions of theirs in which they say: The Jews are all bastards, of course, but so-and-so is a good Jew and should be left alone. I daresay, judging by the number of such appeals and the number of people who express such opinions, the number of "good Jews" in Germany must have exceeded the total Jewish population! In Germany we have millions and millions of people who each have their "one good Jew." I mention this only because you can see in the vital field of your own administrative districts how many respected and upright National Socialists have their "good Jew."

I ask that you assembled here pay attention to what I have to say, but not repeat it. The question came up: Well, what about the women and children? — I came to a determinedly simple conclusion about that, too. 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. The hard decision to wipe this people ["Volk"] off ["verschwinden"] the face of the earth had to be made. For us, the organization that had to carry out this task, it was the most difficult one we ever had. But it was accomplished, and without — I believe I can say — our men and their leaders suffering any mental or spiritual damage. That was clearly a danger. To become too brutal, too heartless, and lose respect for human life, or to be too soft and bring oneself to the point of a nervous breakdown — the path between these two ever-present possibilities is incredibly narrow, the course between Scylla and Charybdis.

[...]
By the end of the year, the Jewish problem in the lands we have occupied will be solved. There will be left only remnants, individual Jews who are in hiding.

I have carefully chosen the sections above to place emphasis (bold). Consider it, carefully, and you may start to see what this excerpt is really about.

Some key points:

- "in your administrative districts", "in our national body", on "the face of the earth", and "in the lands we have occupied" are all attached to references to Jews, here.
- The reference to Jews being "eradicated" is immediately after a reference to them being a "pest in our national body".
- He mentions this is "easily said". Is he more likely to say this of extermination, or of forced expulsion (which can be extremely traumatic, in itself, notably for women and children), especially considering he immediately thereafter talks of how frequently Germans find "good Jews" among them? Is killing all Jews "easily said" by everyone in the room at this point in time?
- He suggests a hypothetical counter-argument that a "good Jew... should be left alone". Not "spared" or "left alive", but "left alone" entirely (i.e. not expelled, imprisoned, etc.).
- Since the Jewish men were very frequently partisans, they became enough of a security risk that a decision to kill them (at some undefined scale) was considered, which he decided against, also for [long-term] security reasons. A decision instead was made to completely remove them from "the lands", the "administrative districts", and the "national body".
- They were able complete this without becoming too brutal or heartless and losing respect for human -- Jewish -- life.
- Himmler repeatedly suggests the task in question has already been done, i.e. past-tense. But no one suggests all Jews in the German sphere were already exterminated (rather than simply expelled or otherwise contained) by this time (October '43).

In short, Himmler and Germany did indeed consider Jews as something of an infestation. But the goal was always about removing them from the national body (consider: I can fumigate my home and I do not care if the bugs die or leave -- my goal is simply for them to be gone).

When understood in-context, it's completely clear that Himmler was in no way referring to a total extermination of Jews, or any policy as such.

While it's entirely plausible that certain documents or other materials have been faked (given we know various powers have had motive, means, and patterns of deception, historically), I do see quite often that people (including Revisionists) do not take long enough to carefully consider everything in proper context. I think the Himmler Posen speech is a prime example of this.

Germans in the room at the Posen speech were not thinking, "hmm... maybe he [Himmler] is proposing here the extermination of each and every Jew?" -- in fact, they would have found such a notion completely stupid and/or ridiculous. SS leadership giving speeches in 1943 did not feel a need to use soft language in hopes that no one would think they meant an "extermination plan" since such a notion would have been outrageous and unheard of. They could therefore speak openly about the need to remove the Jewish parasitic element, to eradicate it entirely from within the German national body. This was not about killing every last Jew; it was about wiping them off of the map, erasing them entirely from the German nation and territories, since all other measures had failed. Himmler is simply re-telling the story of how the Jews were removed from German life, not just institutionally, but physically/geographically as well.

This interpretation is 100% compatible with what is said in the speeches and much better aligns with the surrounding context of the period.

Just to add, it is said that the 4 October Posen speech provides contextual support for the 6 October Posen speech (two days later). But what does the 4 October (earlier) speech actually say? Himmler's words:

I want to mention another very difficult matter here before you in all frankness. Among ourselves, it ought to be spoken of quite openly for once; yet we shall never speak of it in public. Just as little as we hesitated to do our duty as ordered on 30 June 1934, and place comrades who had failed against the wall and shoot them, just as little did we ever speak of it, and we shall never speak of it. It was a matter of course, of tact, for us, thank God, never to speak of it, never to talk of it. It made everybody shudder; yet everyone was clear in his mind that he would do it again if ordered to do so, and if it was necessary.

Here, Himmler says, essentially, 'we won’t speak of things that are difficult to talk about because we tend to find them difficult to talk about'. It was a matter “of tact” not to speak of such a brutal operation --- aggressive rounding up, dispossession of entire [Jewish] families, sometimes entailing violence (where deemed necessary). Such an operation had never been done before and was unprecedented, systematically and morally, and speaking of it "made everybody shudder". Thus, "not speaking of it" had nothing to do with any secret extermination policy as is often suggested by establishment historians.

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

Here, Himmler is simply clarifying the nature of the "evacuation": one of extirpation/uprooting Jews wherever they stand.

It is one of those things that's easy to say: "The Jewish people will be extirpated [ausgerottet]", says every Party comrade, "that's quite clear, it's in our programme: elimination [Ausschaltung] of the Jews, extirpation [Ausrottung] ; that's what we're doing." And then they all come along, these 80 million good Germans, and every one of them has his decent Jew. Of course, it's quite clear that the others are pigs, but this one is one first-class Jew.

Here, the entire establishment logic falls apart on two key observations:

- If Himmler is suggesting here "extermination", it's completely untenable that when every single German (80 million) has their own "decent Jew", that "every Party comrade" (some 7 million or so Germans by this time) would at the same time feel it is "easy to say" they are exterminating all Jews.
- The NSDAP Party program (referenced here by Himmler as containing the same policy now being discussed) has no mention whatsoever (nor anything even implied) of “extermination”. It explicitly mentions expulsion, and was published years earlier when no one claims “extermination” was even remotely considered.

Of all those who speak this way, not one has looked on; not one has lived through it. Most of you know what it means when 100 bodies lie together, when 500 lie there, or if 1,000 lie there. To have gone through this, and at the same time, apart from exceptions caused by human weaknesses, to have remained decent, that has made us hard. This is a chapter of glory in our history which has never been written, and which never shall be written; since we know how hard it would be for us if we still had the Jews, as secret saboteurs, agitators, and slander-mongers, among us now, in every city — during the bombing raids, with the suffering and deprivations of the war. We would probably already be in the same situation as in 1916/17 if we still had the Jews in the body of the German people.

Here, Himmler simply explains why those who have not lived through the losses of Germany by that point in time cannot understand what those in the room can: the hardness that comes with having each seen hundreds of dead Germans lying before them. He explains there is no need to even write down this glorious chapter of overcoming the Jewish saboteurs, agitators, etc., since they all already know what it would be like, if that weren't the case: they'd be in the same situation as in 1916/17.

Again, absolutely nothing about any 'secret extermination policy'.

The riches they had, we've taken away from them. I have given a strict order, which SS Group Leader Pohl has carried out, that these riches shall, of course, be diverted to the Reich without exception. We have taken none of it. Individuals who failed were punished according to an order given by me at the beginning, which threatened: he who takes even one mark of it, that's his death. A number of SS men -- not very many -- have violated that order, and that will be their death, without mercy. We had the moral right, we had the duty to our own people, to kill this people which wanted to kill us ["dieses Volk, dass uns umbringen wollte, umzubringen"]. But we don't have the right to enrich ourselves even with one fur, one watch, one mark, one cigarette, or anything else. Just because we eradicated ["ausgerottet"] a bacillus, after all, doesn't mean we want to be infected by the bacillus and die. I will never permit even one little spot of corruption to arise or become established here. Wherever it may form, we shall burn it out together. In general, however, we can say that we have carried out this most difficult task out of love for our own people. And we have suffered no harm to our inner self, our soul, our character in so doing.

Here, the entire bolded portion makes clear what is being discussed: the eradication of a 'bacillus', an infestation [within the body of the German people]. Note the past-tense [eradicated; ausgerottet], suggesting what is being discussed here has already been done (and no one claims all Jews had been "exterminated" by this time, although they had been removed from the body of the German people, even if still imprisoned locally, in some cases). Altogether, it is completely clear that Himmler refers to "kill [umzubringen]" metaphorically here, within the concept of a "bacillus" and greed/corruption. To 'kill the bacillus' was to remove the corruption within Germany; this applied both to removing Jews and to forbidding any corruption within their own German ranks.

To accurately determine what a document that refers to a gassing cellar, or gas tight doors being ordered for the Kremas, you should gather evidence to determine what took place in the Krema. The documents themselves are evidence to prove that construction took place, so that gas could be used in a specific room within the building. Evidence is then required from other sources, such as people who worked inside the building, to determine if gas was used and what it was used for.

When a senior Nazi talks about extermination of the Jews, on face value, that means killing. Why say "Ausrotten" when referring to resettlement, rather than "Umsiedlung"? Again, to accurately determine what was meant, evidence should be gathered to determine what happened to the Jews in Nazi captivity. That evidence finds that there was a resettlement programme of sorts, whereby Jews were arrested and sent to camps and ghettos, where they were used as slave labour and millions were killed. The complexity of events means that it cannot be summarised with one word. Even if senior Nazis had talked about "Umsiedlung", that would need evidencing, as it cannot rule out that it involved mass deaths.

Revisionists prefer to argue about what happened, rather than gathering evidence to establish what took place. When they try and evidence events, they fall apart, producing multiple theories that contradict each other. Their hypocrisy is strong when they criticise historians for their evidenced interpretations of certain words, like "Ausrotten" and gas tight doors, as they then argue their own interpretations.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 9:30 pm

curioussoul wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 8:14 pm In regards to the Posen Speech, the single best breakdown I've read is by Callafangers in a thread on the old forum (was it reposted on the new forum?).

Much appreciated. I think you're referring to this:

Oh, that's it! That discussion probably deserves its own thread at some point, just for purposes of visiblity and clarity. And probably in the research forum, so it doesn't get mucked up and buried in low-effort noise.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun May 11, 2025 10:42 am To accurately determine what a document that refers to a gassing cellar, or gas tight doors being ordered for the Kremas, you should gather evidence to determine what took place in the Krema. The documents themselves are evidence to prove that construction took place, so that gas could be used in a specific room within the building. Evidence is then required from other sources, such as people who worked inside the building, to determine if gas was used and what it was used for.

When a senior Nazi talks about extermination of the Jews, on face value, that means killing. Why say "Ausrotten" when referring to resettlement, rather than "Umsiedlung"? Again, to accurately determine what was meant, evidence should be gathered to determine what happened to the Jews in Nazi captivity. That evidence finds that there was a resettlement programme of sorts, whereby Jews were arrested and sent to camps and ghettos, where they were used as slave labour and millions were killed. The complexity of events means that it cannot be summarised with one word. Even if senior Nazis had talked about "Umsiedlung", that would need evidencing, as it cannot rule out that it involved mass deaths.

Revisionists prefer to argue about what happened, rather than gathering evidence to establish what took place. When they try and evidence events, they fall apart, producing multiple theories that contradict each other. Their hypocrisy is strong when they criticise historians for their evidenced interpretations of certain words, like "Ausrotten" and gas tight doors, as they then argue their own interpretations.

When Hitler referred to the "vernichtung" of Jewry in January 1939, was he, in your opinion, referring to a plan to murder them?

If so, why were they still discussing the Madagascar plan in 1940?

If "vernichtung" does NOT mean killing in that speech, what implications might this have?

curioussoul wrote: ↑Sun May 11, 2025 12:19 pm

Callafangers wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 9:30 pm

curioussoul wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 8:14 pm In regards to the Posen Speech, the single best breakdown I've read is by Callafangers in a thread on the old forum (was it reposted on the new forum?).

Much appreciated. I think you're referring to this:

Oh, that's it! That discussion probably deserves its own thread at some point, just for purposes of visiblity and clarity. And probably in the research forum, so it doesn't get mucked up and buried in low-effort noise.

Could be stickied and locked. That's a good way to display and preserve a thread.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Sat May 10, 2025 9:30 pm

- Since the Jewish men were very frequently partisans, they became enough of a security risk that a decision to kill them (at some undefined scale) was considered, which he decided against, also for [long-term] security reasons. A decision instead was made to completely remove them from "the lands", the "administrative districts", and the "national body".

While I agree with everything else written in this post, I must disagree with this part. I think Himmler was referring there to the actual killing of partisans and their families.

In recognition of Archie's "individual documents as part of a larger whole", consider this third speech which repeats substantially the same ideas. This was given on June 21, 1944. Here is just the part that refers to families, machine translated to English:

If it's difficult for us, then we should think of the children who died before they even came to life because of this bombing terror, which was ultimately organized by the Jews. We have the right to do so, we must.

I also want to answer a question that will surely be on your mind. The question is: Yes, you know that you're killing the adult 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 as to say: No, no, we're too weak for that, but our children can deal with them for a while. They should fight it out for themselves. Then this Jewish hatred, now a small avenger who later became great, would attack our children and grandchildren, so that they would have to solve the same problem again, but this time in 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, however difficult it was.

Heinrich Himmler: Geheimreden, 1933 bis 1945, und andere Ansprachen, p.204
https://archive.org/details/heinrich-hi ... 4/mode/1up

He didn't quite say it literally, but I'm sure he meant killing. And here is a fourth speech which again covers the same ground, dated December 16, 1943:

Measures, gentlemen, which we are shirking today, will be welcomed by our grandchildren. If I was forced to take action against partisans and against Jewish commissars in a village - I am saying this in this circle, as it is only intended for this circle -, then I gave the basic order to have the wives and children of these partisans and commissars killed [umbringen] as well. I would be a weakling and a criminal of our descendants if I let the hateful sons of these subhumans, who were killed by us in the fight of man against subhuman, grow up.

BA-BL, NS 19/4011, p. 21. (Sheet 224)
https://archive.codohforum.com/20230609 ... 27#p106271

This is explicit enough that it should leave no doubt. But obviously he was referring to the partisan war, not to all the Jews in Europe. This is itself an argument against the Holocaust, since you would hardly have to justify targeting commissars if you were already conducting an all-inclusive ethnocide.

(For the benefit of internet spergs, I will state here that I do not condone the murder of innocent civilians. You can recognize that Heinrich Himmler did immoral things while also recognizing that those things are distinct from what is alleged in the Holocaust narrative.)

Wetzelrad wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 6:01 am While I agree with everything else written in this post, I must disagree with this part. I think Himmler was referring there to the actual killing of partisans and their families.

In recognition of Archie's "individual documents as part of a larger whole", consider this third speech which repeats substantially the same ideas. This was given on June 21, 1944. Here is just the part that refers to families, machine translated to English:

You're referring to the Sonthofen speeches, which I have also addressed in-depth (and still working on separately; have run into barriers regarding some archival access and resources). See here (the first part recaps the Posen speeches, scroll down just slightly for Sonthofen):

https://rodoh.info/thread/693/himmler-s ... hofen-more

I recognize that Himmler's language is more or less overtly homicidal in nature at Sonthofen but understanding both the timing and the audience are crucial for both sets of speeches. At Posen to SS insiders, he uses metaphors like 'ausrotten' to discuss removing Jews from German territories for security (as outlined in my earlier Posen analysis), mentioning killings but framing them as a lesser option to avoid future threats (removing all Jews instead of only killing the men, so that we avoid intergenerational backlash). In Sonthofen, on the other hand, addressing Wehrmacht officers amid military desperation, his harsher terms like 'kill' (umbringen) pertain to specifically Jewish threats within a broader discussion about partisans (e.g., Warsaw uprising) -- importantly, he is likely also responding defensively (perhaps quite self-consciously) to Wehrmacht criticism of SS excesses, such as executing children, by justifying them as necessary for wartime security. In other words, he is not defensive about killing 'all Jewish children' (which he never claims to have), but about having killed Jewish children at all.

Both speeches converge on a policy of physical removal and control, with violence escalating rhetorically and practically based on context, audience expectations, and pressure to defend SS actions from Wehrmacht criticism; not a universal 'extermination' policy.

Also worth noting is that, of the actual audio recordings I have been able to locate for the Sonthofen speeches, some (but not all) of the most 'incriminating' portions are absent (this may simply be due to issues with the tape, which were more common back then, but still very "convenient").

Archie wrote: ↑Sun May 11, 2025 5:04 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun May 11, 2025 10:42 am To accurately determine what a document that refers to a gassing cellar, or gas tight doors being ordered for the Kremas, you should gather evidence to determine what took place in the Krema. The documents themselves are evidence to prove that construction took place, so that gas could be used in a specific room within the building. Evidence is then required from other sources, such as people who worked inside the building, to determine if gas was used and what it was used for.

When a senior Nazi talks about extermination of the Jews, on face value, that means killing. Why say "Ausrotten" when referring to resettlement, rather than "Umsiedlung"? Again, to accurately determine what was meant, evidence should be gathered to determine what happened to the Jews in Nazi captivity. That evidence finds that there was a resettlement programme of sorts, whereby Jews were arrested and sent to camps and ghettos, where they were used as slave labour and millions were killed. The complexity of events means that it cannot be summarised with one word. Even if senior Nazis had talked about "Umsiedlung", that would need evidencing, as it cannot rule out that it involved mass deaths.

Revisionists prefer to argue about what happened, rather than gathering evidence to establish what took place. When they try and evidence events, they fall apart, producing multiple theories that contradict each other. Their hypocrisy is strong when they criticise historians for their evidenced interpretations of certain words, like "Ausrotten" and gas tight doors, as they then argue their own interpretations.

When Hitler referred to the "vernichtung" of Jewry in January 1939, was he, in your opinion, referring to a plan to murder them?

Probably not. In 1939, the Nazi plans were for an ethnic cleansing or mass expulsion which would likely also cause deaths, rather than a full scale genocide.

If so, why were they still discussing the Madagascar plan in 1940?

Because the planning was fluid.

If "vernichtung" does NOT mean killing in that speech, what implications might this have?

It implies that the senior Nazis did not have one set plan, devised in 1939, as to what to do with the Jews who would fall under their control. That makes sense, as they knew in 1939, that how countries would react to their policies regarding the Jews, would vary. They were correct in that respect. Denmark and Finland pretty much refused to cooperate, as did Hungary until it was taken over in 1944. The Dutch were very cooperative, in terms of assisting with the identification and arrest of Jews. The Romanians took the opportunity to conduct their own Holocaust. The Latvians and Lithuanians joined with the Nazi mass shootings. The Poles had no choices, as their country and government ceased to exist. Jews in Free France were safer & more protected than those in occupied France.

It is odd, when there were so many potential variables and unknowns in 1939, that revisionists would think that Nazis policies would have already been set by then.

Wetzelrad wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 6:01 am ...I think Himmler was referring there to the actual killing of partisans and their families.

....

https://holocausthistory.site/1942-12-2 ... ur-months/

"On December 29, 1942, Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler delivered a report to Adolf Hitler, mentioning the execution of 363,211 Jews within only four months, between August and November of that year."

The number of Jew executed was significantly higher than any other category. The categories were "Bandits", "Bandit helpers and suspects" and "Defectors", of which the Jews were listed under helpers and suspects. That means they were not actively fighting.

The various reports to the most senior Nazis, of the mass murder of Jews, where Jews are listed as a different group to others, is evidence that mass murders had been ordered, or at least approved of, at the highest level.

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 8:21 am

The various reports to the most senior Nazis, of the mass murder of Jews, where Jews are listed as a different group to others, is evidence that mass murders had been ordered, or at least approved of, at the highest level.

Under German law, any civilian combatant, or those assisting are liable to summary execution. Partisans were a huge problem.

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 8:21 am

Wetzelrad wrote: ↑Mon May 12, 2025 6:01 am ...I think Himmler was referring there to the actual killing of partisans and their families.

....

https://holocausthistory.site/1942-12-2 ... ur-months/

"On December 29, 1942, Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler delivered a report to Adolf Hitler, mentioning the execution of 363,211 Jews within only four months, between August and November of that year."

The number of Jew executed was significantly higher than any other category. The categories were "Bandits", "Bandit helpers and suspects" and "Defectors", of which the Jews were listed under helpers and suspects. That means they were not actively fighting.

The various reports to the most senior Nazis, of the mass murder of Jews, where Jews are listed as a different group to others, is evidence that mass murders had been ordered, or at least approved of, at the highest level.

I still owe a response on this one (from a few months ago; Meldung 51). I will post a separate thread once I get to it.