The Holocaust - Speeches Question

Let me preface this by saying I am a proud white man and I support white ethnostates. I also support national socialism. But I have questions about the holocaust and speeches made by German officials.

On 30 January 1939, Hitler said in a speech


on 30 January 1942, Hitler said


In 1943 Goebbels published an article entitled "The War and the Jews" which stated:


In the Posen speeches of October 1943 such as the one on October 4, Himmler explicitly referred to the extermination of the Jews of Europe and further stated that the genocide must be permanently kept secret:


I am now referring to the evacuation of the Jews, to the extermination of the Jewish people.

What am I to make of this? Am I to believe that the speeches are fakes?

Believe me, I hate the Jews. I hate what they are doing to the West. But I have real questions about these speeches and their implications. I know that the so called gas chamber doors were bullshit and that the death toll has been changed over the years. I know the lampshades and soap is bullshit. But what of these speeches?

If you call me a Jew and sage me then you are just ignoring real questions. The holocaust should be questioned openly and its so called evidence should be dismantled logically and rationally.

Attached: e62677764ab6fa50803944a1a888133c.jpg (1024x421, 52.05K)

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.is/xBm62
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial#Hitler's_involvement
web.archive.org/web/20080314131150/http://holocaust-history.org/der-ewige-jude/hitler-19390130.shtml
phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/team/index.html
research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/gpa/goeb37.htm
research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/goeb37.htm
nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/himmler-heinrich/posen/oct-04-43/
translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationaler_Milit%C3%A4rgerichtshof&prev=search
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Just think about it this way:
Were the Injuns "destroyed"?
They were forced off the land and resettled elsewhere, effectively ending their threat to the settlers.
Their lives were not ended, but their culture and traditions pretty much died.
That was very close to what was being planned in jewrys case imo.
There also was violence against some of them who didn't want to go along with the resettlement plan.

That makes sense but what about these lines?

It is the point which I just made,
If organized jewry was smashed, jewish cultural traditions dying/outlawed, coupled with jewish assimilation (Nuremberg laws), would that not count as "annihilation"?
It is the same concept that goes into the saying "white genocide".
No one is saying whites are literally being machinegunned in the streets, but that European culture is dying and being replaced, and that Whites are assimilating into the racially foreign masses in our countries.

Also coupled with the fact that the non assimilationist jews emigrating away from Europe.

Fair enough, I accept that's a decent explanation. But Himmler said the extermination of Jews. That's pretty clear language.

Guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
Gotta get some sleep now.

When people discover the Jewish means of existence and why they are being thrown into prison camps and so forth, the resulting fury of the masses would destroy the Jews. It's extremely common in history, and for the National Socialists there was only one option aside from mass executions to placate the horrified and enraged German volk: expulsion. Which is exactly what they did.
Extermination, the word, literally means to drive out from a border. Exterminators don't kill most of their pests, but drive them out of a house or area. The conflation of extermination with annihilation is made worse because of the holocaust mythology, and keep in mind that in translating from German there will be instances of word substitution that make the speaker sound more like whatever the translator wants them to sound like. Go look up the original German of it and dissect the word itself to see if it has the connotation of annihilation or more of expulsion. Another case of that is Herrenvolk is the word that has been popularly translated as "Master Race", but in German Herr is more like gentleman or sir, and instances of the Herrenvolk meant more like a gentlemanly people, not slavers. The word for slave is Sklaven, which is never used in instances of Master Race translations.

Attached: Exterminate.JPG (745x215, 44.8K)

Not really.

As far as I know, out of those four, his is the only one that was given in private and actually fits with the Holocaust conspiracy theory, but the flamboyant language he used wasn't as damning as they present it. If you asked the average Holocaust promoter, they'd tell you that David Irving was the first person to ever dispute the meaning of "ausrottung" in history, but Alfred Rosenberg did so at Nuremberg.

A. I do not need a foreign dictionary in order to explain what various meanings in the German language the word "Ausrottung" may have. One can exterminate an idea, an economic system, a social order and, as a final consequence, also a group of human beings, certainly. Those are the many possibilities which are contained in that word. For that I do not need an English-German dictionary. Translations from German into English are so often wrong. For example, in that last document you have submitted to me, I heard again the translation of "Herrenrasse." In the document itself "Herrenrasse" is not even mentioned, however, there is the term "ein falsches; Herrenmenschentum" (a false master mankind). Apparently everything is translated here in another sense.
A. Then, may I perhaps say something about the use of the words here? We are speaking here of extermination of Jewry; there is also still a difference between Jewry and individual Jews.
archive.is/xBm62

Attached: Alfred_Rosenberg.jpg (1309x537, 296.79K)

Why didn't you provide primary sources for all those quotes? Surely you knew that they would be requested.

Most of these speak of the extermination of the Jewish race in terms of White people becoming anti semitic and taking matters into their own hands once they see what the Jewish people have brought on to them, in the form of the war theyy forced on the German people. For example,
He talks of anti semitism spreading, why would the spread of anti semitism have any impact on the supposed genocide of Jews within the German state?

And again,
He speaks as if this is a force outside of his control, as in non Jewish people wiping out Jewish people when anti semitism has spread.

Finally, nothing in the last quote implies he is talking about a supposed order to exterminate Jews. If there is more to the quote that is missing, I would be happy to see it.

Honestly I'm surprised that these are the worst qoutes you can find, not very convincing I'm my opinion.

Fair enough, thank you for serious posts. I am starting to understand. Would welcome other posts as well.

My mistake, it seems the red text was part of the quote.
If he meant the genocide of the Jewish people, why would he say the evacuation of the Jews, and not just the extermination?

For what it's worth the injuns killed each other off once we sold them firearms. By the time the US was expanding west, they were like 80% gone, by their own hand

No problem, I think you are right that we should not shy away from questions just because they may not be in our favor. In this case one could say that's we are choosing the interpretation of the language that fits our narrative, however with knowing facts such as no mass graves were ever found, the gas chambers we're not adequate in any way, all prison camps found by the allied were first through to be execution camps, etc, I feel assured in taking the meaning of "extermination" and "destruction" to mean expulsion and scattering and destruction of the Jewish beliefs and way of life, not the literal death of all Jewish people, at least not by Nazi Germany.

In fact I'll give a bump because those are worth addressing and the explanations in this thread are quite good.

[Citation Needed]

In fact, I'm gonna need citations for all these, preferably in audio format (because you know how hard it is to make up some shit written on Germany stationary/type-writers post-war).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial#Hitler's_involvement

I know it's wikipedia, but the only other sources I could find were Jewish "holocaust memorial services" and these quotes are linked to historians' books

Eeeeew, yeeeeah, I'm gonna need you to do the research here m8, you're the one seeking the info afterall.
When I ask for a citation of a piece of a speech, and you give me a straight-up wikiJew article, yeah, I'm not inclined to take it or you very seriously.

Come on now, get in there, give me some straight text and the origin thereof, or even better, the actual audio.
I'll wait.

Tell you what, I'll help a little bit. Give me a sec.

Polite golf clap, building to steady applause.
Legitimate question. Tbh I look forward to seeing who calls you out first. That person is more (((suspect))) than you are.

I look at it like this: we're 70 years into a protracted D&C campaign against the white middle class. So corporate CEOs can get their bonuses, seeing as they have a Jewish front man to deflect any criticism.

All discussions like this get us closer to the truth, pending derailment or deletion.

I think a lot of it comes from actual audio recordings although when and where seems to be a mystery. The problem is people obsess about wording as if the wording implies a genocide and not the other evidence. Whether or not they ever had plans whether it was Plan A or Plan Z to kill the jews the proof clearly states no such deliberate plan was put in action whatsoever with the exception of some cases near the end of the war and even then that might only be 10's of thousands nowhere close to millions.

It's funny because what hangs people up the most seems to be "liquidate" as if that single time used implies a deliberate plan to gas the kikes to death. It does not. Liquidate through such a narrow idiotic lens of course could mean something like that. But when you say liquidate your assets you're not implying burning them to the ground, destroying them, or what have you. You're simply implying getting rid of.

I'm looking at the 30, Jan 1942 quote from Hitler. Interestingly, the Wikipedia quote leads to a sketchy site where the quote isn't even the same. Here's the quote from the source site:
Notice the ending, a slight difference but an interesting change nonetheless.
In addition, the site provides a video of the speech, but it's only two and a half minutes long, and is talking about how cold it is for the soldiers and general war stuff. Nothing of the supposed quote.

When it comes to Wikipedia for any honest quotes on the subject that isn't towing the mainstream line they deliberately have these slight 'misinterpretations', and they do this on purpose. It's an age old trick we've seen for decades on the history channel and via school documentaries where you can view on YouTube these comparisons.

If all you have is a few occasions where they spoke harshly of the jews that's not really confirming anything. ALTHOUGH, to be fair you have to see perhaps at the end of the war if they won it they would've come to the conclusion that they need to be exterminated and not deported due to them starting the war and causing the loss of tens of millions of lives. The Second World War and all its deaths can be attributed to the jewish race without question. If it wasn't for their involvement it simply would not have happened. Don't feed me this poor jew at the bottom bullshit either because for 3,000 years the poor jew at the bottom hasn't been policing his elite jews orchestrating their annihilation time and time again. All that tells me about the good bottom of the barrel jew is that he's a coward and not deserving of life or respect to simply kvetch for all eternity while never risking life and limb for the greater good.

Hmmm, well, that's strange.

The first 'source' for this is "holocaust-history.org", which, we'll look at that in a moment.
>web.archive.org/web/20080314131150/http://holocaust-history.org/der-ewige-jude/hitler-19390130.shtml
But its weird, it doesn't say QUITE what the wikikpedia says…

WIKI:Today I want to be a prophet once more: if international Jewry succeeds in plunging the nations into another world war, the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the destruction of the Jewish race in Europe!

HH: If the international finance-Jewry inside and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations into a world war yet again, then the outcome will not be the victory of Jewry, but rather the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!

Well, not that far off I guess. Here it is in German, in case you were interested.
HH - GERMAN: Wenn es dem internationalen Finanzjudentum in und außerhalb Europas gelingen sollte, die Völker noch einmal in einen Weltkrieg zu stürzen, dann wird das Ergebnis nicht der Sieg des Judentums sein, sondern die Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa!

The first point I'd raise here is… I don't see Hitler saying ANYTHING approximate to "If X, then WE WILL DO Y". Think about what he's saying here: "I'm telling you guys, if the Jews create another world war, its gonna result in their extinction."
I don't think that quite amounts to anything GENUINELY supporting of the idea of a plan being implemented years later to exterminate the Jews, do you? I mean, I'd probably say that too about the Jews (makes sense, no?), doesn't mean I'd be planning - or morally/ethically willing to take part in - an extermination program gassing women and children, Jew or otherwise.
Also, keep context in mind here dude: The Jews started boycotting Germany in 1933. You're talking about a speech from 1939, January.
September 1st 1939 was when Germany invaded Poland, September 3rd 1939 the UK and France declared war on Germany (nominally to protect Polish sovereignty, THE SINGLE GREATEST POINT OF THIS CONFLICT; see: Post-Yalta Poland). So, at this point, a EUROPEAN war has already started, is several months deep, and the Jews are trying to get everyone they can into the war…

All that said, those sources are… Dubious, lets put it that way. But I found the audio, and in fact, the full transcipt (albeit, no citation available in terms of where its drawn from, but perhaps its considered 'commons' by this point).
Lets take a look, starting after Uncle A has already been at it awhile…

...

I would be more interested to see the original German, if such a speech even exists. As I said, I do find it very concerning that the supposed video source doesn't even contain the quoted section. A slight change in words can make it into a completely different meaning. Anyway, most of the time quotes like this are a wild goose chase, but I feel satisfied that even the worst quotes they can come up with can be easily explained especially when taking into account historical evidence as I pointed out here.

Repeating the last line for reiteration:
>>Either the Jews will have to adjust to constructive, respectable activities, such as other people are already engaged in, or, sooner or later, they will succumb to a crisis of yet inconceivable proportions.


>Once again I will be a prophet: should the international Jewry of finance (Finanzjudentum) succeed, both within and beyond Europe, in plunging mankind into yet another world war, then the result will not be a Bolshevization of the earth and the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation (Vernichtung) of the Jewish race in Europe. Thus, the days of propagandist impotence of the non-Jewish peoples are over.

From what I can see, in that first quote, with context intact, Hitler is saying thusly:
"We do not want a war. The Jews do want a war. We want peace, and do not want to see a war merely for the sake of the Jews seeking revenge on us for deposing them of power in our lands. Others will surely see this, and they will be off put by the notion of going to war for the sake of these foreign people who parasitize off of them. Thus, I will predict: if the Jews start a world war, it will not be the victory of the Jewish-made Bolshevism, but the destruction of the Jews themselves!"

Let's see what's next…

The video I embedded actually is an old video that has part of the speech as its spoken. If someone speaks german they can translate how accurate it is to the text both on the video and presented here for comparisons. The audio paints a very different picture along with tone inflection change how its presented. Basically like reading a wall of text online and how it can be misinterpreted compared to a 5 second audio explanation. Speeches compared to the radio broadcast were the same way back then.

Oh, right, first: that holocaust-history.org site.
Lets have a look.

>phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/team/index.html

Bunch of Jews and shabbos, mostly the former. When I want an unbiased discussion of something, the last place 'm going to go is a bunch of Jewish academics and European shabbos journalists, and I don't think thats an unfair position.

You understand the complete lack of actual evidence for the holocaust though correct?
Like the speeches are the only uncertainty for you?
I want you to think of it this way - if none of the evidence is solid, substantial, or truthful then why are the wordings of speeches meant to imply of course the routing of organized international Jewry from Germany causing you this doubt that the holocaust is in fact falsehood?

The recording is unconfirmed to this day and is the only thing Simon Wiesenthal Center dudes still feel confident posting on cuckchan Zig Forums since there's no real way to confirm nor refute it unless someone could find recordings of Himmler's voice which may or may not exist otherwise.
I can guarantee you a speech would not consist of that line you excerpted though.

Now this one is interesting, in that it seems to reference the previous one in a sense.
Nothing there about "We're going to do this" or "We should do this", only "This is happening". Fits appropriately with the previous passage.
Well, yes, it would be very important… Hmm, I wonder if thats the right word.
Let's see…

But it can no longer be halted. It must only be guided in the right direction.

Ignore that last bit.

Oh, okay, well, the reference here is a "permanent dead link".
>research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/gpa/goeb37.htm
Weird how that hasn't been removed, given there's no longer an applicable cited source…
I found it though.
>research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/goeb37.htm
I'm going to repost this whole thing, because its good, and its got amazing context - especially for Current Year +3.99
I'll need to find the German transcript in a moment, but we'll get to that in a sec.


(He was right, you know.)

...

(If he's talking about the extermination of the Jewish people, how can victory be said to have occurred in 1943?)

...

Seems pretty obvious here that he's not talking about some plan for Germany to exterminate the Jewish people in camps with ridiculous gas chambers, but rather, that he is propagandistically speaking in the context of an enemy one is engaged with and expressing that they must be rent from power, hence the line about "victory" in Germany in 1943. How else could such a line be interpreted, really, given the timeframe in question? Surely nobody is going to pretend that in Germany the Jews were being genocided - its widely acknowledged that the only still-claimed "death camps" were all in the East, in Poland, so that simply wouldn't make any sense at all.

Not having any luck in finding German version of “Der Krieg und die Juden" from whence that bit comes, unfortunately, so I cant get more into the potentiality of translational errors/purposeful politically-motivated mistranslation.
Doesn't really matter though, the point stands: If Goebbels is talking about "victory" in Germany in 1943 in the context of the Jews, he's clearly NOT talking about having exterminated them, rather, them having been removed from power.

Anyway, I did 2/4, you can - and should - examine the other two in similar detail and share your findings.

Oh, wait, nevermind, I see the word "Posen" there, and I have to say something about it.

Well, isn't that interesting.

The first source for this Posen speech bit gives me a security alert. Proxy activate…
>nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/himmler-heinrich/posen/oct-04-43/
Hmmm, I don't see any real citation of evidence here, they're basically just taking it as fact.
Oh, wait, my bad, they do reference it. I kept seeing references to "IMT" and I was like, whats that?
>translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationaler_Milit%C3%A4rgerichtshof&prev=search

>Of Himmler's three-hour speech of 4 October 1943, 115 pages of the final typewritten edition (one page was lost) were discovered among SS files and submitted to the Nuremberg Trials as document 1919-PS.
Well, gee willickers, I guess it must be the real deal then! Its not like, ya know, the Allies could have just typed up some shit, or made a half-assed shit-tier recording, right? Certainly not! That's much much less likely than the Germans cataloging their secret speeches about things which the public must not know and leaving them in places the Allies could access.
Right?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (3800x3144 587.09 KB, 3.15M)

Attached: 1543008968503.webm (1104x810, 1.83M)

Attached: 1543008968504.webm (994x810, 1.75M)

Attached: 1543008968506.webm (1030x810, 1.82M)

Attached: 1543008968508.webm (1010x810, 1.65M)