[Video] HistorySpeaks: Me methodically discrediting Holocaust denial (Debate)

[borjastick]

It is not about facts, truth and the holocaust it is about HistorySpeaks/Cockerill. Pure and simple he's an ego maniac driven to seek fame and maybe fortune of sorts on youtube by creating a brand or an image that the gullible will buy into and follow.

He's well worth ignoring or as Monty Python once said -

'This is not a wine for drinking. This is a wine for laying down and avoiding'.

[telleno]

There is no audio recording of the speech.

What about this? https://archive.org/details/19431004Hei ... Teil12h00m

Or is it fake?

[Lamprecht]

There is no audio recording of the speech.

What about this? https://archive.org/details/19431004Hei ... Teil12h00m

Or is it fake?

If you read the title of the link you just posted, it says it is the October 4th speech, not the October 6th speech. Someone else asked about that earlier in the thread. I also recommend you read this section of Otium's post:

25:00
Himmler's Posen speech, 6 October 1943. The Posen speeches have been discussed in multiple threads already, which can be found using the search function.
There is no audio recording of the speech. The document was supposedly discovered in the German archives in 1970, placed there by the Americans. The source was written to be Himmler's files, which were in Berlin. It's not clear how the US found these documents in Berlin when the Soviets (notorious document forgers) occupied this area.

Irving discussed the document:

Himmler saying: "The hard decision had to be taken to make this race disappear from earth." [...] the remarkable fact that precisely at this point the typescript changes, a page appears to have been inserted by a different typist, the numeration of the pages changes from a typewritten page number at the top to a pencilled page number at the top, and there are various other indications about that speech that make me queasy. [...] Irving pointed out that what was contained in these pages "changes very much the essence of the speech, depending on whether it is an authentic transcript of the speech or whether that has been tampered with for some reason...I don't think we need to know the motives of people tampering with speeches. It is sufficient for historians to look at a document and say 'This document has been tampered with'; for him then to say, 'In that case, I must set it aside.' [...] at that point in the script, the page relating that very damaging and incriminating sentence has quite clearly been retyped by a different typist on a different typewriter using different carbon paper, and that page has been numbered by pencil and inserted at that point [...] he doesn't make this statement anywhere else when he's delivering almost identical speeches to...similar audiences [...] this isn't just any page...I suppose it is probably the most important page of the most important speech in the whole of the Holocaust history, and this page, of all pages, when we look at it, turned out to have been tampered with.

- 'Did Six Million Really Die?' Report of the Evidence in the Canadian 'False News' Trial of Ernst Zündel, 1988. https://archive.ph/8SfVI

A few things need to be cleared up.

First of all, when Irving is talking about this typescript of the Posen speech from October 6, what source is he citing for where exactly the typescript changes? I have seen both the original in the Bundesarchiv, and the microfilm copy in the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) Microfilm collection, and both are the same document, there is absoloute continuity in the typescript for the pages on which this passage occurs. I will post the page from the two sources, and you can see that there is no "pencilled page number at the top" as opposed to the typewritten:

German:

Ich darf hier in diesem Zusammenhang und in diesem allerengsten Kreise auf eine Frage hinweisen, die Sie, meine Parteigenossen, alle als selbstverständlich hingenommen haben, die aber für mich die schwerste Frage meines Lebens geworden ist, die Judenfrage. Sie alle nehmen es als selbstverständlich und erfreulich hin, daß in Ihrem Gau keine Juden mehr sind. Alle deutschen Menschen - abgesehen von einzelnen Ausnahmen - sind sich auch darüber klar, daß wir den Bombenkrieg, die Belastungen des vierten und des vielleicht kommenden fünften und sechsten Kriegsjahres nicht ausgehalten hätten und nicht aushalten würden, wenn wir diese zersetzende Pest noch in unserem Volkskörper hätten. Der Satz 'Die Juden müssen ausgerottet werden' mit seinen wenigen Worten, meine Herren, ist leicht ausgesprochen. Für den, der durchführen muß, was er fordert, ist es das Allerhärteste und Schwerste, was es gibt. Sehen Sie, natürlich sind es Juden, es ist ganz klar, es sind nur Juden, bedenken Sie aber selbst, wie viele - auch Parteigenossen - ihr berühmtes Gesuch an mich oder irgendeine Stelle gerichtet haben, in dem es hieß, daß alle Juden selbstverständlich Schweine seien, daß bloß der Soundso ein anständiger Jude sei, dem man nichts tun dürfe. Ich wage zu behaupten, daß es nach der Anzahl der Gesuche und der Anzahl der Meinungen in Deutschland mehr anständige Juden gegeben hat als Oberhaupt nominell vorhanden waren. In Deutschland haben wir nämlich so viele Millionen Menschen, die ihren einen berühmten anständigen Juden haben, daß diese Zahl bereits größer ist als die Zahl der Juden. Ich will das bloß deshalb anführen, weil Sie aus dem Lebensbereich Ihres eigenen Gaues bei achtbaren und anständigen nationalsozialistischen Menschen feststellen können, daß auch von ihnen jeder einen anständigen Juden kennt.

Ich bitte Sie, das, was ich Ihnen in diesem Kreise sage, wirklich nur zu hören und nie darüber zu sprechen. Es trat an uns die Frage heran: Wie ist es mit den Frauen und Kindern? - ich habe mich entschlossen, auch hier eine ganz klare Lösung zu finden. Ich hielt mich nämlich nicht für berechtigt, die Männer auszurotten - sprich also, umzubringen oder umbringen zu lassen - und die Rächer in Gestalt der Kinder für unsere Söhne und Enkel groß werden zu lassen. Es mußte der schwere Entschluß gefaßt werden, dieses Volk von der Erde verschwinden zu lassen. Für die Organisation, die den Auftrag durchfuhren mußte, war es der schwerste, den wir bisher hatten. Er ist durchgeführt worden, ohne daß - wie ich glaube sagen zu können - unsere Männer und unsere Führer einen Schaden an Geist und Seele erlitten hätten. Diese Gefahr lag sehr nahe. Der Weg zwischen den beiden hier bestehenden Möglichkeiten, entweder zu roh zu werden, herzlos zu werden und menschliches Leben nicht mehr zu achten oder weich zu werden und durchzudrehen bis zu Nervenzusammenbrüchen - der Weg zwischen dieser Scylla und Charybdis ist entsetzlich schmal.

Wir haben das ganze Vermögen, das wir bei den Juden beschlagnahmten - es ging in unendliche Werte -, bis zum letzten Pfennig an den Reichswirtschaftsminister abgeführt. Ich habe mich immer auf den Standpunkt gestellt: Wir haben die Verpflichtung unserem Volke, unserer Rasse gegenüber, wenn wir den Krieg gewinnen wollen - wir haben die Verpflichtung unserem Führer gegenüber, der nun in 2000 Jahren unserem Volke einmal geschenkt worden ist, hier nicht klein zu sein und hier konsequent zu sein. Wir haben aber nicht das Recht, auch nur einen Pfennig von dem beschlagnahmten Judenvermögen zu nehmen. Ich habe von vornherein festgesetzt, daß SS-Männer, auch wenn sie nur eine Mark davon nehmen, des Todes sind. ich habe in den letzten Tagen deswegen einige, ich kann es ruhig sagen, es sind etwa ein Dutzend - Todesurteile unterschrieben. Hier muß man hart sein, wenn nicht das Ganze darunter leiden soll. - Ich habe mich für verpflichtet gehalten, zu Ihnen als den obersten Willensträgern, als den obersten Würdenträgern der Partei, dieses politischen Ordens, dieses politischen Instruments des Führers, auch über diese Frage einmal ganz offen zu sprechen und zu sagen, wie es gewesen ist. - Die Judenfrage in den von uns besetzten Ländern wird bis Ende dieses Jahres erledigt sein. Es werden nur Restbestände von einzelnen Juden übrig bleiben, die untergeschlüpft sind. Die Frage der mit nichtjüdischen Teilen verheirateten Juden und die Frage der Halbjuden werden sinngemäß und vernünftig untersucht, entschieden und dann gelöst.

English:

In this connection, I may comment before this very tightly knit group on a matter which you, my Party Comrades, all take for granted, and which is the most difficult task I have ever faced in my life, the Jewish problem. 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.

We have turned over to the Reich Ministry of Economics all the wealth we confiscated from the Jews — the sums were staggering — right down to very last penny. I have always maintained: We have a duty to our people, to our race, we have a duty to a leader such as has been given to our people only once in 2,000 years, not to be petty here, but to go the limit, as we must do in all things if we are to win the war. Yet we do not have the right to take even one penny of the wealth confiscated from the Jews. At the outset, I laid down the line: Any SS men who take so much as a mark of it are as good as dead. In the past few days, I've had to sign a number of death sentences — I might as well say it, there were about a dozen. One has to be strict here, or everyone will suffer. I considered it my duty to speak very openly to you — the highest bearers of the will, the highest dignitaries, of the Party, of this political order, of this political instrument of the Führer — about this matter and to give the facts as they are. 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. The problem of Jews who are partners in mixed marriages and the problem of half-Jews will, in accordance with this policy, be rationally examined, decided upon, and resolved.

BA-BL, NS 19/4010, pp. 16-19. (Sheets, 174-177). Cf. NARA, RG 242, Microfilm Publication T175, Roll 85, Frames 2610167-70.

As can be seen, the pages don't change.

Secondly, in light of this, it's quite wrong to state as Jurgen Graf did at one point that "There are no original texts of the speeches." Clearly there are. It's also wrong to state that there's no audio recording for the speech of October 6. There actually is, but it's incomplete. According to the NARA website:

13. Himmler, Heinrich. "Speech to the Gauleiter" ("Rede auf der Gauleitertagung"). Posen, Oct. 6, 1943. Approx. 32 min. Item 242-189, 242-224. Incomplete. Only a very small section of the middle of the speech is reproduced. . .

Captured German Sound Recordings.

Whether it contains this "incriminating" section, I don't know. But there is a recording. And I think the authenticity of these recordings is probably in less doubt considering, as the archive states, there are multiple recordings from multiple speakers at these meetings. I think what's really up for debate is the interpretation of the speeches themselves, and in particular these controversial passages.

Often the quotation from page 17 of the October 6 speech is used to 'prove' that the quotation from the October 4 speech 'must' refer to mass murder. You can read the wikipedia page on the Posen speeches to read them claim this. For context, this is the following quotation they're referencing:

German:

Ich will hier vor Ihnen in aller Offenheit auch ein ganz schweres Kapitel erwähnen. Unter uns soll es einmal ganz offen ausgesprochen sein, und trotzdem werden wir in der Öffentlichkeit nie darüber reden. Genau so wenig, wie wir am 30. Juni 1934 gezögert haben, die befohlene Pflicht zu tun und Kameraden, die sich verfehlt hatten, an die Wand zu stellen und zu erschießen, genau so wenig haben wir darüber jemals gesprochen und werden je darüber sprechen. Es war eine, Gottseidank in uns wohnende Selbstverständlichkeit des Taktes, daß wir uns untereinander nie darüber unterhalten haben, nie darüber sprachen. Es hat jeden geschaudert und doch war sich jeder klar darüber, daß er es das nächste Mal wieder tun würde, wenn es befohlen wird und wenn es notwendig ist.

Ich meine jetzt die Judenevakuierung, die Ausrottung des jüdischen Volkes. Es gehört zu den Dingen, die man leicht ausspricht. - 'Das jüdische Volk wird ausgerottet', sagt ein jeder Parteigenosse, 'ganz klar, steht in unserem Programm, Ausschaltung der Juden, Ausrottung, machen wir.' Und dann kommen sie alle an, die braven 80 Millionen Deutschen, und jeder hat seinen anständigen Juden. Es ist ja klar, die anderen sind Schweine, aber dieser eine ist ein prima Jude. Von allen, die so reden, hat keiner zugesehen, keiner hat es durchgestanden. Von Euch werden die meisten wissen, was es heißt, wenn 100 Leichen beisammen liegen, wenn 500 daliegen oder wenn 1000 daliegen. Dies durchgehalten zu haben, und dabei - abgesehen von Ausnahmen menschlicher Schwächen - anständig geblieben zu sein, das hat uns hart gemacht. Dies ist ein niemals geschriebenes und niemals zu schreibendes Ruhmesblatt unserer Geschichte, denn wir wissen, wie schwer wir uns täten, wenn wir heute noch in jeder Stadt - bei den Bombenangriffen, bei den Lasten und bei den Entbehrungen des Krieges - noch die Juden als Geheimsaboteure, Agitatoren und Hetzer hätten. Wir würden wahrscheinlich jetzt in das Stadium des Jahres 1916/17 gekommen sein, wenn die Juden noch im deutschen Volkskörper säßen.

English:

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.

I am thinking now of the evacuation of the Jews, the extirpation of the Jewish people. It is one of those things that's easy to say: "The Jewish people will be extirpated" , says every Party comrade, "that's quite clear, it's in our programme: elimination of the Jews, extirpation ; 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. 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.

English from C.W. Porter's translation: Heinrich Himmler's Posen Speech from 04.10.1943.

Page_of_Himmler_Posen_Speech,_Oct_4,_1943.jpg

This page from the October 4th speech is reproduced in Robert Wolfe's book. I'm still unsure as to the source. The original is not in the Bundesarchiv, which I think is strange indeed. Himmler's handwritten notes for this speech are missing too, there are only negative photocopies. The original notes for the October 6th speech however, is in the archive.

The reason I bring this up, is because clearly the exterminationist interpretation doesn't make any sense here. The mentioning of the party program completely throws it all off. The exterminationists claim that Himmler's use of the word 'Judenevakuierung' here is merely to contrast between the codeword and the true meaning being 'Ausrottung'. This is Himmler's 'mask-ff' moment in their view:

The second reason is that it makes no sense in the flow of Himmler's speech. When he first refers to the "Ausrottung" of the Jews, Himmler has just spent a full minute impressing on his audience the importance of utter secrecy. (He has even invoked the memory of the "Night of the Long Knives," when traitors to the Nazi cause were arrested and shot on Hitler's orders, so his audience of SS Major-Generals is reminded that, in the Nazi war machine, top officers have no problem executing lower-ranking officers.)

Everyone in the world had known for years that Germany wanted to deport its Jews. If the only thing he was talking about was deportation, why was he emphasizing secrecy to his officers?

Listen to Himmler's voice as he explains the meaning of the code word "Judenevakuierung": his voice goes up on the code word, which everyone has heard of and most know is code; he pauses briefly for dramatic effect; and then as he reveals that it really means "extermination," the tone of his voice falls. Here is the euphemism, he is saying, and here is its meaning.

If he were simply saying the same thing twice in different words, why would the first version be phrased straightforwardly, and the second with such gravity?

Holocaust-History, "Holocaust-Denial, the Poznan speech, and our translation" | Archive

Most of what they say is pure supposition. You have to first accept that 'Judenevakuierung' is a code word, and that Himmler isn't simply using 'Ausrottung' to basically mean something synonomous to that idea. Which was how I understood it personally. There is no proof for what they're claiming.

The fact that Himmler's original handwritten note only says 'Judenevakuierung' can be seen to mean that this was the topic, the overarching mission which he's discussing. If the whole point of what he said was to openly discuss the killing of Jews, then his note - so it seems to me- would say something explicit. The reason I say this is because his notes are a guidline for the topic which he plans to discuss, and clearly the topic here is supposed to be murder not evacuation if we accept the logic of the exterminationists; yet Himmler made the decision to title the topic in regards to evacuation and not murder. It makes little sense.

As for why he emphasised secrecy, well why indeed? Because to speak about the 'Final Solution' in public would probably still be quite disturbing to many people. The claim is still that the Final Solution was a secret right? And because all the other documents which mention it are all talking about deportations, why can we not assume that Himmler here is also talking about keeping the discussions about evacuations and deportations a secret? There's no reason why "it ought to be spoken of quite openly for once" but only in relation to killing people. There's no reason to think that. The reason Himmler invokes the Rohem putsch is not because of the killing, but because the way they behaved in that instance is similar to how Himmler thought the SS and whoever else, should also behave in regarding to the deportation of the Jews. There doesn't need to be some rythmic connection. The point is 'don't talk about this either'. I think it's that simple. They say it makes no sense, but so what? Since when did Nazi maniacs think or behave logically right? Even if you argued that the 'Final Solution' was widely known, that doesn't mean Himmler couldn't be stressing secrecy about it. Perhaps there was a need to be reminded?

So yes, I think he was "saying the same thing twice in different words". The reference to the party program in the same sentence is the most obvious indication of that. As to why he used a word "with such gravity" is because the situation was one of such gravity. Since when was there a rule that one can't speak tautologically?

So, we have one speech on October 4 in which Himmler isn't speaking genocidally, another speech two days later in which he supposedly does speak genocidally because he says: "The hard decision to wipe this people off the face of the earth had to be made". But, perhaps we might be able to explain this quotation by introducing a discrepency for the exterminationist side, and an answer to the revisionist side?

Merely a month later on the 16th December 1943, Himmler gave another speech. In it, he spoke again of the Jews, not of killing them, but their deportation to the East in conjunction with the great developments of Nationalsocialist Germany:

German:

Das SS-Hauptamt hat dann noch ein weiteres großes Aufgabengebiet: Die germanische Arbeit. Wir befinden uns in einer rasenden geschichtlichen Entwicklung. In einem anderen Zeitraum wäre die Gewinnung auch nur eines Gaues oder einer Provinz das epochale Ereignis dieser Generation gewesen. Wir haben, bescheiden oder vielmehr unbescheiden, wie wir nun geworden sind, uns an territoriale Gewinne gewöhnt. Wir haben dem Reiche die Ostmark mit 6 1/2 Millionen Menschen zurückgegeben, das Sudetenland mit 3 1/2 Millionen Menschen. Wir haben Böhmen-Mähren mit 7 Millionen Bewohnern eingegliedert. Wir haben die Ostprovinzen zurückgewonnen. Und die Geschichte nimmt in einem unerhörten Tempo ihren Lauf. Wir werten dies alles nicht mehr richtig. Dabei haben wir so manches Mal für das Nahestehende den Blick verloren, weil wir zu wenig von ihm entfernt sind. Wir stehen meines Er- achtens auch — auch das darf ich aussprechen — als oft unbescheidene und manchmal undankbare Zeitgenossen zu unmittelbar an dem Geschehen, an dem Genie Adolf Hitlers. [...] Wir stehen auch zu nahe an der Entwicklung, die sich in Europa vollzieht. Zum ersten Male, soweit wir es geschichtlich fest stellen können, seit etwa 2 1/2 tausend Jahren, sind wir auf dem Wege, die Germanen zu einigen. Ist nicht aus einem 65-Millionen-Volke im Jahre 1933 ein 85- bis 88-Millionen-Volk im Jahre 1941 geworden? Haben sich während des Krieges nicht einige große Völkerwanderungen vollzogen? 700,000 Deutsche sind eingewandert, zwei Millionen Fremde sind ausgewandert. So und soviele Juden wurden nach dem Osten gebracht. Völker bewegungen, die wir in der Geschichte mit großen Namen be- zeichnen, haben sich innerhalb dieser rasenden Entwicklung vollzogen. Wir werden nun aus einem 85-Millionen-Volke Großdeutschlands zum 120-Millionen-Volk der Germanen wer- den, zum Ordnungskern und zur Ordnungsmacht Europas, die mit den 85 Millionen Deutschen als Kernvolk im Rahmen dieses germanischen Reiches mit der Blutbasis von 120 Millionen Germanen dieses Europa mit seinen anderen Nationen beherrscht. Die Form, in der sich diese Entwicklung vollziehen wird, kennen wir nicht. In ein, zwei, drei Jahren werden wir sie genau wissen.

English:

The SS-Hauptamt then has another large area of responsibility: Germanic work. We are in a rapid historical development. In another period, the winning of even one Gau or province would have been the epochal event of this generation. We have become accustomed, modestly or rather immodestly, as we have now become, to territorial gains. We have returned to the Reich the Ostmark with 6 1/2 million people, the Sudetenland with 3 1/2 million people. We have incorporated Bohemia-Moravia with 7 million inhabitants. We have regained the Eastern provinces. And history is taking its course at an unheard-of pace. We no longer value all this properly. In the process, we have sometimes lost sight of what is close to us, because we are too little removed from it. In my opinion - and I may also say this - as often immodest and sometimes ungrateful contemporaries, we are too close to the events, to the genius of Adolf Hitler. [...] We are also too close to the development that is taking place in Europe. For the first time, as far as we can determine historically, for about 2 1/2 thousand years, we are on the way to unify the Germanic peoples. Did not a people of 65 million in 1933 become a people of 85 to 88 million in 1941? Did not some great migrations take place during the war? 700,000 Germans immigrated, two million foreigners emigrated. Such and such number of Jews were brought to the East. Movements of peoples, which we call by great names in history, have taken place within this rapid development. We will now become from an 85 million people of Greater Germany to a 120 million people of the Germanic tribes, to the core of order and the power of order of Europe, which with the 85 million Germans as the core people within the framework of this Germanic empire with the blood base of 120 million Germanic tribes dominates this Europe with its other nations. We do not know the form in which this development will take place. In one, two, three years we will know it exactly.

BA-BL, NS 19/4011, Sheets 222-223.

I quoted here the finalised version of the typewritten speech.

There are also Himmler's handwritten notes, another typewritten copy which is the original (i.e. the first typewritten version of the speech), and a copy with handwritten corrections that culminated in the final version.

The original is stamped 'Landtagstenograph Froherz' (State Stenographer Froherz) on every page. Also stamped on the first page is the following: 'Karl Froherz Landtagsstenograph' and his address in Weimar. So at least we know where this speech comes from. The reason I mention this, is because this version contains a different transcription which is worth quoting here for comparison. I will attach an image of the version with the handwritten corrections. It reads:

German:

Wir sind auch zu nahe daran an der Entwicklung, wie sie sich in Europa vollzieht. Zum ersten Male, soweit wir es geschichtlich festellen können seit etwa 2 1/2 tausen Jahren sind wir daran, daß die Germanen sich einigen, daß aus einem 65 Millonen Volke im Jahre 1933 ein 85 - 88 Millionen-Volk im Jahre 1941 geworden ist, das während des Kriegs einige große Völkerwanderungen sich vollzogen haben, eine Völkerwanderung immerhin von 700,00 Deutschen, die eingewander worden sind, von 2 Milionen Fremden, die ausgewandert sind, von so und sovielen Juden, die nach dem Osten ausgewandert wurden; Völkerbewegungen, wie wir sie in der Geschichte mit unendlichen Namen bezichnen, haben sich im Rahmen dieser rasenden Entwicklung vollzogen.

English:

We are also too close to the development that is taking place in Europe. For the first time, as far as we can determine it historically since approximately 2 1/2 thousand years ago, we are at the point where the Germanic peoples have united, from a 65 million people in 1933 which has become 85 - 88 million people in 1941, which during the war some big migrations have taken place, a migration of 700,00 Germans who have immigrated, of 2 million foreigners who have emigrated, of such and such many Jews who have emigrated to the East; Movements of peoples, as we call them in history with infinite names, have taken place within the framework of this rapid development.

BA-BL, NS 19/4011, Sheet 134. Cf. Sheets 183, 223.

The only killing of Jews Himmler mentions in this address is of partisans. So I would think that when he spoke of having to kill the women and children in the prior speech, he was probably also just referring to partisans, and not to Jews as a whole (Hadding Scott also makes this point, referring to the phrase "dieses Volk" in the October 6 address; see his replies in the comment section). Although it may not seem like it, I think that makes the most sense seeing as neither the first speech can be interpreted homicidally, nor can this speech a month later which flatly contradicts any exterminationist interpretation. Hence why it hasn't been quoted, nor translated more widely.

[Archie]

Is this guy telling the truth?

I continue my summary of the debate:

Second presentation
There are two guys, so here I will respond to the second, pro-revisionist speech by Marshall Lore from New Zealand and the response segment. Mr Lore gets off to a poor start by not acknowledging the arguments of the proponent. However, he soon warms up to expound a string of revisionist talking points, which he acknowledges are drawn mostly from Holocaust Handbooks.

I have not watched it, but generally the opening statement should provide a coherent overview of your case. You should summarize the main points and arguments you want to make. It should not be a response to your opponent's opening statement as in that case your comments will be unstructured and defensive and you won't have properly explained your position on your own terms. Rebuttals should be saved for the later response periods.

[Otium]

There is no audio recording of the speech.

What about this? https://archive.org/details/19431004Hei ... Teil12h00m

Or is it fake?

It's probably real.

The problem for the mainstream is they have largely made the October 4 speech contingent on the wording of the October 6 speech to confirm an exterminationist intepretation. Inadvertently admitting that the Oct. 4 speech is really not all that convincing, that the interpretations against it make more sense.

When, on October 6, 1943 Himmler said: "The hard decision to wipe this people off the face of the earth had to be made" [Es mußte der schwere Entschluß gefaßt werden, dieses Volk von der Erde verschwinden zu lassen] he was probably referring to partisans. If you read the preceding paragraph before the one which contains this paragraph, it doesn't read as if it's the natural progression of the speech. It just kind of cuts into a seemingly new topic in which Himmler discusses women and children. On that, it should be noted that when he says "The question came up: Well, what about the women and children? — I came to a determinedly simple conclusion about that, too." [Es trat an uns die Frage heran: Wie ist es mit den Frauen und Kindern? - ich habe mich entschlossen, auch hier eine ganz klare Lösung zu finden.]. Himmler is clearly talking about being asked a question. Now, if you had already made it plain that ALL Jews were to be killed indiscriminately, and if that was in-fact the basis of your whole plan, why would sparing women and children even be a question in the first place? Reading that section makes no sense at all unless he's talking about a specific group, probably partisans.

I say he was probably referring to partisans on October 6 because on December 16th Himmler said the exact same thing, but made explicit reference to who he was talking about (whereas on October 6, it's vague due to the strange continuity between paragraphs):

German:

Maßnahmen, meine Herren, um die wir uns heute drücken, werden unsere Enkel begrüßen. Wenn ich irgendwo gezwungen war, in einem Dorfe gegen Partisanen und gegen jüdische Kommissare vorgehen zu lassen - ich spreche dies in diesem Kreise aus, als lediglich für diesen Kreis bestimmt -, so habe ich grundsätzlich den Besfehl gegeben, auch die Weiber und Kinder dieser Partisanen und Kommissare umbringen zu lassen. Ich wäre ein Schwächling und ein Verbrecher an unseren Nachkommen, wenn ich die hasserfüllten Söhne dieser von uns im Kampfe von Mensch gegen Untermensch erledigten Untermenschen groß werden ließe.

English:

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 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.

"Rede des Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler, gehalten auf der Tagung der Befehlshaber der Kriegsmarine in Weimar am 16.12.1943" [Speech of Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler, held at the meeting of the Kriegsmarine commanders in Weimar on 16.12.1943]: Bundesarchiv, Berlin-Lichterfelde; NS 19/4011, p. 21. (Sheet 224)

Here again Himmler is talking about secrecy. Funny isn't it? He's clearly not talking about "killing all Jews", and still stressing secrecy. This rather rubishes the idea that any talk of secrecy must be in connection with some program of wholesale extermination.

[Merlin300]

The prosecution at the IMT was presenting an Intentionalist view, that is a story that the National Socialists had planned mass murder from
before 1939. In fact, Intentionalism has been totally debunked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functiona ... ism_debate

While Believers present various quotes of German leaders, lack of interest in the "Jewish Question by many German leaders is ignored.

“There is no place in the diary where we have Rosenberg or Hitler saying that the Jews should be exterminated,”... “All it said was ‘move them out of Europe.’ ”

There is also a brief statement in the book at page 174,

"For all his public rants against Jews, Rosenberg rarely dwelled on the central Nazi obsession when he picked up his fountain pen and added to his growing private diary."
https://codoh.com/library/document/rose ... uments/en/

[fireofice]

Cockerill interrupts to name two witnesses, Tauber and Polianov (?), who mention the red coloration of gassed corpses, whose names have just been passed to him.

Who is this "Polianov" person that supposedly saw red coloration on the bodies? I heard of Tauber but not this other guy.

[Hektor]

Is this guy telling the truth?

This debate seems worth engaging with, though it goes over old and well-trodden ground. The format is two 25 minute presentations, pro and contra, followed by a bit of back and forth and a Q&A.

In the first few seconds of debate (18.00), we see that Mr Cockerill is obviously still a young man and he tells us in an American accent that he is a doctoral student of history, i.e. is just starting postgraduate work. Mr Cockerill's opponent says he has a BA in history. Mr Cockerill reads Arabic and German (28.50). Generally, academia is not propitious ground for revisionism at present. I cannot think of a single academic who supports revisionism publicly and none in a humanities department. However, I can think offhand of four retired or former academics who are sympathetic to revisionism. Mr Cockerill would be seen as a brave hero when he rejected revisionism, but a lot less favourably if he didn't, so he's riding a wave. He supports free inquiry. However, let's look at the content of the first presentation:

Opening statement
Cockerill describes five "categories of evidence" that produce "knowledge" "beyond a reasonable doubt" that 5-6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis and their collaborators during WW2. These are:
1. Wartime communications by German leaders, including diaries that refer to extermination as a policy
2. Non-coercive confessions (clarified as "outside of trials")
3. Evidence for the Einsatzgruppen killings,
4. Aktion Reinhard camps,
5. And Auschwitz-Birkenau.

That they call it "methodologically discrediting Holocaust Denial" AND NOT "proving the Holocaust empirically" is already telling.
Why would it bother you what "Holocaust Deniers" have to say, if you can make a clear cut case for your Holocaust thesis?

As we can see they have to rely on circumstantial evidences. No murder weapon, no corresponding finds of corpses or human remains, no sign of a central plan... In fact plenty of circumstantial evidences that contradict the thesis (which are however commonly ignored)...

Wartime communications
He instances an extract from the diary of Hans Frank, in which Frank was told "kill them yourselves" (22.30). Then he cites Goebbels' diary (12 December 1941) and later and 14 March 1945; a remark by Robert Ley; Himmler's Posen speech of 6 October 1943 and a speech on 24 June 1944.

Non-coercive confessions
A letter of Albert Speer in 1971, excluded from his memoirs and contradicting his testimony at Nuremberg that refers to a speech by Himmler on 6 August 1943; the diary of Adolf Eichmann; the secret recoding of Franz Suchomel (by Claude Lanzmann); Gustav Wagner in a BBC interview in 1979; a German collaborator Al Hussaini (?), who said he was told by Himmler in 1943 that 3 million Jews had been killed.

Mass shootings
Cockerill says that these happened and then discusses evidence. He comments that "Neo-Nazis" are Neo Nazis because of the Hugo Boss uniforms, not the ideology, "incidentally". He cites the reports (the Ereignismeldungen, presumably), which were found in several places after the war, "for example" the Gestapo office and "their authenticity is impeccable, even according to revisionists". Adding them up produces a figure of 1.3 million Jews killed in the East. He quotes 33,771 Jews killed in Kiev in two days from report 101 of 2 October 1941 (i.e. Babi Yar), Report 150 of 2 January 1942 and Report 173 of 25 February 1942. The reports are confirmed by a document from Himmler and a diary entry from 8 December 1941. All eyewitnesses support this.

The Aktion Reinhard Camps
The killing of 1.5 million people here is supported by a) a diary entry from Goebbels of 27 March 1942 that refers to Globocnik, b) the Stroop report of Spring 1943 (an "interesting document"), which he claims mentions being sent to Treblinka as a "means of execution" or "execution method"; c) Himmler described the Jews of Bialystok as having been killed, but they were sent to an AR camp, a discussion of Hitler and Horthy of 16-17 April 1943, where Hitler said that if they did not want to work they were killed (or "had to die") and Ribbentrop says something about Jews having to go to camps, e) "all the staff" from the Euthanasia program were sent to the Reinhard camps, f) the Korherr Report, which refers to Sonderbehandlung of 2,4 million people, which Heydrich in 1939 said meant "singled out for execution" and according to Himmler in 1942 was to be carried out by hanging.

Auschwitz
Orders for gas-tight doors, orders for doors with peep holes, document referring to a Vergassungskeller, report saying Poles can't be killed, but Jews can, study with photos of holes found in the roof of Krema II, document saying 2,000 per day cremation capacity is insufficient, studies showing far more cyanide in the gas chambers than in random buildings, the Auschwitz Chronicle (by Danuta Czech) which distinguishes Jews registered from others who were sonderbehandelt - which is distinguished from natural death and being sent to other camps (full references not given through lack of time).

This comes across as a competent speech for the prosecution with the material available. Many of the points have been well discussed on this forum. I may comment further when I have listened to the next presentation. However, this seems to be hampered by connection issues and is not at first responsive to Mr Cockerill's presentation, suggesting limited debating skills.

The fact that you already pull out hearsay and don't come with real official documents supporting your case, is already telling. Weren't the Germans 'meticulous' record keepers?


Has he seen the recording with Suchomel. If it was secret, why was the camera moving all the time? Why is a glimpsing at the camera?
Why was Suchomel paid a substantial amount of money. And does what he says even make any sense?

If the "documents on mass shootings are that real"... were the corresponding mass graves discovered, exhumed and investigated.
With the right expertise - which the Allies had - any type of document can be manufactured in a way that it looks credible.

Camps? Show us the gassing facilities!? Show us the mass graves!? And by showing I do not mean point and declare. I mean doing a real open-minded investigation on what you find. If you find nothing declare this, admit you have no evidence for your hypothesis.


The video seems to be a summary on all they could yield so far (for almost 80 years). Given the resources at the disposal of the accusers, this is rather meager to put it mildly. You see, one may overlook this and say :"Sure, Jews had a bad time then"... But given that this used to the limits to push agendas, persecute the innocent, benefit financially from this, brainwash kids, etc. I don't think one should be to soft on those freaks that push the Holocaust since decades ago.

[telleno]

25:00

The second reason is that it makes no sense in the flow of Himmler's speech. When he first refers to the "Ausrottung" of the Jews, Himmler has just spent a full minute impressing on his audience the importance of utter secrecy. (He has even invoked the memory of the "Night of the Long Knives," when traitors to the Nazi cause were arrested and shot on Hitler's orders, so his audience of SS Major-Generals is reminded that, in the Nazi war machine, top officers have no problem executing lower-ranking officers.)

Everyone in the world had known for years that Germany wanted to deport its Jews. If the only thing he was talking about was deportation, why was he emphasizing secrecy to his officers?

Listen to Himmler's voice as he explains the meaning of the code word "Judenevakuierung": his voice goes up on the code word, which everyone has heard of and most know is code; he pauses briefly for dramatic effect; and then as he reveals that it really means "extermination," the tone of his voice falls. Here is the euphemism, he is saying, and here is its meaning.

If he were simply saying the same thing twice in different words, why would the first version be phrased straightforwardly, and the second with such gravity?

Holocaust-History, "Holocaust-Denial, the Poznan speech, and our translation" | Archive

Most of what they say is pure supposition. You have to first accept that 'Judenevakuierung' is a code word, and that Himmler isn't simply using 'Ausrottung' to basically mean something synonomous to that idea. Which was how I understood it personally. There is no proof for what they're claiming.

The fact that Himmler's original handwritten note only says 'Judenevakuierung' can be seen to mean that this was the topic, the overarching mission which he's discussing. If the whole point of what he said was to openly discuss the killing of Jews, then his note - so it seems to me- would say something explicit. The reason I say this is because his notes are a guidline for the topic which he plans to discuss, and clearly the topic here is supposed to be murder not evacuation if we accept the logic of the exterminationists; yet Himmler made the decision to title the topic in regards to evacuation and not murder. It makes little sense.

As for why he emphasised secrecy, well why indeed? Because to speak about the 'Final Solution' in public would probably still be quite disturbing to many people. The claim is still that the Final Solution was a secret right? And because all the other documents which mention it are all talking about deportations, why can we not assume that Himmler here is also talking about keeping the discussions about evacuations and deportations a secret? There's no reason why "it ought to be spoken of quite openly for once" but only in relation to killing people. There's no reason to think that. The reason Himmler invokes the Rohem putsch is not because of the killing, but because the way they behaved in that instance is similar to how Himmler thought the SS and whoever else, should also behave in regarding to the deportation of the Jews. There doesn't need to be some rythmic connection. The point is 'don't talk about this either'. I think it's that simple. They say it makes no sense, but so what? Since when did Nazi maniacs think or behave logically right? Even if you argued that the 'Final Solution' was widely known, that doesn't mean Himmler couldn't be stressing secrecy about it. Perhaps there was a need to be reminded?

So yes, I think he was "saying the same thing twice in different words". The reference to the party program in the same sentence is the most obvious indication of that. As to why he used a word "with such gravity" is because the situation was one of such gravity. Since when was there a rule that one can't speak tautologically?

I see you have addressed "Ausrottung" but what about umbringen? I searched around the forum, but couldn't find anything on it so hopefully I can ask here.

[fireofice]

I see you have addressed "Ausrottung" but what about umbringen? I searched around the forum, but couldn't find anything on it so hopefully I can ask here.

All references to killing are addressed in this post made from this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=14727#p106271

My answer is, yes Jews were killed in war, so he's reassuring his men of what he believes is necessary for war. References to killing of Jews doesn't prove the holocaust, as people were killed all the time during war and no denier says that Jews were never killed. As the post I linked to explained, all references to killing are most likely about partisans.

[Lamprecht]

I see you have addressed "Ausrottung" but what about umbringen? I searched around the forum, but couldn't find anything on it so hopefully I can ask here.

That means to kill, and I caution against anyone joining that Twitter discussion since someone else clearly got banned for doing so.

People like to take the quote from the Oct. 4 speech, where "Jewish evacuation" is described as "Ausrottung" of the Jews, and then try to ignore the context and point to how the term was used in the Oct. 6 speech. This is inappropriate.

Oct 4:

I am thinking now of the evacuation of the Jews, the extirpation ["Ausrottung"] of the Jewish people. It is one of those things that's easy to say: "The Jewish people will be extirpated" ["wird 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."

Obviously here it is describing the "evacuation of the Jews" when he uses the term "Ausrottung"

Oct 6:

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.

Clearly "auszurotten" here was describing executions, as he specified.

He would not have used the term "evacuation of the Jews" to describe a policy of killing all of the Jews. He also says that the "evacuation of the Jews" is part of the NSDAP's party program, it's known by everyone and everyone talks about it. This is also incompatible with the theory that he's using "code words" to describe killing all of the Jews.

It's not difficult to imagine a term that can be used to describe killing in some but not all instances.
For example, "get rid of" can mean to kill in some contexts, but not others.

It just so happens that the traditional definition of the word "exterminate" in English even means "root out; tear up; drive away"

[fireofice]

wipe out ["auszurotten"] the men — rather I should say, kill ["umzubringen"] them

It's interesting that he felt he needed to specify killing here. It implies that if he didn't clarify, they wouldn't understand that he meant killing. This should put all the other references to "extermination" within the speech and elsewhere in context. If they don't refer to explicit killing, they probably aren't saying that.

[Lamprecht]

wipe out ["auszurotten"] the men — rather I should say, kill ["umzubringen"] them

It's interesting that he felt he needed to specify killing here. It implies that if he didn't clarify, they wouldn't understand that he meant killing. This should put all the other references to "extermination" within the speech and elsewhere in context. If they don't refer to explicit killing, they probably aren't saying that.

Pretty much. The whole "code word" thing doesn't make any sense. We should also remember that this speech is a "damage control pep talk" made when the war was already lost.
February 1943 was the loss of the Battle of Stalingrad, a major turning point.
By August 1943, the Battle of Kursk had been lost and the war in the East was officially unwinnable.
These two speeches were made in October 1943. In fact, Italy had been invaded and occupied a month earlier.
So the enemy was coming at them from all sides and Himmler decided to make a speech to assuage the German officials. The context I see it in is him trying to say "yes, we are going to lose this war, but the Jews aren't going to be a problem for our children and grandchildren."

That the Posen speeches are still so often considered the best evidence in favor of the extermination thesis shows how little evidence there truly is for their "Holocaust" narrative.

[Hektor]

wipe out ["auszurotten"] the men — rather I should say, kill ["umzubringen"] them

It's interesting that he felt he needed to specify killing here. It implies that if he didn't clarify, they wouldn't understand that he meant killing. This should put all the other references to "extermination" within the speech and elsewhere in context. If they don't refer to explicit killing, they probably aren't saying that.

Pretty much. The whole "code word" thing doesn't make any sense. We should also remember that this speech is a "damage control pep talk" made when the war was already lost.
February 1943 was the loss of the Battle of Stalingrad, a major turning point.
By August 1943, the Battle of Kursk had been lost and the war in the East was officially unwinnable.
These two speeches were made in October 1943. In fact, Italy had been invaded and occupied a month earlier.
So the enemy was coming at them from all sides and Himmler decided to make a speech to assuage the German officials. The context I see it in is him trying to say "yes, we are going to lose this war, but the Jews aren't going to be a problem for our children and grandchildren."

That the Posen speeches are still so often considered the best evidence in favor of the extermination thesis shows how little evidence there truly is for their "Holocaust" narrative.

Indeed they have to play word games to push there thesis true. Meanwhile their thesis is something that should left us piles of forensic and physical evidence. Them picking for word games and innuendo proves them not having anything better in support of course. They won't need the Speeches, if they had hard evidence to support their position. And well, I don't think the speeches aren't as helpful as they make them out to be. I recall this with the "Vernichtung" speech of Hitler. Read the context and you get that he didn't tell them "I'm going to annihilate you"... In fact he tells them: "Leave us alone, don't stir up war, that will be best for you"... The speech also insists that Jews should get their own territory and work for themselves.

I'd agree that Kursk and the invasion of Italy were the actual turning points. It wasn't 'official' though. "Defeatism" was officially criminalized in Germany then. Your more senior officers would however have realized that things weren't going that well. My take is that senior Germans may have still believed that a negotiated settlement would be possible. Indeed that would have been the most reasonable... But their enemies weren't exactly reasonable. They themselves where upon world conquest. The USSR as 'avantgarde of the Revolution' wanting to turn each country into a Soviet Republic The US as avantgarde for 'democracy, freedom, human rights and capitalism', which are actually code words for plutocracy. Most countries already have some 'rule by consent' and 'private economy' even if they don't call it the buzzwords. The US didn't seem to have a problem with the inner workings of a country being a dictatorship, if the dictators made policy that favored them.

[telleno]

Thanks for the explanation; recently found some stuff on Twitter addressing it so I will post it here in case anyone wants to reference it:
https://archive.ph/2P0nB.

I also want to ask if anyone knows of a book (or document; can't remember what it was exactly) published on this site that addresses Albert Speer and the Posen speeches, as well as the Hagen letter (if I remember correctly, it might have been both or just one of them). I can't find it in my history so I'm wondering if anyone knows what I'm talking about. I know there are already threads on here about both of these things, but I just want to find the source as there was other stuff in it as well.