Anita Lasker-Wallfish - Auschwitz witness

[Hektor]

Does anyone know who the "Herr SS-Obergruppenführer Groß" is supposed to have been? And where does this Ley quote come from?

I don't know who SS-Obergruppenführer Groß was (or if he actually existed and/or said that) and where that Ley quote comes from, but I know that "exterminated" was an inaccurate translation of ausgerottet in 1942 ("extirpated" and "eradicated" were more accurate translations of that word before the Allied postwar reshaping of Germany) and that Dr. Robert Ley was a fiery anti-Semite who was not in charge of any organization directly dealing with the solution the Jewish problem (he headed the German Labour Front from 1933 to 1945) and who often called for the violent elimination of the Jews in his public speeches (At best, the most colorful Ley quotes prove that calling for the liquidation of the Jews was not illegal in Nazi Germany! No big deal and hardly a surprise!!).

And I don't think the Gross quote is anything more than hearsay.

Doesn't even sound like hearsay. Sounds like a personal opinion and wish.

As far as I know, that guy was not the spokesman of the German government or of Eichmann's department.

Indeed, Ley was merely a trade unionist. Had nothing to do with dealing with 'the Jewish Question'. But a listener doesn't necessarily register this. It's short = Nazi + Jew-Hater and that makes the extermination narrative more plausible. There were observable deportations... So the whole thing becomes more imaginable for the audience.

Ley however also had the reputation of being a 'drinker'. And indeed made inflammatory statements against Jews.... Which should be seen in context as well. Given that Jewish outlets were the most vitriolic against Germany.

Ley is said to have committed suicide in his cell in Nuremberg using a towel.


This Anita Lasker character is still alive. She's a speaker for the Holocaust Industry. The whole "I was there" sort of martyr scenario, which is so persuasive to many in an audience. Her own biography isn't exactly supportive for the Holocaust. "She was spared, because she could play an instrument".... How ridiculous is this?

[hermod]

Indeed, Ley was merely a trade unionist. Had nothing to do with dealing with 'the Jewish Question'. But a listener doesn't necessarily register this. It's short = Nazi + Jew-Hater and that makes the extermination narrative more plausible. There were observable deportations... So the whole thing becomes more imaginable for the audience.

Ley however also had the reputation of being a 'drinker'. And indeed made inflammatory statements against Jews.... Which should be seen in context as well. Given that Jewish outlets were the most vitriolic against Germany.

Today's anti-Semites even insert some parts of Ley's impressive anti-Semitic addresses into videos of excerpts from Hitler's speeches for sensationalist purposes (see the 2 examples below). Misleading but efficient.

Robert Ley at 00:26-00:58

Robert Ley at 01:21-02:17

Ley is said to have committed suicide in his cell in Nuremberg using a towel.

He was probably tortured and strangulated by a gang of hateful Jews, just like Julius Streicher, if I'm asked. Jews never liked the rebellious slaves too openly opposing the hegemony of Yahweh's aristocracy. They regard that as heresy.

For info, Ley completely repudiated his anti-Semitic views while in custody (if the press reports on that were accurate and truthful). Ley's servile recantation was one the most repugnant texts I had ever read.

This Anita Lasker character is still alive. She's a speaker for the Holocaust Industry. The whole "I was there" sort of martyr scenario, which is so persuasive to many in an audience. Her own biography isn't exactly supportive for the Holocaust. "She was spared, because she could play an instrument".... How ridiculous is this?

Persuasive because many in today's audiences want to be persuaded by that scenario (like Fox Mulder's "I want to believe" in X-Files). But try the same thing with some White South African farmers telling stories of only too real Black-on-White atrocities and you'll see them shake their heads in disbelief. Some of them will even call you a racist for doing such a thing.

[Hektor]

Indeed, Ley was merely a trade unionist. Had nothing to do with dealing with 'the Jewish Question'. But a listener doesn't necessarily register this. It's short = Nazi + Jew-Hater and that makes the extermination narrative more plausible. There were observable deportations... So the whole thing becomes more imaginable for the audience.

Ley however also had the reputation of being a 'drinker'. And indeed made inflammatory statements against Jews.... Which should be seen in context as well. Given that Jewish outlets were the most vitriolic against Germany.

Today's anti-Semites even insert some parts of Ley's impressive anti-Semitic addresses into videos of excerpts from Hitler's speeches for sensationalist purposes (see the 2 examples below). Misleading but efficient.

One needs to have the full speech/article at least... And often not even that is sufficient... Because one needs to know the broader context as well... E.g. what the text has been a response too. This is actually 'hermeneutics 101'... But it seems most people don't realize this in this case.

Ley is said to have committed suicide in his cell in Nuremberg using a towel.

He was probably tortured and strangulated by a gang of hateful Jews, just like Julius Streicher, if I'm asked. Jews never liked the rebellious slaves too openly opposing the hegemony of Yahweh's aristocracy. They regard that as heresy.

For info, Ley completely repudiated his anti-Semitic views while in custody (if the press reports on that were accurate and truthful). Ley's servile recantation was one the most repugnant texts I had ever read.

I think there is a variety of possibilities, there. suicid(ed) and also confusion or manipulation are possible there. I had the impression that Ley's health wasn't the best neither.

This Anita Lasker character is still alive. She's a speaker for the Holocaust Industry. The whole "I was there" sort of martyr scenario, which is so persuasive to many in an audience. Her own biography isn't exactly supportive for the Holocaust. "She was spared, because she could play an instrument".... How ridiculous is this?

Persuasive because many in today's audiences want to be persuaded by that scenario (like Fox Mulder's "I want to believe" in X-Files). But try the same thing with some White South African farmers telling stories of only too real Black-on-White atrocities and you'll see them shake their heads in disbelief. Some of them will even call you a racist for doing such a thing.

The lowering of the burden of proof bar only applies to the Holocaust. When non-approved narratives are discussed they suddenly lack the credulity to go on with this. There is quite some research being done into farm attacks in South Africa, but it remains a hot topic. Exactly due to the atrocious character thereof. The excuse is usually, 'but crime affects all races'... Well it does. But, with regards to the the other races there isn't really politicians calling for the killing of farmers or making claims about them that don't have any substance in reality.

And anyway... How is 'too much other crime' not a reason to fight crime in general. The SA police and justice system is notoriously lacks on 'career criminals'. And yes... race related violence was only of interest, when Whites can be made the accused.

[hermod]

One needs to have the full speech/article at least... And often not even that is sufficient... Because one needs to know the broader context as well... E.g. what the text has been a response too. This is actually 'hermeneutics 101'... But it seems most people don't realize this in this case.

Almost superfluous. Ley wasn't involved in the Nazi policies dealing with the Jewish question. His opinions and statements on the Jews are as irrelevant regarding a the Holocaust as an American Minister of Agriculture's opinions and statements on a NASA program.

Note that the people who made those videos make people falsely believe that Hitler is saying those words when Ley is speaking. The pictures used to illustrate those videos show Hitler and never Ley (not a single pic of Ley and not a caption with his name), just like Holohoaxers deceive people with pictures of typhus victims dishonestly used to illustrate comments on gas chambers and mass killings (a classic of Holohoax tricks).

I think there is a variety of possibilities, there. suicid(ed) and also confusion or manipulation are possible there. I had the impression that Ley's health wasn't the best neither.

I doubt that an alcoholic (assuming his alcohollism was not only a slanderous lie) on a bread and water diet could find in himself the courage necessary to kill himself with a towel.

The lowering of the burden of proof bar only applies to the Holocaust. When non-approved narratives are discussed they suddenly lack the credulity to go on with this. There is quite some research being done into farm attacks in South Africa, but it remains a hot topic. Exactly due to the atrocious character thereof. The excuse is usually, 'but crime affects all races'... Well it does. But, with regards to the the other races there isn't really politicians calling for the killing of farmers or making claims about them that don't have any substance in reality.

And anyway... How is 'too much other crime' not a reason to fight crime in general. The SA police and justice system is notoriously lacks on 'career criminals'. And yes... race related violence was only of interest, when Whites can be made the accused.

The MeToo movement's "Believe women" slogan sounded so Holocaustian I couldn't hear it without smiling.

[Hektor]

One needs to have the full speech/article at least... And often not even that is sufficient... Because one needs to know the broader context as well... E.g. what the text has been a response too. This is actually 'hermeneutics 101'... But it seems most people don't realize this in this case.

Almost superfluous. Ley wasn't involved in the Nazi policies dealing with the Jewish question. His opinions and statements on the Jews are as irrelevant regarding a the Holocaust as an American Minister of Agriculture's opinions and statements on a NASA program.
....

That's however not on the mind of people, when they hear that he made 'anti-semitic' remarks. Now the educated German would have known that at the time. But even average German's wouldn't be as clear about it. Let alone foreigners whose knowledge about German governance was superficial. They'd think:'Ley was a Nazi'.... They were killing Jews... So Ley saying mean things about Jews "proves the conspiracy".

If you get analytical with people, they'd dismiss it as soon as they can't follow you. And they are used to academics lying to them about issues.

[hermod]

One needs to have the full speech/article at least... And often not even that is sufficient... Because one needs to know the broader context as well... E.g. what the text has been a response too. This is actually 'hermeneutics 101'... But it seems most people don't realize this in this case.

Almost superfluous. Ley wasn't involved in the Nazi policies dealing with the Jewish question. His opinions and statements on the Jews are as irrelevant regarding a the Holocaust as an American Minister of Agriculture's opinions and statements on a NASA program.
....

That's however not on the mind of people, when they hear that he made 'anti-semitic' remarks. Now the educated German would have known that at the time. But even average German's wouldn't be as clear about it. Let alone foreigners whose knowledge about German governance was superficial. They'd think:'Ley was a Nazi'.... They were killing Jews... So Ley saying mean things about Jews "proves the conspiracy".

If you get analytical with people, they'd dismiss it as soon as they can't follow you. And they are used to academics lying to them about issues.

And the lies of their press and politicians induced most foreigners to be wrong about that. But the confusion was, and still is, artificially-created and deliberate. A politically-motivated deception, not a spontaneous and honest mistake. That's why Julius Streicher's Der Stürmer is still portrayed as a propaganda organ of the Nazi Party, a lie that couldn't be further from the truth. Der Stürmer was almost as much a propaganda organ of the NSDAP as KKK Magazine is a propaganda organ of the Biden regime.

Julius Streicher and His Notorious Anti-Jewish Weekly, Der Stürmer
By Mark Weber
https://www.ihr.org/other/Streicher

[TLSMS93]

The video posted of Hitler and Ley's speech in Portuguese which is my native language is dubious in terms of Ley saying that "the Jews will not receive any kind of cordiality or pity", I have already observed versions of this speech where he says that "the Jews would have no kind of warmth or pity” in connection if the Germans lost the war, typical of those platitudes that the Allies would sterilize the Germans later in the war. Which version would be the best translated from German?

[Hektor]

....
And the lies of their press and politicians induced most foreigners to be wrong about that. But the confusion was, and still is, artificially-created and deliberate. A politically-motivated deception, not a spontaneous and honest mistake. That's why Julius Streicher's Der Stürmer is still portrayed as a propaganda organ of the Nazi Party, a lie that couldn't be further from the truth. Der Stürmer was almost as much a propaganda organ of the NSDAP as KKK Magazine is a propaganda organ of the Biden regime.

Julius Streicher and His Notorious Anti-Jewish Weekly, Der Stürmer
By Mark Weber
https://www.ihr.org/other/Streicher

Julius Streicher was a 'Gauleiter' for the NSDAP. But his magazine 'Der Stuermer' was separate from this. Streicher did not approve of the 9-11-1938 riots neither. So his antisemitism didn't approve of unwarranted violence. There were several in the NSDAP that weren't exactly fond of Streicher and also not his magazine. Some must have seen it as embarrassment. Some of the material in it was rather low-brow.

But one should note that most of the material in the Streicher that is content of the articles stems from other publications, often Jewish ones.
Streicher's career is interesting. He started out as active member of a liberal party. And there he noticed the role of Jewish sponsors... I guess he became an 'Anti-Semite' only during the 1920s after seeing what was happening in Germany then. There is some bitterness in that character... But he doesn't appear to vengeful although some anger-fits are indeed detectable with him. He also was reconciliatory to German leftist that were detained during the 1930s. There was some 'Arisation' scandal and he was put under house-arrest during WW2. He was essentially hanged for publishing a magazine that wasn't exactly flattering about activities and statements by Jews.

As far as the KKK is concerned... One also got to wonder what the purpose of that is. It has become a convenient straw man for the Leftist-Coalition in the US. Some sort of boogeymen. There is also some indication of infiltration of this organization by intelligence services. They then can let it take action that is useful for the players they try to promote. This seems to be the modus operandi with many "right-wing" organizations for quite some time. They are low on membership and also low on finances, since they don't have corporate sponsors. So one wonders, who is actually keeping them afloat and why. They are zero threat to elites, since they lack political or even cultural capability. But they are useful as boogeymen.

[hermod]

The video posted of Hitler and Ley's speech in Portuguese which is my native language is dubious in terms of Ley saying that "the Jews will not receive any kind of cordiality or pity", I have already observed versions of this speech where he says that "the Jews would have no kind of warmth or pity” in connection if the Germans lost the war, typical of those platitudes that the Allies would sterilize the Germans later in the war. Which version would be the best translated from German?

Aren't cordiality and warmth synonyms? Or am I missing your point?

[TLSMS93]

They are not, Portuguese has more variations for the same meaning. Warmth or cordiality means expressing affection or sympathy, mercy means forgiveness, commiseration or piety which in Portuguese is “piedade” as it is in the subtitled video for my native language. I hope I explained correctly.

[hermod]

They are not, Portuguese has more variations for the same meaning. Warmth or cordiality means expressing affection or sympathy, mercy means forgiveness, commiseration or piety which in Portuguese is “piedade” as it is in the subtitled video for my native language. I hope I explained correctly.

So "warmth or pity" is synonymous with "cordiality or pity," isn't it? And both translations are equally good, aren't they?

The video posted of Hitler and Ley's speech in Portuguese which is my native language is dubious in terms of Ley saying that "the Jews will not receive any kind of cordiality or pity", I have already observed versions of this speech where he says that "the Jews would have no kind of warmth or pity” in connection if the Germans lost the war, typical of those platitudes that the Allies would sterilize the Germans later in the war. Which version would be the best translated from German?

Or perhaps you're talking about who would receive no warmth or pity from the other side. No pity for the Jews from the Germans or no pity for the Germans from the Jews, is that the source of your confusion?

[TLSMS93]

Exactly, the issue of contention there is whether what Ley was trying to say is whether the Jews would not have cordiality or pity for the defeated Germans or if the Germans would not have this from the Jews, the question is one of attribution. It's strange that someone defeated managed to apply a lack of cordiality or pity to their aggressors, that's why this doubt arises, some versions of this speech go back that way, that the Jews would not have cordiality from the Germans, not being able to use this as proof of the Holocaust as they use the Hitler's prophecy. By the way, this video there, when I was new to revisionist subjects, I confused Ley's voice with Hitler's, especially because he was in active voice, almost shouting, with time I improved the differences based on other audios.