Problems with a German word. (was Re: ((( How do you translate "Gas chamber" ? )))

[Nele Abels-Ludwig]

On Sat, 27 Jun 1998, ASMarques wrote:
[...]
> You yourself say it is "they are deported", not "they are being
> deported". If you like talmudic hair-spliting over the translations from
> the German without looking for the meaning behind the words, then your
> level of bad will is apparent even to those who wouldn't recognize you
> as one of the German "natives" in the alt.revisionism shlock-troops.
[...]

Right, ASMarques, now is the time to put up or shut up. I have taken
the liberty to include three German newsgroups, which should be in
your interest, since you are obviously convinced that Hansjoerg
Walther and my humble self do not know more about German than you.

Please feel free to intervene, if you feel that I misrepresent your
argument.

Therefore, dear fellow-speakers of German, here is the little problem
with the German language, we have in alt.revisionism:

ASMarques, a Holocaust-"revisionist" who does not speak German, puts
forward the argument that one reason why the Holocaust was not the
attempted murder of six million Jews is that contemporary documents
were deliberately misinterpreted after the war. German words which
could have a different meaning, were mistranslated so that a murderous
intention was implanted into the documents which is not really in the
text. The main reason, why this misrepresentation is not visible to
nowadays Germans, argues ASMarques, is that the usage of German has
dramatically changed over the last decades under the influence of
certain pressure groups.

A specific example for such a document is e.g. the following excerpt
from a speech delivered 1942 in Posen, by Heinrich Himmler, the
Reichsfuehrer SS, concerning the final solution of the Jewish
question, which he held in front of high-ranking SS officers:

Ich hielt mich naemlich nicht fuer berechtigt, die Maenner
auszurotten - sprich also umzubringen, oder umbringen zu lassen
- und die Raecher in Gestalt der Kinder fuer unsere Soehne und
Enkel gross werden zu lassen. Es musste der schwere Entschluss
gefasst werden, dieses Volk von der Erde verschwinden zu lassen.

ASMarques argues that bilingual dictionaries give as possible
translations "to extirpate" and to "root out". These translations
point at the original etymological origin of "ausrotten" which is "to
pull up by the roots". What Himmler really meant is therefore, that
the Jews had to be removed from Germany and re-settled in the East,
which was, so he says, after all the original nature of the
"Endloesung": Evacuation of the Jews in the east, after the planned
removal to Madagaskar had become an unfeasible alternative due to the
2nd World War. ASMarques is not at all ready to translate the Word
"Ausrottung", like it can be found in the above excerpt, as "to kill
them all".

May I ask the German speakers of alt.usage.German,
de.soc.politik.deutschland, and soc.culture.german to give their
comments on this issue. To be more precisely, may I ask as many
speakers of German as possible post their definition of the
"Ausrottung eines Volkes" in these newsgroups, so that we can come to
an informed conclusion of this debate?

Regards and thank you very much,

Nele Abels-Ludwig

(CC to Gord McFee, so that he has another good laugh)

[Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo]

Nele:

Hallo (usw.)...switching...one of the cogent considerations of the
Posen speech itself is the review of Himmler's remarks in toto. There is
no question that ausrotten (and derivatives therein) within the Posen
speech meant the extermination of the Jews.

I've debated this point before within this forum and I connected
the Posen speech with my research on Die Wannsee Konferenz. For the
record, I've lived and worked in [then] West Germany for some 4 years
(*with periodic return therein) and I've been historically involved
with the ongoing (*note please) study and research of the 1933-45 Third
Reich era, and its worldwide ramifications, including the Holocaust as
historical fact, since the 60's.

But let me add another passage from the Posen speech which is quite
telling as to VERBALIZED 'focus' of the underlying intent:

"Wir hatten das moralische Recht, wir hatten die Pflicht
'gegenuber' (*emphasis mine) unserem Volk, dieses Volk
(*d.h. Die Juden) das 'uns' (*emphasis mine) umbrigen
wollte, umzubringen."
---Reichfuhrer Himmler (Posen)

***"We had the moral right, we had the duty to our people to
'annihilate' the people who wanted to annihilate us."

So too, further telling in intent:

Himmler compared the Jews to a bacillus, (*does that parroted
comparative ring a bell in the 'Nation and Race' section of 'Mein
Kampf'?), a 'germ' if you will, that had to be 'eliminated' as one does
with any other bacillus or 'germ.' In my Wannsee research, there was
comment by Heidrich to the effect that the Fuhrer was acting in the
capacity of a 'modern day' [*then, 1942] Dr. Koch viz. seeking out and
'detroying' an 'identified' bacillus.

Reverting: Himmer then commented that the Volk should 'NOT' be
infected by this germ or 'infestation' and therefore---'wherever it is
formed, we shall burn it out together'----'.....werden wir sie gemeinsam
AUSBRENNEN.' Yet, in the attempt to do so, that is, ausrotten meaning
physical elimination, comes the [alleged] philosophical 'clarifier' from
Himmler to his audience, to wit:

"....und wir haben 'keinen Schaden' (*emphasis mine) in
unserem Inneren, in unserer Seele, in unserem Charakter
daran genommen."

***And we have not sustained any damage to our 'inner self', our soul
and our character.' HARDLY, I would comment, the kind of rhetoric were
Himmler talking about 'evacuation' or, as some in the forum have
suggested, 'bombast' or 'simple movement eastward.' While, BTW, I
'would' buy into 'movement eastward' in the sense that such movement,
when it happened, was in fact for the singular purpose of extermination
(read: Die Ausrottung des judischen Volkes.) Unwashed note: this
sentence does 'not' require a capital letter for 'judischen.'

Doc Tony

**Cite(s): Posen Speech, Heinrich Himmler (*als Reichfuhrer SS), October
1943, IMT--Nurnberg, Vol. 29, document PS-1919, page 145ff.

[Reimer Behrends]

Followups back to alt.revisionism.

Nele Abels-Ludwig (Ab...@stud-mailer.uni-marburg.de) wrote:
[...]

> Ich hielt mich naemlich nicht fuer berechtigt, die Maenner
> auszurotten - sprich also umzubringen, oder umbringen zu lassen
> - und die Raecher in Gestalt der Kinder fuer unsere Soehne und
> Enkel gross werden zu lassen. Es musste der schwere Entschluss
> gefasst werden, dieses Volk von der Erde verschwinden zu lassen.
>
> ASMarques argues that bilingual dictionaries give as possible
> translations "to extirpate" and to "root out".

"Ausrotten" means "to wipe out", "to exterminate". It is usually applied
to nouns like "Ungeziefer" (vermin) or "Unkraut" (weed). It implies
killing on a large scale with the intent to remove the subject of such
an operation from the face of the earth (at least in living form).

An attempt at translating the passage above:

"I didn't consider myself to be entitled to exterminate the men --
that is, to kill them or have them killed -- and then to let their
children grow up to become avengers for our sons and grandchildren.
The difficult decision to let this people disappear from the face of
the earth had to be made."

Sounds pretty unambiguous to me.

> These translations
> point at the original etymological origin of "ausrotten" which is "to
> pull up by the roots". What Himmler really meant is therefore, that
> the Jews had to be removed from Germany and re-settled in the East,

Bloody nonsense. No native German speaker is going to buy this line of
reasoning. While the etymological origin may or may not be correct
(don't have Grimm's around to double-check), such usage then would have
disappeared centuries ago. "Ausrotten" means one thing, and there is no
doubt about it. The only caveat is that it can also be used figuratively
with intangibles, such as thoughts and opinions, again meaning to wipe
them out, to eradicate them.

[...]

Reimer Behrends

[Alwyn Thomas]

Nele Abels-Ludwig wrote:

> Ich hielt mich naemlich nicht fuer berechtigt, die Maenner
> auszurotten - sprich also umzubringen, oder umbringen zu lassen
> - und die Raecher in Gestalt der Kinder fuer unsere Soehne und
> Enkel gross werden zu lassen. Es musste der schwere Entschluss
> gefasst werden, dieses Volk von der Erde verschwinden zu lassen.

I used to have two old German-English dictionaries, one from the last
century, but I threw them away, not realising how they could come in handy!

There is also the Dutch verb uitroeien, which is cognate and means exactly
the same. Was pressure brought to bear on the Dutch as well?

Danish has *udrydde* and Swedish *utrota*; these words were borrowed from the
German centuries ago and also mean "exterminate".

Anyone with some basic training in linguistics will know that languages
cannot be made to change in this way.

Does ASMarques also claim that *umbringen* (plus Dutch *ombrengen*) and *von
der Erde verschwinden lassen* have also changed their meanings? Without a
radical restructuring of German (and other) semantic fields within a decade
or so - something hitherto unknown to any specialist - Himmler's passage
permits of any one interpretation: it is not sufficient to kill only Jewish
men; the whole people must be exterminated, otherwise their children will
come back to take revenge on our children.

Alwyn

[Diedrich Ehlerding]

Nele Abels-Ludwig schrieb:

>[ASMArques claims that] [...] the usage of German has

>dramatically changed over the last decades under the influence of
>certain pressure groups.

Nonsens. At least there is or was no difficulty for a contemporary
German to understand his grandparents living before WWII, and there is
no difficulty to understand pre-WWII documents.

Well, alt.conspiracy is among the groups of this thread - that is IMHO
the appropriate group for ASMarques.
>
>[Heimnrich Himmler's speech]

> Ich hielt mich naemlich nicht fuer berechtigt, die Maenner
> auszurotten - sprich also umzubringen, oder umbringen zu lassen
> - und die Raecher in Gestalt der Kinder fuer unsere Soehne und
> Enkel gross werden zu lassen. Es musste der schwere Entschluss
> gefasst werden, dieses Volk von der Erde verschwinden zu lassen.
>

>ASMarques argues that bilingual dictionaries give as possible

>translations "to extirpate" and to "root out". These translations

>point at the original etymological origin of "ausrotten" which is "to
>pull up by the roots". What Himmler really meant is therefore, that
>the Jews had to be removed from Germany and re-settled in the East,

>which was, so he says, after all the original nature of the
>"Endloesung": Evacuation of the Jews in the east, after the planned
>removal to Madagaskar had become an unfeasible alternative due to the
>2nd World War. ASMarques is not at all ready to translate the Word
>"Ausrottung", like it can be found in the above excerpt, as "to kill
>them all".
>
>May I ask the German speakers of alt.usage.German,
>de.soc.politik.deutschland, and soc.culture.german to give their
>comments on this issue.

"Ausrottung" means "kill them all", nothing else. Not "evacuation",
not "resettlement". Nothing in Himmler's speech is in any way
ambiguous; he announced that he intended not only to kill the Jewish
men, but also to prevent their children from growing up and become
avengers, and that he intended therefore to make the Jews disappear
from the earth.

IOW, the interpretation which you attribute to ASMarques is wrong.

Diedrich

[Werner Knoll]

Nele Abels-Ludwig wrote:
>
> On Sat, 27 Jun 1998, ASMarques wrote:
> [...]
> > You yourself say it is "they are deported", not "they are being
> > deported". If you like talmudic hair-spliting over the translations from
> > the German without looking for the meaning behind the words, then your
> > level of bad will is apparent even to those who wouldn't recognize you
> > as one of the German "natives" in the alt.revisionism shlock-troops.
> [...]
>
> Right, ASMarques, now is the time to put up or shut up. I have taken
> the liberty to include three German newsgroups, which should be in
> your interest, since you are obviously convinced that Hansjoerg
> Walther and my humble self do not know more about German than you.
>
> Please feel free to intervene, if you feel that I misrepresent your
> argument.
>
> Therefore, dear fellow-speakers of German, here is the little problem
> with the German language, we have in alt.revisionism:
>
> ASMarques, a Holocaust-"revisionist" who does not speak German, puts
> forward the argument that one reason why the Holocaust was not the
> attempted murder of six million Jews is that contemporary documents
> were deliberately misinterpreted after the war. German words which
> could have a different meaning, were mistranslated so that a murderous
> intention was implanted into the documents which is not really in the
> text. The main reason, why this misrepresentation is not visible to

> nowadays Germans, argues ASMarques, is that the usage of German has

> dramatically changed over the last decades under the influence of
> certain pressure groups.
>

> A specific example for such a document is e.g. the following excerpt
> from a speech delivered 1942 in Posen, by Heinrich Himmler, the
> Reichsfuehrer SS, concerning the final solution of the Jewish
> question, which he held in front of high-ranking SS officers:
>

> Ich hielt mich naemlich nicht fuer berechtigt, die Maenner
> auszurotten - sprich also umzubringen, oder umbringen zu lassen
> - und die Raecher in Gestalt der Kinder fuer unsere Soehne und
> Enkel gross werden zu lassen. Es musste der schwere Entschluss
> gefasst werden, dieses Volk von der Erde verschwinden zu lassen.

>
> ASMarques argues that bilingual dictionaries give as possible
> translations "to extirpate" and to "root out". These translations
> point at the original etymological origin of "ausrotten" which is "to
> pull up by the roots". What Himmler really meant is therefore, that
> the Jews had to be removed from Germany and re-settled in the East,
> which was, so he says, after all the original nature of the
> "Endloesung": Evacuation of the Jews in the east, after the planned
> removal to Madagaskar had become an unfeasible alternative due to the
> 2nd World War. ASMarques is not at all ready to translate the Word
> "Ausrottung", like it can be found in the above excerpt, as "to kill
> them all".
>
> May I ask the German speakers of alt.usage.German,
> de.soc.politik.deutschland, and soc.culture.german to give their

> comments on this issue. To be more precisely, may I ask as many
> speakers of German as possible post their definition of the
> "Ausrottung eines Volkes" in these newsgroups, so that we can come to
> an informed conclusion of this debate?
>

Ich habe hier Ein Deutsches Universal Wörterbuch: Dudenverlag. 1989

Rotte: Veraltet. (Milit.) Reihe von hintereinandergehenden Soldaten.

Ausrotten: Völlig Vernichten.
Ungeziefer, Unkraut mit Stumpf und Stiel ausrotten.

Dieser Duden ist neu und wurde der heutigen Denkweise angepaßt.

The proper word in English would be Exterminate, Destroy.

See you in two weeks. Going places.

Werner Knoll
History is truly written by the victor, regardless of nationality. The
victors were the Americans for so many years. As such it comes as no
surprise that so many Germans would adopt American political correctness
in their dealings with their own history. This is a scary concept when
one thinks that there must be two sides to every story.

[Stefan Schneider]

f'up set back to alt.revisionism, alt.conspiracy clipped

--> gag...@gmx.de (Wolfram Meyer von Gagern) wrote:

[Question, if "ausrotten" might be translated as "extirpate"]

> My english is not the best, but I'll give it a try ;-) :

Well, it's sufficient to get things straight ;-).

> Yes, that's right, to "pull up by the roots" is the etymological origin
> of "ausrotten" and is still one meaning of this word when you're talking
> about plants:
> "Ausrotten" comes from "uzriuten" and originally meant "to clear land,
> to cultivate land by pulling up roots, trees, weed etcetera"
> (see: Herkunftswörterbuch, Bertelsmann Lexikon Verlag 1994)

That's the explanation, I found in my ethymologigical dictionary. And
it has to be stressed, that there is no other way than translating the
German word "ausrotten" as describing a process of extermination, as
far as human beings are concerned. Allegations, someone might have
been talking about "extirpations" using the word "ausrotten" are simply
ridiculous. No native German speaking person would ever use this word
in an other sense than "exterminate" while talking about humans. And
German didn't undergo severe changes in the last 60 years, I guess.
Someone, who has problems to translate the word "gas chamber" from
English to German or likewise (as suggested by the subject) doesn't
have a problem with German or English language, I'm afraid. Someone
facing this difficulty has problems with reality. The same is valid
for somebody who even tries to think about the possibility, "ausrotten"
might in some way mean something like "extirpate". It's simply
nonesense.
Regards
Stefan

[ASMarques]

ASMarques wrote:

Nele Abels-Ludwig wrote:
>
> Right, ASMarques, now is the time to put up or shut up. I have taken
> the liberty to include three German newsgroups, which should be in
> your interest, since you are obviously convinced that Hansjoerg
> Walther and my humble self do not know more about German than you.
>
> Please feel free to intervene, if you feel that I misrepresent your
> argument.

You certainly do, and in no small way, as usual, but I'm not stating it
all over again. Nor do I believe in spamming German groups with the
alt-revisionism sort of (tal)mud you like to throw around.

To German free spirits interested in understanding the spirit of the
times, however, I would point out there is plenty of information around.

For a fast and very good introduction read this:
http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/leaflets.html

Then go to :
http://www.vho.org/Home.html
http://www.ihr.org/index.html
http://www.codoh.com/
http://www.webcom.com/ezundel/index.html
http://members.aol.com/ihrgreg/index.html
http://abbc.com/aaargh/
http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~abutz/
http://www.air-photo.com/
http://www.ety.com/tell/

And many others, outside your unfortunate Federal Republic. Bookmark
them now. Most have good German sections whose URLs you can post to your
own German newsgroups.

To the "German" slaves that carry on their master's voice in this
shameful way http://www.vho.org/censor/Censor.html I have nothing at all
to say, except to send there where they belong:
http://www.webcom.com/ezundel/english/antiprop/antiproptoc.html

Maybe you'll find "native German" Nele and his holoshlocktruppen there.
My apologies for this intrusion.

ASMarques
Lisbon - Portugal

PS:
Redirected to the original newsgroups.

[ASMarques]

[ASMarques]

Reimer Behrends wrote:
>
> "Ausrotten" means one thing, and there is no
> doubt about it.

"Extirpate" in the sense of something you're taking away from the midst
of something does sound right, doesn't it ? Every dictionary says so.

If Himmler is saying literally "evacuate them, ausrotten them" and is
speaking of deportation it does certainly sound as if he is sending
someone he despises into Eastern labor camps and ghettoes (as Goebbels
has it in his diaries too), not into any gas chambers in Silesia. but I
understand you're not free to discuss these matters in your country,
Herr Behrends, and will only be allowed by your laws to say what the
likes of Mr. Nele Whatsisname require you to. Shameful laws, aren't they
?

> The only caveat is that it can also be used figuratively
> with intangibles, such as thoughts and opinions, again meaning to wipe
> them out, to eradicate them.

Ha, yes. The intangibles. BTW congratulations on having answered Nele
Whatsisname's request at 18.33 hours. You were first and win the prize.
Mr. Von Gagern (18.42) and Mr.Lomenzo (18.43) were not nearly as fast.

I guess we latins will never be able to understand German
punctuality.
;)

ASMarques

[ASMarques]

Could you be so kind as to let me know what the word "Leichenkeller"
means in German ?

Thank you.

ASMarques

[ASMarques]

Will you please state whether you agree with the way the selected parts
of the speech you have mentioned are rendered here ?

http://www.codoh.com/incon/inconhh.html

If you don't find them at all please note we have been told there are
two versions of the speech, and one of them existed only in a single
recording who misteriously got into Allied hands in 1945. Sounds odd. Do
you have any precise knowledge about the chain of custody this record
had been in ?

ASMarques

[Gord McFee]

In
<Pine.LNX.3.96.980627...@stud-login1.Uni-Marburg.DE>,
on 27 Jun 1998 16:06:08 GMT, Nele Abels-Ludwig
<Ab...@stud-mailer.uni-marburg.de> wrote:

> On Sat, 27 Jun 1998, ASMarques wrote:
> [...]
> > You yourself say it is "they are deported", not "they are being
> > deported". If you like talmudic hair-spliting over the translations from
> > the German without looking for the meaning behind the words, then your
> > level of bad will is apparent even to those who wouldn't recognize you
> > as one of the German "natives" in the alt.revisionism shlock-troops.
> [...]
>

> Right, ASMarques, now is the time to put up or shut up. I have taken
> the liberty to include three German newsgroups, which should be in
> your interest, since you are obviously convinced that Hansjoerg
> Walther and my humble self do not know more about German than you.
>
> Please feel free to intervene, if you feel that I misrepresent your
> argument.
>

I love it!

--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time

Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org

Visit the Nizkor site
http://www.nizkor.org

[Gord McFee]

In <359cad3d...@news3.ibm.net>, on Sun, 28 Jun 1998 02:46:19 GMT,
gmc...@ibm.net (Gord McFee) wrote:

> > May I ask the German speakers of alt.usage.German,
> > de.soc.politik.deutschland, and soc.culture.german to give their
> > comments on this issue. To be more precisely, may I ask as many
> > speakers of German as possible post their definition of the
> > "Ausrottung eines Volkes" in these newsgroups, so that we can come to
> > an informed conclusion of this debate?
>
> I love it!

By the way, 8 people who obviously have German as their native language
have commented thus far. The score is:

ASMarques -- 0
Ludwig-Walther -- 8

ROTFL!

A grand total of 11 have commented. The score is:

ASMarques -- 0
Ludwig-Walther -- 11

Double ROTFL!

[Oliver Gassner]

Nele Abels-Ludwig <Ab...@stud-mailer.uni-marburg.de> wrote/schrieb:

>May I ask the German speakers of alt.usage.German,
>de.soc.politik.deutschland, and soc.culture.german to give their
>comments on this issue. To be more precisely, may I ask as many
>speakers of German as possible post their definition of the
>"Ausrottung eines Volkes" in these newsgroups, so that we can come to
>an informed conclusion of this debate?

OK, ine by line.

> Ich hielt mich naemlich nicht fuer berechtigt, die Maenner
> auszurotten - sprich also umzubringen, oder umbringen zu lassen

Here He says explicitely that "ausrotten" means "umbringen" to him; that
is "to kill/murder".

> - und die Raecher in Gestalt der Kinder fuer unsere Soehne und
> Enkel gross werden zu lassen.

Here he says that he thought that only killing the men to let the
children live to take revenge was not an option.

> Es musste der schwere Entschluss
> gefasst werden, dieses Volk von der Erde verschwinden zu lassen.

Here he says that he had to make the "hard decision" to let this people
vanish from the surface of the earth.

So this Passage does not contain any ambiguity as to resettlement etc.

It just shows that listening to the argumets of revisionists does not
make sense.

OG

I am a setting some f'up2 in a group I do not read and where this
belongs (alt.revisionism), please comment via Mail if you feel I should
read your answer...
--
"Nicht fuer die Luchse, fuer den Nebel lernen wir." (N.N.)
Literatur am Draht --> http://www.carpe.com/lit/
Home --> http://lit-inf.home.pages.de/

[Reimer Behrends]

Again, followups set back to alt.revisionism. Fix your bloody newsreader
such that it honours followups. I see no reason to bother innocent
newsgroups with this.

ASMarques (asm...@mail.telepac.pt) wrote:
> Reimer Behrends wrote:
> >
> > "Ausrotten" means one thing, and there is no
> > doubt about it.
>
> "Extirpate" in the sense of something you're taking away from the midst
> of something does sound right, doesn't it ? Every dictionary says so.

You should be careful with using bilingual dictionaries for definitions;
the fact that you can translate "reparieren" as "to fix" doesn't mean
that "reparieren" can also used in the meaning of "to fix lunch", for
instance. If your dictionary says that it can be translated as "to
extirpate", that would be in the sense of "to wipe out". In any event,
none of my dictionaries (which aren't exactly small or cheap) lists "to
extirpate" as a possible translation.

> If Himmler is saying literally "evacuate them, ausrotten them" and is
> speaking of deportation it does certainly sound as if he is sending
> someone he despises into Eastern labor camps and ghettoes (as Goebbels
> has it in his diaries too), not into any gas chambers in Silesia.

I guess you also have creative ways to translate "umzubringen oder
umbringen zu lassen" (kill them or have them killed), then, which is how
he explains what he means by "ausrotten"?

Face it, you don't have a clue about German. You are even worse than
Butz in that respect.

> but I
> understand you're not free to discuss these matters in your country,
> Herr Behrends, and will only be allowed by your laws to say what the
> likes of Mr. Nele Whatsisname require you to.

This inacurrate perception of German law appears to be fairly popular,
especially outside Germany; it doesn't make it any more accurate.
Possibly the influence of Ingrid "I do not care what the facts are, I'll
invent my own" Rimland?

To clarify: There is in particular not a single clause in German law
that in any way prevents me from verifying a correct translation of any
single historical document, no matter what it says.

[...]

Reimer Behrends

[Oliver Gassner]

ASMarques <asm...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote/schrieb:

>Could you be so kind as to let me know what the word "Leichenkeller"
>means in German ?

I have not head that word, but there is the saying "Der hat (auch) eine
Leiche im Keller." ("He has a corpse in his cellar.") meaning fig. that
there is some 'dark spot' in his past. It does not have to be something
_very_ serious (as a real murder) but usually is something to "destroy"
the person's career or marriage or...

You would not talk about "eine Leiche im Keller" if he just concealed a
minor fact about this past.

In non-fugurative way you might use the word creativle in a conext
where a serial killer hides the corses in the cellar like in a newspaper
headline "Erneut Leichenkeller entdeckt". ("another cellar with corpses
discovered")

f'up2 alt.usage.german

OG

[Hansjoerg Walther]

Hello ASMarques,

ASMarques <asm...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote in article
<359529...@mail.telepac.pt>...

> Nele Abels-Ludwig wrote:
> >
> > Right, ASMarques, now is the time to put up or shut up. I have taken
> > the liberty to include three German newsgroups, which should be in
> > your interest, since you are obviously convinced that Hansjoerg
> > Walther and my humble self do not know more about German than you.
> >
> > Please feel free to intervene, if you feel that I misrepresent your
> > argument.
>

> You certainly do, and in no small way, as usual,

What a joke.

> but I'm not stating it all over again.

Of course not. You knew from the start that when Himmler says "Ausrottung"
in his Posen speech of 1943, he means "extermination". You only thought you
could fool others who don't know any German.

Aber da beisst Du auf Granit, auch wenn Du meinst, es ist der Teppich.

> Nor do I believe in spamming German groups with the
> alt-revisionism sort of (tal)mud you like to throw around.

Thanks for making clear what drives you: your blatant anti-Semitism.

> To German free spirits interested in understanding the spirit of the
> times, however, I would point out there is plenty of information around.

Here it is:

The Holocaust History Project is at http://www.holocaust-history.org/
The Nizkor Project is at http://www.nizkor.org/
The Einsatzgruppen page is at http://www.pgonline.com/electriczen/
The Cybrary of the Holocaust is at http://www.remember.org/

Best regards,

Hansjoerg Walther.

[ASMarques]

Diedrich Ehlerding wrote:
>
> Nele Abels-Ludwig schrieb:
>

> >[ASMArques claims that] [...] the usage of German has

> >dramatically changed over the last decades under the influence of
> >certain pressure groups.
>

> Nonsens.

Just for the record: I never claimed the usage of German has changed.
The easiest thing in the world is to attribute anything at all to
somebody else and post it without any message reference to attest the
truth of what is being claimed.

ASMarques

[Gord McFee]

In <359529...@mail.telepac.pt>, on Sat, 27 Jun 1998 18:17:59 +0100,
ASMarques <asm...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:

[Follow-ups back to alt.revisionism]

> Nele Abels-Ludwig wrote:
> >
> > Right, ASMarques, now is the time to put up or shut up. I have taken
> > the liberty to include three German newsgroups, which should be in
> > your interest, since you are obviously convinced that Hansjoerg
> > Walther and my humble self do not know more about German than you.
> >
> > Please feel free to intervene, if you feel that I misrepresent your
> > argument.
>

> You certainly do, and in no small way, as usual, but I'm not stating it
> all over again. Nor do I believe in spamming German groups with the

> alt-revisionism sort of (tal)mud you like to throw around.

Just to be clear, your "argument" was that "Ausrottung" does not mean to
"exterminate" in the quote from the Himmler Posen speech. You then went
on to say that German speakers such as Herr Abels-Ludwig and Herr
Walther don't know their own language. To date, *every* person who has
responded in de.soc.politik.deutschland has disagreed with you.

[denier websites deleted]

[Gord McFee]

In <359545...@mail.telepac.pt>, on Sat, 27 Jun 1998 20:18:26 +0100,
ASMarques <asm...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:

> Will you please state whether you agree with the way the selected parts
> of the speech you have mentioned are rendered here ?
>
> http://www.codoh.com/incon/inconhh.html

No, the translation is inaccurate as we have been discussing.

[ASMarques]

Drew Knigi wrote:
>
> Gentlemen,
>
> I am new to your newsgroup

(Hahaha)~~ :D

What a joke you people are. I suppose you were just passing by...

> and apologies for intervening here. However, for
> your information, arguing with Herr ASMarques is pointless. This lunatic
> was recently thrown off the newsgroup Soc.history.what-if

Not true at all, "Drew Knigi", I post there whenever I feel like, but
curiously enough I don't remember seeing you there at all.
;)

Anybody wishing to participate or read about the debate and
understanding what these ng jumper tactics under assorted disguises mean
-- or indeed what I am truly saying about proving any gas chamber
"Holocaust" through word "codes" or vocabulary hair-spliting disputes --
should go there and see the truth with his own eyes, always the best
medicine against the lies.

See you.

ASMarques

[ASMarques]

ASMarques wrote:
>
> Anybody wishing to participate or read about the debate and
> understanding what these ng jumper tactics under assorted disguises mean
> -- or indeed what I am truly saying about proving any gas chamber
> "Holocaust" through word "codes" or vocabulary hair-spliting disputes --
> should go there

Sorry, I forgot to tell you the best place to follow this if you're
interested is alt.conspiracy.

ASMarques

[ASMarques]

Werner Knoll wrote:

...

> History is truly written by the victor, regardless of nationality. The
> victors were the Americans for so many years. As such it comes as no
> surprise that so many Germans would adopt American political correctness
> in their dealings with their own history.

Thank god for America and the Americans. The only permanent American
ideology is avoiding any political correcteness as the plague. Seems to
me if you're typical of modern day Germany you still have a lot to
learn.

> This is a scary concept when
> one thinks that there must be two sides to every story.

I see not everything is lost.
;)

ASMarques

[Hansjoerg Walther]

Hello there,

ASMarques <asm...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote in article

<3596E3...@mail.telepac.pt>...

Actually, it is alt.revisionism where ASMarques has widely advertised his
ignorance. alt.conspiracy is a way to misdirect readers.

>
> ASMarques
>

Best regards,

Hansjoerg Walther.

[Gerhard Schromm]

In de.soc.politik.deutschland ASMarques <asm...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:
: Could you be so kind as to let me know what the word "Leichenkeller"
: means in German ?

morgue

--

Gerhard Schromm
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|E-mail to: gerhard...@student.uni-ulm.de |
|PGP-Key Fingerprint: 9F 08 7E EA 45 5E E1 3D 65 CF 8D DB 06 06 70 2F|
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+

[Gord McFee]

In <MPG.10018cdba...@news.rrz.uni-koeln.de>, on Mon, 29 Jun
1998 12:58:27 +0200, gag...@gmx.de (Wolfram Meyer von Gagern) wrote:

> Gerhard...@student.uni-ulm.de, genannt Gerhard Schromm, schrieb:

> > In de.soc.politik.deutschland ASMarques <asm...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:
> > : Could you be so kind as to let me know what the word "Leichenkeller"
> > : means in German ?
> >
> > morgue
> >
>

> I don't think that it's a good translation. A morgue is a
> "Leichenschauhaus" not a "Leichenkeller"?!
>
> It would be good to know the context.
>
> Literally translated, it means "cellar for dead bodies" or "cellar with
> dead bodies"

Wenn ich mich nicht irre, waren die Keller in Auschwitz, wo die Juden
mit Gas vergiftet wurden, Leichenkeller genannt.

[Klaus Günther Beck]

HEy, idiot, "ausrotten" means since many decades to exterminate. I have
a degree in English and German and you don´t know shit.

[Helmut Fuchs]

> Could you be so kind as to let me know what the word "Leichenkeller"
> means in German ?

_Betr.: Leichenkeller im KL Auschwitz-Birkenau_

Leichenkeller waren den Krematorien zugeordnete unterirdische Räume.
In diesen konnte bei relativ kühlen Temperaturen eine größere Anzahl
Leichen für eine geraume Zeit aufbewahrt werden.
Dies wurde erforderlich, wenn die Kremierungskapazitäten infolge erhöhter
Krankensterblichkeit zeitweise nicht ausreichten.

Das war z.B. bei einer Flecktyphusepedemie im Herbst 1943 der Fall. Berlin
war damals über die hohe Sterblichkeitsrate besorgt und ungehalten; der
Reichsführer SS Heinrich Himmler erteilte daher mit Schreiben vom
29.12.1943 der Lagerleitung einen scharfen Verweis.

Die hohe Sterblichkeit unter den Lagerinsassen war darauf zurückzuführen,
daß das Läusevernichtungsmittel Zyklon B (Läuse sind die Überträger des
Fecktyphus) nicht in ausreichender Menge zur Verfügung stand.

Inigo Speer

[Nele Abels-Ludwig]

On Sat, 27 Jun 1998, ASMarques wrote:

> Nele Abels-Ludwig wrote:
> >
> > Right, ASMarques, now is the time to put up or shut up. I have taken
> > the liberty to include three German newsgroups, which should be in
> > your interest, since you are obviously convinced that Hansjoerg
> > Walther and my humble self do not know more about German than you.
> >
> > Please feel free to intervene, if you feel that I misrepresent your
> > argument.
>
> You certainly do, and in no small way, as usual, but I'm not stating it
> all over again.

In other words, I am essentially right in my paraphrase of your
argument, but you deny everything anyway, just to be on the save side.
You are just so addicted to lying that you are simply not able to
admit that others could be right.

> Nor do I believe in spamming German groups with the
> alt-revisionism sort of (tal)mud you like to throw around.

Spamming? SPAMMING? What on earth could a newsgroup named
alt.usage.German be about if not about discussing the usage of a
German word?? You have shot off your big mouth with idiotic hypotheses
about a language you do not speak nor understand. You didn't believe
two native speakers of German who tried to correct you. Now Mr.
Knowitall choses to disbelieve 10 native speakers of German, one of
them even sympathizing with Holocaust-"revisionism". Will that in any
way convince you? Probably not...

> To German free spirits interested in understanding the spirit of the
> times, however, I would point out there is plenty of information around.

Spirit of the times? Like, "when other people demonstrate your
arguments futile, run away and start a new thread." Or: "When proven
wrong, call them liars." Yeah, "Holocaust-revisionism, the great
intellectual adventure of the 20th century." How typical...

[Neonazistische und Holocaust-leugnerische Webadressen geloescht]

Nele

[Oliver Gassner]

KlausGue...@t-online.de (Klaus Günther Beck) wrote/schrieb:

>HEy, idiot, "ausrotten" means since many decades to exterminate. I have
>a degree in English and German and you don´t know shit.

If you have a degree: watch your language.

*PLONK*

Thanks

OG
--
Literatur am Draht:
http://www.carpe.com/lit/
Tips zum "Kreativen Schreiben" im Usenet in der FAQ für
news:de.alt.geschichten -> http://www.carpe.com/lit/plus.htm

[Alwyn Thomas]

Oliver Gassner wrote:

> KlausGue...@t-online.de (Klaus Günther Beck) wrote/schrieb:
>
> >HEy, idiot, "ausrotten" means since many decades to exterminate. I have
> >a degree in English and German and you don´t know shit.
>
> If you have a degree: watch your language.

Quite so, he doesn't seem to know the difference between "decades" and
"centuries".

Alwyn

[Stefan Schneider]

[newsgroups clipped, f'up2 set]

--> Nele Abels-Ludwig <Ab...@stud-mailer.uni-marburg.de> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jun 1998, ASMarques wrote:

> In other words, I am essentially right in my paraphrase of your
> argument, but you deny everything anyway, just to be on the save side.
> You are just so addicted to lying that you are simply not able to
> admit that others could be right.

So far, there was no evidence for the assumption, the opposite could
be senseful. It's the old story once more. All the world is bad and
only revisionists are right, though they're subject of suppression all
the time. Really poor people.

> > Nor do I believe in spamming German groups with the
> > alt-revisionism sort of (tal)mud you like to throw around.
>
> Spamming? SPAMMING? What on earth could a newsgroup named
> alt.usage.German be about if not about discussing the usage of a
> German word?? You have shot off your big mouth with idiotic hypotheses
> about a language you do not speak nor understand. You didn't believe
> two native speakers of German who tried to correct you. Now Mr.
> Knowitall choses to disbelieve 10 native speakers of German, one of
> them even sympathizing with Holocaust-"revisionism". Will that in any
> way convince you? Probably not...

Well, I think he objected the crossposting to alt.conspiracy. It's
strangethat he does, as any queer idea is welcome there. Though I
personally wouldn't post any article there, as any new invented
conspiracy gives birth to some thousand new ones.

> > To German free spirits interested in understanding the spirit of the
> > times, however, I would point out there is plenty of information around.
>
> Spirit of the times? Like, "when other people demonstrate your
> arguments futile, run away and start a new thread." Or: "When proven
> wrong, call them liars." Yeah, "Holocaust-revisionism, the great
> intellectual adventure of the 20th century." How typical...

[...]

I guess you misinterpreted dear Mr. Marques here. Sure enough, he meant
people free of spirit with the term "free spirits". Or he wanted to re-
fer to people full of liquid spirit. It's hard to find out, what he
meant. But that's one of the main problems, one has to deal with while
"discussing" with those folks. It's always the same. In this case, you
have to put it this way:
O minho argumento de mala está danificado. A quem me posso dirigir?
Regards
Stefan
--
Der Unwissende hat Mut, der Wissende hat Angst (Alberto Moravia)

[Thorsten Bauer]

Scholem alejchem!

Helmut Fuchs wrote:
>
> > Could you be so kind as to let me know what the word "Leichenkeller"
> > means in German ?
>
> _Betr.: Leichenkeller im KL Auschwitz-Birkenau_
>
> Leichenkeller waren den Krematorien zugeordnete unterirdische Räume.
> In diesen konnte bei relativ kühlen Temperaturen eine größere Anzahl
> Leichen für eine geraume Zeit aufbewahrt werden.

Deswegen wurde auch ueberlegt, ob man die Raeume
mit der Abwaerme der Krematorien heizen solle (vgl. Pressac).

Und weil dort Leichen gelagert wurden, wurden auch die Rutschen
in die Keller entfernt. Die muessen wohl noch ganz gut zu Fuss
gewesen sein, die Leichen.

Frische Luft haben sie wohl auch regelmaessig bekommen, die Leichen.
Wozu sonst haette man ein leistungsfaehiges Entlueftungssystem
installiert.

Von der Bezeichnung "Vergasungskeller" in Bauplaenen
moechte ich ja gar nicht erst anfangen.

Mit freundlichen Gruessen,
Thorsten

[Oliver Gassner]

Alwyn Thomas <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote/schrieb:

His grammar also seems a little off. Or am I to picky?

OG
--
Literatur am Draht:
http://www.carpe.com/lit/

Tips zur Suche nach AutorInnen und Büchern im Netz in der FAQ für
news:de.rec.buecher: http://www.carpe.com/lit/plus.htm

[Barbara Johnson]

Sorry to pick up your reply so late. Right now I am 1500 km away from
my home computer, visiting friends in Alberta. Take care

Werner Knoll
Surrey BC Canada

[Martin Karger]

Gord McFee schrieb:

>
> In <MPG.10018cdba...@news.rrz.uni-koeln.de>, on Mon, 29 Jun
> 1998 12:58:27 +0200, gag...@gmx.de (Wolfram Meyer von Gagern) wrote:
>
> > Gerhard...@student.uni-ulm.de, genannt Gerhard Schromm, schrieb:

> > > In de.soc.politik.deutschland ASMarques <asm...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:
> > > : Could you be so kind as to let me know what the word "Leichenkeller"
> > > : means in German ?
> > >

> > > morgue
> > >
> >
> > I don't think that it's a good translation. A morgue is a
> > "Leichenschauhaus" not a "Leichenkeller"?!
> >
> > It would be good to know the context.
> >
> > Literally translated, it means "cellar for dead bodies" or "cellar with
> > dead bodies"
>
> Wenn ich mich nicht irre, waren die Keller in Auschwitz, wo die Juden
> mit Gas vergiftet wurden, Leichenkeller genannt.

nee ... das waren die Gaskammern.

> --
> Gord McFee
> I'll write no line before its time
>
> Visit the Holocaust History Project
> http://www.holocaust-history.org
>
> Visit the Nizkor site
> http://www.nizkor.org

--
**************************************************

- Martin Karger
E-Mail: kar...@ppd.de - Pager: 927...@scall.de
IRC: #schwerte,#dortmund (^KiWi)

**************************************************

[E.F.Schelby]

gag...@gmx.de (Wolfram Meyer von Gagern) wrote:

>oliver-...@bigfoot.com, genannt Oliver Gassner, schrieb:

>> Alwyn Thomas <al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote/schrieb:
>>
>> >Oliver Gassner wrote:
>> >
>> >> KlausGue...@t-online.de (Klaus Günther Beck) wrote/schrieb:
>> >>
>> >> >HEy, idiot, "ausrotten" means since many decades to exterminate. I have
>> >> >a degree in English and German and you don´t know shit.
>> >>
>> >> If you have a degree: watch your language.
>> >
>> >Quite so, he doesn't seem to know the difference between "decades" and
>> >"centuries".
>>
>> His grammar also seems a little off. Or am I to picky?
>>

>Soweit ich sehe, steht der Artikel nicht in einer Gruppe für englische
>Sprache. Deswegen: Ja, Du bist zu pingelig.

No, I don't think OG is too picky. Not if someone who writes a
faulty English brags at the same time about his degree in English.

ES

[mikh...@my-dejanews.com]

In article <6n8aa3$k23$1...@news02.btx.dtag.de>,

klausgue...@t-online.de wrote:
>
> HEy, idiot, "ausrotten" means since many decades to exterminate. I have
> a degree in English and German and you don´t know shit.

Question: Since the expression was used in public speeches by the Nazis in the
1930s, how do you explain not only jewish German not knowing it meant
exterminate but the entire world not knowing it meant exterminate?

How do you explain jewish Germans going placidly to their extermination if
they knew what it meant?

In your insistance upon that being the correct meaning in context you have to
explain how the entire world missed that meaning in the 1930s.

Good luck.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

[Michael Brandtner]

In article <35a76fad...@news.demon.co.uk>,
re...@nospam.perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland) writes:

Hallo,

> To all the Germans now in this thread; a question. If any of you were
> to say something like: "Himmler's meaning in that part of the speech
> was unclear, and I do not know for certain that he even said it anyway
> - it may be a fake" Would you be arrested and charged under any of
> your laws about Holocaust Denial, or any other law?

No, nobody would land in prison. The "Auschwitz-Lüge" is forbidden,
but nothing else.
Some people are actually denying that things happened as written in
the history books.

cu
Michael

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Brandtner m...@evolution.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------

[Gord McFee]

In <cq0cn6...@evolution.org>, on Wed, 1 Jul 1998 02:45:00 +0200,
m...@evolution.org (Michael Brandtner) wrote:

> In article <35a76fad...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> re...@nospam.perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland) writes:
>
> Hallo,
>
> > To all the Germans now in this thread; a question. If any of you were
> > to say something like: "Himmler's meaning in that part of the speech
> > was unclear, and I do not know for certain that he even said it anyway
> > - it may be a fake" Would you be arrested and charged under any of
> > your laws about Holocaust Denial, or any other law?
>
> No, nobody would land in prison. The "Auschwitz-Lüge" is forbidden,
> but nothing else.
> Some people are actually denying that things happened as written in
> the history books.

Thank you, Herr Brandtner. I have added alt.revisionism, which has a
great interest in this issue.

[ASMarques]

Martin Karger wrote:
>
> > Wenn ich mich nicht irre, waren die Keller in Auschwitz, wo die Juden
> > mit Gas vergiftet wurden, Leichenkeller genannt.
>
> nee ... das waren die Gaskammern.

Thank you all very much.

Well, in the original plans of the Birkenau crematories (at Auschwitz),
the rooms we are now told were gas-chambers are called "Leichenkeler".
But they were obviously the morgues where corpses were deposited while
awaiting cremation.

If -- contrary to what is stated in the construction plans -- they were
not morgues, then *THE CREMATORIES HAD NO MORGUES*. I wonder where they
deposited the hundreds of bodies resulting from each supposed gassing
while they waited their turn for cremation. . .

Maybe the "native German" brigade from the alt.revisionism ghetto will
explain. . .

ASMarques

[ASMarques]

Hansjoerg Walther wrote:
>
> Hello ASMarques,

How are you, Hansjoerg ?

(...)

> You knew from the start that when Himmler says "Ausrottung"
> in his Posen speech of 1943, he means "extermination". You only thought you
> could fool others who don't know any German.

The alt.revisionism "native Germans" (this is the way they always
present themselves) specializing in holo-newspeak, when confronted with
the fact that at long last the jumping homicidal gas chambers of the
"Holocaust" have no place left to jump to, will always try to prove the
Jewish "Holocaust" took place by:

1) accepting obviously extracted, absurd and self-incriminating
confessions from the "War criminals" in the post-war show-trials.

2) accepting the testimony, full of impossibilities and contradictions,
of so-called "witnesses" who were never even cross-examined (including
"affidavit" testimony by invisible ones).

3) quoting diaries and speeches from the III Reich leaders, to the end
that a planned "extermination" of the Jews was really taking place.

This of course would be the equivalent of needing extracted
"confessions", fantastic show-trial and "sensational memoirs" testimony
from witnesses, and codified "quotes" from the Allied leaders to prove,
say, the Dresden bombing ever took place. Events of such magnitude as
the incendiary bombing of Dresden or the mass gassing of millions of
Jews, however, shouldn't need this sort of hair-spliting talmudic
discussion over every possible subtle meaning of words in the German
language. They should stand or fall on the merits of the evidence
available, the material proof and the disinterested testimony free from
the hysteria of the post-war hunt for nazi witches (still going on
strong in the BRD, alas).

But when it comes to the "Holocaust", we are told it took place
spontaneously and without writen orders by a strange telepathic "meeting
of minds" (Hilberg's expression), left no material proofs except for
some gas shelter doors who are being put on display in "Holocaust"
museums (identical to all wartime German gas shelter doors), and the
empty pesticide cans, photos of piles of shoes and shrunken heads in the
camp museums.

Not a single photo of a gas chamber in operation exists, even though
they are supposed to have been in operation for consecutive years, 24
hours a day, 7 days a week, and always in the *same* places -- at least
six of those places being the six "extermination" camps -- and all
sorts of War barbarism are duly documented, including the incineration
of entire populations by aerial bombing and executions by shooting and
dumping into pits. Apparently not a single one of the many people who
came into contact with this amazing unheard-of spectacle of millions
going into the gas chambers ever thought of taking a single photo of a
gas chamber being emptied or of the gassed bodies being piled up (where
? no one says ! seems at the Big Birkenau Faked Shower Baths the morgues
were gas chambers, which would mean there were no morgues left to put
the thousands of bodies while they waited for cremation !). So,
everybody was having fun taking pictures of all sorts of executions and
murders going on, but no one ever remembered to take a photo of a single
gassing operation, even though such a photo would be quite valuable.
Therefore, doubting those amazing mass slaughterhouses by gas and
debating/debunking them should be in order.

How do the holo-shlocktruppen of alt.revisionism react to this ?
Everything is easy according to them. The gas chamber "Holocaust" took
place because words such as "Ausrottung" were being used ! This seems
rather strange for the following reasons:

1) no one appears to have believed in any "exterminations". And indeed
the Jews didn't resist being deported, not anymore than the Nisei
Japanese Americans did when the US government deported them. So, they
must clearly have been understanding not the literal sense of "killing
every man, woman and child", but the figurative senses pertaining to
wartime oratory, comparable to the equally violent language being used
by the Allies in regard of the Japanese and Germans, and certainly not a
real plan to murder everybody.

2) we are told a big secret surrounded the gassings and from the
leadership down to the lowly gas chamber operators everything procedeed
by a strange "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" procedure and the use of codified
words such as "Sonderbehandlung" which always implied gassing someone.
Apparently the III Reich leadership was hoping to maintain the
"Holocaust" shrouded in secrecy in order for nobody to notice that a
whole race/culture/religion (or whatever it is) would disapear without
no one noticing at all, and historians would forget everything about the
"Judentum" who had been around before mysteriously being abducted by
extraterrestrials during WWII.

3) nevertheless we are told all the public references to "Ausrottung"
are to be taken literally as having the only possible meaning of
physical "extermination" ! Maybe the III Reich leaders were suffering
from acute schyzophrenia and the whole German nation, the Jews
themselves and the rest of the World joined them in the make-believe. .
.

Now, if you say the people supposed to have vanished in the hellish
slaughterhouses called the homicidal gas chambers are being sent to
labor camps in the East, are you not saying the amazing "Holocaust" that
entitles the Jews to claim unique historical victimization during the
"Shoa" is rubbish ? How do the "German natives" from alt.revisionism
reply to this ?

What Goebbels says, nevertheless, is very simple: it's "they are going
to the East". Does that mean Auschwitz in Silesia, for instance, in
westernmost Poland ? How do the holoshlockers account for this "East" ?
Is it a codeword ? Yes or no ?

Obviously there is a process of expulsion/deportation of the Jews from
the Greater Reich and General Government into the East. He does not
spell this in detail in his diary's short note, but that's what
everybody is saying by using words such as "evacuate", "extirpate" and
so on. Of course documents from the front, body-counts in the
anti-partisan war, etc speak of killing Jews and dead Jews. So why would
he be using codewords such as "the East" to his own diary if everybody
was really out as a matter of policy to *exterminate every Jew*, instead
of "extirpating Jewry" ?

Could it be that those crazy nazi scientists had postponed the
saponification program and were fiddling around with teleportation ?
That would explain all those thousands being seen by the "witnesses"
disapearing into the gas chambers the Germans disguised as morgues and
shower rooms, and then coming out, say, in Maly-Trostynets, near Minsk,
with their soaps and towels and astonished looks in their faces. . .

We should understand that either Goebbels is saying there were secret
gas chambers for the extermination program located East of Lublin, or he
is using the words "barbaric procedure" to simply mean "rooting out
people from their home regions and sending them into labor camps and
ghettoes", not a unique situation in WWII.

Does Nele Abels-Ludwig and the other "native" clowns know any references
to a secret plan involving precise percentages ? I thought the Germans
were out to exterminate every Jewish man, woman and child. Now they are
going to murder only precise percentages because Goebbels's diaries says
so when they are going into the East instead of the gas chambers, is
that it ? Somewhat confusing, if you ask me. . .

Obviously Goebbels is freely admiting to himself the result of barbaric
deportations into labor camps, and setting down a loose estimate, not
calculating any number of victims per cubic meter of gas chamber as
holoshlockers like to do.

Now, if the "barbaric procedure" is neither simply putting the Jews in
Eastern labor camps nor the gas chamber "Holocaust" in Poland we've been
constantly bombarded with for the last 50 years, what is it then ?

Everything agrees with what I've been seeing and being told. During
these discussions of ours for the past year or so, no less than four
posters living in the USA (admitedly not a significant sample, of
course, but a useful hint nevertheless) have started by telling me their
"enlarged family" perished in the "Holocaust". They typically included
their parents and almost all their near relatives in the number of
survivors but dozens of distant cousins they never even saw in their
lifes, as proof of the family extermination. When they had been doing
research some traces had been located, and I noticed it was "deportation
to the Baltic region or Bielorussia". This is striking and one of the
posters who had done some research even knew the precise day his
grandfather had died because the Germans kept records in such labor
camps and ghettos as Maly Trostynets and the ones near Riga. "Family
exterminations" look more or less like this: "one grandparent registered
as having died of illness in a camp near Riga (because we looked for his
record), 2 distant cousins who have certainly died after deportation in
unknown circumstances, 3 others who found me after the War *on their own
initiative* (they would be assumed dead if they hadn't), and about 25
distant relatives whom I never even saw in my life but were known to
have existed and of whom no trace is found, assumed to have been
exterminated".

Another common stratagem is to use spurious quotations for which no
convincing evidence exists and to try to make it sound as if it was real
historical speeches or writings from the individuals involved. Among the
most popular forms of these are the "conversations with Hitler" such as
the one from someone called Hell, supposed to have taken place in 1922
and in which Hitler is already known to be getting full powers somewhere
in the future (Hell actually asks him what he will do when he manages
precisely that, with Hitler replying he'll be hanging all the Jews on
the lamp posts and so on), and the one from Rauschning where Hitler is
supposed to have confided to this minor Dantzig bureaucrat (who later
left Germany) in an informal conversation all his plans for World
conquest including South America . . .

To this sort of nonsense - totally discredited but nevertheless forming
an endless source of "Hitler quotations" for the consumption of the
naïve - others may be added, such as the parts in Himmler's Posen speech
in which he talks about killing all the men, women and children etc.
This is somewhat strange because in the original transcripts of the
speech in the hands of the Allies no such parts existed. We are told as
an explanation that *two* versions of the speech were given in sucessive
days and the worst one is said to have existed in a single audio record
whose chain of custody until reaching Allied hands is totally unknown.

And where are the suposedly "extermination" camps of Sobibor, Belzec and
Treblinka that were simply transit camps who functioned for very short
periods and, in particular, the first two ones who were so minute and
temporary they left no traces ?! The official line is the Germans
utterly dismantled them (even the foundations of the buildings), but
apparently forgot to dismantle the others and even left a forgotten
never-used gas chamber in Dachau complete with fake showers. Amusing
isn't it ?...

Why not talk about the Dachau false showers if they *are there* instead
of trying to reduce the analysis of the "Holocaust" tales to the word
"Ausrottung" ? Did the Dachau "experiments" consist in trying to assess
the gullybility of future gassed multitudes about to take their shower
baths or were the false showerheads faked under Allied control ?

So there, Mr. Hansjoerg Walther. Contrary to what you say I don't act
out of bad-faith, but you very probably do. The best you could manage
would be to prove to me that you were more knowledgeable about German
than my other sources and my dictionaries in general are. But you would
certainly not prove any bad-faith on my part.

I'm not throwing shrunken heads around, nor do I trade in counterfeit
human soap for money, native German. . .

ASMarques

[ASMarques]

Nele Abels-Ludwig wrote:
>
> On Sat, 27 Jun 1998, ASMarques wrote:
>

> > Nele Abels-Ludwig wrote:
> >
> > > Please feel free to intervene, if you feel that I misrepresent your
> > > argument.
> >
> > You certainly do, and in no small way, as usual, but I'm not stating it
> > all over again.
>

> In other words, I am essentially right in my paraphrase of your
> argument, but you deny everything anyway, just to be on the save side.
> You are just so addicted to lying that you are simply not able to
> admit that others could be right.

Okay. If you insist:
;D

Nele Abels-Ludwig sometimes comes up with some good ideas. Could we ask
for the help of German speakers on the following:

"Aus dem Generalgouvernement werden jetzt, bei Lublin beginnend, die
Juden nach dem Osten abgeschoben. Es wird hier ein ziemlich
barbarisches und nicht näher zu beschreibendes Verfahren angewandt, und
von den Juden selbst bleibt nicht mehr viel übrig. Im großen kann man
davon feststellen, daß 60 Prozent davon liquidiert werden müssen,
während nur 40 Prozent bei der Arbeit eingesetzt werden können."

(From the Diaries of Goebbels)

I'm told by someone who speaks very good German a literal translation (a
word-by-word one for those who don't follow easily the German language)
would be as follows:

"Out of the General-Government will now, beginning by Lublin, the Jews
to the East be deported. It will be used a pretty barbaric and not
proper to describe here process, and of the Jews properly it will not be
left a great remnant. Generally speaking, one can foretell of the
process that 60% are likely to be ruined as a result of it, while just
40% we will be able to put to work".

Here is what he tells me: the worst habitual mistranslation lies in the
words "davon" and "muessen". "...muessen..." meaning "they are almost
certain to die", and the "davon" ("from it") clearly showing the reason
is the process involving and resulting from the deportation, and not any
sort of *active* mass-murdering. So, once again, it is not "we will have
to liquidate them", but "the deportation process is expected to ruin
them". Besides, the "nur" ("just", "only", "not more than") in the last
sentence almost implies that Goebbels would like the survivors to be
more numerous (the more to work, the better).

The "not much will remain of the Jews", is also misleading: the correct
translation would be "it will not be left a great remnant of Jews",
which of course means that not many Jews will be left in the
General-Government.

You'll notice Goebbels is actually describing the phased deportation
(from the Generalgouvernement) to the labor camps in the East, such as
the giant concentration camp/ghetto complex of Maly Trostynets near
Minsk we have only recently begun to hear about, the camps in the Riga
region such as Jungernhof, etc. and not to any gas chambering which is
supposed to have taken place *in the Generalgouvernement itself* (and
certainly to the West of Lublin) and not outside of it.

He is also estimating round percentages (40, 60). Certainly no "planned
extermination percentages" have ever been claimed to have existed. He is
also showing some consciousness that to deport entire families away from
their homes into adverse life conditions in labor camps during a savage
war is indeed a barbaric procedure.

Altogether a glaring confirmation the Germans were concerned with
winning the War and getting the Jews out of Germany, not with turning
the Jews into soap bars or vaporizing them in gas chambers + burning
pits.

Do you have an opinion on this ?

ASMarques

[ASMarques]

Gord McFee wrote:
>
> Just to be clear, your "argument" was that "Ausrottung" does not mean to
> "exterminate" in the quote from the Himmler Posen speech.

My argument was it meant "extirpating, rooting out" as we shall see.

> You then went
> on to say that German speakers such as Herr Abels-Ludwig and Herr
> Walther don't know their own language.

I know very well those characters from the alt.revisionism ghetto where
they wish they could confine "Holocaust" discussions for ever.
Interested people may use Dejanews to see with their own eyes the
caliber of the nonsense they spew out.

> To date, *every* person who has
> responded in de.soc.politik.deutschland has disagreed with you.

What a surprise ! All you have to do to undertand why is read the
original Nele Whatsisname request. Of course they will agree with you
(and me) if they say it means "exterminate" as well as "extirpate, root
out". This is quite clear in three different dictionary entries I gave
you. And of course "rooting out a weed" usually means the end for the
weed, but this has nothing to do with the meaning in the phrase you
people (not me) were discussing.

My whole point (as you well know) was that *in the phrase you were
discussing* the word "Ausrottung" did indeed mean "extirpate, root out".
Himmler is saying the following: "ICH MEINE DIE JUDENEVAKUIERUNG, DIE
AUSROTTUNG DES JUDISCHEN VOLKES".

Obviously he is speaking about *extirpating* the Jews from the German
sphere i.e. he is speaking about sending them to labor camps in the East
and he uses the word "Judenevakuierung". What does this word mean in
your opinion ? Gas chambering ? You don't need to know German to
understand the *meaning* of "Judenevakuierung".

If the word "Ausrottung" always had a literal physical sense, how do you
account for the following figurative use by Hitler in his Berlin
Sportpalast speech of February 1933: "den Marxismus und seine
Begleiterscheinungen aus Deutschland auszurotten" - "to extirpate
Marxism and its accompanying phenomena from Germany" ?

Are you suggesting Hitler is talking of gas chambering "Marxism" ?
Obviously not. What he means is "this alien ideology will be rooted out,
extirpated from Germany".

Himmler means exactly the same about "des judische Volkes" which is
being *evacuated* and not gassed with the same pesticide used to fight
typhus in the concentration camps as the "Holocaust" myth would have it.

ASMarques

[ASMarques]

Gord McFee wrote:
>
> Wenn ich mich nicht irre, waren die Keller in Auschwitz, wo die Juden
> mit Gas vergiftet wurden, Leichenkeller genannt.

Leichenkeller = gas chamber ?!
(?)~~ :(

http://www.vho.org/D/rga/rga.html
http://www.webcom.com/ezundel/german/dsmrd/dsmrdgerman.html
http://www.webcom.com/ezundel/english/leuchter/report1/leuchter.toc.html
http://www.abbc.com/aaargh/deut/deut.html

ASMarques

[ASMarques]

Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
>
> I don't at all see the need to hinge your argument on "ausrotten," Nele
> -- not that it's ambiguous, it is, of course, perfectly clear. But since
> you have "umbringen" (to kill) and "von der Erde verschwinden lassen" (to
> have disappear from earth), why waste time debating 'ausrotten'?

Because the "Ausrottung" is well documented and the "umbringen" etc are
in the mysterious highly dubious *second version* of the Posen speech.
See the other messages in the nearby threads.

ASMarques

[Erhard Sanio]

In article <35a76fad...@news.demon.co.uk>,
Fergus McClelland <re...@nospam.perdrix.demon.co.uk> wrote:

[..]

>To all the Germans now in this thread; a question. If any of you were
>to say something like: "Himmler's meaning in that part of the speech
>was unclear, and I do not know for certain that he even said it anyway
>- it may be a fake" Would you be arrested and charged under any of
>your laws about Holocaust Denial, or any other law?

No, definitely not. Most people would argue your literacy and/or
sanity if you did, but this is no offense under recent German law
(it was the Nazi Regime which murdered, among others, mentally
disabled persons, as you possibly know).

Pretending "only to doubt" in the destruction of the European Jews
by the Nazis is the way Neonazis usually circumvent the laws in
question. This is not illegal as the laws are not made in order
to hinder anybody to utter nonsense, rather to protect honour and
dignity of the murdered people and their relatives. Abiding the
law forces the Nazis to take some of the venom out of their hate
propaganda, it does not hinder them to speak anyway.

regards, es

[John Johnson]

In <3599B5...@mail.telepac.pt> ASMarques <asm...@mail.telepac.pt>
the Portuguese Neo-Nazi writes:

[13K of Neo-Nazi revisionist B.S. mercifully snipped here]

Oh, LOOK: he dropped something on his way out:
__
/\_\
/ / /_
/ /_/\ \
_\ \/ \ \
/\ \ /\ \_\
\ \/ \ \/_/
\ /\ \_\
\/_/ / /
/ / /
\/_/

He'd better pick that up before someone sees
it and figures out who/what he *really* is!

--John Johnson

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
--George Santayana, American Philosopher

"The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely
to see." --Sir Winston Churchill

"Nazis: I hate Illinois Nazis." --'Joliet Jake' Blues

"Where are 'Joliet Jake' and Elwood Blues when we need them?" <©>'97

"Neo-Nazis: I hate UseNet Neo-Nazis." --John Johnson, 1997
--
John_Johnson
TXJo...@ix.netcom.com
© 1998 All rights reserved

[John Johnson]

In <3599B9...@mail.telepac.pt> ASMarques <asm...@mail.telepac.pt>
the Portuguese Neo-Nazi writes:

> Gord McFee wrote:
>
>> Just to be clear, your "argument" was that "Ausrottung" does not
>> mean to "exterminate" in the quote from the Himmler Posen speech.
>
> My argument was it meant "extirpating, rooting out" as we shall see.

Non sequitur; since they are synonymous with "exterminate"
(see #2):

ex·tir·pate tr.v. ex·tir·pat·ed, ex·tir·pat·ing, ex·tir·pates.
1. To pull up by the roots. 2. To destroy totally; exterminate.

Synonyms:

1. (v.) To destroy completely:
• annihilate
• abolish
• blot out
• eradicate
• exterminate
• extinguish
• obliterate
• root out
• stamp out
• wipe out
2. (v.) To destroy or remove completely by or AS IF by pulling
out by the roots: ^^-^^
• eradicate [emphasis added]
• abolish
• deracinate
• dig out
• pluck out
• pull up
• root out
• tear out
• uproot

--AHDotELv3

[Balance of 3K of Neo-Nazi revisionist B.S. mercifully snipped here]

[ASMarques]

Oliver Gassner wrote:
>
> It just shows that listening to the argumets of revisionists does not
> make sense.

Your "quotes" are from the mysterious *second* version of the Posen
speech said to exist only in a single sound record whose chain of
custody until 1945 is unknown (see the other messages in the nearby
threads). Here is the text of the Posen speech:

http://www.codoh.com/incon/inconhh.html

ASMarques

[Erhard Sanio]

[ followup set]

In article <3599B7...@mail.telepac.pt>,
ASMarques <asm...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:
[..]

>Nele Abels-Ludwig sometimes comes up with some good ideas. Could we ask
>for the help of German speakers on the following:
>
>"Aus dem Generalgouvernement werden jetzt, bei Lublin beginnend, die
>Juden nach dem Osten abgeschoben. Es wird hier ein ziemlich
>barbarisches und nicht näher zu beschreibendes Verfahren angewandt, und
>von den Juden selbst bleibt nicht mehr viel übrig. Im großen kann man
>davon feststellen, daß 60 Prozent davon liquidiert werden müssen,
>während nur 40 Prozent bei der Arbeit eingesetzt werden können."

>(From the Diaries of Goebbels)

>I'm told by someone who speaks very good German a literal translation (a
>word-by-word one for those who don't follow easily the German language)
>would be as follows:

>"Out of the General-Government will now, beginning by Lublin, the Jews
>to the East be deported. It will be used a pretty barbaric and not
>proper to describe here process, and of the Jews properly it will not be

^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>left a great remnant. Generally speaking, one can foretell of the

^^^^ ^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>process that 60% are likely to be ruined as a result of it, while just

^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>40% we will be able to put to work".

>Here is what he tells me: the worst habitual mistranslation lies in the
>words "davon" and "muessen". "...muessen..." meaning "they are almost

[ ridiculous "interpretative" nonsense deleted ]

>The "not much will remain of the Jews", is also misleading: the correct
>translation would be "it will not be left a great remnant of Jews",
>which of course means that not many Jews will be left in the
>General-Government.

This is all crap, an I am pretty sure Marques knows that. The paragraph
tells that a rather barbaric method or procedure not to be described in
detail here (in the diary) is used (at that time) to deport the Jews
which will not leave a lot of them in existance. And Goebbels expresses
that 60% _must be_ or _have to be_ liquidated (I think, this word "liqui-
dieren" exists in English, too), which means killed, not "ruined", while
only 40% may be used for labour.

>You'll notice Goebbels is actually describing the phased deportation
>(from the Generalgouvernement) to the labor camps in the East, such as
>the giant concentration camp/ghetto complex of Maly Trostynets near

[..]

Maly Trostenez was a huge extermination area, where mass shootings
took place until the more organized methods of mass murder had been
established. A considerable number of German Jews were deported to
that place and shot. The "operation Reinhard" gassing cars were used
here for a while, too. I am leaving out the rest, it is "revisionist"
liars' babble as usual.

[..]

>Altogether a glaring confirmation the Germans were concerned with
>winning the War and getting the Jews out of Germany, not with turning
>the Jews into soap bars or vaporizing them in gas chambers + burning
>pits.

Altogether a glaring confirmation that holocaust revisionists are
damn stupid forgers.

>Do you have an opinion on this ?

Yes, I do. Eat shit and die.

no regards, es

[Tilmann Chladek]

ASMarques <asm...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:

> Werner Knoll wrote:
>
> ...
> > History is truly written by the victor, regardless of nationality. The
> > victors were the Americans for so many years. As such it comes as no
> > surprise that so many Germans would adopt American political correctness
> > in their dealings with their own history.
>
> Thank god for America and the Americans. The only permanent American
> ideology is avoiding any political correcteness as the plague. Seems to
> me if you're typical of modern day Germany you still have a lot to
> learn.
>
> > This is a scary concept when
> > one thinks that there must be two sides to every story.

Well, in this case there are no two sides. "Ausrotten" means
"exterminate", period. And Himmler meant exactly that.

>
> I see not everything is lost.
> ;)

For people who base their arguments on as shaky ground everything is
lost, indeed.
>
> ASMarques

--
Tilmann Chladek
300 Jahre Mittelalter gefaelscht? Infos unter:
http://home.ivm.de/~Tilmann.Chladek/

[Hansjoerg Walther]

Hallo allerseits,

ASMarques <asm...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote in article
<3599B1...@mail.telepac.pt>...

> Martin Karger wrote:
> >
> > > Wenn ich mich nicht irre, waren die Keller in Auschwitz, wo die Juden
> > > mit Gas vergiftet wurden, Leichenkeller genannt.
> >

> > nee ... das waren die Gaskammern.
>
> Thank you all very much.

ASMarques will nur davon ablenken, dass er gerne in einem Zitat aus einer
Himmlerrede von 1943 das Wort "ausrotten" verdrehen moechte, weil das
einfach zu offen das bezeichnet, was geschah. Seit Wochen nervt er damit
schon auf alt.revisionism und andenen Newsgruppen rum, in die er
hartnaeckig crosspostet.

Das einzige, was wir ueber seine Sprachkenntnisse wissen, stammt aus einem
Post in eine deutsche Newsgruppe im letzten Jahr:

"(My apologies for not speaking the German language)"

Um nun von der Niederlage abzulenken, die er bei seiner Verdrehung des
Himmlerzitates erlitten hat, versucht er hier (und auch sonst) lauter neue
Diskussionen zu entfachen, die damit nichts zu tun haben. Ich denke, das
sollte man einfach ignorieren.

Alles weitere dann in alt.revisionism.

Mit freundlichen Gruessen,

Hansjoerg Walther.

[Hansjoerg Walther]

Hallo allerseits,

ASMarques <asm...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote in article

<3599BD...@mail.telepac.pt>...

> Gord McFee wrote:
> >
> > Wenn ich mich nicht irre, waren die Keller in Auschwitz, wo die Juden
> > mit Gas vergiftet wurden, Leichenkeller genannt.
>

> Leichenkeller = gas chamber ?!
> (?)~~ :(

Was interessiert Dich eigentlich die deutsche Sprache so? Letztes Jahr hast
Du doch das hier in eine deutsche Newsgruppe gepostet:

"(My apologies for not speaking the German language)"

Es ging um die Uebersetzung des Wortes "Ausrottung" in einer Rede von
Himmler aus dem Jahre 1943. Die englische Uebersetzung lautet nach wie vor:
"extermination", auch wenn das natuerlich ein grosses Loch ins
Leugner-Kartenhaus schiesst. Das hier ist einfach nur Ablenkung, um Deine
Unfaehigkeit in einem Schwall von Posts untergehen zu lassen, die nichts
zur Sache tun.

Ich bitte alle, sich nicht auf diese Finte einzulassen. ASMarques ist ein
Holzkopf, der einfach nur verwirren will, weil er keine Argumente hat.
Vielen Dank.

Alles weitere findet sich in alt.revisionism.

Best regards,

Hansjoerg Walther.

[Stefan Schneider]

In article <35a76fad...@news.demon.co.uk>
re...@nospam.perdrix.demon.co.uk wrote:

>To all the Germans now in this thread; a question. If any of you were
>to say something like: "Himmler's meaning in that part of the speech
>was unclear, and I do not know for certain that he even said it anyway
>- it may be a fake" Would you be arrested and charged under any of
>your laws about Holocaust Denial, or any other law?

No. Why should he? He simply would prove, that he most probably
didn't join most of the German lessons at school and that his pa-
rents don't seem to speak German at home. If one of these two
would have been true, it were impossible, that he could assume
that Himmler's speech might be unclear.
But nothing of the things mentioned above is illegal. If you don't
want to learn German, you don't have to. The only punishment
resulting from such an attitude is, that you don't understand German
people.
Regards
Stefan

[Juergen Langowski]

On Wed, 01 Jul 1998 05:13:44 +0100,
ASMarques <asm...@mail.telepac.pt>
wrote in <3599B7...@mail.telepac.pt>:

>"Aus dem Generalgouvernement werden jetzt, bei Lublin beginnend, die
>Juden nach dem Osten abgeschoben. Es wird hier ein ziemlich
>barbarisches und nicht näher zu beschreibendes Verfahren angewandt, und
>von den Juden selbst bleibt nicht mehr viel übrig. Im großen kann man
>davon feststellen, daß 60 Prozent davon liquidiert werden müssen,
>während nur 40 Prozent bei der Arbeit eingesetzt werden können."
>
>(From the Diaries of Goebbels)
>
>I'm told by someone who speaks very good German a literal translation (a
>word-by-word one for those who don't follow easily the German language)
>would be as follows:
>
>"Out of the General-Government will now, beginning by Lublin, the Jews
>to the East be deported. It will be used a pretty barbaric and not
>proper to describe here process, and of the Jews properly it will not be

>left a great remnant. Generally speaking, one can foretell of the

>process that 60% are likely to be ruined as a result of it, while just

>40% we will be able to put to work".

Apart from other flaws, there is at least one outright lie in this
"translation".

I call it a lie because in my opinion the person who did this knew
exactly what he or she was doing, and why. I'm talking about this part:

Im großen kann man davon feststellen, daß 60 Prozent
davon liquidiert werden müssen

which is rendered as

Generally speaking, one can foretell of the process

that 60% are likely to be ruined as a result of it

That's wrong. It should read:

Generally speaking, one can state that 60% of them
[i.e. the Jews] will have to be liquidated

The word "to liquidate" has exactly the same meaning as the German word
"liquidieren". No wonder it is missing in a denier's "translation" of
Goebbels' diary.

[Eduardo Casais]

It is always amazing what one can read as warped hermeneutics in the
News.

ASMarques wrote:
>
> "Aus dem Generalgouvernement werden jetzt, bei Lublin beginnend, die
> Juden nach dem Osten abgeschoben. Es wird hier ein ziemlich
> barbarisches und nicht näher zu beschreibendes Verfahren angewandt, und
> von den Juden selbst bleibt nicht mehr viel übrig. Im großen kann man
> davon feststellen, daß 60 Prozent davon liquidiert werden müssen,
> während nur 40 Prozent bei der Arbeit eingesetzt werden können."
>
> (From the Diaries of Goebbels)

A revealing text indeed.

> Here is what he tells me: the worst habitual mistranslation lies in the
> words "davon" and "muessen". "...muessen..." meaning "they are almost

> certain to die", and the "davon" ("from it") clearly showing the reason
> is the process involving and resulting from the deportation, and not any
> sort of *active* mass-murdering. So, once again, it is not "we will have
> to liquidate them", but "the deportation process is expected to ruin
> them". Besides, the "nur" ("just", "only", "not more than") in the last
> sentence almost implies that Goebbels would like the survivors to be
> more numerous (the more to work, the better).

"liquidieren" means "liquidate", i.e. intentional homicide. Now,
regarding

"Im großen kann man davon feststellen, daß 60 Prozent davon liquidiert
werden
müssen, während nur 40 Prozent bei der Arbeit eingesetzt werden können."

Mr. Marques is rejecting the hypothesis meaning that the Nazis had
planned
to exterminate 60% of the Jews. The interpretation suggested by Mr.
Marques
is that the deportation process "ruins" 60% of the deported Jews. If
this
is so, it ruins them to an extent that they are not even suitable for
any
kind of labour and have to be liquidated --- as explicitely stated in
the
diary of Goebbels. One can just wonder what kind of barbaric treatment
it
was that left 60% deads behind. One could ask why the Germans would not
endeavour all they could to cure or help the deported population,
instead
of liquidating it. One could realise that if 40% survivors of the
barbaric
treatment can be put to work, then this excludes small children or very
old
people, for instance; these people can then only be acccounted for in
the
total of Jews to be liquidated, since they cannot have been left behind
anyway, as a consequence of the translation of Mr. Marques. One could
just
figure out that a person who would deplore not the barbaric process or
the
suffering of the victims, but the fact that in the end only 40% of the
population can be put to work, has a rather insensitive mind. One could
further wonder why, in case the Germans were sincerely concerned by the
well-being of the Jews, they would deport them to unhospitable places in
Eastern Europe, closer to the battlefields. One could even question why
the Germans were going to all that trouble only for Jews. And since the
entire Generalgouvernement was to be emptied from Jews, this means that
millions of persons have been affected by this barbaric process.

> The "not much will remain of the Jews", is also misleading: the correct
> translation would be "it will not be left a great remnant of Jews",
> which of course means that not many Jews will be left in the
> General-Government.

Wrong. "von den Juden selbst bleibt nicht mehr viel übrig" means exactly
"from the Jews proper/themselves, not much is left". Your interpretation
could apply only if the sentence were "von den Juden selbst bleiben
nicht
mehr viele übrig" (i.e. "from the Jews themselves/proper, not many are
left").

> He is also estimating round percentages (40, 60). Certainly no "planned
> extermination percentages" have ever been claimed to have existed. He is
> also showing some consciousness that to deport entire families away from
> their homes into adverse life conditions in labor camps during a savage
> war is indeed a barbaric procedure.

I see no reference to families, savage wars, camps, adverse life
conditions
or any concern for the well-being of Jews in that extract, only about
deportation, a not-to-be-described-here barbaric treatment, and high
death rates. The last sentence is a factual observation that only 40% of
the Jews can be put to work.

> Altogether a glaring confirmation the Germans were concerned with
> winning the War and getting the Jews out of Germany, not with turning

A spurious interpretation, since the Generalgouvernement did not cover
German territory, but a part of Poland.

> Do you have an opinion on this ?

The following alternative to interpret the extract from Goebbel's diary
is under consideration:
1. Jews were deported to extermination camps located in Eastern
Europe (die Juden werden nach dem Osten abgeschoben), where they
were subjected to a specific form of mass killings (ein ziemlich
barbarisches Verfahren wird angewandt), that leaves not much from
the Jews themselves (von den Juden selbst bleibt nicht viel übrig),
and that is planned to leave only 40% for work.
Mr. Marques rejects this interpretation.
2. Jews are deported to Eastern Europe, in a rather barbaric process,
that results in a 60% death rate, and leaves only 40% fit to be
put to work (bei der Arbeit eingesetzt werden können).
This is the interpretation favoured by Mr. Marques.
The crucial point is that even if the first term of the alternative
turns
out to be incorrect, this does not make the second interpretation less
terrible at all. In other words, entire populations are deported to
"giant
concentration camps/ghetto complexes", subject to a barbaric treatment
---
as acknowledged by Goebbels himself ---, 60% of them die in the process,
and this is a natural, acceptable, civilized, human way to handle people
?

As a reminder, there was a process not infrequently applied in the
Antiquity
(especially by the Romans) called decimation: kill 10% of a rebellious
army,
conquered population, or ennemy tribe. It was considered with horror as
one
of the most cruel punishment that could be inflicted on a vanquished
party.
Furthermore, wars that took the life of more than 10% of a population
have
always been considered to be a carnage. The great black pest in the
Middle
Ages resulted in 30%-40% deaths among the European population. But 60%
deaths
by deportation --- more than the effects of a pandemy, war and
decimation
combined --- is nothing to worry about according to Mr. Marques.

No need to assume the existence of gas chambers or extermination camps;
the
text of Goebbels is the unmistakable shadow cast by a gruesome crime of
appalling dimensions.

E. Casais

[Daniel Keren]

baby-nazi "ASMarques" writes:

# Well, in the original plans of the Birkenau crematories (at
# Auschwitz), the rooms we are now told were gas-chambers are
# called "Leichenkeler". But they were obviously the morgues
# where corpses were deposited while awaiting cremation.

There are a few terms used to designate the gas chambers: in other
documents about the Auschwitz-Birkenau Kremas, "gaskammer" [1]
and "Vergasungskeller" [2] are used. In Wetzel's letter to Lohse,
about gassing Jews "unfit for work", the term "Vergassungsapparate"
is used [3].

See also report from Jahrling to SS-General Kammler, estimating
the capacity of the Auschwitz-Birkenau furnaces at 4,756 corpses
per 24 working hours [4]. Another interesting document is one
listing 661 "heizer" (stoker/burner) in the four Birkenau Kremas
(one can try and figure out how many people were being murdered
in these Kremas, if more than 600 people were employed, in day
and night shifts, in burning their corpses) [5].

And now, baby-nazi, would you like to a) have the following excerpts
translated, and b) tell us who said them, and when?

[I have represented umlauts by adding an "e"]

"Aber was soll mit den Juden geschehen? Glauben Sie, man sie wird im
Ostland in Siedlungsdoerfern unterbringen? Man hat uns in Berlin
gesagt: weshalb macht man diese Scherereien; wir koennen im Ostland
oder im Reichskommissariat auch nichts mit ihnen anfangen, liquidiert
sie selber! Meine Herren, ich muss Sie bitten, sich gegen alle
Mitleidserwaegungen zu wappnen. Wir muessen die Juden vernichten, wo
immer wir sie treffen und wo es irgend moeglich ist, um das
Gesamtgefuege des Reichs hier aufrecht zu erhalten."

"Dass wir 1.2 Millionen Juden zum Hungertod verurteilen, sei nur am
Rande festgestellt. Es ist selbstverstaendlich, dass ein Nichtverhungern
der Juden hoffentlich eine Beschleunigung der antijuedischen
Massnahmen zur Folge haben wird."

-Danny Keren.

[1] http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?camps/auschwitz/images/Gaskammern.jpg

[2] http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?camps/auschwitz/images/
Vergasungskeller.jpg

[3] http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/w/wetzel.erhard/images/
wetzel-lohse-01.jpg, wetzel-lohse-02.jpg

[4] http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?camps/auschwitz/images/
furnace-capacity.jpg

[5] http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/auschwitz/images/1998/
stoker-number.jpg

[Nele Abels-Ludwig]

On Wed, 1 Jul 1998, ASMarques wrote:

> Gord McFee wrote:
[...]

> > You then went
> > on to say that German speakers such as Herr Abels-Ludwig and Herr
> > Walther don't know their own language.
>
> I know very well those characters from the alt.revisionism ghetto where
> they wish they could confine "Holocaust" discussions for ever.

I have taken this discussion to German newsgroups and you have called
that "spamming" the other day. Consistency is not one of your
strengths is it?

Anyway. I think, I have made my point. Without exception, everyone who
knows German has identified ASMarques claims as utter rubbish. Yet,
ASMarques is not ready to accept the truth, as any sensible person
would do, but rambles on and on. I do indeed think that those German
newsgroup should be spared from fools like ASMarques.

Please direct the followups of threads dealing with ASMarques to the
appropriate newsgroup for dealing with holocaust-denial,
alt.revisionism.

Nele

P.S. ASMmarques on his proficiency of German:

> > Subject: Help on German Urban Legislation
> > From: ASMarques <asm...@mail.telepac.pt>
> > Date: 1997/11/12
> > Message-ID: <346975...@mail.telepac.pt>
> > Newsgroups:
> > de.soc.recht.misc,fido.ger.recht,z-netz.rechtswesen.diskurs.allgemein
> > [More Headers]
> > [Subscribe to de.soc.recht.misc]

> >
> > (My apologies for not speaking the German language)
> >

> > <end quote, rest snipped>

[Oliver Gassner]

mikh...@my-dejanews.com wrote/schrieb:

>In article <6n8aa3$k23$1...@news02.btx.dtag.de>,
> klausgue...@t-online.de wrote:
>>
>> HEy, idiot, "ausrotten" means since many decades to exterminate. I have
>> a degree in English and German and you don´t know shit.
>
>Question: Since the expression was used in public speeches by the Nazis in the
>1930s, how do you explain not only jewish German not knowing it meant
>exterminate but the entire world not knowing it meant exterminate?
>
>How do you explain jewish Germans going placidly to their extermination if
>they knew what it meant?
>
>In your insistance upon that being the correct meaning in context you have to
>explain how the entire world missed that meaning in the 1930s.

They did not believe that they meant what they said.

Would you have?

"Hey, they are threatening to kill 4 million people."

OG
--
Literatur am Draht:
http://www.carpe.com/lit/
Tips zur Suche nach AutorInnen und Büchern im Netz in der FAQ für
news:de.rec.buecher: http://www.carpe.com/lit/plus.htm

[Gord McFee]

In <3599B9...@mail.telepac.pt>, on Wed, 01 Jul 1998 05:21:19 +0100,
ASMarques <asm...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:

Mr Marques, quite frankly I am sick of you. I don't like patronizing,
condescending curs and that's what you are.

> Gord McFee wrote:
> >
> > Just to be clear, your "argument" was that "Ausrottung" does not mean to
> > "exterminate" in the quote from the Himmler Posen speech.
>
> My argument was it meant "extirpating, rooting out" as we shall see.

You were wrong, as everyone has already seen.

> > You then went
> > on to say that German speakers such as Herr Abels-Ludwig and Herr
> > Walther don't know their own language.
>
> I know very well those characters from the alt.revisionism ghetto where
> they wish they could confine "Holocaust" discussions for ever.

> Interested people may use Dejanews to see with their own eyes the
> caliber of the nonsense they spew out.

Nice try, loser. To date, 15 people have commented on the issue. Every
one disagrees with your "translation". No one has taken your side, even
though there are lots of deniers in the German speaking newsgroups. Now
I see you are trying the same trick with the Goebbels diary, and being
eqwually flayed there. You have admitted you don't speak German. You
have convinced no one.

I can understand your dilemma. Himmler used words like "exterminate"
and "kill" and you must somehow try to convince people that that doesn't
mean to "kill". Sorry, it doesn't work.

> > To date, *every* person who has
> > responded in de.soc.politik.deutschland has disagreed with you.
>
> What a surprise ! All you have to do to undertand why is read the
> original Nele Whatsisname request. Of course they will agree with you
> (and me) if they say it means "exterminate" as well as "extirpate, root
> out". This is quite clear in three different dictionary entries I gave
> you. And of course "rooting out a weed" usually means the end for the
> weed, but this has nothing to do with the meaning in the phrase you
> people (not me) were discussing.

Sorry, loser, you started the discussion.

> My whole point (as you well know) was that *in the phrase you were
> discussing* the word "Ausrottung" did indeed mean "extirpate, root out".
> Himmler is saying the following: "ICH MEINE DIE JUDENEVAKUIERUNG, DIE
> AUSROTTUNG DES JUDISCHEN VOLKES".
>
> Obviously he is speaking about *extirpating* the Jews from the German
> sphere

That phrase doesn't exist in English. Obviously you don't know English
either.

> i.e. he is speaking about sending them to labor camps in the East
> and he uses the word "Judenevakuierung". What does this word mean in
> your opinion ? Gas chambering ? You don't need to know German to
> understand the *meaning* of "Judenevakuierung".

Himmler tells us exactly what Judenevakuierung means by using
"Ausrottung" in apposition to it. Do you have any idea what apposition
is?

> If the word "Ausrottung" always had a literal physical sense, how do you
> account for the following figurative use by Hitler in his Berlin
> Sportpalast speech of February 1933: "den Marxismus und seine
> Begleiterscheinungen aus Deutschland auszurotten" - "to extirpate
> Marxism and its accompanying phenomena from Germany" ?

Because Marxism is not a living thing. Has any of this prenetrated your
skull?

<begin quote>

ausrotten, rottete aus, hat ausgerottet: jmdn., etw. vernichten,
völlig beseitigen: Ungeziefer, Unkraut a.; ein Volk, die Ketzer (mit
Feuer und Schwert) a.; ein Atomkrieg koennte die Menschheit a.; das
Verbrechertum (mit Stumpf und Stiel) a.; d. Aberglauben, Irrtum,
falsche Lehre, Übel (mit der Wurzel) a.; die Wurzeln des Übels a.;
diese Gewohnheit, Unsitte ist schwer auszurotten; [die englische
Arbeiterklasse] ist fest überzeugt, daß...die Allianz der Arbeiter
aller Länder schließlich den Krieg ausrotten wird (Marx,
Bürgerkrieg 30); dazu Ausrotter, der;

[Wörterbuch der Deutschen Gegenwartssprache", Hrsg. Ruth
Klappenbch und Wolfgang Steinitz, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1964]

<end quote>

Dummy.

> Are you suggesting Hitler is talking of gas chambering "Marxism" ?
> Obviously not. What he means is "this alien ideology will be rooted out,
> extirpated from Germany".

Go away, idiot.

> Himmler means exactly the same about "des judische Volkes" which is
> being *evacuated* and not gassed with the same pesticide used to fight
> typhus in the concentration camps as the "Holocaust" myth would have it.

Sorry, you lose - again.

[Oliver Gassner]

ASMarques <asm...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote/schrieb:

>Gord McFee wrote:
>>
>> Just to be clear, your "argument" was that "Ausrottung" does not mean to
>> "exterminate" in the quote from the Himmler Posen speech.
>
>My argument was it meant "extirpating, rooting out" as we shall see.

Himmler himself says that he means to kill. And that in the very passage
you quote.

>> auszurotten - sprich also umzubringen,

"ausrotten - that it to say to kill"

Check "umbringen" in your "dictionary". PLEASE. THANKS.

Do you little nazi want to call Himmler a LIAR?

Go to your friends and call Himmler a liar.

Go...

Bye.

[Oliver Gassner]

ASMarques <asm...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote/schrieb:

>Oliver Gassner wrote:
>>
>> It just shows that listening to the argumets of revisionists does not
>> make sense.
>
>Your "quotes" are from the mysterious *second* version of the Posen
>speech said to exist only in a single sound record whose chain of
>custody until 1945 is unknown (see the other messages in the nearby
>threads).

They are from a posting someone used to ask a question.

>Here is the text of the Posen speech:
>
>http://www.codoh.com/incon/inconhh.html

Too lazy to surf.

Post the passage and we will translate it for you.

But: Do you _want_ to believe us?

I doubt it...

[Helmut Fuchs]

> Scholem alejchem!
>
> Helmut Fuchs wrote:
> >
> > > Could you be so kind as to let me know what the word "Leichenkeller"
> > > means in German ?
> >
> > _Betr.: Leichenkeller im KL Auschwitz-Birkenau_
> >
> > Leichenkeller waren den Krematorien zugeordnete unterirdische Räume.
> > In diesen konnte bei relativ kühlen Temperaturen eine größere Anzahl
> > Leichen für eine geraume Zeit aufbewahrt werden.
>
> Deswegen wurde auch ueberlegt, ob man die Raeume
> mit der Abwaerme der Krematorien heizen solle (vgl. Pressac).

Hier irrt Pressac; denn Leichenkeller müssen kühl sein. Die Erwärmung
dieser Räume ergibt keinen Sinn.
>
> Und weil dort Leichen gelagert wurden, wurden auch die Rutschen
> in die Keller entfernt. Die muessen wohl noch ganz gut zu Fuss
> gewesen sein, die Leichen.

Hast Du das auch bei Pressac gelesen? Ob dieser Apotheker wohl den Begriff
"Rutsche" richtig zugeordnet hat?
>
> Frische Luft haben sie wohl auch regelmaessig bekommen, die Leichen.
> Wozu sonst haette man ein leistungsfaehiges Entlueftungssystem
> installiert.

Um die Verwesungsluft zu entfernen.
>
> Von der Bezeichnung "Vergasungskeller" in Bauplaenen
> moechte ich ja gar nicht erst anfangen.

Die so richtig bezeichneten Vergasungskeller lagen ausweislich der
Baupläne den Leichenkellern gegenüber und waren ausschließlich zum
Vergasen von Koks für den Betrieb der Krematorien konzipiert.

> Mit freundlichen Gruessen,

Inigo Speer

[Gord McFee]

In <01bda4b8$5a9e3f60$63975ccf@mycomputer>, on 1 Jul 1998 06:28:16 GMT,
"Hansjoerg Walther" <wal...@nineties.com> wrote:

> Hallo allerseits,
>
>
> ASMarques <asm...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote in article

> <3599B1...@mail.telepac.pt>...

> > Martin Karger wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wenn ich mich nicht irre, waren die Keller in Auschwitz, wo die Juden
> > > > mit Gas vergiftet wurden, Leichenkeller genannt.
> > >

> > > nee ... das waren die Gaskammern.
> >
> > Thank you all very much.
>
> ASMarques will nur davon ablenken, dass er gerne in einem Zitat aus einer
> Himmlerrede von 1943 das Wort "ausrotten" verdrehen moechte, weil das
> einfach zu offen das bezeichnet, was geschah. Seit Wochen nervt er damit
> schon auf alt.revisionism und andenen Newsgruppen rum, in die er
> hartnaeckig crosspostet.

Herr Marques hat einen großen Fehler gemacht. Man hätte ihm seit dem
ersten Tage sagen können, daß die Benutzung zwei Ausdrücke in
Nebeneinanderstellung (Apposition) bedeutet, daß sie diesselbe Meinung
im Zusammenhang haben. So ist es, als Himmler sagte: "Ich meine die
Judenevakuierung, die Aussrottung der jüdischen Rasse". Oder "die
Männer auszurotten, sprich umbringen oder umbringen zu lassen". Wenn
man die Rede nur einmal anhört, gibt es keinen Zweifel. Der Herr
Marques hat einfach bewiesen, er kenne entweder Deutsch noch English
noch Grammatik.

> Das einzige, was wir ueber seine Sprachkenntnisse wissen, stammt aus einem
> Post in eine deutsche Newsgruppe im letzten Jahr:
>

> "(My apologies for not speaking the German language)"

So ein Fachmann.

> Um nun von der Niederlage abzulenken, die er bei seiner Verdrehung des
> Himmlerzitates erlitten hat, versucht er hier (und auch sonst) lauter neue
> Diskussionen zu entfachen, die damit nichts zu tun haben. Ich denke, das
> sollte man einfach ignorieren.

Holzkopf ist er sicher.

> Alles weitere dann in alt.revisionism.

Bestimmt.

[Gord McFee]

In <3599C4...@mail.telepac.pt>, on Wed, 01 Jul 1998 06:11:27 +0100,
ASMarques <asm...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:

> Oliver Gassner wrote:
> >
> > It just shows that listening to the argumets of revisionists does not
> > make sense.
>
> Your "quotes" are from the mysterious *second* version of the Posen
> speech said to exist only in a single sound record whose chain of
> custody until 1945 is unknown (see the other messages in the nearby

> threads). Here is the text of the Posen speech:
>
> http://www.codoh.com/incon/inconhh.html

Bull. The speech has been authenticated many times. Of course, if you
wish to dispute its authenticity, you have a standing offer to do so.

<begin quote>

Path:
news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net!news-m01.ny.us.ibm.net!ausnews.austin.ibm.com!bocanews.bocaraton.ibm.com!watnews.watson.ibm.com!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!newsjunkie.ans.net!newsfeeds.ans.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!news.uoregon.edu!hunter.premier.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in3.uu.net!news.island.net!nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!not-for-mail
From: kmc...@nizkor.org (Ken McVay OBC)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.bonehead.matt-giwer
Subject: Put up or shut up, Mr. Giwer: The Himmler tape
Date: 22 Aug 1996 14:48:35 -0700
Organization: The Nizkor Project
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <4vikjj$4...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
References: <4veimi$j...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>
<4vggrj$e...@news.enter.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gateway.almanac.bc.ca
Keywords: matt,giwer,troll,himmler
X-Liar:
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/lie-freely-admitted.html
X-Thief:
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/plagarized-01.html
X-Troll: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/
X-Extortionist: http://www.nizkor.org/encouragements/

In article <4vggrj$e...@news.enter.net>,
ya...@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken) responded to Matt Giwer's
denial of the authenticity of the Himmler tape:

>The National Archives which hs the original says differently, of
>course. But what do they know.

If Mr. Giwer is prepared to pay the full cost of voiceprint
analysis of the disputed tape and adequate control
samples, should scientific analysis demonstrate that the tape
is a genuine recording of Heinrich Himmler, the Nizkor Project
is prepared to negotiate and conclude a legally binding
agreement for the purpose of determining the authenticity of
the recording.

Mr. Giwer, upon agreement to participate, shall deposit the
full cost of the laboratory analysis, as specified by the
laboratory chosen to perform the test, with a recognized trust
accountant.

If the recording is determined to be genuine by reasonable
scientific standards, Mr. Giwer will agree to the immediate
release of the trust funds to the San Antonio Area Foundation
Nizkor Fund as a tax-exempt donation. If the recording is
determined to be fraudulent by reasonable scientific standards,
the trust funds will be returned to Mr. Giwer immediately, and the
Nizkor Project will immediately tender reasonable interest on
the full amount to Mr. Giwer, and meet the cost of
establishing and maintaining the trust account. In no event
shall either the trust fund or either party's liability exceed
$US10,000.00.

Mr. Giwer is invited to have his attorney contact me to
initiate negotiations leading to the conclusion of such an
agreement. (For the purposes of this offer, and subsequent
agreement, I designate Mr. Edeiken as my attorney of record,
and hereby authorize him to negotiate this matter in my name
and to bill me for appropriate professional fees.
Should Mr. Edeiken decline this task, I shall designate
another American attorney to act in my name.)

The appropriate phrase at this point would seem to be "Put up,
or shut up, Mr. Giwer."

Mr. Giwer, of course, is unlikely to accept this offer, as....

....he is, as far as I can determine, a troller whose only
interest is in causing fights. While he can sound superficially
plausible, he has lied about what has been said in exchanges (while
accusing others of lying), refused to document claims, pretended not to
see posts which contain documented refutation of his claims (even when
they have been emailed to him), engaged in actual libel, and generally
conducted himself with such complete lack of intellectual and factual
integrity that there seems to be no point in taking the time to read and
respond. For detailed and documented evidence of this, please refer to

URL
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/lie-freely-admitted.html
URL http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/plagarized-01.html
URL http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/
URL http://www.nizkor.org/encouragements/

Followups to Giwer trolls should be redirected to Mr. Giwer's special
newsgroup, alt.bonehead.matt-giwer, where they will be appropriately
ignored. If your site does not carry alt.bonehead.matt-giwer,
redirect non-Holocaust articles to alt.politics.white-power,
an equally vapid dumping ground for Giwerundian babblings.

--
Nizkor Canada | http://www.nizkor.org
-----------------------| Remember John Hron
|--------------------------------------
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hron-john/

<end quote>

No one is under any illusions that you will do so, since you lack the
guts.

[Daniel Keren]

[Followup set to alt.revisionism]

mikh...@my-dejanews.com writes:

# How do you explain jewish Germans going placidly to their
# extermination if they knew what it meant?

Don't be stupid. Himmler's Poznan speech, the entry in Goebbels'
diary, the speech by Hans Frank which I posted, etc. etc. - none
of them was public.

-Danny Keren.

[George F. Hardy]

Get a life. Get over it.

GFH

[Klaus Philipp]

In article <3599B1...@mail.telepac.pt>, asm...@mail.telepac.pt
says...

> Martin Karger wrote:
> >
> > > Wenn ich mich nicht irre, waren die Keller in Auschwitz, wo die Juden
> > > mit Gas vergiftet wurden, Leichenkeller genannt.
> >
> > nee ... das waren die Gaskammern.
>
> Thank you all very much.

Don't thank. Just f**k off...
>
> Nazi excrements eliminated

> Maybe the "native German" brigade from the alt.revisionism ghetto will
> explain. . .
Why wasting time to explain something, you with your limited mental
capabilities wouldn't understand anyway? I'll better spend time to fight
nazi-faschist-racist criminals like you and hope them to die out sooner
or later or luckily get hit by a car. Did you ever try to ride a
motorcycle with 100mph and then close your eyes for one minute? Do it!
It's great! (there is a good chance, that when he believes all that nazi-
bullshit, he'll also believes this...)

--
Klaus Philipp (remove spam preventer to contact me)

[Klaus Philipp]

In article <3599C4...@mail.telepac.pt>, asm...@mail.telepac.pt
says...

> Oliver Gassner wrote:
> >
> > It just shows that listening to the argumets of revisionists does not
> > make sense.
>
> Your "quotes" are from the mysterious *second* version of the Posen
> speech said to exist only in a single sound record whose chain of
> custody until 1945 is unknown (see the other messages in the nearby
> threads).

There is also a rumor, that there existed a nazi with 50% of the
intelligence of a normal human. That would be a breathtaking record,
since everybody knows, that nazis usually just have 20% of the mental
capabilities of normal citizens. But its still unknown from where this
rumor originated. Why don't you investigate this interesting phenomenon
instead of spamming your sick nazi-bullshit here?

Piss of nazi-bastard and crawl back to alt.revisionism

[ASMarques]

Wolfram Meyer von Gagern wrote:
>
> > > Just to be clear, your "argument" was that "Ausrottung" does not mean to
> > > "exterminate" in the quote from the Himmler Posen speech.
> >
> > My argument was it meant "extirpating, rooting out" as we shall see.
>

> That makes no difference.

Doesn't life and death make any difference to you ?

...

> > My whole point (as you well know) was that *in the phrase you were
> > discussing* the word "Ausrottung" did indeed mean "extirpate, root out".
> > Himmler is saying the following: "ICH MEINE DIE JUDENEVAKUIERUNG, DIE
> > AUSROTTUNG DES JUDISCHEN VOLKES".
> >
> > Obviously he is speaking about *extirpating* the Jews from the German

> > sphere i.e. he is speaking about sending them to labor camps in the East

> > and he uses the word "Judenevakuierung". What does this word mean in
> > your opinion ? Gas chambering ? You don't need to know German to
> > understand the *meaning* of "Judenevakuierung".
>

> The Nazis told the story about labor camps and "Evakuierung" because
> they couldn't say to the german people that the jews will be eliminated.

Do you really mean the "Ausrottung" word they often used in public
wasn't understood ? Weren't you just saying everybody knew the word
literally meant "killing, murdering" ?

How could the Germans not have known if "Ausrottung" really meant "mass
murder" ? How could the Jews or anyone else not know, for that matter ?

> They would have lost the support of the people.

Oh, the people approved of "Ausrottung" provided it meant "Evakuierung",
is that it ? If "Ausrottung" meant "Ausrottung" they wouldn't approve...

This is getting confusing. Are you now defending my point of view ?
(?)~~ :O

> This way, the german people could continue to believe that the rumours
> about the Gaskammern were wrong.

I see. You believe they meant "Ausrottung" when they said "Evakuierung",
but you also believe it completely impossible they could have been
meaning "extirpating, rooting out" when they said "Ausrottung", even
though dictionaries admit exactly this !

May I ask what your criteria for reading *figurative sense* and
*literalism* in the pronouncements of the III Reich leaders is ?

> > If the word "Ausrottung" always had a literal physical sense, how do you
> > account for the following figurative use by Hitler in his Berlin
> > Sportpalast speech of February 1933: "den Marxismus und seine
> > Begleiterscheinungen aus Deutschland auszurotten" - "to extirpate
> > Marxism and its accompanying phenomena from Germany" ?
>

> Exactly, it means "to eliminate Marxism".

Does that mean Hitler had managed a physical way for arresting abstract
ideas and having them gassed and cremated ? Or did he simply mean "we
will expulse Marxism from Germany; we'll get rid of it".

> > Are you suggesting Hitler is talking of gas chambering "Marxism" ?
>

> No, but you are obviously thinking that Hitler is evacuating Marxism or
> sending it to labour camps.

Exactly ! "Evacuating", "rooting out from our midst" is the right
analogy. You'll notice he says "aus Deutschland auszurotten". How do you
translate "aus Deutschland" ? Would you say he is planning to "murder
Marxism from Germany" or "to extirpate, to exile Marxism from Germany" ?

> "Ausrotten" is also used in a transferable
> sense. What a bad distortion of arguments you're trying to do!

You speak about gas chambers and I'm the one who does the distorting.
Sure...

> > Obviously not. What he means is "this alien ideology will be rooted out,
> > extirpated from Germany".
>

> Yes, and extirpating is a synonym for eliminating. And ausrotten means
> eliminate.

If you *eliminate* Germany from the Soccer World Cup, there will be no
surviving German citizens, is that it ?

> > Himmler means exactly the same about "des judische Volkes" which is
> > being *evacuated* and not gassed with the same pesticide used to fight
> > typhus in the concentration camps as the "Holocaust" myth would have it.
>

> Nice try.

If you don't believe both Zyklon B uses were true, which is the one you
believe was false ?

> Sorry for the bad english.

No problem. Mine isn't too polished either.

ASMarques

[ASMarques]

Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
>
> ASMarques (asm...@mail.telepac.pt) wrote:
> [...]
>
> : If the word "Ausrottung" always had a literal physical sense, how do you

> : account for the following figurative use by Hitler in his Berlin
> : Sportpalast speech of February 1933: "den Marxismus und seine
> : Begleiterscheinungen aus Deutschland auszurotten" - "to extirpate
> : Marxism and its accompanying phenomena from Germany" ?

> : Are you suggesting Hitler is talking of gas chambering "Marxism" ?
> : Obviously not. What he means is "this alien ideology will be rooted out,
> : extirpated from Germany".
>
> Same meaning -- i.e. eliminate, make disappear.

Sure. But you forget "from our midst", "from Germany".

> If it refers to an
> ideology, the ideology is to die.

I assume you are using "to die" in a figurative sense, i.e. "the
ideology is to go away" not "the ideology is to be arrested, gassed and
cremated".

> If it refers to living beings, the
> living beings are to die.

Since when is "Jewry" or "the Jews" a living being ? If you despised the
Suddeten Germans and said they were "ausrottten" from their ancestral
land, would you be saying they had all been murdered ?

> Just try it:
> "We want to eliminate Marxism."
> "We want to eliminate the Jewish people."
> Same word, same meaning, different object.

How about "we want to eliminate nazism", "we want to eliminate the nazis
" ? Would you be saying you actually wanted to physically exterminate
right wing intellectuals, ex-soldiers and skinheads in gas chambers, or
just arresting them and censoring their views ?

ASMarques

[ASMarques]

Nele Abels-Ludwig wrote:
>
> On Wed, 1 Jul 1998, ASMarques wrote:
>
> > Gord McFee wrote:
> [...]

> > > You then went
> > > on to say that German speakers such as Herr Abels-Ludwig and Herr
> > > Walther don't know their own language.
> >
> > I know very well those characters from the alt.revisionism ghetto where
> > they wish they could confine "Holocaust" discussions for ever.
>

> I have taken this discussion to German newsgroups and you have called
> that "spamming" the other day. Consistency is not one of your
> strengths is it?

Of course it is. I spamm to where you spammers spamm.

Spamm, spamm, spamm, wonderful spamm, remember ?

I am not opposed to non-commercial spamming and think the free market
for ideas should be left to auto-regulate itself.

But I don't spamm on my own. I sometimes follow your spamming and that's
all.

> Anyway. I think, I have made my point. Without exception, everyone who
> knows German has identified ASMarques claims as utter rubbish. Yet,
> ASMarques is not ready to accept the truth, as any sensible person
> would do, but rambles on and on. I do indeed think that those German
> newsgroup should be spared from fools like ASMarques.

Your opinion is welcome and indeed reciprocated, but I don't think you
are a public menace to anyone or anything. Why would I want to confine
you to a single ng ? Feel free to roam about and spamm as you wish.

> Please direct the followups of threads dealing with ASMarques to the
> appropriate newsgroup for dealing with holocaust-denial,
> alt.revisionism.

Hmmmm. Interesting. Why do you feel such an overwhelming wish to stop
people from being confronted with the "Holocaust" difficult questions ?
Why do you wish for self-contained ghettos ?

ASMarques

[ASMarques]

Gord McFee wrote:
>
> Nice try, loser. To date, 15 people have commented on the issue.

So why do you worry so much ?

> Every
> one disagrees with your "translation". No one has taken your side, even
> though there are lots of deniers in the German speaking newsgroups.

Interesting. But why do you use the word "denier" as if you were
speaking of a religious dogma ? Which dogma is it the "deniers" are
denying according to you ?

> Now
> I see you are trying the same trick with the Goebbels diary, and being
> eqwually flayed there. You have admitted you don't speak German.

Of course I have. I did it in my first messsage and ever since then.
You're simply trying to build another strawman to knock down since you
have nothing else left. However speaking a given language is not enough
to understand what you're saying. You don't need to be fluent in Russian
to understand Russianspeak was a vicious device with which to brainwash
Russian speakers under Stalin, do you ?

> You
> have convinced no one.

So why worry so much ?

> I can understand your dilemma. Himmler used words like "exterminate"
> and "kill" and you must somehow try to convince people that that doesn't
> mean to "kill". Sorry, it doesn't work.

So why worry ? Why concealing this little discussion of ours in
alt.revisionism instead of trumpeting the shortcomings of "Revisionism"
to the whole wide World ?

> > > To date, *every* person who has
> > > responded in de.soc.politik.deutschland has disagreed with you.
> >
> > What a surprise ! All you have to do to undertand why is read the
> > original Nele Whatsisname request. Of course they will agree with you
> > (and me) if they say it means "exterminate" as well as "extirpate, root
> > out". This is quite clear in three different dictionary entries I gave
> > you. And of course "rooting out a weed" usually means the end for the
> > weed, but this has nothing to do with the meaning in the phrase you
> > people (not me) were discussing.
>
> Sorry, loser, you started the discussion.

Not true at all. When I entered the discussion Schneider and Valentine
were discussing the issue in lots of threads and cross-posting to
several libertarian & political ngs. Then later on Nele Whatsisname
cross-posted to the German ngs.

> > My whole point (as you well know) was that *in the phrase you were
> > discussing* the word "Ausrottung" did indeed mean "extirpate, root out".
> > Himmler is saying the following: "ICH MEINE DIE JUDENEVAKUIERUNG, DIE
> > AUSROTTUNG DES JUDISCHEN VOLKES".
> >
> > Obviously he is speaking about *extirpating* the Jews from the German
> > sphere
>

> That phrase doesn't exist in English. Obviously you don't know English
> either.

I see. The "phrase" doesn't exist even though the individual words
obviously do. Sounds like Orwellian wishful thinking to me, little
brother.

> > i.e. he is speaking about sending them to labor camps in the East
> > and he uses the word "Judenevakuierung". What does this word mean in
> > your opinion ? Gas chambering ? You don't need to know German to
> > understand the *meaning* of "Judenevakuierung".
>

> Himmler tells us exactly what Judenevakuierung means by using
> "Ausrottung" in apposition to it. Do you have any idea what apposition
> is?

So "Ausrottung" is always "killing" but "evakuierung" is never
"evacuation". Interesting.

> > If the word "Ausrottung" always had a literal physical sense, how do you
> > account for the following figurative use by Hitler in his Berlin
> > Sportpalast speech of February 1933: "den Marxismus und seine
> > Begleiterscheinungen aus Deutschland auszurotten" - "to extirpate
> > Marxism and its accompanying phenomena from Germany" ?
>

> Because Marxism is not a living thing. Has any of this prenetrated your
> skull?

Well, some of the surviving marxist zombies might say "Marxism" is
indeed a living thing, in the exact sense "Jewry", "the Jews", "the
British Commonwealth" and "Nazism" are each of them living things, of
course...

That's why saying the Jews were going to be "evacuated, extirpated"
didn't mean each Jewish individual was going to be transformed into a
bar of soap.

> <begin quote>
>
> ausrotten, rottete aus, hat ausgerottet: jmdn., etw. vernichten,
> völlig beseitigen: Ungeziefer, Unkraut a.; ein Volk, die Ketzer (mit
> Feuer und Schwert) a.; ein Atomkrieg koennte die Menschheit a.; das
> Verbrechertum (mit Stumpf und Stiel) a.; d. Aberglauben, Irrtum,
> falsche Lehre, Übel (mit der Wurzel) a.; die Wurzeln des Übels a.;
> diese Gewohnheit, Unsitte ist schwer auszurotten; [die englische
> Arbeiterklasse] ist fest überzeugt, daß...die Allianz der Arbeiter
> aller Länder schließlich den Krieg ausrotten wird (Marx,
> Bürgerkrieg 30); dazu Ausrotter, der;
>
> [Wörterbuch der Deutschen Gegenwartssprache", Hrsg. Ruth
> Klappenbch und Wolfgang Steinitz, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1964]
>
> <end quote>
>
> Dummy.

Thanks for providing an excellent list containing several examples of
what I've beeen saying all along, namely that "ausrotten" may be
correctly used to mean "extirpate, root out".

> > Are you suggesting Hitler is talking of gas chambering "Marxism" ?
> > Obviously not. What he means is "this alien ideology will be rooted out,
> > extirpated from Germany".
>

> Go away, idiot.

Are you trying to "ausrotten" me ?

> > Himmler means exactly the same about "des judische Volkes" which is
> > being *evacuated* and not gassed with the same pesticide used to fight
> > typhus in the concentration camps as the "Holocaust" myth would have it.
>

> Sorry, you lose - again.

So why worry so much ?

ASMarques

[ASMarques]

Hi there, Danny. didn't you forget something ?

Daniel Keren wrote:
>
> Here is a short FAQ I wrote. It shows how, using "Holocaust
> revisionist" methods for "historical research", one can easily
> prove that Dresden wasn't bombed.
>
> What Happens if one Applies Standard "Holocaust Revisionist"
> Arguments, to the WW2 Bombing of the German City Dresden?
> *********************************************************

Well, what follows is what happens if one applies standard "Holocaust"
consistency requirements to the WW2 bombing of the German City Dresden.
I wouldn't believe in the Dresden fire bombing if official
historiography, TV docudramas and German pop culture told me the
following story:

1) All historians assured me all the personel who participated did so
without orders, not a single document having been presented or made
available to them at the time of the bombing; Churchill never talked
(except at the Manchester War Crimes trial) and there was a mysterious
meeting of minds, and Functionalists and Intentionalists debated to this
day how such a thing could have happened without a single written order.
This meant "no single writen order of any kind had ever existed": no
order from Harris at Bomber Command, no explicit communication with the
U.S.A.A.F. to coordinate the operation, no operational orders to the
British and American bomber squadrons participating, no logs specifying
to the aircrews the operational plan, nothing at all. And no messages to
politicians, no references in Parliament or Congress or radio, nothing.
Oh, yes, just a "coded" speech by Winnie saying "some chicken, some
neck" in which the Dresden exegesis reads "Dresden is going to be
destroyed" ("chicken" meaning the concentration of fugitives from the
East; "neck" meaning the bottleneck in the city and its outskirts).

2) "Witnesses" and "confessions" from the War Crimes trial conducted by
the winning Axis powers told me the aircrafts taking part in the bombing
were thousands of specially adapted pesticide sprayers droping
incendiary hand grenades according to one version, hydroplanes droping
special Diesel naval incendiary torpedos according to another, and
surplus barrage balloons droping flamimg pianos and anvils according to
a third one. Some said all the different versions were true and meant
there were three different bombing waves. If I dared to doubt piano or
anvil droping was possible or made any sense, I would simply be asked
"wouldn't you be dead if a piano was droped on your head, you dummy ?
maybe you want to try an anvil ?"

3) The city was said to have been completely destroyed and six million
Germans who were said to have been there, to have died. Germany
recovered miraculously its population but this only meant they were
horny after the bombing. No orthodox statistical or historical
population study existed and research was not encouraged. Some people
who talked about small number variations did this out of thin air but
were assumed to know what they were talking about, since they were the
only ones doing it and they roughly agreed with the 6 million figure.
One "scholars", however, said it was just 5.421.600 (but not why it
should be so) and got away with this.

4) Not one historian (or anybody else) claimed a single photo existed of
the destructed city. Instead we had some photos of people on the road
with their belongings, several others being burned with flamethrowers
and half a dozen unidentified burnt bricks said to have come from
Dresden. However "survivors" -- even 50 years later -- seemed to be
everywhere. They were all being paid compensation for their sufferings
during the fire bombing, and indeed Germany had been collecting colossal
reparations from the defeated Alllied powers, with no end in view for
this.

5) Revisionists who had been studying Dresden, said the buildings there
were almost all at least more than 50 years old, and showed no signs of
the giant devastating fire. This was being fought by putting some burnt
out piano keys and rusted anvil pieces said to have been discovered in
the Dresden public gardens on display in Dresden Museums all over the
World. The German World Congress and a host of German Foundations and
Bunds were simultaneously howling for censorship and punitive laws
against the wicked revisionists *and* blackmailing the Swiss banks into
coughing up more gold as if the end of the World was at hand (under the
pretext that neutral Switzerland had been an Allied belligerant and had
been hidding enormous amounts of money that had been really the property
of Dresden refugees).

If this was the scenario, I believe it would be prudent not to believe
in the official historiography (rather scarce, since sensational
"witness" bestselling memoirs would not exactly be historical writing)
and at least suspend judgement and ensure by all available means freedom
of expression and inquiry. No more would be needed. The Dresden fire
hoax would collapse from its own weight like a grounded whale.

ASMarques

[ASMarques]

Klaus Philipp wrote:
>
> Why wasting time to explain something, you with your limited mental
> capabilities wouldn't understand anyway? I'll better spend time to fight
> nazi-faschist-racist criminals like you

Oh, just to help me get back into the path of love and righteousness. I
have some difficulty believing in the gas chamber "Holocaust" and the
magic 6 million number, you know...

****** THE 6 MILLION CABALISTIC NUMBER ******

The 6 million number of "Holocaust" victims was born in the mists of War
propaganda and religious belief, before any statistical studies were
done, it was promoted as a dogma in the Nuremberg trials immediately
after the War, it contradicts important populational data, was never
verified, and any attempt of investigating it in a scientific way is
received as an attack on a religious dogma. The problem is difficult to
present in its entirety, but in its general lines is as follows:

**********
1) Statistics for Jewish populations living in each country are
difficult to take and present enormous variations, since "Jewish", not
being a purely national, cultural, religious or ethnic group
classification, is nevertheless a mixture of all of those. To try to
count with any precision at all the Jewish population of countries where
Jews exist in great numbers is like trying to catch quicksilver.

**********
2) The numbers are instrumentalized with a view to increase the
victimization. For example, the numbers from the "American Jewish
Comitee", published in the World Almanach, showed in 1941, for the year
1939, an European population of 8.939.608 Jews, and a World population
of 15.748.091.

But in 1949, the same source in the same publication, showed *for the
same year of 1939*, for Europe 9.739.200, and for the World 16.643.120.
That is, in 1949, 800.000 more Jews for the Europe of 1939 and 955.000
more Jews for the World are suddenly discovered to have been forgotten
in the previous counts. No explanation for this is furnished.

The 1941 statistic cited above, gave for 1933 the number of 9.494.363
Jews in Europe, which implies the notion that 555.000 Jews had left
Europe between 1933 and 1939, before any internment or "extermination",
i.e. that a mass emmigration out of Europe was already taking place.

**********
3) This emmigration continued in an even larger scale after 1945, and
under the auspices of the U.N.R.R.A. great numbers of Jews left Europe,
without being classified as Jews. A typical recent example of this
"nameless" emmigration taking place since the 30s is the case of U.S.
Secretary of State Allbright. *After a journalistic investigation* she
suddenly discovered her parents which came from Czechoslovakia to the
U.S.A. were in fact Czech Jews and her grandparents had died "at
Auschwitz".

Newsweek (Feb 17, 1997) calls this an "extraordinary piece of personal
news" and a "late-in-life revelation". Those who will believe her
parents had kept their being Jewish a secret *even to their own
daughter* are welcome to do so, but please note the same magazine issue
has editorials by other emmigrant's children who say they were equally
surprised when they discovered their Jewish origin. They say "people
have been having similar experiences for the last decade or so", and
those readers more familiar with probability calculation will probably
think that maybe, just maybe, the Secretary of State's parents were not
exactly the only ones to have hidden their origin during their whole
lifes in their new countries...

**********
4) The calculations "Holocaust" defenders do, trying to get numbers as
near the necessary 6 million as possible, are nonsense stemming from
the need to accommodate a-prioristic fictional numbers of victims with
reality by calculating railroad schedules and movements, numbers of
standing individuals per square inch in each imaginary gas chamber,
numbers of magical cremations per minute, etc. The result is a jungle of
contradictions in which everything is allowed but from which nothing at
all comes with any degree of probability, much less certainty.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica for 1957, for instance, says "about 2
million people, Jewish for the major part, were exterminated between
1941 and 1945" in Mauthausen (vol. 10, p. 288), but the 1986 edition,
says "out of the probable 355.000 inmates passing through Mauthausen and
its satellites, more than 122.000 died from execution or privation". On
the other hand, the same 1986 edition, attributes, with all the
appearance of great precision, to the small transit camp of Sobibor --
about which next to nothing is known (with good reason) except that it
functioned for 16 months -- "250.000 killed in five gas chambers". No
more, no less, but it still manages to assert categorically that "only
about thirty people escaped"...

**********
5) Auschwitz, of course, is the acme of the numerical pandemonium:
4.000.000 dead according to the camp monument in front of which Catholic
Popes and German Chancellors crawled on all four (recently changed to
"more than one million"), 3.000.000 according to the "confession" of
camp Kommandant Hoess (!), 1.600.000 according to Yehuda Bauer,
1.250.000 according to Hilbert, 850.000 according to Reitlinger, and
775.000 according to Pressac (1993) to whom the "historians" of the
"Holocaust" cling as to a last resource buoy. Pressac lowered the number
to 630.000 in 1994, and some apparently stopped talking to him, too. . .

**********
6) In spite of these unbelievable fluctuations the magical number of 6
million is kept ever since Nuremberg, as if its calculation wasn't
dependent of any detailed study or any sum of known numbers, and its
religious character has increased since then. Once one understands there
is absolutely no global statistics *or* detailed study behind its
permanent untouchable status since 1945 (and before that !), one can
only attribute a symbolic anti-historical character to the 6 million
dead and the 6 "extermination" camps. The reason for the number has
everything to do with the religion of the 6-pointed star and its
propensity for numerical cabalism, and nothing at all with any objective
investigation.

**********
7) As for the revisionist numbers -- the only ones born of basic data
instead of religious need -- they are somewhat different. The *only*
meticulous and detailed study, from the viewpoint of populational
statistics, ever done (and using Jewish originated data) -- "The
Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry" by Walter Sanning -- estimates in
3.500.000 the *total* number of Jews in the German sphere of influence
during the wholeWar, and in 2.400.000 the number of Jews alive at the
end of the War in the countries previously occupied by Germany (with the
exclusion of the USSR). His conclusions are confirmed by Carl Nordling
-- a Finnish demographer, using statistical inference methods applied to
samples of known individual histories -- and place the total of Jewish
victims of the concentration camps at between 300.000 and 600.000.
Sanning's study was never contested with data of an equally statistical
nature.

**********
8) Working, on the other hand, from various sources including mainly the
secret reports of Richard Korherr (who had the post of "Inspector of
Statistics for the Reichsfuehrer-SS") to Himmler about the Jewish
deportations, Stephen Challen reaches the following numbers: 1.200.000
Jews dead in the whole of Europe during the War, 450.000 of whom in
parts of European Russia not occupied by the Germans, and 750.000 in the
area of German direct or indirect responsibility; of 2.300.000 deported
Jews, 360.000 died, and a total of 200.000 in concentration camps. He
estimates the Jewish losses heavy and, in proportion, comparable to the
German or Soviet ones, but no more than about 20 % of what is usually
believed.

**********
9) Robert Faurisson -- the best known French revisionist investigator --
tentatively puts the numbers as: a probable number in the order of
1.000.000 dead for the Jewish total of War victims (in the order of the
hundreds of thousands if we don't count the Jews fighting under Allied
uniform), and a number between 200.000 and 360.000 for the total of all
dead in the concentration camps from 1934 to 1945.

**********
10) The true numbers of the "Holocaust" (in the order of the hundreds of
thousands) are reconcilable with the terrible results of the most cruel
War ever, and the tragedies of the concentration and labor camps --
where you die of disease epidemics and exaustion -- but not with the
myth of deliberate extermination.

Why keeping the labor camps full of walking skeletons "starved on
purpose" and quite unable to work, and why "provoking" or "allowing"
epidemics that would put in risk the lifes of the SS personnel
themselves ? Obviously those were uncalled for results of a catastrophic
War, not "extermination" by design. And the 6 million cabalistic number
is no more than a pious myth.

ASMarques

[ASMarques]

Eduardo Casais wrote:

...

> No need to assume the existence of gas chambers or extermination
> camps;

An interesting half-hearted revisionist conclusion.
But has it ever occured to you that where lies are needed, the truth is
being hidden ?
Why ?

ASMarques

[ASMarques]

Hey, Nanny ! You also forgot:

Nanny Keren wrote:
>
> baby-nazi "ASMarques" writes:
>
> # Even in the MOST MODERN GAS-FIRED crematoria, with flame
> # generated on three sides, it requires *1 1/2 hours* to
> # cremate a body, *including 1 hour cooling* which Keren
> # ignores.
>
> The furnace is cooled only if the ashes are to be carefully
> collected, to avoid mixing ashes of different corpses.

Idiotic. You cannot even *open* without cooling. And you cannot put new
corpses in if you cannot open the door.

Ivan Lagace, a professional crematory director (the only one I know off
who testified on the subject during a trial), testified that indeed the
first complete cycle of cremation of a human being took an average of
two hours. After that the operator must let the retort cool-down for a
minimum of one hour before beginning the second case . After the second
cremation a period of at least two hours was required. Even with
cool-down times, Lagace testified that cremations could not be done
"round the clock, day after day…the refractory will not tolerate it".
Factory recommendation for normal operation was a maximum of three cases
per day in a normal eight hour work day. No more than 50 - 60 cases
should be processed in any month so that the refractory life was
prolonged. This was an average of 2 cases a day (Zundel, 27-7412 to
7415; 7427, 7428).

There was no way to speed up this process, Lagace testified, without
effecting the refractory brick and endangering the life of the operator.
If no cool-down period was allowed between cremations, the temperature
would go out of control and probably exceed the 2.200 degrees F rated
for the bricks.This would cause excessive spalling, or flaking, of the
bricks. Secondly, the operator could not safely open a retort having an
internal temperature of 2.000 degrees F. "I have to allow for cool-down
time, for my safety, and to bring the temperature in the retort to a
point where there is safe loading of the next case" (27-7412, 7413).

Lagace testified that he had "burned my hair and my face often enough to
learn that I don't attempt to open the door when the temperatures are
excessive. It just can't be done, unless perhaps you are wearing a full
asbestos suit. From my experience with asbestos garment, they prevent
flame from contacting you, but they still get very hot"
(27-7414).

The preceding is taken from Barbara Kulaska's book on the Zundel "False
News" trial of 1988 ("Did Six Million Really Die ?", Samisdat, toronto
1992). Now, please answer these questions:

a) Do you know any other professional crematorium manager and operator
witnessing under oath and contradicting Lagace ?

b) The average life expectancy of floor refractory in a crematory oven
is 1.500 cremations. The bricks of the afterburn chamber are rated for
roughly 2,000 cremations (27-7411). This is the stuff in the technical
manuals (not Lagace talk) with *modern* materials. Must have been worse
back in 1944 in Auschwitz. How did they do it ? Are there any documents
showing complete renewal of the ovens every two days (or is it three
days ?), week after week, year after year ?

c) Do you live in David Olere's fairyland (see his drawings), where
operators with naked torsos work in the furnace room amidst the piles of
naked bodies (always a *very* good looking young woman among them: seems
the Germans killed the healthy ones as well…). It's interesting because
there is always an open oven with ***flames gushing out***. Those are
the only graphic depictions we have of the mysterious functioning of the
magical ovens of Auschwitz by a supposed witness. Do you think they go
down well with Lagace's procedural descriptions ? I suppose you'll say
Lagace is crazy since we have Olere's "testimony" and the Germans didn't
care about the life of the operators. But how did they do it ? Did they
have batallions of operators to substitute the ones constantly falling
in the line of duty day after day ? How about the SS guards Olere puts
inside the furnace room with their menacing rifles ? Were they
casualties too ? How about the ovens themselves ? What was the normal
life period of each one of them ? How was the risk of fire prevented ?

d) Have you ever worked in a crematorium ? Have you ever phoned your
local crematorium just to inquire on cremation times ? Have you ever
given the matter some thought at all ?

And please do not hesitate in using non-Nizkor sources to complete the
information:

http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/leaflets.html (excellent introduction)
http://www.vho.org/Home.html
http://www.codoh.com/
http://www.ihr.org/index.html
http://www.webcom.com/ezundel/index.html
http://abbc.com/aaargh/
http://members.aol.com/ihrgreg/index.html
http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~abutz/
http://www.air-photo.com/

Bookmark them now.

ASMarques

[ASMarques]

Fergus McClelland wrote:
>
> Bearing in mind that for any of them to say anything sceptical about
> the Holocaust would land them in prison, (which possibly makes their
> posting here a bit one-sided), they may well be saying to each
> other...
> "Sprecht leise! Haltet euch zurück! Wir sind belauscht mit Ohr und
> Blick!" (Rough translation: Speak lower, restrain yourselves, we are
> spied on with ear and look). From the Prisoner's chorus in
> "Leonora/Fidelio".

And more books forbidden in the BRD than in the old DDR. They should be
asking themselves why.

Thank god for the Internet. Some of the things the German government
wants to hide from public view can be reached through:

http://www.vho.org/censor/Censor.html

ASMarques

[Hansjoerg Walther]

Hello there,

my reply is on alt.revisionism.

Best regards,

Hansjoerg Walther.

[Helmut Richter]

ASMarques <asm...@mail.telepac.pt> writes:

>Klaus Philipp wrote:
>>
>> Why wasting time to explain something, you with your limited mental
>> capabilities wouldn't understand anyway? I'll better spend time to fight
>> nazi-faschist-racist criminals like you

>Oh, just to help me get back into the path of love and righteousness. I
>have some difficulty believing in the gas chamber "Holocaust" and the
>magic 6 million number, you know...

... and so on.

This thread is now off-topic in alt.usage.german

Is was on topic when the question was what the meaning of "ausrotten"
is. This question has meanwhile been clarified - if it was ever
unclear to anybody who has any knowledge of the German language. The
thread can therefore be closed in alt.usage.german

Please refrain from continuing to spam so many unrealted newsgroups.

Helmut Richter

[Hansjoerg Walther]

[Hansjoerg Walther]

Hallo ASMarques,

ASMarques <asm...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote in article

<359AFB...@mail.telepac.pt>...

> Nele Abels-Ludwig wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Jul 1998, ASMarques wrote:
> > > Gord McFee wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > You then went
> > > > on to say that German speakers such as Herr Abels-Ludwig and Herr
> > > > Walther don't know their own language.
> > >
> > > I know very well those characters from the alt.revisionism ghetto
where
> > > they wish they could confine "Holocaust" discussions for ever.
> >
> > I have taken this discussion to German newsgroups and you have called
> > that "spamming" the other day. Consistency is not one of your
> > strengths is it?
>
> Of course it is. I spamm to where you spammers spamm.
>
> Spamm, spamm, spamm, wonderful spamm, remember ?

Du Simpel hast das Thema gewechselt und dann weiter crossgepostet.

> I am not opposed to non-commercial spamming and think the free market
> for ideas should be left to auto-regulate itself.

Genau. Deine Ablenkungsmaneuver sollten einfach ignoriert werden. Antworten
sollten nach alt.revisionism gehen.

> But I don't spamm on my own. I sometimes follow your spamming and that's
> all.

Das reicht.

[...]

Mit freundlichen Gruessen,

Hansjoerg Walther.

[Daniel Keren]

[Followup set to alt.revisionism]

baby-nazi "ASMarques" writes:

# Since when is "Jewry" or "the Jews" a living being ?

The Jews are not living beings? What a crazed little nazi monkey...
well, I guess that if it was up to him, they would not be!

# How about "we want to eliminate nazism", "we want to eliminate the
# nazis" ? Would you be saying you actually wanted to physically
# exterminate right wing intellectuals, ex-soldiers and skinheads
# in gas chambers, or just arresting them and censoring their views?

Immediately after the mention of "Ausrottung" in his speech to
senior SS officers, Himmler says:

"Not one of those who talk this way has watched it, not one of them
has gone through it. Most of you know what it means when 100 corpses
are lying side by side, or 500, or 1,000. To have stuck it out and
at the same time - apart from exceptions caused by human weakness -
to have remained decent fellows, that is what has made us hard".

Was he talking about the corpses of "Judaism", baby-nazi?

And BTW...

What do the following excerpts mean? Who said them, and when?

[I have represented umlauts by adding an "e"]

"Aber was soll mit den Juden geschehen? Glauben Sie, man sie wird im
Ostland in Siedlungsdoerfern unterbringen? Man hat uns in Berlin
gesagt: weshalb macht man diese Scherereien; wir koennen im Ostland
oder im Reichskommissariat auch nichts mit ihnen anfangen, liquidiert
sie selber! Meine Herren, ich muss Sie bitten, sich gegen alle
Mitleidserwaegungen zu wappnen. Wir muessen die Juden vernichten, wo
immer wir sie treffen und wo es irgend moeglich ist, um das
Gesamtgefuege des Reichs hier aufrecht zu erhalten."


"Dass wir 1.2 Millionen Juden zum Hungertod verurteilen, sei nur am
Rande festgestellt. Es ist selbstverstaendlich, dass ein Nichtverhungern
der Juden hoffentlich eine Beschleunigung der antijuedischen
Massnahmen zur Folge haben wird."

<end quote>

-Danny Keren.

[Hansjoerg Walther]

Hello ASMarques,

ASMarques <asm...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote in article

<359B19...@mail.telepac.pt>...
> Eduardo Casais wrote:

[...]

> But has it ever occured to you that where lies are needed, the truth is
> being hidden ?

Yes. of course. This is a fair description of holocaust denial.

> Why ?

Since holocaust deniers deny the truth and necessarily have to resort to
lies.

>
> ASMarques
>

Best regards,

Hansjoerg Walther.

[Thorsten Bauer]

Scholem alejchem!

Helmut Fuchs wrote:
> > > Leichenkeller waren den Krematorien zugeordnete unterirdische Räume.
> > > In diesen konnte bei relativ kühlen Temperaturen eine größere Anzahl
> > > Leichen für eine geraume Zeit aufbewahrt werden.
> >
> > Deswegen wurde auch ueberlegt, ob man die Raeume
> > mit der Abwaerme der Krematorien heizen solle (vgl. Pressac).
>
> Hier irrt Pressac; denn Leichenkeller müssen kühl sein. Die Erwärmung
> dieser Räume ergibt keinen Sinn.

Sag bloss.

Nichtsdestotrotz wurde mit dem Gedanken gespielt,
die Leichenkeller mit der Abwaerme der Krematorien vorzuwaermen.

So einer ganz normaler Leichenkeller wird das dann
wohl nicht gewesen sein.

Zyklon B hingegen entwickelt sich bei hoeherer Temperatur besser.

> > Und weil dort Leichen gelagert wurden, wurden auch die Rutschen
> > in die Keller entfernt. Die muessen wohl noch ganz gut zu Fuss
> > gewesen sein, die Leichen.
>
> Hast Du das auch bei Pressac gelesen? Ob dieser Apotheker wohl den Begriff
> "Rutsche" richtig zugeordnet hat?

Zur ersten Frage: Ja.
Zur zweiten: Vermutlich ja.
Wenn Du anderer Meinung sein solltest, kannst Du sie gerne begruenden.

Aber hoffentlich bist Du kein Apotheker.

> > Frische Luft haben sie wohl auch regelmaessig bekommen, die Leichen.
> > Wozu sonst haette man ein leistungsfaehiges Entlueftungssystem
> > installiert.
>
> Um die Verwesungsluft zu entfernen.

Ah ja.
Deswegen wurden auch Geblaese aus Holz eingebaut,
damit diese nicht so schnell korrodieren.

"Verwesungsluft" fuehrt meines Wissens nicht
schneller zur Korrosion als normale Luft.

Blausaeure korrodiere allerdings Metall, oder?

> > Von der Bezeichnung "Vergasungskeller" in Bauplaenen
> > moechte ich ja gar nicht erst anfangen.
>
> Die so richtig bezeichneten Vergasungskeller lagen ausweislich der
> Baupläne den Leichenkellern gegenüber und waren ausschließlich zum
> Vergasen von Koks für den Betrieb der Krematorien konzipiert.

Unfug.
Die Gasgeneratoren der in Birkenau verwendeten Anlagen
lagen neben den Oefen, insbesondere nicht im Keller.
Lies doch einmal das Buch von Pressac.

Mit freundlichen Gruessen,
Thorsten

[Helmut Fuchs]

> Martin Karger wrote:
> >
> > > Wenn ich mich nicht irre, waren die Keller in Auschwitz, wo die Juden
> > > mit Gas vergiftet wurden, Leichenkeller genannt.
> >
> > nee ... das waren die Gaskammern.
>
> Thank you all very much.
>

> Well, in the original plans of the Birkenau crematories (at Auschwitz),
> the rooms we are now told were gas-chambers are called "Leichenkeler".
> But they were obviously the morgues where corpses were deposited while
> awaiting cremation.
>
> If -- contrary to what is stated in the construction plans -- they were
> not morgues, then *THE CREMATORIES HAD NO MORGUES*. I wonder where they
> deposited the hundreds of bodies resulting from each supposed gassing
> while they waited their turn for cremation. . .

I don't blame you. We wonder ourselves.

Inigo Speer

[Helmut Fuchs]

> In article <35a76fad...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> re...@nospam.perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland) writes:
>
> Hallo,
>
> > To all the Germans now in this thread; a question. If any of you were
> > to say something like: "Himmler's meaning in that part of the speech
> > was unclear, and I do not know for certain that he even said it anyway
> > - it may be a fake" Would you be arrested and charged under any of
> > your laws about Holocaust Denial, or any other law?

You better don't say it. _Just to be safe._

> No, nobody would land in prison. The "Auschwitz-Lüge" is forbidden,
> but nothing else.

On the contrary: _our prisons are filled_ with politically "disobedient"
German patriots.

> Some people are actually denying that things happened as written in
> the history books.

As far as "history books" (particularly post-war literature) are
concerned:
_Remember: history has always been written by the conqueror!_

Inigo Speer

[Helmut Fuchs]

> Do you have an opinion on this ?

Open and frank opinions on this will be subject to prosecution.
Inevitably!

Inigo Speer

[Margret Chatwin]

On Thu, 02 Jul 1998 16:50:00 +0100, H.F...@IUS.gun.de (Helmut Fuchs)
wrote:

>> In article <35a76fad...@news.demon.co.uk>,
>> re...@nospam.perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland) writes:
>>

[...]

>
>On the contrary: _our prisons are filled_ with politically "disobedient"
>German patriots.

Criminals you mean. Criminals like your neo-Nazi friend Ekkehard Weil,
for instance, who was actively involved in bombings.

Margret Chatwin

[Al Schreiter]

I'm getting sick of the stupid revisionist arguments. The holocaust
deniers have their own newsgroup, so please stay out of this one. My
message to all of you is: Don't fall for the trick of starting a
"discussion". Just ignore this crap and don't answer it.

On Thu, 02 Jul 1998 03:35:31 +0100, ASMarques <asm...@mail.telepac.pt>
wrote:

>Wolfram Meyer von Gagern wrote:
>>
>> > > Just to be clear, your "argument" was that "Ausrottung" does not mean to

snip

[Al Schreiter]

Please ignore the inane rantings of Mr. Marques, and maybe he'll go
away.

On Thu, 02 Jul 1998 05:53:54 +0100, ASMarques <asm...@mail.telepac.pt>
wrote:

>Hi there, Danny. didn't you forget something ?
>
>Daniel Keren wrote:
>>

snip

[Tilmann Chladek]

Fergus McClelland <re...@nospam.perdrix.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> To all the Germans now in this thread; a question. If any of you were
> to say something like: "Himmler's meaning in that part of the speech
> was unclear, and I do not know for certain that he even said it anyway
> - it may be a fake" Would you be arrested and charged under any of
> your laws about Holocaust Denial, or any other law?

No.

--
Tilmann Chladek
300 Jahre Mittelalter gefaelscht? Infos unter:
http://home.ivm.de/~Tilmann.Chladek/

[Tilmann Chladek]

ASMarques <asm...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:

> My whole point (as you well know) was that *in the phrase you were
> discussing* the word "Ausrottung" did indeed mean "extirpate, root out".
> Himmler is saying the following: "ICH MEINE DIE JUDENEVAKUIERUNG, DIE
> AUSROTTUNG DES JUDISCHEN VOLKES".

He was German after all, he was not crazy. "Evakuierung" does not mean
"Ausrottung", "ausgerottete Juden" cannot be sent to the East, because
they are dead, It's that simple!

>
> Obviously he is speaking about *extirpating* the Jews from the German

> sphere i.e. he is speaking about sending them to labor camps in the East

> and he uses the word "Judenevakuierung". What does this word mean in
> your opinion ? Gas chambering ? You don't need to know German to
> understand the *meaning* of "Judenevakuierung".

When he speaks about "ausrotten, Ausrottung", he means "to kill without
any exceptions". If the Jews were to be transported to the East it only
was to kill them there, because in Germany proper there were no death
camps like in occupied Poland.

>
> If the word "Ausrottung" always had a literal physical sense, how do you
> account for the following figurative use by Hitler in his Berlin
> Sportpalast speech of February 1933: "den Marxismus und seine
> Begleiterscheinungen aus Deutschland auszurotten" - "to extirpate
> Marxism and its accompanying phenomena from Germany" ?

"Ausrotten" concerning people always has a literal physical sense: to
kill them. "Ausrotten" concerning abstract ideas just means to destroy
these ideas completely. So what? Where is your flimsy argument?

>
> Are you suggesting Hitler is talking of gas chambering "Marxism" ?
> Obviously not. What he means is "this alien ideology will be rooted out,
> extirpated from Germany".

He means: "Marxism will be completely destroyed in Germany."

>
> Himmler means exactly the same about "des judische Volkes" which is
> being *evacuated* and not gassed with the same pesticide used to fight
> typhus in the concentration camps as the "Holocaust" myth would have it.

Himmler means exactly the same as Hitler: "The Jews will be completely
destroyed." "Ausrotten" is not "Evakuieren", "Ausrotten" is "Kill them
all".

[Klaus Philipp]

In article <359B17...@mail.telepac.pt>, asm...@mail.telepac.pt
says...

> Klaus Philipp wrote:
> >
> > Why wasting time to explain something, you with your limited mental
> > capabilities wouldn't understand anyway? I'll better spend time to fight
> > nazi-faschist-racist criminals like you
>
> Oh, just to help me get back into the path of love and righteousness. I
> have some difficulty believing in the gas chamber "Holocaust" and the
> magic 6 million number, you know...

I know... the difficulties you obviously have are of a totally different
nature. See a doctor and get a life.

> tons of nazi bullshit unread deleted

[Klaus Philipp]

In article <6x5V4...@hfupoint.ius.gun.de>, H.F...@IUS.gun.de says...

Don't get confused. Some low-brainers like our Nazi 'Inigo' (the name
indicates, that he gets a hard-on when wearing his nice SS-uniform. Its
the only way for him... also Viagra doesn't help. Sounds familiar to you
AS(shole)Marquez?) do wonder. Normal people in Germny don't wonder. They
just know.

[Klaus Philipp]

In article <6x5V3...@hfupoint.ius.gun.de>, H.F...@IUS.gun.de says...

> > In article <35a76fad...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> > re...@nospam.perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland) writes:
> >

> > Hallo,

> >
> > > To all the Germans now in this thread; a question. If any of you were
> > > to say something like: "Himmler's meaning in that part of the speech
> > > was unclear, and I do not know for certain that he even said it anyway
> > > - it may be a fake" Would you be arrested and charged under any of
> > > your laws about Holocaust Denial, or any other law?
>

> You better don't say it. _Just to be safe._
>
> > No, nobody would land in prison. The "Auschwitz-Lüge" is forbidden,
> > but nothing else.
>

> On the contrary: _our prisons are filled_ with politically "disobedient"
> German patriots.

Absolutely. And hopefully this whining nazi-whimp will join his
Kammmarrrraden there soon. BTW: he forgot to mention the hundreds of KZ
throughout Germany where millions of innocent freedom-fighters are
murdered every year just because they asked for the meaning of
'ausrotten'.....
>
> snipp

[Klaus Philipp]

In article <359AFB...@mail.telepac.pt>, asm...@mail.telepac.pt
says...
> Nazi shit deleted

> Hmmmm. Interesting. Why do you feel such an overwhelming wish to stop
> people from being confronted with the "Holocaust" difficult questions ?

Hey you f**k listen up: BECAUSE THESE QUESTIONS ARE NOT DIFFICULT! They
are just boring, offending and stupid. Why? Because they have been
answered a billion times. And when a low life like you does not
understand this: get some education. You are worse than a child molester
who asks why child molesting is so bad and complains about nobody wanting
to discuss this with him. But there is NO discussion with child molesters
and even less with nazis! Got it? Then PISS OFF!

[Klaus Philipp]

In article <6x5V4...@hfupoint.ius.gun.de>, H.F...@IUS.gun.de says...

> > Do you have an opinion on this ?

Nazis don't have a opinion. They are just criminals and have a severe
problem with the perception of reality. They have the same problem as
child molesters, who have the 'opinion' that it is OK to f**k 3 year old
children. The only difference is, that compared to Nazi-mass murderers,
child molesters appear to be really nice guys...

>
> Open and frank opinions on this will be subject to prosecution.

Why you are still here then? Or do you have access to a PC in your cell?
Is there really justice? (Just dreaming...)