|
12) National Socialist Policy Concerning the Jews, the Final Solution
12.1. Speeches
| quote: | R: On pp. 191f., we discussed why the testimonies of persons who might be
prejudiced with regards to an event – either emotionally or ideologically – are
usually less reliable than testimonies of entirely neutral and impartial observers.
Particular care must be taken also with regards to persons with some relationship
to the disputing parties. In regards to the Holocaust, this refers to the
alleged criminals on the one hand, and the alleged victims on the other.
L: But then there wouldn’t be anybody left. Hardly anybody is a neutral impartial
observer.
R: Can anybody really remain neutral where the Holocaust is concerned? The
problem is a basic one: Everything we hear about the Holocaust is so heavily
loaded with emotion that hardly anybody can be a sober, detached observer.
The whole Second World War split practically the whole world into good and
evil as never before in human history. You could just as easily say, and quite
correctly, that there can be no witness testimonies with regards to the Holocaust,
only testimonies by one or the other party to the matter in dispute.
What I want is simply to make you aware that the testimonies of both sides
must be viewed with skepticism, as is the case in any other civil or criminal
case: One must expect the surviving victims to exaggerate or even invent things
due to feelings of hatred and a desire for revenge. On the other hand, one must
expect the criminals, out of self-preservation, to minimize or deny events.
L: All the more reason for me to find the confessions of the criminals more convincing.
R: And that is just where we wish to begin. Let us take a good look at the confessions
of the “criminals” for once. Before we begin with some of the quotations
of leading National Socialists frequently cited as proof of the Holocaust by orthodox
historians, we must first clarify the meaning of several German terms.
The question is: What did leading National Socialists mean when they used
words like “Vernichtung” (annihilation) or “Ausrottung” (extermination)? If
you look into a modern German dictionary, things seem to be clear. In most
cases, these words refer to a physical elimination, that is to say: to killings. But
there are exceptions. “Vernichtung,” for example, can also be used in a mere
social or professional sense, were it means the loss or destruction of one’s financial
basis or social network of friends, for example. A “vernichtende Niederlage”
(annihilating defeat) in sports does of course not mean that the athletes
of the defeated team were murdered. The term “Ausrottung” is less ambivalent,
but it, too, does not have to mean murder.
During the 1920s and early 1930s, the leaders of National Socialism, who later
became Germany’s leading politicians, evolved politically in an atmosphere of
permanent civil war. The language used by the more radical parties involved in
this struggle was quite often inflammatory and violent. Words said in the heat
of the moment were not always considered to be taken literally. This, too,
needs to be kept in mind.
Let me now quote a few examples of statements made by leaders of NS Germany,
in which words like annihilation or extermination did occur, but were
they obviously did not mean murder:
1. Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s deputy until 1941, remarked in a speech in Stockholm
on May 14, 1935:847
“National Socialist legislation has intervened in a corrective manner
against [Jewish] foreign infiltration.
I say corrective, since [the fact that] Jewry is not, for example, being ruthlessly
exterminated in National Socialist Germany is proven by the fact
that, in Prussia alone, 33,500 Jews are active in industry and handicrafts,
98,900 in trade and transport – and is further proven by the fact that, with
a proportion of 1% of the population of Germany, 17.5% of all lawyers are
still Jewish, and, for example, in Berlin, almost 50% of all non-Aryan physicians
are still permitted to participate in the social security system.”
The word exterminate (ausrotten) obviously cannot have been meant in the
sense of murder in this connection, since in 1935 nobody had accused the
Third Reich of ruthlessly killing the Jews in whole or even in part. This assumption
was so absurd at that time, that it is inconceivable that the second
most powerful man in the country after Hitler would have quasi-denied a
partial physical extermination of the Jews by means of this statement of
opinion. Hess’ wording can only be taken in the social sense of the word: the
National Socialists had not yet destroyed the Jewish influence in Germany
using all means (ruthlessly), but had, rather, only begun to correct and restrain
their influence by moderate means of forced affirmative action. It is
obvious that this repression cannot have occurred through any killing of the
Jews, but rather in forcing them to have recourse to other professions or
causing them to emigrate.
2. In a memorandum on the Four Year Plan in August 1936, Hitler remarked
that the Wehrmacht and the German economy had to be ready in four years
to wage war on the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union ever conquered Germany,
that would mean the annihilation of the German people.848 Naturally,
Hitler cannot have meant that the Soviets would have killed 80 million Ger-
mans in such a case. Rather, the meaning was that Germany would be eliminated
as an independent, politically powerful and cultural factor.
3. On Nov. 10, 1938, Hitler remarked to the National Socialist press that there
was a need to annihilate the class of German intellectuals.849 Here as well, he
cannot have meant a physical extermination of the intellectuals, but rather,
only the end of their influence.
4. Only a few days before the above mentioned Reichstag speech of Jan. 30,
1939, Hitler received the Czech Foreign Minister. During the conversation
Hitler criticized, among other things, the liberal attitude of the Czechs with
regards to the Jews, and referred to the Jewish policy of his government with
the words “In Germany, they are being annihilated.” It is obvious that he
cannot have meant a physical annihilation of the Jews, since nothing of the
sort is alleged to have been going on at the time.850
5. Felix Kersten, Himmler’s masseur, quotes Himmler as follows in a diary entry
dated Dec. 12, 1940:
“We must wipe out the Jews, that is the will of the Führer.”
On Apr. 18, 1941, Himmler, according to Kersten, is supposed to have said:
“The Jews must be annihilated by the end of the war. That is the unambiguous
wish of the Führer.”
It was Yehudah Bauer of Jerusalem University, one of the most highly respected
mainstream Holocaust historians, who noted that there was not yet
any intention to exterminate the Jews, when these entries in Kersten’s diary
were made, and that they are thus extremely problematic.851 But in the context
of the above examples, these entries are much less problematic than they
may first appear: “Wipe out” (ausradieren) and “exterminate” (ausrotten)
were not meant to mean physical extermination, but, rather, the removal of
the Jews from Germany and/or Europe.
6. This becomes clear from a Hitler statement during a table talk in his head
quarters on July 4, 1942, when he reported his threat relating to the expulsion
of the Czechs from Bohemia and Moravia, which he expressed to Czech
President Hacha. According to this threat, Hacha declared that all persons
advocating a pro-Soviet policy in the Protectorate would have to be “exterminated”
(ausgerottet). From the context, it is clear that this means removal
from their positions and expulsion.852
Now to some statements of leading NS politicians which are frequently quoted
to support the extermination thesis. Since these statements were made long before
the end of the war, this automatically eliminates in advance the possibility
that they were extorted by force, as must be taken into consideration in the case
of confessions of defendants given in Allied prisons.
First of all, let us look at the oft-quoted passage from Adolf Hitler’s speech of
Jan. 30, 1939, i.e., seven months before the outbreak of the war:853
“Today I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers
in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more
into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth,
and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in
Europe!”
R: Here you have Hitler’s world view in a nutshell: Jews control international high
finance and are the power behind Bolshevism; they intend to get financial and
political control over the entire world, if necessary by gigantic wars, but Hitler
sees himself as the driving force to prevent that and to annihilate the Jewish
race in order to prevent the subjugation of the world under the Jewish yoke.
But did he mean the annihilation of their physical existence or merely of their
political and social influence? The continuation of this quote, which is regularly
hushed up by mainstream historians, makes things clearer:
“For the time when the non-Jewish nations had no propaganda is at an end.
National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy have institutions which enable
them when necessary to enlighten the world about the nature of a question of
which many nations are instinctively conscious, but which they have not yet
clearly thought out.”
R: So here you have it: Hitler will annihilate the Jews by enlightening the world
about their evil plans and deeds. Even Israeli historian Yehuda Bauer contradicted
the notion that Hitler meant physical murder in this speech. He emphasized
that this passage was no more than a vague, overly-dramatic threat, diametrically
opposed to the rest of the speech.434 This speech was Hitler’s reaction
to Roosevelt’s boycott threats in his so-called “Quarantine Speech,” in
which Roosevelt called Hitler’s Germany a country infected by a dangerous,
infectious bacillus, which deserved to be kept in quarantine, i.e., boycotted and
avoided by other nations. Hitler’s answering speech contains lengthy passages
describing the implementation of his policy relating to the peaceful emigration
and resettlement of the Jews.
L: But the threat relates only to the case of a possible outbreak of war anyway.
R: That is correct. But even if we assume that Hitler meant murder here, this
overly-dramatic counter-threat in reacting to Roosevelt’s threat cannot be used
as proof of a crime committed at a later time, particularly when the following
sentences say that the world will be enlightened as to the Jews. Yehuda Bauer
himself provides more evidence against such an intention, namely, a document
from May 1940, that is, after the outbreak of the war, in which Himmler rejected
“the Bolshevik method of physical annihilation of a people […] as un-
Germanic” and Adolf Hitler commented upon this by writing “Quite correct” in
the margin.854
On Jan. 30, 1941, Hitler himself, in a speech before the Reichstag, returned to
his prophecy of 1939 and explained:855
“And I should like to repeat the warning that I have already once given, on
1. September 1939 [correct: Jan. 30, 1939], in the German Reichstag:
namely, the warning that if Jewry drives the world into a general war, the
role Jewry plays in Europe will be all over!”
R: So once more: annihilation of the Jews in terms of ending the influential role
Jewry played in economy, politics, and culture. Hitler made similar remarks on
Jan. 30, Feb. 24, Sept. 30, Nov. 8, 1942, and on Feb. 24, 1943.856 According to
this, he saw two possibilities for the outcome of the world war then in progress:
either the extermination of the Aryan race or that of Jewry. That he did not
mean that, in the event of defeat all the peoples designated by him as Aryan
would be physically exterminated, may be considered certain. What Hitler understood
“annihilation of Jewry” to mean later, he commented to his closest
confidants on October 25, 1941, i.e., after the expansion of the war into a
World War. During a Table Talk, he came back to his speech of Jan. 30, 1939,
and declared that he understood “annihilation” to mean the destruction of the
political influence of the Jews in Europe through their deportation to the Russian
swamps:857
“This race of criminals has the two million dead of the [First] World War on
their conscience, and now hundreds of thousands more. Let no one say: How
can we ship them off into the swamps!”
L: Maybe Hitler didn’t want to call a spade a spade.
R: I consider it very improbable that Hitler, even in the company of his closest
confidants, would have felt obliged to use camouflage words or fail to refer to
things by their proper name.
But now to the statements of other prominent National Socialists on the “annihilation
of Jewry” during wartime. First, there is the entry by Propaganda Minister
Josef Goebbels of Mar. 27, 1942:858
“Beginning in Lublin, the Jews are now being deported from the Generalgouvernement
to the east. This is a somewhat barbaric procedure and not
one to be further described here. There is not much left of the Jews themselves.
In general, one can state that 60 percent will have to be liquidated;
only 40 percent will be able to be put to work.”
R: The problem with this quotation is the same as with the others. Namely when
one regards the actual policy, one must conclude that the 60% “liquidated”
Jews were those who were unable to work and were therefore “deported to the
east.” This is clear from a Goebbels diary entry, which he made only 20 days
earlier:859
“The Jewish question must be solved within the framework of Greater
Europe. There are still over 11 million Jews in Europe. They must first be
concentrated in the east. Eventually, after the war, they can be sent to an island,
like Madagascar. At any rate, there will be no peace in Europe until
the Jews are completely excluded from the European territory.”
R: On the basis of documents from that time Carlo Mattogno has stated that, at
that time, i.e., after the Wannsee Conference, a resettlement of the Jews began
in the General Government, which was anything but an “annihilation action”
(Vernichtungsaktion).860 Due to the significance of these documents, I would
like to summarize them at this point. After the first transports of resettled Jews
had arrived at their destinations, the receiving authorities had to be warned as
follows in the beginning of 1942:861
“I am asking you to take great care to ensure that the Jews are received and
correctly transported at their final destination, wherever you have decided
that they should go; they should not, as has occurred in other cases, arrive
at their final destination without any supervision at all, and then disperse
themselves all over the countryside.”
R: If the transports were sent to extermination camps, something like this could
never have happened. Another document has the following to say, among other
things, on the treatment of the Jews at the destination:862
“After their arrival in their new settlement areas, the Jews are to be placed
under medical supervision for 3 weeks. Every case of suspected typhus infection
must be reported to the responsible district physician without fail.”
R: Gassed Jews would hardly have had to be supervised for their health for three
weeks. The “barbaric” methods of resettlement are revealed by a document
dated March 22, 1942, five days before Goebbels’ diary entry:863
“On March 22, 1942, there was an evacuation of 57 Jewish families, a total
of 221 persons, from Bilgoray to Tarnogrod. Every family was provided with
a vehicle to transport their furniture and beds. The arrangements and supervision
are to be taken over by the police and Special Service Command. The
action went ahead according to plan and without incident. The evacuated
persons were lodged in Tarnogrod on the same day.”
L: But if that is so, why should Goebbels have referred to this as a “barbaric procedure”
and that there was “not much left of the Jews”?
R: The forced mass resettlement of human beings is “barbaric” according to Western
standards, don’t you think? The massive forced resettlement of the Germans
from their eastern territories after the Second World War is considered
barbaric, too. I think that the images that always occur when we imagine the
Holocaust have blunted us emotionally to the extent that we are no longer able
to recognize the everyday barbarity of the world. In view of the horrors that we
have all heard about the Holocaust, anything less doesn’t seem so bad at all.
L: With that kind of argument, you can sweep all kinds of barbaric treatment of
our fellow human beings under the carpet as “not so bad,” which is what happens
everywhere today, from the conflict in Bosnia and Kosovo or Chechyna,
to the massacres in Rwanda and Darfur, to the oppression of the Palestinians.
R: That is right. Let us not forget: Goebbels was not emotionally hardened by
Holocaust propaganda. For him, the forced resettlement of entire families to the
economically barren east was “barbaric,” and he was quite right in this. His testimony
that “not much is left” where the Jews were concerned can only have
been intended to mean to refer to their political, economic, and social presence
in Europe. He cannot have been referring to their murder.
Thus, Goebbels understood the “liquidation” of 60% of the deported Jews to
refer to their evacuation to the eastern territories and therefore the liquidation
of any economic, political, and social influence of these people in western and
central Europe. Accordingly, the expression “liquidation” in this Goebbels diary
entry has the same meaning for Goebbels as “annihilation” and “extermination”
did for Hitler.
The next thing worth mentioning is the speech of the Governor of Poland, Hans
Frank, given on Dec. 16, 1941, that is, approximately one month before the
Wannsee Conference. In this speech, Frank remarked:864
“[…] if the Jewish tribe in Europe survives the war, while we have sacrificed
our best blood in the protection of Europe, then this war will only have
been partly successful. Basically, therefore, with regards to the Jews, I must
simply assume that they are to disappear. They will have to go.”
L: That’s very clear as well.
R: It looks like it. It was also quoted, for example, by Prof. Nolte as proof of a
Holocaust.865 But Prof. Nolte has forgotten the rest of the quotation, which continues:
“I have initiated negotiations for the purpose of deporting them to the east.
In January, there will be a big conference on this matter in Berlin [Wannsee],
to which I will send State Secretary Dr. Bühler. This conference will be
held in the Reich Security Main Office of SS-Obergruppenführer Heydrich.
A great Jewish migration will set in at any rate.”
L: It looks almost as if Prof. Nolte falsified the quotation by taking it out of context.
R: Again I must say: not too fast! The quotation continues:
“But what is supposed to happen to the Jews? Do you think they are going
to be housed in settlement villages in the eastern territories? They’ve told us
in Berlin: What’s all the fuss? We cannot do anything with them, either in
the eastern territories or in the Reich Commissariat [occupied Ukraine], liquidate
them yourselves! […] We must destroy the Jews, wherever we find
them, in order to maintain the overall structure of the Reich here. […] We
cannot shoot 3.5 million Jews, we cannot poison them, but we will undertake
measures leading to their successful destruction in some way or other, of
course, in connection with the overall measures to be undertaken by the
Reich, as discussed here. The Government General must become as free of
Jews as the Reich. Where and how this happens is a matter of the authorities
to be created in these areas, the jurisdiction of which I will inform you about
in due time.”
L: So what does it mean? Resettlement or annihilation?
R: Why not both? Frank is obviously speaking with relation to the same thing:
resettlement and annihilation are synonymous. And he also says expressly:
“We cannot shoot 3.5 million Jews, we cannot poison them.” Can it be any
clearer that they were neither to be shot nor to be gassed with poison?
The fact is that this ambivalence disappears as soon as one views these text
passages in the context of other documents, such as the Goebbels diaries entries
or other documents by Hans Frank.866 These make it clear that both Frank and
Goebbels had no doubt that Jews who were unable to work were to be resettled
to the east, while the rest of them were to be used for forced labor.
Lastly, I must refer to a Himmler speech of Oct. 4, 1943, which is generally
referred to as his “secret speech.” The following is an excerpt:867
“I am thinking now of the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the
Jewish people. It is one of those things that is easy to say: ‘The Jewish people
will be exterminated,’ says every Party comrade, ‘that is quite clear, it is
in our program: deactivation [Ausschaltung] of the Jews, extermination;
that is what we are doing.’ And then they all come along, these 80 million
good Germans, and every one of them has his decent Jew. Of course, it is
quite clear that the others are pigs, but this one is one first-class Jew. Of all
those who speak this way, not one has looked on; not one has lived through
it. Most of you know what it means when 100 bodies lie together, when 500
lie there, or if 1,000 lie there. To have gone through this, and at the same
time, apart from exceptions caused by human weaknesses, to have remained
decent, that has made us hard. This is a chapter of glory in our history
which has never been written, and which never shall be written; since we
know how hard it would be for us if we still had the Jews, as secret saboteurs,
agitators, and slander-mongers, among us now, in every city – during
the bombing raids, with the suffering and deprivations of the war. We would
probably already be in the same situation as in 1916/17 if we still had the
Jews in the body of the German people.
[…] We had the moral right, we had the duty to our own people, to kill this
people which wanted to kill us.”
L: There we have an explanation that evacuation was a camouflage word for
physical extermination.
R: No, the other way around: For Himmler, “extermination” was a synonym for
evacuation, since the Party Program of the National Socialist German Workers’
Party (NSDAP) contained nothing relating to any physical extermination of the
Jews, but rather, that they could not be citizens,868 which is equivalent to expulsion
from Germany.
L: And what about the bodies mentioned by Himmler?
R: This passage may relate to the Germans with the “decent Jews,” who did not
understand the hard measures against the Jews, because they had never seen
hundreds or thousands of bodies lying side by side: “Of all those who speak
this way, not one has looked on; not one has lived through it.” This means that
these could obviously not have been Jewish bodies, since if the Germans with
their “first-class Jews” had ever seen hundreds of Jewish bodies, they would
have been even less sympathetic to any anti-Jewish measures, and might even
have taken to the barricades. But Himmler’s audience, who were soldiers – all
Higher SS and Police Leaders –, understood the anti-Jewish measures, because
they had seen these bodies. But seeing Jewish bodies wouldn’t have made these
men any more inclined to accept anti-Jewish measures either. You only accept
harsh measures when you are convinced that they are justified, that they are a
punishment. But a punishment for what? For the mass deaths of human beings;
for responsibility for the war. Attention should be paid in this connection to
Hitler’s frequently-repeated warning to the effect that: “If the international
Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations
once more into a world war,” then woe to them! That Hitler and his followers
blamed the Jews for both World Wars, can bee seen from a great many of their
statements. Just read the one Hitler made on October 25, 1941, once more (p.
339). In it, Hitler blames the Jews for the victims of the war and right after that
talks about their punishment: “ship them off into the swamps,” which can only
have meant the swamps of Belarus, in which German soldiers were also
bogged down at that same time.
It was these bodies – the victims of the war – which were to make those Germans
understand anti-Jewish measures, and which would also make Himmler’s
listeners understand why hard measures against Jews were allegedly necessary.
This is why Himmler and his listeners adopted such a merciless attitude in
those days.
L: But at the end of the day, Himmler really claimed that he had the moral right to
kill the Jews.
R: That is what it says, but it makes little sense, since not even the most extreme
National Socialist ever claimed that the “Jews” had planned to commit genocide
against the entire German people. The National Socialist ideology and
propaganda spoke of Jewish bolshevism and Jewish high finance, both of
which wished to subjugate and enslave the German people. So if reciprocity
were to be restored, then “killing,” in this context, would mean that he had the
right to subjugate and enslave the Jews, which is exactly what happened at that
time. This means that it is also incorrect to interpret this passage literally, because
Himmler speaks in the past tense: “we had […] the duty […] to kill this
people […].” But even according to mainstream historiography, the murder of
the Jews was by no means a matter of the past in October 1943. At that time,
there were still millions of Jews in Europe: The Hungarian Jews had not even
been bothered yet; in Poland, nobody had yet been deported from the large
ghetto of Lodz; in France, three fourths of the Jews remained until the end of
the war, and almost 90% of the Jews with French citizenship were spared from
deportation.
[...]
Himmler’s speech must be
viewed in the context of all his other speeches and documents, for example, his
declaration in Bad Tölz on November 23, 1942:869
“The Jewish question in Europe has completely changed. The Führer once
said in a Reichstag speech: If Jewry triggers an international war, for example,
to exterminate the Aryan people, then it won’t be the Aryans who will
be exterminated, but Jewry. The Jews have been resettled outside Germany,
they are living here, in the east, and are working on our roads, railways etc.
This is a consistent process, but is conducted without cruelty.”
R: In a general way, therefore, it is clear that the speeches and diary entries of
leaders of the Third Reich can only be interpreted correctly in the context of all
speeches. And even then these statements of leading NS politicians at most represent
the intentions or views of these leaders, but cannot provide information
as to what actually happened.
847 Quoted from the publication of the Rudolf Hess Association, “Dokumentation no. 9: Rede von Herrn
Reichsminister Hess am 14. Mai 1935 in der Deutsch-Schwedischen Gesellschaft in Stockholm,” Postfach
11 22, D-82141 Planegg.
848 Cf. W. Treue, Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 3 (1955), pp. 184f.
849 Bundesarchiv, NS 11/28, pp. 30-46; cf. H. von Kotze, H. Krausnick (ed.), Es spricht der Führer,
Gütersloh 1966, p. 281; VfZ 1958, p. 188; for a contrary opinion on National Socialist usage of words,
cf. M. Shermer, “Proving the Holocaust,” Skeptic, 2(4) (1994), pp. 44-51; cf. Shermer, Why People Believe
Weird Things, Freeman & Co., New York 1997, pp. 211-241.
850 See also, Joseph Billig’s remarks in La solution finale de la question juive, Beate Klarsfeld, Paris 1977,
p. 51.
851 Y. Bauer, op. cit. (note 434), p. 273, note 10.
852 H. Picker, op. cit. (note 435), p. 435; this example, as well as examples 2 and 3, were pointed out for
the first time by D. Irving in, “On Contemporary History and Historiography,” JHR 5(2-4) (1984), p.
277.
853 Max Domarus, Hitler Reden und Proklamationen 1932-1945, Löwit, Wiesbaden 1973, vol. II, p. 1058.
854 Y. Bauer, op. cit. (note 434), p. 57.
855 Max Domarus, op. cit. (note 853), p. 1663.
856 Ibid., pp. 1828f., 1844, 1920, 1937, 1992.
857 W. Jochmann (ed.), Adolf Hitler. Monologe im Führerhauptquartier 1941-1944. Die Aufzeichnungen
Heinrich Heims, Knaus, Hamburg 1980, p. 106.
858 Ralf Georg Reuth (ed.), Joseph Goebbels – Tagebücher, 2nd ed., vol. 4, Piper, Munich 1991, p. 1776.
859 Roger Manvell, Heinrich Fraenkel, Goebbels. Eine Biographie, Kiepenheuer & Witsch, Köln-Berlin,
1960, p. 256.
860 Cf. C. Mattogno, op. cit. (note 605).
861 Józef Kermisz, Dokumenty i materialy do dziejów okupacij niemieckiej w Polsce, vol. II, “Akcje” i
“Wysiedlenia,” Warsaw-Lodz-Krakau 1946, p. 11.
862 Ibid., p. 15.
863 Ibid., p. 46.
864 PS-2233, IMT, vol. 29, pp. 502f.
865 E. Nolte, Streitpunkte, op. cit. (note 263), p. 296.
866 Cf. in this regard, and in more detail, C. Mattogno, op. cit. (note 605); cf. also Germar Rudolf, “Some
Comments about the NS-Language with Regards to Jews,” TR 3, in preparation.
867 PS-1919, IMT, vol. 29, pp. 110-173, here pp. 145f. A short audio extract from the speech may be heard
on line at www.vho.org/VffG/1997/4/Himmler041043_2.wav.
868 Point 4 of the Program: “Staatsbürger kann nur sein, wer Volksgenosse ist. Volksgenosse kann nur
sein, wer deutschen Blutes ist, ohne Rücksichtsnahme auf Konfession. Kein Jude kann daher Volksgenosse
sein.” – Citizen can only be who is a member of the people. A member of the people is who is
of German blood, with no regard to the confession. No Jew can therefore be a member of the people.
869 Bradley F. Smith, Agnes F. Peterson (ed.), Heinrich Himmler. Geheimreden 1933 bis 1945 und andere
Ansprachen, Propyläen, Frankfurt 1974, p. 200. |
Lectures on the Holocaust, p. 335-345.
So there you have it.
Even if you dont agree with these interpretations, speeches of Hitler, Goebbles, Himmler, or others, do not show what really happened to the Jews.
___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller
|
