Thursday, April 24, 2014

Rosenberg on Reprisals

It seems clear to me that his diary entry of September 12, 1941 (pdf posted by Irving here), can only mean that Rosenberg wished for central European Jews to be killed in reprisal for the "murder" of Volga Germans. Note also that Rosenberg clearly sees Siberia as a place of murder for deportees not resettlement:
12.9.41 Als die Mitteilungen eintrafen, dass Stalin nun auch die noch verbliebenen 400 000 Wolgadeutschen nach Sibirien verschleppen, d.h. morden lassen wird, da ist in uns allen der Hass gegen Moskau erst recht wieder emporgestiegen. Ich gab Anweisung, für eine sehr scharfe Stellungnahme u. sandte sie formuliert an den Führer. Der sie noch verschärfte. Gestern liess ich einen Vorschlag ausarbeiten, durch Rundfunk nach Russland, England u. USA mitteilen zu lassen, dass wenn dieser Massenmord durchgeführt werden sollte, Deutschland die Juden Zentraleuropas dafür büssen lassen würde. Dies mit vollster Berechtigung, da soeben noch der Jude Schertok auf einer Palästinakonferenz erklärt habe, an dem Bündnis zwischen Moskau – London – Washington hätten die Juden besonderen Anteil, da sie stets dafür gearbeitet hätten.

17 comments:

Roberto Lucena said...

Jonathan, I had begun to separate the Rosenberg Diary excerpts but due to a crash in the browser closing everything when I was in page 101). I forgot to complete the whole search but it's not difficult to complete until the end of the diary. I remembered this when I read this post.

I don't know if you might be interested in these excerpts, I've selected the excerpts relating to Jews, Judaism etc. Lack translate them, obviously.

Jonathan Harrison said...

Yes I would appreciate your help.

Tesla said...

"can only mean"? He doesn't mention murder(of the Jews) at all. He is simply saying the Jews should be held accountable for it.

Jonathan Harrison said...

Which he clearly meant in the sense of "an eye for an eye", as in Hitler's speech of January 30 1942.

Tesla said...

So you are actually using what Hitler said in a speech that was held 4.5 months *later* to "interpret" what Rosenberg meant in his diary?

What you have is a spurious interpretation based on another spurious interpretation - there is nothing clear about this at all.

Nathan said...

God, you're stupid. He's not saying that Hitler influenced Rosenberg. His point is that Hitler and Rosenberg are of the same mind because they share the same ideology. Of course the same themes are going to appear in their writings or speeches. It's perfectly reasonable to use one to clarify the other.

If such obvious lies are all "Revisionists" have to offer, then they have no future.

Tesla said...

"God, you're stupid. He's not saying that Hitler influenced Rosenberg. His point is that Hitler and Rosenberg are of the same mind because they share the same ideology. Of course the same themes are going to appear in their writings or speeches. It's perfectly reasonable to use one to clarify the other."

I don't know what this person's point is - that's why I put a question mark at the end of the sentence. Since he doesn't seem to understand German at all, I can only guess how he came to his crystal clear conclusions. And why can't this blogger answer for himself without his cheerleaders coming in from the sideline all the time?

No, it's not at all obvious that Hitler and Rosenberg shared the same thoughts on the Jewish question. Also, the two widely different contexts makes the comparison extremely spurious.

"If such obvious lies are all "Revisionists" have to offer, then they have no future."

The only lies are the ones who are posted on this blog. Nothing truthful here at all - just poor translations and insults towards people who question them.

Jonathan Harrison said...

And of course these are not the only sources of such sentiments. Goebbels used "eye for an eye" in an extremely inflammatory editorial on Nov 16th 1941:

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb1.htm

Tesla said...

"And of course these are not the only sources of such sentiments. Goebbels used "eye for an eye" in an extremely inflammatory editorial on Nov 16th 1941:

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb1.htm"

In which Goebbels makes remarks such as "the Jews should be ignored when they speak on the streets" (paraphrasing). Hardly evidence for your case.

Nathan said...

- And why can't this blogger answer for himself without his cheerleaders coming in from the sideline all the time?-
So dumbass has an inferiority complex and wants to prove himself by taking on the blog writers. Pathetic.

-No, it's not at all obvious that Hitler and Rosenberg shared the same thoughts on the Jewish question. Also, the two widely different contexts makes the comparison extremely spurious.-

Wow. Talk about moving the goalposts, not to mention straw-man. No one is saying that they shared the same thoughts on the "Jewish Question". The point was that both are anti-semites and both believe in "an eye for an eye".

Repeating the same assertions over and over doesn't make them true. As you've shown, the only liar here is you.

Nathan said...

- In which Goebbels makes remarks such as "the Jews should be ignored when they speak on the streets" (paraphrasing). Hardly evidence for your case.-

From the link:
- 7. The Jews have no right to claim equality with us. If they wish to speak on the streets, in lines outside shops or in public transportation, they should be ignored, not only because they are are simply wrong, but because they are Jews who have no right to a voice in the community.-

Idiot.

-And why can't this blogger answer for himself without his cheerleaders coming in from the sideline all the time?-

Because you're a liar. You're not worth his time. You're barely worth mine.

Tesla said...

Maybe if you calmed down a bit you would be able to form a comprehensible argument without insults.

Saying that two Anti-Semites necessarily share thoughts on morality is no less idiotic than your previous formulations of the same argument.

Tesla said...

Talking about "moving the goalposts" - Nathans last post wasn't even there when I wrote my last reply.

Some honest people you are, calling people liars and then engaging in post manipulation.

And where is it that I have *lied* exactly? Goebbels writes the following: "If they wish to speak on the streets, in lines outside shops or in public transportation, they should be ignored", which is exactly what I said. Clearly, he is talking about a form of social rejection, not of legal rights.

Which makes your claims about this speech all the more absurd.

Nathan said...

- And of course these are not the only sources of such sentiments. Goebbels used "eye for an eye" in an extremely inflammatory editorial on Nov 16th 1941:

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb1.htm-

-In which Goebbels makes remarks such as "the Jews should be ignored when they speak on the streets" (paraphrasing). Hardly evidence for your case.-

So, Jon Harrison was making the point that "an eye for an eye", i.e., making Jews pay for perceived crimes against Germans, was a common trope in Nazi propaganda. This liar then tried to disarm Dr. Harrison's point by using the quote mined bolded line to imply that Goebbels was saying that Jews should be ignored- i.e. left unharmed., which is why he claims that it's "hardly evidence for his case"

Of course, the full quote doesn't help dumbass's case. Which is why in his pathetic, whiny reply, he doesn't address the bolded part.

Dumbass probably doesn't know what "Raising the goalposts" means. Or, he's being willfully obtuse. Either way, I'm not going to explain. It should be obvious.

The whole point is moot, at any rate. The message itself is titled "The Jews are guilty".

-And why can't this blogger answer for himself without his cheerleaders coming in from the sideline all the time?-

Because you're a liar. You're not worth his time. You're barely worth mine. Don't flatter yourself. I have a life and am usually very busy. I can only imagine that the Blog authors are even more busy.

Tesla said...

Yes, the speech does talk about the Jews being ignored, so I didn't lie. What *is* your point? That they were denied equality? That they had "no right to a voice in the community"? Both of these sentences just underline my point further, which is that what Goebbels meant with his "an eye for an eye" rhetorical line, was not killing, but relatively harmless measures, such as social rejection, forcing the Jews to wear a Star of David and then finally shipping them off to the east.

You seem to be foaming a bit around the mouth there, Nathan. If you have a very busy life, as you say, I suggest you return to it, because this is clearly not good for you.

Nathan said...

Yep. This is a perfect example of moving goalposts. Dumbass, as shown in the quote, originally quote mined Goebbels' speech to make it seem as if Jews were simply to be ignored, I.e. left unharmed. Of course, the bolded statements in the full quote give the full context- which is that Jews were not only to be ignored- they had no rights and no equality in the first place. Dumbass, of course, is backpedalling to make it seem as if this was his claim all along. Which, of course, makes him a liar.

I'm not wasting time on his fantasies. Most of them have been addressed by Dr. Harrison and Roberto in the other threads. At any rate, dumbass is just practicing the usual, one sentence out of context nitpicking that deniers do anyway. Notice how he focuses on one little part rather than the message as a whole.

Your mendacity is so boring. It is, however, fun to watch you foaming at the mouth in the other thread.

Tesla said...

Well, if you think I don't believe the Jews were deprived of their rights, and that I somehow tried to cover up this, you cannot have read my posts very well. Looks like you're the dumbass to me.

Or maybe you're just blind because your face is covered between Muehlenkamp's ass cheeks? You seem to like his wording a lot.

Let's see if you'll manage to keep your word and return to this very important life of yours and not write to me again.