The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: places/germany/language/ausrotten.002


From jamie@voyager.net Tue May 28 16:14:53 PDT 1996
Article: 39875 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!kryten.awinc.com!laslo.netnet.net!news.sprintlink.net!new-news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!aanews.merit.net!news.voyager.net!clmx45.dial.voyager.net!user
From: jamie@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Ausrotten Definition (1/2)
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 17:53:18 -0400
Organization: Absence Software
Lines: 655
Message-ID: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: vixa.voyager.net

The following is a record of my discussion with Bjorn Conrad on the
germanica-l mailing list about the meaning of Himmler's Oct. 4th, 1943
speech at Posen, and in particular the meaning of the word
"ausrotten."  This discussion picks up right after I'd posted the
English and German text of the critical part of the speech.

We open with Mr. Conrad excorciating my translating skills and
hinting, not very subtlely, that I was dishonest in my translation.

By the close of this discussion six days later, Mr. Conrad had nothing
to say except to ask me quite a few probing questions.  After I
answered those questions, including going into more detail about my
sources than I had previously, Mr. Conrad had nothing more to say.

A month later, I emailed him to ask if he had any further response.
His answer exemplified Holocaust-denial:  he added "Rejected email" to
the subject line and bounced my query back to me.  So what you see
here is the complete record on this topic -- Mr. Conrad's promise
about just needing "a bit more time to put things together"
notwithstanding.

The only changes I have made have been to reformat into 70 columns
wherever possible.  The text remains unchanged and complete.

Since Mr. Conrad raises many of the same points that I remember Mr.
Beaulieu raising back in January (?), I consider this a good starting
place for discussion.  I tried to lay out my claims pretty clearly,
and I gave bibliographic citations for all the dictionaries I used and
what they said.






Subject:     89- Not a translation but a fabricated smear
Sent:        4/1/96 12:14 AM
Received:    4/1/96 12:28 PM
From:        Bjorn Conrad, bear@erols.com
To:          germanica-l@netcom.com

Jeremy submitted the following:

But first, one step at a time! .... From now on Jeremy, when you give
us your so-called "proof" of something, don't even bother to submit
the English translation only! This translation is so bad, incorrect,
and vicious, that it makes my point far more than it does yours. If
this is what you supply as proof, I wouldn't be a bit surprised that
your orig. German transcriptions are "accidentally-on-purpose" falsely
transcribed (quoted) or misrepresented as well. Your German is
obviously not good enough to see this. Mine is!!!! This is a
defamatory abomination!!!  Propagandistic disinformation at its
worst...! The poor American public is of course are not in a position
to see through this Mist (manure).

And you wanted to take this discussion to a less educated and
thoughtful milieu. I for one know why now! Perhaps I'll go there TOO
now !!!!!!

No wonder the revisionist movement is picking up so much steam!

_R__E__A__D_   _T__H__I__S_   _E__V__E__R__Y__O__N__E_  !!!!!    

>(2) Himmler's own words, recorded from a speech to SS officers on
>October 4th, 1943:
>
>   I refer now to the evacuation of the Jews, the EXTERMINATION* of the
>   Jewish PEOPLE*. This is one of those things that is easily said: "the
>   Jewish PEOPLE* are being EXTERMINATED*," says every Party member,
>   "quite true, it's part of our plans, the ELIMINATION* of the Jews,
>   EXTERMINATION*, we're doing it."
>
>   Ich meine jetzt die Judenevakuierung, die AUSROTTUNG* des juedischen
>   VOLKES*.  Es gehoert zu den Dingen, die man leicht ausspricht. - "Das
>   juedische VOLK* wird AUSGEROTTET*", sagt ein jeder Parteigenosse,
>   "ganz klar, steht in unserem Programm, AUSSCHALTUNG* der Juden,
>   AUSROTTUNG*, machen wir."
>
>   (Trial of the Major War Criminals, 1948, Vol. XXIX, p. 145)

*These words were changed to all upper case lettering by me for
emphasis only.

As I've noted above this translation is an abomination! The
capitalized words are those that have clearly been intentionally
mistranslated or have had their intended meaning obscured in the
English translation.

Some additional comments are in order before I give you MY translation
of this paragraph. My intention here is to give you the best possible
reflection of the  original underlying feeling that the speaker was
trying to convey. This is obviously never a perfect process --
however, I know that I can come pretty close.

Also, German and English as languages have both changed since these
words were spoken. It is therefore not really appropriate to use
modern German-English dictionaries without some significant
reservation. Indeed it has become obvious to me that the Second World
War actually resulted in certain changes to the way political language
was interpreted in the German speaking world. This served another
important propaganda function in the Allied deNazification campaign.
This shift is evident here too.

An interesting realization is that in the modern dictionaries the
translations used above are, for the most part, tagged on at the end
of the definitions as special interpretations of certain figurative
language. ...indeed very interesting!

I would challenge any of you to check up on what I'm saying.

Now, I was raised here in this country, but I learned German (my first
language) from the native German generations that grew up before and
to some extent during the Third Reich. So this type of translation
comes incredibly easy to me. It's the modern German "newspeak" that I
sometimes have some difficulty with.

Just to double check myself I am using my German language dictionary
"Das Deutsche Wort" by Richard Pekrun, Georg Dollheimer Verlag,
Leipzig, 1934 (writing project completed Jan 1, 1933 per the author) I
will primarily be drawing my multiple definitions from this source,
for obvious reasons. I will confess, that I used my Oxford
German-English  Dictionary a bit as well.

Repeating what I _hope_ is an accurate German transcription from
Jeremy (again capitalization was my doing):

>   Ich meine jetzt die Judenevakuierung, die AUSROTTUNG* des juedischen
>   VOLKES*.  Es gehoert zu den Dingen, die man leicht ausspricht. - "Das
>   juedische VOLK* wird AUSGEROTTET*", sagt ein jeder Parteigenosse,
>   "ganz klar, steht in unserem Programm, AUSSCHALTUNG* der Juden,
>   AUSROTTUNG*, machen wir."

   I refer now to the evacuation of the Jews, the ROOTING OUT (1) of
   the Jewish PEOPLE (2) as an ETHNIC NATION. This is one of those
   things that is easily said: "the Jewish NATION is being ROOTED
   OUT*," says every Party comrade, "it's quite clear (3), it's in our
   program, SHUTTING the Jews DOWN and OUT (4), ROOTING them OUT,
   that's what we're doing."

This is a far cry from THEIR translation don't you think? Consider
these definitions:

(1) ausrotten = ausreuten (mit der Wurzel, ganz tilgen oder
                herausstechen), vertilgen (mit der Wurzel beseitigen,
                wegschaffen oder vernichten) [chiefly agricultural and
                figurative] (-ung = -tion)

(out-rooten)  = root out, remove root and all, dig out, uproot and
                discard, weed out, eliminate, exterminate

(2) Volk (n.) = Gesamtheit Stamm - und sprachverwandter Menschen
              = people, nation, tribe, ethnic population (culturally
                and or racially distinguishable population)

(3) ganz klar = quite clear; completely clear; understood, crystal
                clear; of course. (expression)

(4) ausschalten = ausschliessen (durch schliessen loesen, befreien:
                  durch schliessen fernhalten), unterbrechen, abstellen
   (out-switch) = cut off, shut out, switch off, turn out, shut down,
                  dispose of, lock out, throw out, correct, exclude,
                  interupt.

As you can see the definitions used in THEIR translation were neither
the most appropriate for the piece, nor did they reflect the most
comon interpretation of the day. They are clearly little more than the
most negative definitions imaginable. But, did anyone really ever
think that such a translation would be objective. Consider the source.

Now you might begin to understand why revisionists are having such a
field day with the so-called proof that the Holocaust promotion lobby
is providing for their spiel! They seem to be totally unable to shoot
straight. Now they couldn't be trying to hide something could they?

Jeremy, please let me know where I can get my hands on the ORIGINAL
version of this speech. Is it available online? But I guess, you're
probably not the person to ask. You most likely wouldn't tell me now
even if you knew ... I might then expose more of the disinformation
you rely on so much. That wouldn't be much fun would it?

If anyone else knows any sources for this or any other original Third
Reich speeches and historically relevant documents and or books, pleas
let me know. I'm interested in both the original German and the
English translations or so-called translations. ... for obvious
reasons.

--------------------------------------------------------
"He who will not reason is a bigot;  he who cannot is
a fool;  and he who dares not is a slave."
  
                        (Sir William Drummond, 1585-1649)
---------------------------------------------------------
 "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility
 of servitude greater than the animating contest for 
 freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your 
 counsel, nor your arms.  Crouch down and lick the hand
 that feeds you.  May your chains set lightly upon you; 
 and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
              
                                           Samuel Adams
---------------------------------------------------------

Bjorn Conrad







Subject:     Re: 89- Not a translation but a fabricated smear
Sent:        4/1/96 3:02 PM
From:        Jamie McCarthy, jamie@voyager.net
To:          germanica-l@netcom.com
CC:          bear@erols.com

Bjorn Conrad (bear@erols.com) writes:

>From now on Jeremy,

My name is Jamie, not Jeremy, as you know;  why must you be childish?

>when you give us
>your so-called "proof" of something, don't even bother to submit the
>English translation only! This translation is so bad, incorrect, and
>vicious...

Why thanks!  I translated it myself!

Seriously -- if any native speakers want to enter this discussion,
feel free.  I am not a native speaker myself.  But I have yet to find
a single native speaker who says that "ausrotten" (the main word in
question) means anything other than "extermination" or "killing" when
used in the context of living things.  "Ausrotten," when it refers to
living things and not abstract concepts, means "killing."

I've shown my translation to a number of native and fluent German
speakers; I even put it together with their help.  No native speaker
has objected to my translation to date.  I welcome the opportunity for
the germanica-l list to confirm or critique it;  if you are a native
speaker, I'd very much appreciate it if you would read through this
post and share your thoughts with me.

Bjorn, may I ask, are you a native speaker of the language?

Keep in mind that the context is important..  Since the subject of the
verb was das juedische Volk, the definitions that apply to plants etc.
are irrelevant.  And the definitions that apply to abstract concepts
are irrelevant.  Unless one considers Jews to be plants or abstract
concepts, which I would doubt.

>Just to double check myself I am using my German language dictionary "Das
>Deutsche Wort" by Richard Pekrun, Georg Dollheimer Verlag, Leipzig, 1934
>(writing project completed Jan 1, 1933 per the author) I will primarily be
>drawing my multiple definitions from this source, for obvious reasons.

I see.  My list of dictionaries was rather long.  I'll list about half
of them here:


Deutsches Woerterbuch von Jacob Grimm und Wilhelm Grimm, Leipzig,
1854.

Deutsches Woerterbuch von Dr. Friedrich Ludwig Karl Weigand, Giessen,
1881.

Deutsches Woerterbuch von Hermann Paul, 1897.

Fluegel-Schmidt-Tanger, Woerterbuch der Englischen und Deutschen
Sprache fuer Hand- und Schulgebrauch, Brunswick, 1898.

Muret-Sanders enzyklopaedisches englisch-deutsches und
deutsch-englishes woerterbuch (Unabridged, Revised and Corrected
Edition), Berlin-Schoeneberg, 1906.

Heath's German and English Dictionary, Boston, 1906.

German Dictionary of Fr. L. K. Weigand, Giessen, 1909.

Deutsch-englisches Sasslexikon der allgemeinen und wirtschaftlichen
Sprache; Von Professor Dr. Heinrich Rabe, Stuttgart, 1927.

Der Sprach-Brockhaus; Deutsches Bildwoerterbuch fuer jedermann,
Leipzig, 1935.

Truebners Deutsches Woerterbuch, Berlin, 1939.

Der Grosse Duden:  Woerterbuch und Leitfaden der deutschen
Rechtschreibung, Leipzig, 1959.

Der Neue Muret-Sanders Langenscheidts enzyklopaedisches Woerterbuch
der englischen und deutschen Sprache; Begruendet von Prof. Dr. E.
Muret und Prof. Dr. D. Sanders, Berlin-Schoeneberg, 1974.

Brockhaus Wahrig Deutsches Woerterbuch in sechs Baenden, Stuttgart,
1980.


Anyway, here's the German original, with the capitalized words that
Bjorn objects to:

>   Ich meine jetzt die Judenevakuierung, die AUSROTTUNG* des juedischen
>   VOLKES*.  Es gehoert zu den Dingen, die man leicht ausspricht. - "Das
>   juedische VOLK* wird AUSGEROTTET*", sagt ein jeder Parteigenosse,
>   "ganz klar, steht in unserem Programm, AUSSCHALTUNG* der Juden,
>   AUSROTTUNG*, machen wir."

Here's my translation:

>   I refer now to the evacuation of the Jews, the EXTERMINATION* of the
>   Jewish PEOPLE*. This is one of those things that is easily said: "the
>   Jewish PEOPLE* are being EXTERMINATED*," says every Party member,
>   "quite true, it's part of our plans, the ELIMINATION* of the Jews,
>   EXTERMINATION*, we're doing it."

And here's Bjorn's translation:

>  I refer now to the evacuation of the Jews, the ROOTING OUT (1) of the
>  Jewish PEOPLE (2) as an ETHNIC NATION. This is one of those things that 
>  is easily said: "the Jewish NATION is being ROOTED OUT*," says every 
>  Party comrade, "it's quite clear (3), it's in our program, SHUTTING the
>  Jews DOWN and OUT (4), ROOTING them OUT, that's what we're doing."

It is one thing to apply the proper definition in the proper context. 
It is something else entirely to apply definitions willy-nilly.

By applying inappropriate definitions, one can turn a sentence into
just about anything.  Imagine if the sentence contained a word like
"Zug" for example!  By not paying attention to context, one could make
the sentence talk about a train, an expedition, a flue, a pull, a
draft, a platoon -- anything is possible.

Bjorn goes on to say that the translations used did not "reflect the
most common interpretation of the day."  The first definition given in
a dictionary is usually the most common;  it is not, however, always
the most appropriate.  Let's start taking a look at his dictionary's
definition of "ausrotten," the main word in question.

>(1) ausrotten  = ausreuten
>                 (mit der Wurzel, ganz tilgen oder herausstechen), 
>                 vertilgen (mit der Wurzel beseitigen, wegschaffen oder 
>                 vernichten) [chiefly agricultural and figurative] ...

Here is Bjorn's translation of that section:

> (out-rooten)  = root out, remove root and all, dig out, uproot and 
>                 discard, weed out, eliminate, exterminate

Wait a minute!  What about that bracketed comment there -- "chiefly
agricultural and figurative"?  Is that Bjorn's comment or is it even
his dictionary's?

It's an accurate comment in either case.  The definitions listed (root
out, uproot) are only applicable to agricultural uses.  And do notice
that, even in the agricultural sense, the uprooting involves killing
the plants, so even in this sense, ausrotten refers to killing.  The
confusion comes when we switch languages and subjects, from
"uprooting" plants (which kills them) to "uprooting" people (which
does not).

My claim is that ausrotten always means "extermination, killing" when
applied to living things in general.

Let's take a look at a very similar dictionary entry, from the
Muret-Sanders 1906 edition:

   aus-rotten I v/a. (21) b. sep.
   1.  Unkraut &c. ~ (ausroden) to root out or up, to outroot,
           to uproot ...;
       Volksstaemme, Woelfe &c.: to exterminate. --
   2.  fig. Missbraeuche &c.: to extirpate, eradicate, deracinate,
           auch: to weed out;
       (zerstoeren, vernichten) to destroy, annihilate. --

Note that "weeds etc.," the "agricultural" meaning which Bjorn's
definition refers to, gives meaning very similar to Bjorn's
definition:  root out, uproot.  However, the Muret-Sanders goes on to
say specifically that, when used in the context of Volksstaemme
(races), or living animals such as wolves, it means extermination.

The question is, what follows that ellipsis in Bjorn's definition? 
Why doesn't he go on to show us the rest of what his dictionary entry
says?  Perhaps it too, if it's a good dictionary, goes on to show
definitions for meaning which are _not_ agricultural.

Here's another example.  From the Englisch-deutsches
deutsch-englisches Woerterbuch in zwei Baenden, Wiesbaden,
Brandstetter Verlag, 1972:

   aus rotten vt [h]
      (Unkraut) to eradicate, unroot, uproot |
       to eradicate, to outroot, to root out, to exterminate,
         to extirpate;
      to destroy;
      (Rasse) to wipe out ||
      mit Stumpf u Stiel ~ to destroy root and branch;
      nicht auszurotten(d) not eradicable

Here we see that ausrotten, when the context is Unkraut (weeds), means
the familiar old "uproot."  But when the context is a Rasse (race),
there is no more talk of rooting out -- it simply means "to wipe out."

Let's take a look at the six-volume Brockhaus Wahrig, 1980:

   ausrotten 1 _Lebewesen_ ausrotten

      voellig u. fuer immer vernichten, alle toeten
         die Feinde ausrotten; im Krieg wurde das ganze
         Volk ausgerottet; diese Tierrasse ist schon laengst
         ausgerottet worden; Maeuse, Fliegen, Unkraut (mit
         Stumpf u. Stiel), Ungeziefer ausrotten

             2  _etwas_  ausrotten (fig.)

      restlos beseitigen
         den Aberglauben, die schlechte Gewohnheit, das
         Verbrechertum, eine Unsitte, Laster, Vorurteile
         ausrotten; etwas mit Stumpf un Stiel ausrotten;
         das Uebel mit der Wurzel ausrotten (zu reuten,
         roden)

When the context is Lebewesen, living things, the word means
"completely and permanently annihilate, kill everyone."  Pretty
specific.  The example given is even "im Kreig wurde das ganze Volk
ausgerottet."  You can't get any more specific than that!

At this point "revisionists" start to mutter conspiratorial notions
about how the Jews control the dictionaries, and how the Zionists have
infiltrated German dictionary production facilities, and have forced
the definition of the word to change _after_ the war.  Apparently this
infiltration effort was done specifically to make this one speech of
Himmler's sound more frightening.  It's amazing how resourceful and
sneaky those Zionists are.

Allow me to pre-empt this ridiculous idea by presenting definitions as
they have changed over the years.  First, a small dictionary.  Here's
the Sprach-Brockhaus, in its 1935 Leipzig edition, and then its 1962
and 1972 Wiesbaden editions:

1935: die Aus rottung, -/-en, voellige Vernichtung.
1962: die Aus rottung, -/-en, voellige Vernichtung.
1972: die Ausrottung, -/-en, voellige Vernichtung.

("Voellige Vernichtung" means "complete annihilation.")

You can see the tremendous impact that the Zionist infiltration has
had.

Second, a larger dictionary, and this one German-to-English.  Here's
the Muret-Sanders dictionary, in its 1906 Berlin-Schoeneberg edition,
its 1931 Leipzig (abridged for school and home) edition, and then its
1974 Berlin-Schoeneberg edition.

1906: aus-rotten   1. Unkraut zc. ~
                       (ausroden) to root out or up, to outroot, to uproot
                   Volksstaemme, Woelfe zc.:
                       to exterminate.
1931: ausrotten    Unkraut, _fig._ ein Laster etc. :
                       to root out, extirpate, eradicate;
                   ein Uebel:
                       to stamp out, to put down;
                   Volksstaemme:
                       to exterminate, wipe out
1974: aus rot ten  1. (Unkraut etc.)
                       uproot, tear (od. pull) (s.th.) up by the roots,
                       root (something) up. --
                   2. (Volk, Rasse etc)
                       exterminate, wipe out, extirpate:
                       diese Krankheit rottete die ganze Bevoelkerung aus
                          this disease wiped out the entire population;
                       die Urbevoelkerung des Landes wurde ausgerottet
                          the native population of the country was
                          exterminated (od. killed off)

Again we see no real change.  The word, when applied to a Volk or
Rasse or Volksstaemme, means "extermination, wipe out, extirpate, kill
off."

So if the Zionists or the Holocaust Lobby have been manipulating
words' meanings in order to falsely translate Himmler's speech --
well, they must have been psychic, because they've been adulterating
dictionaries since at least 1906!  As we can see, the meaning of this
word has been unchanged for this century at least.  (Actually, its
meaning has been roughly the same since Luther's time, but that's a
long story.)

>(2) Volk (n.)  = Gesamtheit Stamm - und sprachverwandter Menschen
>               = people, nation, tribe, ethnic population (culturally 
>                 and or racially distinguishable population)

Correct.  "Volk" has many connotations, and there is no equivalent
word in English.  But if one had to pick a single word, then "people,"
as in "the Jewish people," is probably closest.  Would you disagree?

>(3) ganz klar  = quite clear; completely clear; understood, crystal clear; 
>                 of course. (expression)

I submit that there are many ways to translate this idiom;  yours is
just as good as mine.

>(4) ausschalten  = ausschliessen (durch schliessen loesen, befreien: durch
>                   schliessen fernhalten), unterbrechen, abstellen
>    (out-switch) = cut off, shut out, switch off, turn out, shut down, 
>                   dispose of, lock out, throw out, correct, exclude,
>                   interupt.

Now this is really nonsense.  Bjorn takes the above definitions and
translates "Ausschaltung der Juden" as "shutting the Jews down and
out."  Now really!

It's my understanding that "ausschalten" means "shut down" in the
sense of shutting down machinery or turning off a light switch.

I haven't done research on this word, since it plays a secondary role
at best in the Himmler speech, but even my Langenscheidt Compact
Dictionary (1989) explains its definition:

ausschalten   jeden od. etwas:   eliminate;
              [Elektrotechnik]:  break, cut out;
              Licht, Geraet:     switch (od. turn) off;

I believe the best translation of "Ausschaltung der Juden" is
"elimination of the Jews," exactly as I had it.  And I suspect Bjorn's
dictionary, if it is any good, will explain that its synonyms
"ausschliessen" and so on refer to manipulating tools and equipment --
not to "shutting the Jews down and out."

I welcome input from native speakers on these words, either in email
or on the list.  (At this point I must suspect that Bjorn is not a
native speaker.)  I don't have, and probably never will have, the
command over the language that someone who grew up with it has.  So
I'm always looking for more data to make up my mind more accurately.

>As you can see the definitions used in THEIR translation were neither the
>most appropriate for the piece, nor did they reflect the most comon
>interpretation of the day. They are clearly little more than the most
>negative definitions imaginable.

This is false -- the definitions in _my_ translation have been
thoroughly cross-checked with over twenty dictionaries from the
mid-1800s to present.  When context was given, in the larger
dictionaries, it never once conflicts with my use of the word.

And the "most common interpretation" is a fallacy.  As I already
mentioned, the most common use is overridden by contextual
considerations.

>But, did anyone really ever think that such
>a translation would be objective. Consider the source.

Personal attack.

>Now you might begin to understand why revisionists are having such a field
>day with the so-called proof that the Holocaust promotion lobby is
>providing for their spiel!

Indeed -- "revisionists" are unconcerned about proper use of words. 
When one has dishonest standards of proof, one can have a field day
with anything.

I'm not saying Bjorn is dishonest.  I suspect, rather, that he is not
a native speaker, and that his dictionary is not that great or that he
read his dictionary only very quickly.  While this indicates "seeing
what one wants to see," I don't think that is the equivalent of
out-and-out dishonesty.  I would hope that he would benefit from a
more deliberate study of this matter.

Yes, I do realize that this conclusion is ironic given that he told
me:

>Your German is obviously not good enough to see this. Mine is!!!!

I don't claim that my German is better than _anyone's_ -- it's rather
bad in fact, not even conversational.  However, in this case, the
dictionaries are the final arbiter.

Bjorn goes on to say:

>They [the Holocaust promotion lobby] seem to be totally unable to shoot
>straight. Now they couldn't be trying to hide something could they?

Innuendo.

>Jeremy,

Jamie.

>please let me know where I can get my hands on the ORIGINAL version
>of this speech. Is it available online?

Not online -- it's a three-hour speech, and while I wouldn't mind
having the entire thing online, I'm not going to volunteer to type it
in!

>But I guess, you're probably not the
>person to ask. You most likely wouldn't tell me now even if you knew ... I
>might then expose more of the disinformation you rely on so much. That
>wouldn't be much fun would it?

Innuendo _and_ personal attack.

The speech is available from the National Archives, I believe from the
Sound and Motion Picture division.  I don't have the reference number
handy but I can get it for you if you like.  The original recording of
Himmler's speech rests in their archives, along with Himmler's
handwritten notes for it.  I myself have purchased from the National
Archives a cassette tape copy of the speech, and I'm looking at it
sitting on my shelf right now.  If you like, I'd be happy to make a
copy of the section where Himmler says the paragraph which I've
translated above, and mail it to you.  (I'll save you twelve dollars,
which I believe is the National Archive's price per tape.)  Please
contact me privately for my address, and then send me a self-addressed
stamped mailer with a blank cassette.

Since you have accused me of outright fraud:

>If this is what you supply as
>proof, I wouldn't be a bit surprised that your orig. German transcriptions
>are "accidentally-on-purpose" falsely transcribed (quoted) or
>misrepresented as well.

I invite you to listen to the tapes yourself and tell me if I have
indeed falsely transcribed them.

I also have copies of a few other Himmler speeches, including the one
two days later where he clarified what he means by the word
"ausrotten".  He said:

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

That is:

      I did not feel myself justified, to "ausrotten" the men --
      in other words, to kill them or to have them killed --

Now perhaps, Bjorn, you'd like to explain to the readers of
germanica-l why "umbringen" does not really mean "kill."  :-/

--
 Jamie McCarthy          http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/
 jamie@voyager.net     Co-Webmaster of http://www.almanac.bc.ca/
 Unless you specify otherwise, I assume pro-"revisionism" email
 to be in the public domain.            I speak only for myself.




Posted;  emailed to Jean-Francois Beaulieu and Bjorn Conrad.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy          http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/
 jamie@voyager.net     Co-Webmaster of http://www.almanac.bc.ca/
 Unless you specify otherwise, I assume pro-"revisionism" email
 to be in the public domain.            I speak only for myself.


From jamie@voyager.net Tue May 28 20:23:13 PDT 1996
Article: 39887 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!aanews.merit.net!news.voyager.net!clmx63.dial.voyager.net!user
From: jamie@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Ausrotten Definition (2/2)
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 18:26:47 -0400
Organization: Absence Software
Lines: 423
Message-ID: 
NNTP-Posting-Host: vixa.voyager.net

Continuing the discussion on germanica-l, the first part of which was
posted in "Ausrotten Definition (1/2)".






Subject:     10- Re: The Himmler speech translation
Sent:        4/5/96 11:32 PM
Received:    4/6/96 11:39 AM
From:        Bjorn Conrad, bear@erols.com
To:          germanica-l@netcom.com

Jamie, 

-- I haven't forgotten about your Himmler speech/ translation post!
It's just that I need a bit more time to put things together.

(... and sorry about the name screw up. It was an honest mistake)

The defense of your position was impressive, as far as it goes! I just
wish I had some of those billions for resourses, databases, and
facilities, to back up where I'm coming from too. I think that I
understand a bit better now how Clark and Darden felt during the OJ
Simpson trial. But alas, that is the lot of the militarily defeated
and ongoingly bio-culturally beleaguered and deliberately handicapped;
in a clearly unjust world of the victors making. Feel fortunate, while
you can, that you are not among the underdogs.

All I have going for me is some good sense, some invaluable linguistic
experience, and that ever more critical, skepticism. German is my
first language! But, I did, for the most part, grow up in this
country. My primary education was all in German. My High School
education was half-and-half. My higher education took place at
American Universities, in English obviously, as did my post graduate
work. I spoke German at home much of the time. I also lived in Germany
and in virtually all German speaking environments for over 5 years.
Well, I'm about as close to being a native speaker as you can get
while unquestionably being a native American English speaker.

Let me just say this about what you wrote and or dug out of your
database. If language were a mathematical formula, a cut and dry
proposition, something without room for interpretation, without
ambiguities, symbolism, figurative imagery, if it always translates
well, without often significantly different connotations for different
people at different times, I would concede this issue. But, obviously
it isn't.

I would appreciate it if you could briefly answer the following
questions honestly so that I can determine a bit better where you're
coming from and what I'm otherwise actually dealing with. This is just
my sincere first step in formulating a serious and thorough response
to the position you've taken. I'm sure we wouldn't want to waste each
other's time just because we neglected to initially qualify or
sufficiently explain our positions.

A FEW CRITICAL QUESTIONS FOR JAMIE

   *To whom was the speech addressed?
       -Soldiers, the public, political party members ...?

   *On what occasion?
       -A weekly or monthly event, in response to something ... ?
 
   *Would it be too much to ask to have you also include the German 
    transcript of the paragraph before and after the one in question?
       -I know you transcribed it, because that would have been the
        minimum requirement to correctly understand the context.

   *Would you categorically contend that your translation is totally 
    fair, objective, and without bias?
       -If no, how can you justify being unfair or unjust?
           +When is it acceptable not to be?

   *Is "exterminate" the only viable definition for "ausrotten?"
       -If not, what other definition/s would be acceptable?
           +... in German?
           +... in English?
           +Based on what criteria should one choose a definition?
       -When is it permissible to use the term figuratively?
           +How do you know how someone is using the term?

   *Is "exterminate" a biblical term, the way "ausrotten" is?
       -What are the implications of this distinction, if there is any?

   *Has the meaning of "ausrotten" changed over the last 60 years?
       -If so, how and why?
       -Has/have the English definition/s changed also in this century?

   *Does "ausrotten" mean the same thing to all German speakers?
       -Do people who work in different disciplines view the word 
        differently?
           +Which disciplines might this involve, if any?
 
   *Are there any sayings or expressions that include "ausrotten?"
       -If so, what are they?
           +How would they affect the interpretation of the word?

I'm awaiting your answers with considerable anticipation. Any additional
comments are of course welcome as well.

--------------------------------------------------------
"He who will not reason is a bigot;  he who cannot is
a fool;  and he who dares not is a slave."
  
                        (Sir William Drummond, 1585-1649)
---------------------------------------------------------
 "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility
 of servitude greater than the animating contest for 
 freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your 
 counsel, nor your arms.  Crouch down and lick the hand
 that feeds you.  May your chains set lightly upon you; 
 and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
              
                                           Samuel Adams
---------------------------------------------------------

Bjorn Conrad







Subject:     Re: 10- Re: The Himmler speech translation
Sent:        4/6/96 2:13 PM
Received:    4/7/96 12:06 AM
From:        Jamie McCarthy, jamie@voyager.net
To:          germanica-l@netcom.com
CC:          Bjorn Conrad, bear@erols.com

By the way --

Part of the reason I'm going into such detail about the word
"ausrotten" is that I realize that this mailing list is likely to have
a high density of readers who are fluent in both German and English. 
I welcome contributions to the discussion from _any_ such reader.  As
I've said, I'm not fluent, and part of how I learn is to solicit
opinions from anyone who is.

>Jamie, 
>
>-- I haven't forgotten about your Himmler speech/ translation post! It's
>just that I need a bit more time to put things together. 
>
>(... and sorry about the name screw up. It was an honest mistake) 

No problem, apology accepted.

>The defense of your position was impressive, as far as it goes! I just wish
>I had some of those billions for resourses, databases, and facilities, to
>back up where I'm coming from too. I think that I understand a bit better
>now how Clark and Darden felt during the OJ Simpson trial.

I won't take this as a personal attack.  I'll just point out that I
have never seen one dime of whichever "billions" you happen to refer
to. Ninety percent of the research I've presented was done by me.  The
rest was offered by other posters to alt.revisionism.  And I've
engaged in email discussions with a handful of native speakers and
linguists for advice.  That's it.

My "resources, databases, and facilities" consisted of my visiting my
two local university libraries, and making photocopies of every German
dictionary they had.  In my spare time.

I did the work, and I paid my own parking tickets too!

>All I have going for me is some good sense, some invaluable linguistic
>experience, and that ever more critical, skepticism. German is my first
>language!

OK.  Noted.

For the record, any knowledge I have of linguistics is entirely
self-taught; I find the subject fascinating but never got a chance to
study it, I'm afraid.

>Well, I'm about as close to being a native speaker as you can
>get while unquestionably being a native American English speaker. 

Again, noted.

You are the first native German speaker who has challenged the meaning
of "ausrotten" in the context of living things.  Even Fritz Berg, a
native speaker and a famous Holocaust-denier, didn't question its
meaning. David Irving, a non-native but extremely fluent speaker,
said, when pressed, "I agree, Himmler said that.  He actually said
'We're wiping out the Jews.  We're murdering them.  We're killing
them.'"

I invite other native speakers to join in this discussion.  The more
opinions on this subject I see, the better-educated I'll be.

>Let me just say this about what you wrote and or dug out of your database.
>If language were a mathematical formula, a cut and dry proposition,
>something without room for interpretation, without ambiguities, symbolism,
>figurative imagery, if it always translates well, without often
>significantly different connotations for different people at different
>times, I would concede this issue. But, obviously it isn't.

The fact is that I've presented evidence to show, prima facie, that
the meaning of Himmler's words is best translated as "the Jewish
people are being exterminated."

Your claim is that the word "ausrotten" is best translated as
something else, i.e. "uproot" -- or at least your claim is that there
is sufficient ambiguity that it is impossible to tell what Himmler's
meaning was.

I have refuted that claim by citing several thorough dictionaries
which make it plain that "uproot" is only a valid translation when the
subject of that uproot actually has physical roots -- i.e. when it is
a plant.

When referring to abstract concepts, e.g. evil or immorality, it is
best translated "extirpate" or something like "vigorously eliminate."
Alternatives are "stamp out," "root out," or "uproot."

When referring to plants, e.g. weeds, it is difficult to translate but
a good possibility might be "vigorously rip from the earth."  There
isn't a good English equivalent for "mit Stumpf und Stiel" --
uprooting something "root and branch" doesn't mean much to English
speakers, or at least not to this English speaker.

When referring to all living things, e.g. people, wolves, _a_ people,
a race, and incidentally including plants, it is best translated
"completely annihilate" or "exterminate."  Good alternatives include
"destroy," "wipe out" and "kill off."

One native speaker put it to me picturesquely.  He said that saying he
would go out into his garden and "ausrotten the weeds" would be like
saying, in English, "I will descend into my garden like the wrath of
heaven and completely annihilate the hellspawn weeds!"  I suspect he
was exaggerating a bit to make a point.  I take his meaning to be that
the simple word "uproot" is not a clear translation -- that the
important element is the complete destruction of the direct object. 
To specify the complete destruction of plants, you say that they are
not merely broken off or chopped down, but rather pulled up whole,
roots and all.

Again, I ask native German speakers to help me out here.  The more
opinions I get on this subject, the happier I'll be.

>I would appreciate it if you could briefly answer the following 
>questions honestly so that I can determine a bit better where you're
>coming from and what I'm otherwise actually dealing with. This is just
>my sincere first step in formulating a serious and thorough response to
>the position you've taken. I'm sure we wouldn't want to waste each other's
>time just because we neglected to initially qualify or sufficiently explain 
>our positions.

OK...

>A FEW CRITICAL QUESTIONS FOR JAMIE
>
>   *To whom was the speech addressed?
>       -Soldiers, the public, political party members ...?

The speech on October 4th, 1943 was addressed to SS-Gruppenfuehrers; 
the speech on October 6th was addressed to Gauleiter.  Attendence was
of course strictly regulated.

>   *On what occasion?
>       -A weekly or monthly event, in response to something ... ?

I don't believe it was in response to anything in particular;  Himmler
gave many speeches and this was just one of them.

>   *Would it be too much to ask to have you also include the German 
>    transcript of the paragraph before and after the one in question?
>       -I know you transcribed it, because that would have been the
>        minimum requirement to correctly understand the context.

Certainly -- they will follow shortly, in my next post to germanica-l.

>   *Would you categorically contend that your translation is totally 
>    fair, objective, and without bias?
>       -If no, how can you justify being unfair or unjust?
>           +When is it acceptable not to be?

I am translating as honestly as I know how.  My decisions are made by
consulting as many dictionaries and as many sources as I know how, and
by honestly analyzing them all.

I cannot claim to be free of bias;  that is a decision for others to
make about me.  I do claim to be acting as scientifically and
objectively as I know how.

>   *Is "exterminate" the only viable definition for "ausrotten?"
>       -If not, what other definition/s would be acceptable?
>           +... in German?
>           +... in English?
>           +Based on what criteria should one choose a definition?
>       -When is it permissible to use the term figuratively?
>           +How do you know how someone is using the term?

I've gone into some detail above.

The criteria one should choose are the criteria that dictionaries
name. In this case that is the context, or, to be more specific, the
nature of the direct object of the verb.  It is clearly spelled out in
the more-complete dictionaries that when the direct object is plants
or weeds, "uproot" may be an acceptable translation.

But when the direct object is Lebewesen[1], Volk[2,3,4,6],
Rasse[4,5,7], Tierrasse[6], race[7], Volksstaemme[8], or Woelfe[8],
the meaning is voellig und fuer immer vernichten[1], alle toeten[1],
exterminate[2,3,4,7,8], wipe out[3,4,5,7], extirpate[4,7],
annihilate[6], do away with[6], kill everyone[6], destroy[7].  Those
are _all_ the meanings given for those classes of direct objects -- I
am not leaving anything out.  You'll notice that "uproot" and "root
out" are _not_ in the list of possible meanings.

1. Brockhaus Wahrig 1980.
2. Langenscheidt Compact 1989 (my bookshelf dictionary).
3. Langenscheidt Pocket 1981.
4. Muret-Sanders 1974.
5. Wildhagen 1972.
6. Wahrig 1967.
7. Harrap 1963.
8. Muret-Sanders 1906.

As for what you mean by "figuratively," you'll have to be a little
more explicit.  If I understand correctly, "uproot," the original
meaning, would linguistically be considered the eigentlich (concrete?)
meaning, and application of that meaning to objects that do not
actually have roots would be the bildlich (figurative?) meaning. 
After Luther introduced the word into the German language, the
original meaning of "pull [a plant] up by the roots" has entirely
faded away and has been replaced by a related meaning that I might
phrase as "destroy down to the last speck."

Now, I _believe_ that would be called the "figurative" meaning from a
strict etymological point of view, but I'm hampered by (1) not knowing
how linguistic German terms like "bildlich" are used, and (2) not
knowing if the term "bildlich" should still be used when the original
"eigentlich" meaning was obsolete centuries ago.

My _guess_ would be that, since the word's meaning has remained
unchanged for so long, the term "figurative" or "bildlich" would
nowadays be reserved for an exaggerated use of the word, where its
meaning was not actually intended.  I assume this is the sense in
which you questioned me about its "figurative" usage.

Again, if any German linguists are reading this, I cordially request
assistance.

>   *Is "exterminate" a biblical term, the way "ausrotten" is?
>       -What are the implications of this distinction, if there is any?

Um...no, "exterminate" is not particularly associated with the Bible.
There are many possible translations into English, some of which have
Biblical associations, some of which do not.  It doesn't really matter
when all of them mean, in the final analysis, "kill."

Here is what Ulrich Roessler (a native German speaker) wrote in 1994
about the original meaning which Luther brought to the word:

   Richard Schulz posted some extract from the Grimms about 'ausrotten'
   (From the first volume (not yet revised unfortunately), printed in
   1854.) demonstrating the usage of the word 'ausrotten', which is
   basically fixed for five hundred years. Wherever it is used it means
   'to destroy completely', _exstirpare_:
   
   Here only one example:
   
   Luther:  bis er ausrottet alles was mansbilde war in Edom. 1 koen.
   11,16
   
   Revised English Bible: until he had slain every male in Edom. 1
   kings 11,16

>   *Has the meaning of "ausrotten" changed over the last 60 years?
>       -If so, how and why?
>       -Has/have the English definition/s changed also in this century?

I already answered that one (and gave two good examples).  No, the
meaning of "ausrotten" has remained constant for roughly the last five
centuries.  And the English words offered in translation have not
changed either, to my knowledge.

Language evolution is very slow, except for slang, and one isn't
likely to see changes in these sorts of words over time periods as
short as sixty years.  "Groovy" may change meaning.  "Exterminate"
will not.

>   *Does "ausrotten" mean the same thing to all German speakers?
>       -Do people who work in different disciplines view the word 
>        differently?
>           +Which disciplines might this involve, if any?

I cannot answer this;  I leave it up to you.

>   *Are there any sayings or expressions that include "ausrotten?"
>       -If so, what are they?
>           +How would they affect the interpretation of the word?

None that I have seen in any dictionary.  If you know any, feel free
to explain.

>I'm awaiting your answers with considerable anticipation. Any additional
>comments are of course welcome as well.

Thank you.

--
 Jamie McCarthy          http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/
 jamie@voyager.net     Co-Webmaster of http://www.almanac.bc.ca/
 Unless you specify otherwise, I assume pro-"revisionism" email
 to be in the public domain.            I speak only for myself.





Posted;  emailed to Jean-Francois Beaulieu and Bjorn Conrad.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy          http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/
 jamie@voyager.net     Co-Webmaster of http://www.almanac.bc.ca/
 Unless you specify otherwise, I assume pro-"revisionism" email
 to be in the public domain.            I speak only for myself.



Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.