From: "Costas Zaverdinos" zaverdinos@nu.ac.za

Dear Frederick,
I have an English/German - German/English dictionary printed in 1909 (revised by Karl Breul, latest reprint: 1931). As David Irving remarks, the meaning of "Ausrotten" in
today's usage must be distinguished from that of the past - in particular during the War period. 

My 1931 edition in Gothic letters says:
ausrotten: "to extirpate, exterminate, root out"
Ausrotter: "extirpator"
Ausrottung: "extirpation"
Ausrottungskrieg: "war of extermination"
From your message: "The word 'Rotte' is an old German word used more by the military meaning  file / gang /pack /etc   and AUSROTTEN means
nothing more sinister than 'Throw them out of the Gang or Pack etc.'"
Is the writer inferring the meaning of  "ausrotten" from that of
"Rotte", or does his dictionary actually give 'Throw them out of the Gang or Pack etc.'" ?
This problem has been discussed by revisionists on numerous occasions.
I don't think we can distort the meaning too much; if not "physical extermination", at most it can mean "removal from society" (in our context, naturally!)
Some time ago I sent you a congratulations on the occasion of the lifting of your ban to visit Germany, but something went awry and the message didn't leave my computer! Anyhow,  belatedly, good show! But, could it be some sort of trap - to lure you there and nab you as you arrive?
Best, Costas

From: Charles Provan

 

 

From: RobertEdwards

 

 

From: BHIMARAMA@aol.com

To: Ichee@aol.com

Dear Dr. John ,
            Unfortunately I am not an expert in the German language - nor am
I fluent in it myself - Ich weise nur ser einfach redewendungen - and I'm not even
certain that I spelled that correctly - the word " very " I probably mis-spelled !
Same thing with the word for " phrases " -  " I know only very simple phrases " is the
English for " Ich { I } weise { know - from " weisen " to know - I believe that "
weisen-shaft " is the German for " science " } nur { only }  ser ( sp ? ) { very } einfach {
easy, simple} redewendungen { phrases }  
That being said however , I will now give you my comment on the word "
ausrotten ":
First of all that monster of mendacity and misrepresentation Michael Shermer
( of " Skeptic " magazine infamy ) made a point of this particular word in his
debate with Mark Weber back that time around 1994 or so - as a matter of fact it was
his only and his biggest " point "  -  AND   EVEN   HE   HAD   TO   CONCEDE  THE
FACT   THAT   ONE   OF  THE   GERMAN  LANGUAGE   MEANINGS  FOR  IT
IS  SIMPLY  TO  " REMOVE "   .  Really no further elaboration of a comment
should now be necessary ! 
Nevertheless there are still some points that I would like to make in this
regard - one of which is the very definition of the ENGLISH language word " to 
exterminate "
As  Dr. Dragan  ccorrectly pointed out - " to exterminate " IN  THE  ENGLISH
LANGUAGE  does not necessarily mean to kill , let alone to kill no less than
a hundred percent of an entire population;  like the German " ausrotten " -
which even Dr. Shermer had to admit had multiple meanings - even in English "
exterminate " can be taken simply as " to remove " or " to get rid of " HOWEVER one would
want to construe the latter !  In his classic " My Struggle " A.H. made the point
that whereas with ordinary human beings the very purpose of language is to express
and to communicate one's innermost thoughts and feelings , with the Jews it is
quite the opposite , ie  to conceal their real feelings and motivations.  In other
words the Jews are alll " good lawyers " as well as " good actors ".  Back in the early 80's
when I had been involved in my big lawsuit with the Church Universal and
Triumphant myown lawyer made this very point to me : he said that I always had to be
careful in a deposition because the " Enemy " lawyer ( whom he counseled me to regard as
a most mortal ememy at all times - no matter how " friendly " or how "
charming " he might try to come off - AND  BELIEVE  ME  THIS  ADVICE  TURNED  OUT  TO
BE  ENTIRELY  TRUE  ! - ) would always try to twist words around in my
very mouth !  My lawyer himself then bragged to me that he himself was a "
master " of this technique - ie changing , or even just slightly shifting the nuances
of ! - one single word in the course of a series of questions to a hostile witness. He
then went on to illustrate with numerous examples from his own experience wherein he
was able " to force " hostile witnesses to " give the testimony that I wanted
them to give "and he added " even though they might be professional people ( Professors ,
et al ) who were much smarter than me and who had higher I.Q.s than I did  ... "  ,
that didn't matter ( and , yes, my lawyer meant this advice particularly for
MYSELF vis a vis the " Enemy 's " lawyers - who did not go to Columbia like I
did , even though they graduated from high schools in NYC the same year that I
did !  My lawyer really was a very ,  very  savy  knower of people ! ) My
lawyer explained to me that he oftentimes would deliberately use the same word ( that had multiple meanings
in the English language - as, for example, " ausrotten " does in the German language
) in a series of questions to a hostile witness - always SLIGHTLY VARYING  THE 
MERE  NUANCE  OF  THE  WORD  DELIBERATELY  FROM  QUESTION  TO
QUESTION  !  let alone outright changing from one lexicographical meaning to
another one !  - and invariably and inevitably  FORCE  the witness to " give
the testimony that I wanted him to give the court "  EVEN   THOUGH  IT  WAS 
SELF - INCRIMINATING  AND  DETERIMENTAL  TO  THE  WITNESS '  OWN 
CASE !  My lawyer , one of the very best in the whole State of CA accordig to
reputation ( one of the very reasons why he wanted to pursue my case was
precisely because of WHO the Church Universal and Triumphant 's lawyers were - it was
like a big " Super Bowl " challenge to him !!  BTW , my lawyer was a gentile - a
Liberal, but an Aryan - and , frankly , he was the only gentile lawyer in the State of
CA who had this reputation - ALL of my opponents' lawyers were Jews : two from NYC
where I live - and who had gone to high school in Queens at the same time I did ! )
my  lawyer assured me that " all " good lawyers were good at this technique - and
he assured me that my opponent's counsel would try it on me when I was deposed by
them.  WOW , did my lawyer ever turn out to be , as usual , RIGHT  -  big
time !
Michael Shermer himself used this very technique several times during his
debate ,billed as " The Great Holocaust Debate " most notoriously when he used the
verb  "exterminate " in the context of " to shoot by firing squad " - so, for
example, if 50 Jews who were members of the Red Army's N.K.V.D. squad were taken out
by the German " einsatzgruppen " and shot to death , ie summarily executed
by a firing squad - Dr. Shermer , after initially using the verb " to shoot "
, would then DELIBERATELY term this firing squad action on the Eastern Front during
the war as " the extermination ( sic )  of Jews "  subsequent to his referring
merely to a few dozen Jews who were Soviet N.K.V.D. operatives being " shot " by a
firing squad !  And  THAT  was to be conflated with " the gassing (sic) of 6 million
Jews " !
Really  TYPICAL  Jewish sophistry ! 
There had been a whole lot of controversy over the use of the German word
" aus-rotten " in both the Jewish and the Revisionist camps for many years -
I submit that that alone suffices to prove that Tobin is correct : for you see if the
Jews had of had something here A. they would carry on their debate WITH  GERMAN 
LANGUAGE  SPEAKERS  IN  GERMANY  WHICH  IN  FACT  THEY  NEVER  DO
indeed, they have scrupulously avoided carrying out the debate over this word
to any but non-German speaking audiences !  and B. They would have never admitted ,
however sheepishly - like Dr. Shermer did that time in his debate with Mark
Weber ( who , as Dr. Shermer knew perfectly well, speaks absolutely fluent German !
) that " ausrotten " has multiple meanings - one of which is simply " to remove ". 
Technically , it is actually a whole lot like the English language words " to
exterminate " and " to liquidate " either one of which could possibly mean
either " to kill " in certain contexts , or simply " to get rid of " or " to remove
" in other contexts.  In any event  IF  THE  JEWS   HAD   OF  HAD  A   CLEAR   CUT  CASE
ON  THIS   POINT   IE  THAT   ADOLF  HITLER  WAS   DOCUMENTED   AS 
SAYING   THAT  THE  JEWS   WOULD   HAVE   TO   BE   " AUSROTTEN  "  AND
THAT  " AUSROTTEN  "  NECESSARILY  MEANT   " TO KILL " AS  OPPOSED
TO SIMPLY  " REMOVE " "ELIMINATE " " GET RID OF " OR " TAKEN  AWAY
FROM  THEIR  PLACE " - all of which are equally possible meanings of that
word - THEN  THERE   WOULD   HAVE   NEVER   BEEN   ANY  DEBATE  OVER   IT
IN  THE  FIRST  PLACE ! Don't you understand that point , Dr John ?
There would never have even been a " revisionist " debate at all -  nor would
the Jews ever have conceded things ( as they have had to do ! ) like the fact
that there is no tangible record of Hitler ever having officially ordered " it " - and
by " it " we mean the killiing of no less than one hundred percent of the Jewish
population by means of " gassing " them - which is what they have mendaciously claimed -
and of which there is absolutely no official , documented record of !  - and
NOT something  OTHER  than that !  
The Jews , whom Adolf Hitler correctly described in his book, " My Struggle "
as the all-time masters of the " Big Lie Technique " , are indeed the
all-time experts at  " calling ' a spade ' , a ' club ' " ! 

 

 

From: Angel Black

I just can say: great work! But unfortunaltely I don't think people will (or let's sy WANT) understand and believe that Adolf Hitler himself didn't mean to kill juifs as he used the word "ausrotten". Too many juifs were killed in World War II, so they will have an argument to believe that Hitler really wanted to kill all juifs.

Anyway, well done, if my may tell You my oppinion.

P.S. Sorry for my English, I'm just a Luxembourgish student...

From: John Weir

Personally, I find it bizarre that anyone believes the reality of the extermination of six million Jews can be determined based on the interpretation of the intent of a single German word.   If Hitler meant "murder the Jews", then it is all true.  If he meant  "breaking their political power" or something other than murder, then it isn't.    Isn't this approach backward?   There is a line in a Talking Heads song that goes: "Saying it don't make it so."

This demonstrates the poverty of the evidence for the Holocaust.  Why would anyone need to split hairs over  the  intent of a single word to determine the character of  an historical event?   In any event, we are not going to find an answer to this question in a dictionary.  I have seen this semantic debate go on for at least 20 years.  It is time to move on.

What follows is an exchange between Alfred Rosenberg and  Mr. Dodd at the IMT trial over the word "ausrotten" and its meaning when used by
the Nazis with reference to the Jews and Jewry.   I have edited it down for length sake.  If you are interested in the whole thing, the testimony took
place on Wednesday, 4/17/1946.  (Nuremberg: IMT, 1943. starting  pp. 550, Proceedings: 4/8/1946-4/17/1946.)
...
MR. DODD: Well, if that is your answer I do not care to go any further
with it.

With respect to your attitude towards the Jewish people, in your
Frankfurt speech in 1938 you suggested that they all had to leave
Europe and Germany, did you not?

ROSENBERG: This phrasing was used.

MR. DODD: All you need to say is "yes" or "no." Did you do that or not
in your speech in Frankfurt in 1938?

ROSENBERG: Yes, but I certainly cannot answer "yes" or "no' on an
incorrect quotation!

MR. DODD: I do not think you need to explain anything at all. I merely
asked you whether you said that in Frankfurt in your Party Day speech.

ROSENBERG: Yes, in substance that is correct.

MR. DODD: Now, in your Party Day speech to which you made reference
yesterday, you said you used harsh language about the Jews. In those
days you were objecting to the fact that they were in certain
professions, I suppose, and things of that character. Is that a fair
statement?

ROSENBERG: I said yesterday that in two speeches I demanded a
chivalrous solution and equal treatment, and I said the foreign nations
might not accuse us of discriminating against the Jewish people, so
long as these foreign nations discriminate against our nation . . .

MR. DODD: Yes, very well. Did you ever talk about the extermination of
the Jews?

ROSENBERG: I have not in general spoken about the extermination of the
Jews in the sense of this term. One has to consider  the words here.
The term "extermination" has been used by the British Prime Minister...

MR. DODD: You will get around to the words. You just tell me now
whether you ever said it or not? You said that, did you not?

ROSENBERG: Not in a single speech in that sense...

...

MR. DODD: Then you have written into your speech remarks about the
extermination of Jews, haven't you? Answer that "yes" or "no."

ROSENBERG: I have said already that that word does not have the sense
which you attribute to it.

...

Now this is also a memorandum of yours written by you about a
discussion you had with Hitler on 12/14/1941, and it is quite clear
from the first paragraph that you and Hitler were discussing a speech
which you were to deliver in the Sportpalast in Berlin, and if you will
look at the second paragraph, you will find these words:

"I remarked on the Jewish question that the comments about the New York
Jews must perhaps be changed somewhat after the conclusion (of matters
in the East). I took the standpoint not to speak of the extermination
(Ausrottung) of Jewry. The Fuehrer affirmed this view and said that
they had laid the burden of war on us and that they had brought the
destruction; it is no wonder if the results would strike them first."

Now, you have indicated that you have some difficulty with the meaning
of that word, and I am going to ask you about the word "Ausrottung." I
am going to ask that you be shown you are familiar with the standard
German-English dictionary, Cassell's I suppose, are you? Do you know
this word, ever heard of it?

ROSENBERG: No.

MR. DODD: This is something you will be interested in. Will you look up
and read out to the Tribunal what the definition of "Ausrottung" is?

ROSENBERG: I do not need a foreign dictionary in order to explain the
various meanings "Ausrottung" may have in the German language. One can
exterminate an idea, an economic system a social order, and as a final
consequence, also a group of human beings, certainly. Those are the
many possibilities which are contained in that word. For that I do not
need an English-German dictionary. Translations from German into
English are so often wrong-and just as in that last document you have
submitted to me, I heard again the translation of "Herrenrasse." In the
document itself "Herrenrasse" is not even mentioned; however, there is
the term "en fallacious Herrenmenschentum" (a false master mankind).
Apparently everything is translated here in another sense.

MR. DODD: All right, I am not interested in that. Let us stay on this
term of "Ausrottung." I take it then that you agree it does mean to
"wipe out" or to "kill off," as it is understood, and that you did use
the term in speaking to Hitler.

ROSENBERG: Here I heard again a different translation, which again used
new German words, so I cannot determine what you wanted to express in
English.

MR. DODD: Are you very serious in pressing this apparent
inability of yours to agree with me about this word or are you trying
to kill time? Don't you know that there are plenty of people in this
courtroom who speak German and who agree that that word does mean to
"wipe out," to "extirpated?"

ROSENBERG: It means "to overcome" on one side and then it is to be used
not with respect to individuals but rather to juridical entities, to
certain historical traditions. On the other side this word has been
used with respect to the German people and we have also not believed
that in consequence thereof 60 millions of Germans would be shot.

MR. DODD: I want to remind you that this speech of yours in which you
use the term "Ausrottung" was made about 6 months after Himmler told
Hoess, whom you heard on this witness stand, to start exterminating the
Jews. That is a fact, is it not?

ROSENBERG: No, that is not correct, for Adolf Hitler said in his
declaration before the Reichstag: Should a new world war be started by
these attacks of the emigrants and their backers, then as a consequence
there would be an extermination and an extirpation. That has been
understood as a result and as a political threat. Apparently, a similar
political threat was also used by me before the war against America
broke out. And, when the war had already broken out, I have apparently
said that, since it has come to this, there is no use to speak of it at
all.

 

 

 

From: dana snowflake

please remove me from your mailing list
thanks,
dana