One thing those on the orthodox side want to do to defend the idea that code words and euphemisms were just completely standard when the holocaust was going on is search for any instance where it can be shown that this is what was happening. Mattogno does in fact admit this sometimes happened. From his Einsatzgruppen book:
“Umsiedlung” is sometimes clearly used as a synonym for execution, while on other occasions it means what it translates to: resettlement; in some cases it seems to be distinct from execution, as in EM No. 177 of 6 March 1942
Technically, it could be argued that it's not a "code word". For example, you can "resettle" someone from point A to point B, and then kill them. Or you can "deport Jews to the east" and then kill them. However, if we take what Hitler said in his Table Talks, this can't be what is meant.
May 15, 1942
Our so-called bourgeoisie laments over the same Jew who stabbed us in the back in the past when he is deported to the East. […]
If a pronounced population parasite is rendered harmless on behalf of the state by slaying him, for instance, then the entire bourgeoisie screams that this is a brutish state. […]
Not a single one of those who shed crocodile tears at the deportation of the Jews to the east considers that the Jew as a parasite is the most climate-resistant individual on the planet who, in contrast to the German, gets accustomed to Lapland as much as to the tropics.
Notice how when Hitler said "deported to the east" he can't mean deport them to the east and then kill them, because he talks about how Jews will adapt to their climate once deported.
So here's how to think about this. When certain phrases are argued to be "code words" or "euphemisms" it's not enough to find a case where that happened to now say that they were talking in this unusual way in general. That doesn't follow. The normal way of talking is not like this and you can't completely upend that from some outliers. That's not how this works. I'm sure in my life I used a phrase at one time in a kind of unusual way. That doesn't give you the right to now say this is my usual way of talking. That would be completely absurd and we could not function as a society like that.
The use of euphemisms in Holocaust-related documents is a sad attempt to suggest a conspiracy, as if those responsible were trying to avoid future trials, but they committed suicide at the end of the war. So, who were they hiding it from?
Furthermore, Allied censors claim that the Nazis left evidence of the Holocaust on letterhead while suppressing key terms.
The reason why historians regard Nazi references to deportation to the east as a euphemism, is because of the lack of evidence of mass resettlement in the east and the evidence of mass killings.
TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 07, 2025 11:06 pm
The use of euphemisms in Holocaust-related documents is a sad attempt to suggest a conspiracy, as if those responsible were trying to avoid future trials, but they committed suicide at the end of the war. So, who were they hiding it from?
Furthermore, Allied censors claim that the Nazis left evidence of the Holocaust on letterhead while suppressing key terms.
Obvious a cop out. Also ignores hyperbole. That euphemisms are use isn't in dispute. But Exterminationists use it as a cop-out to construct document-proof for their narrative where there isn't.
TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 07, 2025 11:06 pm
The use of euphemisms in Holocaust-related documents is a sad attempt to suggest a conspiracy, as if those responsible were trying to avoid future trials, but they committed suicide at the end of the war. So, who were they hiding it from?
Furthermore, Allied censors claim that the Nazis left evidence of the Holocaust on letterhead while suppressing key terms.
Obvious a cop out. Also ignores hyperbole. That euphemisms are use isn't in dispute. But Exterminationists use it as a cop-out to construct document-proof for their narrative where there isn't.
What the "special" treatment, or action, that documents from Auschwitz referred to, that involved infirm prisoners, Jews and Hungarians and crematoriums that had been converted to contain undressing rooms, gas chambers and mass corpse cremation ovens, with barracks to store property?
"List of constructions of 31 March 1942 on "5 horse stable barracks | special treatment" [Mattogno, STIA, p. 36]"
Letter from central construction office Auschwitz to SS-WVHA of 9 June 1942 on “for the special treatment of Jews, erection of 4 horse stable barracks for accomodation of effects" [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews..., p.109]
List of barracks of 30 June 1942 on “effect barracks for special treatment 3 pieces” [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews...,p.118]
Estimate of costs of 15 July 1942 on “4 barracks for special treatment of prisoners in Birkenau” [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews..., p.114]
Explanatory report of 15 July 1942 on “5 barracks for special treatment of detainees” [Mattogno, STIA, p. 37]
List of barracks of 17 July 1942 on “Purpose: special treatment Type: 260/9 Needed: 5 Erected: 3 Still to erect: 2” [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews..., p.121]
Assignement of barracks of 8 December 1942 on “Purpose: special treatment (old) Type: 260/9 Needed: 5 Erected: 5” in Birkenau [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews...,p.130]
Memo of Karl Bischoff of 10 February 1943 on "at special unit 1, three horse stable baracks" and "at special unit 2, three horse stable baracks" available "for the storage of personal effects" [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews...,p.135]
Letter from Karl Bischoff to Rudolf Höß of 17 April 1943 on "the horse stable barracks erected at special unit II and at crematorium III are urgently needed for troop accommodation...After the operation of special unit II has stopped and the corresponding quarters by Crematorium III are available as well, information is requested as to when the barracks can be dismantled" [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews...,p.139]
Memo of Karl Bischoff of 9 May 1943 on "two horse stable barracks from 'special action 1'" [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews...,p.144] "
The special action needed a lot of barracks, the barracks were to store property, they were at the crematoriums and it would involve Jews.
"Memo of Fritz Ertl of 21 August 1942 on „bathing installations for special actions" [Schüle, Industrie und Holocaust, p. 440; color scan p.1 & p.2]"
The action would include "bathing" which suggests washing.
"Radio signal of 26 August 1942 on “material [Zyklon-B, back-up link] for special treatment” [Death Books From Auschwitz: Remnants, Vol. I, p. 144] "
The action needed Zyklon B.
"Travel permit of Arthur Liebehenschel of 14 September 1942 on “5 trucks…for special actions” [Mattogno, STIA, p. 135]"
It needed vehicles, for some sort of transportation.
"Report of 17 September 1942 on “inspection of special facility” in Chelmno and order for “a ball mill for substances” [Shmuel Krakowski, Das Todeslager Chełmno/Kulmhof: Der Beginn der"Endlösung", p. 120, English translation)
Speech of Oswald Pohl of 23 September 1942 on “special tasks, about which we do not have to speak words” [The Van Pelt report, VI Blueprints of the Genocide]"
The term special was being used for other camps, that needed a ball mill and were being operated in secrecy.
"Order of 5 October 1942 on “doors for special t[reatment] of the Jews” [Mattogno, STIA, p. 48]
Letter from Karl Bischoff of 13 January 1943 on “doors for crematorium I in the POW camp, ordered with letter dated Oct. 26, 1942 are urgently required for the carrying out of the special measures” [Mattogno, STIA, p. 91]"
The special treatment involved a specific need for doors in the crematoriums, and it involved Jews.
"Letter from Karl Bischoff to SS-WVHA of 13 October 1942 on “due to the situation created by the special actions, the construction of the crematorium had to be begun immediately just this past July” [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews...,p.226] "
"Report from Karl Bischoff of 4 November 1942 on “special cellar” in crematorium 2 [ A new document mentioning "special cellars" (Sonderkeller) in the crematoria 2 and 3 at Birkenau ]
Memo from Fritz Wolter of 27 November 1942 on “special cellars” in crematorium 2 [Schüle, Industrie und Holocaust, p. 180]"
The special treatment needed the construction of crematoriums and cellars.
"Report from the duty officer of 9 December 1942 on “6 prisoners escaped from special detail I” [Czech, Kalendarium, p. 355]"
It used specific prisoners as workers.
"Explanationary report from Karl Bischoff of 16 December 1942 on “the individual crematoriums and other special facilities” [Mattogno, STIA, p. 61] "
The action involved the crematoriums and other facilities.
"Letter from Karl Bischof to Hans Kammler of 27 January 1943 on “carrying out of the special action” in Birkenau [Mattogno, STIA, p. 131]
Memo from Heinrich Swoboda of 29 January 1943 on “cremation with simultaneous special treatment” in crematorium 2"
The special action involved Birkenau, cremation and another process.
"Camp employement record book on 10 February 1943 on "request of dentists for the special action" [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews...,p.209] "
The special action needed dentists.
"Telex from Heinrich Schwarz to SS-WVHA of 5 March 1943 on “918 women and children sent to special treatment“ [Blumental, Dokumenty i materiały, volume 1, p. 109]"
The special treatment was for large numbers of people.
" Order from Glücks via Liebehenschel of 15 June 1943 on “special buildings” should be “located offside in accordance with their purpose and cannot be stared at by all sorts of people” [NO-1242]"
The buildings involved in the action needed to hidden from view.
"Order of Hans Aumeier of 6 August 1943 on "the performed work on the occasion of the special action" [Standort- und Kommandanturbefehle, p. 320]
List of female prisoners of 21 August 1943 (signed by Maria Mandel), who were “specially lodged” (abbreviated G.U. in German) [Sterbebücher von Auschwitz, document 32, see also Auschwitz-Birkenau Selection List of 21 August 1943]
Letter from the central construction office to the camp administration of 24 December 1943 on "stores of the special actions" [Mattogno, STIA, p. 74]
Proposal list of 9 February 1944 on "after finishing his daily tours, Sch[ramme] was used for the tours due to 'special tasks', Dylewski was "significantly involved in carrying out the 'special tasks' in the camp, and was there to be on duty at day and night"
The purpose of the special action, task, was being kept obscured.
"Telegram of Kammler to the central construction office Auschwitz on "for the special action Hungary, immediately erect three horse-stable barracks at the swerve bunkers" [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews...,p.149]
Telegram from Hans Kammler to the central construction office of 25 May 1944 on “for special action Hungary/program 3 horse stable barracks are immediately to be erected at the swerve bunkers” [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews...,p.150]"
The action also now involved Hungarians, that needed more barracks.
"Escape report of 7 September (actually October) 1944 on “special detail (crematorium)” [originally from the website of the Auschwitz State Museum]
Strength reports of the female camp in Birkenau of October 1944 on "special treatment [abbreviated SB]" as loss of prisoners"
The special action had prisoner escapes and it reduced the female camp strength.
"Diary of SS doctor Johann Kremer between August - November 1942 on "special actions" and "Auschwitz the camp of extermination" [Auschwitz State Museum, KL Auschwitz seen by the SS]"
Nessie, your list allows anyone to easily ascertain that the word "special" in most cases cannot be a codeword for murder.
For example, did Auschwitz use 5 barracks for gassing? Barracks which were also occupied by troops? No, the claim is that they built gas chambers in crematoria for that. Did Auschwitz use vehicles for gassing? No. Did homicidal gassing involve bathing? No. Does the storage of personal effects mean someone was murdered? No. Do escapes from special duty mean someone was murdered? No.
Left out of your list are many, many other documents which used the word "special", including those cited by your source Mattogno. Why you left them out is anyone's guess. Here are just a few examples.
I. Concentration Camp Auschwitz:
[...]
20. delousing barracks with 4 effect barracks -- 100%
21. special treatment 5 barracks VIII Z a 1 -- 100% 90,000.
[...]
III. Prisoner-of-war camp (implementation of special treatment) Auschwitz:
[...]
30. 4 crematoria and 4 morgues -- 5%
31. disinfestation plant
a) for special treatment -- 0%
b) 1 barracks (sauna and disinfection f. troops)
c) 1 barracks f. civilian workers camp I -- 60%
d) 1 barracks same, for II.
The Real Auschwitz Chronicle, p.174f
see also Special Treatment in Auschwitz, p.39f
In this 1942 memo detailing construction progress, every single building in the camp is listed. The only buildings for which special treatment is mentioned are not the crematoria but instead the five horse stable barracks and a disinfestation plant, i.e. the Zentralsauna. There bathing did occur. These building descriptions including "special treatment" are repeated in many other letters and memos, which I won't list here.
Subject: Auschwitz CC.
In order to carry out the special treatment, the following additional barracks are still
required for the following.
[...]
Crematorium I with special cellar.
Crematorium II 2 [sic] with special cellar.
2 pieces 8 muffle-furnaces
warehouse with basement
bakery
disinfestation plant with 4 chambers.
The Real Auschwitz Chronicle, p.153
So special treatment required a bakery, a warehouse, and a disinfestation plant. How is this murder, unless you believe they were putting Zyklon in the pretzels?
An appendix is to be attached to the protective-custody-camp report, on which the following is to be listed:
1.) List of prominent persons by name,
2) Number of executions carried out,
3.) Number of prisoners with detention relief,
4.) breakdown of the transports indicated under 2 b) and 3 c).
(e.g.: On 2 April 43, 350 prisoners arrived from Neuengamme CC.
On 10 April 43, 1000 prisoners transferred to Buchenwald CC).
5) List of all external work camps (as before).
6) Only for CC Auschwitz I-III:
Number of SB (as before).
7) Only for Stutthof CC:
Number of Norwegian special prisoners, special report cancelled.
The Real Auschwitz Chronicle, p.385f
This 1944 letter to camp commandants required them twice weekly to provide the number of those specially treated ("SB") at Auschwitz, Birkenau, and also Monowitz. Of course no one is alleged to have been gassed at Monowitz. This category also excludes all the other camps where gassings are alleged. Most critically, executions are also listed as a separate category, so if SB meant execution it would be both redundant and mess up the totals.
Outside Auschwitz, you have many more plain examples: the Korherr reports list the number of specially treated at Theresienstadt, which were not killings; Heydrich's Einsatzbefehl No. 8 supposedly denotes special treatment "into the former Soviet Russian territory"; Luther's Aug-21-1942 memorandum prescribes special treatment for Romanian Jews unfit for work, which he later clarifies as meaning "to deport their Jews together with the German Jews into the ghettos to the East" and later "dispatched further to the occupied Eastern territories".
I think special treatment probably was used in some places to refer to killing, but reading that interpretation into every instance of the word "special", as historians like Danuta Czech appear to have done, is either idiocy or wanton deception.
fireofice wrote: ↑Fri Nov 07, 2025 10:02 pm
So here's how to think about this. When certain phrases are argued to be "code words" or "euphemisms" it's not enough to find a case where that happened to now say that they were talking in this unusual way in general. That doesn't follow. The normal way of talking is not like this and you can't completely upend that from some outliers. That's not how this works. I'm sure in my life I used a phrase at one time in a kind of unusual way. That doesn't give you the right to now say this is my usual way of talking. That would be completely absurd and we could not function as a society like that.
To illustrate this point, imagine if a doctor wrote on a patient's chart: "The patient in room 35 is to receive special treatment."
In speaking with the staff, we learn this is simply a reminder to the nurses to put a heating blanket on a patient's legs so he stays warm.
If the same doctor then writes on another chart, on the same day: "The patient in room 36 received special treatment for his brain cancer."
Some genius would interpret this to mean a surgeon inserted a heating blanket in a patient's cranium. This is obvious nonsense, yet to Holocaust historians it would be an acceptable interpretation, even a sacrosanct one. It would even have the support of being the same time, place, and perpetrator, support which is lacking for the Holocaust narrative.
Wetzelrad wrote: ↑Sun Nov 09, 2025 9:54 pm
Nessie, your list allows anyone to easily ascertain that the word "special" in most cases cannot be a codeword for murder.
The list of documents does not allow anyone to be conclusive on what special means.
For example, did Auschwitz use 5 barracks for gassing? Barracks which were also occupied by troops? No, the claim is that they built gas chambers in crematoria for that. Did Auschwitz use vehicles for gassing? No. Did homicidal gassing involve bathing? No. Does the storage of personal effects mean someone was murdered? No. Do escapes from special duty mean someone was murdered? No.
Does it preclude the use of the word special to mean a murderous action? No.
Left out of your list are many, many other documents which used the word "special", including those cited by your source Mattogno. Why you left them out is anyone's guess.
I linked to the source, which is a list of documents pertaining to the Kremas.
Here are just a few examples.
I. Concentration Camp Auschwitz:
[...]
20. delousing barracks with 4 effect barracks -- 100%
21. special treatment 5 barracks VIII Z a 1 -- 100% 90,000.
[...]
III. Prisoner-of-war camp (implementation of special treatment) Auschwitz:
[...]
30. 4 crematoria and 4 morgues -- 5%
31. disinfestation plant
a) for special treatment -- 0%
b) 1 barracks (sauna and disinfection f. troops)
c) 1 barracks f. civilian workers camp I -- 60%
d) 1 barracks same, for II.
The Real Auschwitz Chronicle, p.174f
see also Special Treatment in Auschwitz, p.39f
In this 1942 memo detailing construction progress, every single building in the camp is listed. The only buildings for which special treatment is mentioned are not the crematoria but instead the five horse stable barracks and a disinfestation plant, i.e. the Zentralsauna. There bathing did occur. These building descriptions including "special treatment" are repeated in many other letters and memos, which I won't list here.
Subject: Auschwitz CC.
In order to carry out the special treatment, the following additional barracks are still
required for the following.
[...]
Crematorium I with special cellar.
Crematorium II 2 [sic] with special cellar.
2 pieces 8 muffle-furnaces
warehouse with basement
bakery
disinfestation plant with 4 chambers.
The Real Auschwitz Chronicle, p.153
So special treatment required a bakery, a warehouse, and a disinfestation plant. How is this murder, unless you believe they were putting Zyklon in the pretzels?
An appendix is to be attached to the protective-custody-camp report, on which the following is to be listed:
1.) List of prominent persons by name,
2) Number of executions carried out,
3.) Number of prisoners with detention relief,
4.) breakdown of the transports indicated under 2 b) and 3 c).
(e.g.: On 2 April 43, 350 prisoners arrived from Neuengamme CC.
On 10 April 43, 1000 prisoners transferred to Buchenwald CC).
5) List of all external work camps (as before).
6) Only for CC Auschwitz I-III:
Number of SB (as before).
7) Only for Stutthof CC:
Number of Norwegian special prisoners, special report cancelled.
The Real Auschwitz Chronicle, p.385f
This 1944 letter to camp commandants required them twice weekly to provide the number of those specially treated ("SB") at Auschwitz, Birkenau, and also Monowitz. Of course no one is alleged to have been gassed at Monowitz. This category also excludes all the other camps where gassings are alleged. Most critically, executions are also listed as a separate category, so if SB meant execution it would be both redundant and mess up the totals.
Outside Auschwitz, you have many more plain examples: the Korherr reports list the number of specially treated at Theresienstadt, which were not killings; Heydrich's Einsatzbefehl No. 8 supposedly denotes special treatment "into the former Soviet Russian territory"; Luther's Aug-21-1942 memorandum prescribes special treatment for Romanian Jews unfit for work, which he later clarifies as meaning "to deport their Jews together with the German Jews into the ghettos to the East" and later "dispatched further to the occupied Eastern territories".
I think special treatment probably was used in some places to refer to killing, but reading that interpretation into every instance of the word "special", as historians like Danuta Czech appear to have done, is either idiocy or wanton deception.
Evidencing usage is quite simple. Gather all evidence pertaining to the Kremas, to determine what they were used for. The eyewitness and circumstantial evidence of mass murder, means that when "special" is used in relation to the usage of the Kremas, it refers to killing. The way you, which is heavily based on the way Mattogno investigate usage, is to randomly gather evidence, cherry-picking and excluding as you go along, to then fail to come to an evidenced and logical conclusion.
fireofice wrote: ↑Fri Nov 07, 2025 10:02 pm
So here's how to think about this. When certain phrases are argued to be "code words" or "euphemisms" it's not enough to find a case where that happened to now say that they were talking in this unusual way in general. That doesn't follow. The normal way of talking is not like this and you can't completely upend that from some outliers. That's not how this works. I'm sure in my life I used a phrase at one time in a kind of unusual way. That doesn't give you the right to now say this is my usual way of talking. That would be completely absurd and we could not function as a society like that.
To illustrate this point, imagine if a doctor wrote on a patient's chart: "The patient in room 35 is to receive special treatment."
In speaking with the staff, we learn this is simply a reminder to the nurses to put a heating blanket on a patient's legs so he stays warm.
You would gather more evidence of usage, by getting eyewitness evidence. Well done.
If the same doctor then writes on another chart, on the same day: "The patient in room 36 received special treatment for his brain cancer."
Some genius would interpret this to mean a surgeon inserted a heating blanket in a patient's cranium. This is obvious nonsense, yet to Holocaust historians it would be an acceptable interpretation, even a sacrosanct one. It would even have the support of being the same time, place, and perpetrator, support which is lacking for the Holocaust narrative.
No genius would interpret that. Instead, they would gather evidence, such as interviewing eyewitnesses, to find out what the doctor was meaning.
Wetzelrad wrote: ↑Sun Nov 09, 2025 9:54 pm
Nessie, your list allows anyone to easily ascertain that the word "special" in most cases cannot be a codeword for murder.
The list of documents does not allow anyone to be conclusive on what special means.
Your list allows us to draw many conclusions about what it does and does not mean in different contexts. E.g. no historian claims bathing was part of gassing, therefore "special action" in that context cannot refer to gassing.
But if you really can't draw conclusions, then why are we having this discussion? You should take it up with all the Holocaust historians who disagree with you.
Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Nov 10, 2025 7:38 am
I linked to the source, which is a list of documents pertaining to the Kremas.
Lol, no you didn't.
Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Nov 10, 2025 7:38 am
The way you, which is heavily based on the way Mattogno investigate usage, is to randomly gather evidence, cherry-picking and excluding as you go along, to then fail to come to an evidenced and logical conclusion.
You're whining about me cherrypicking after you came into the thread with a list that excludes many definitively non-homicidal instances of the term. You are so ridiculous.
fireofice wrote: ↑Fri Nov 07, 2025 10:02 pm
That doesn't follow. The normal way of talking is not like this and you can't completely upend that from some outliers. That's not how this works. I'm sure in my life I used a phrase at one time in a kind of unusual way. That doesn't give you the right to now say this is my usual way of talking. That would be completely absurd and we could not function as a society like that.
+1
Its also made so much more hypocritical when juxtaposed by what was being said by the warring parties even of the other side, to use one belabored example:
"absolutely devastating exterminating attack by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland" - Winston Churchill to Lord Beaverbrook, of the Aircraft Production Ministry, source https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars ... g_01.shtml
Allied apologists and Holocaust upholders of course will say this was "euphemism" and otherwise bend over backwards to contextualize this quote as anything other than exterminationist in nature. This despite the original quote being in English, and the context being that of targetting civic population centers by bombing raids.
So in order for the Holocaust to hold, the logic is:
Exterminate =/= Exterminate
Not Exterminate = Exterminate
Wetzelrad wrote: ↑Sun Nov 09, 2025 9:54 pm
Nessie, your list allows anyone to easily ascertain that the word "special" in most cases cannot be a codeword for murder.
The list of documents does not allow anyone to be conclusive on what special means.
Your list allows us to draw many conclusions about what it does and does not mean in different contexts. E.g. no historian claims bathing was part of gassing, therefore "special action" in that context cannot refer to gassing.
No historian claims bathing was part of gassings, but that does therefore mean bathing cannot have a context within gassings. A reference to "bathing installations for special actions", when put into context with the references by eyewitnesses to people being told they were to strip for a shower, that the gas chambers were made to look like showers, that a document refers to shower fittings and a shower head was found in the ruins, means the referrence is to gassings.
But if you really can't draw conclusions, then why are we having this discussion? You should take it up with all the Holocaust historians who disagree with you.
How you draw conclusions, is wrong. Historians drawn conclusions, by looking at what all the evidence states. So-called revisionists ignore evidence that does not suit them, like 100% of the eyewitnesses and cherry-pick, to reach conclusions that include bomb shelters, delousing chambers, corpse stores and mass showers.
Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Nov 10, 2025 7:38 am
I linked to the source, which is a list of documents pertaining to the Kremas.
Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Nov 10, 2025 7:38 am
The way you, which is heavily based on the way Mattogno investigate usage, is to randomly gather evidence, cherry-picking and excluding as you go along, to then fail to come to an evidenced and logical conclusion.
You're whining about me cherrypicking after you came into the thread with a list that excludes many definitively non-homicidal instances of the term. You are so ridiculous.
Mattogno finds usage of the word "special" in relation to places and events, other than the Krema operation 1943-4 and then illogically argues that because they do refer to gassings, that means the Krema documents do not refer to gassings. Logic is not a strong point with so-called revisionists.
