On Euphemisms and Code Words

[Nessie]

The entire content of this thread shows that the argument that euphemism existed, while true, does not apply to every document ever written.

Documents must be read 'in context'.

Out of context you end up with 'Criminal Traces' composed of simple and mundane documents misread and misrepresented.

Exactly, so a document about a special action relating to the Kremas, must be read in context with the evidence of the usage of the Krema. That evidence comes from other documents, eyewitnesses who worked there and circumstantial evidence pertaining to the operation of the Kremas. Context does not come from other buildings in the camp and how they were used.

[Nessie]

+1

To underscore this to everybody reading who is able to freely access the internet unlike Nessie which explains a lot, and as already referenced above which I know he ignored and didn't bother to read, nor would he understand it had he read it, here is the document cited by Pressac via Mattogno whereby "special action" is clearly contextualised in these locations as delousing.



No ifs, no ands, no buts. Just copes.

You know the images do not show up for me. Please post a link to the book and page number, thanks.

None of the below, specifically refer to the operation of the Kremas and how they were being used, 1943-4.

"The prefix ‘special,’ which occurs in the documents examined, referred to various aspects
of life in the Auschwitz camp:
– the disinfestation and storage of personal effects taken from the prison-
ers;
– the delousing facility of Birkenau (the central sauna);
– the Zyklon B deliveries, which were shipped for the purpose of disin-
festation;
– the prisoners’ hospital planned for sector BII of the Birkenau camp;
– the reception of deportees;
– the classification of those suitable for labor"

Therefore, the use of the word special, is not in the correct context in any of those examples.

[Stubble]

+1

To underscore this to everybody reading who is able to freely access the internet unlike Nessie which explains a lot, and as already referenced above which I know he ignored and didn't bother to read, nor would he understand it had he read it, here is the document cited by Pressac via Mattogno whereby "special action" is clearly contextualised in these locations as delousing.



No ifs, no ands, no buts. Just copes.

In the 'Criminal Traces' thread 'Fangers just picked one at random and it was a work order to build a 'property storage hut'.

Then some others were selected.

When contextualized, they were all of a bureaucratic and mundane nature.

Of course, SanityCheck came in with some whataboutism, but that went nowhere.

[HansHill]

You know the images do not show up for me. Please post a link to the book and page number, thanks.

Proof you aren't reading replies, and merely gish galloping your nonsense ad infinitum:

....
https://dn790009.ca.archive.org/0/items ... ionism.pdf

....the first bullet point listed is contained within part 2, section 3, beginning on page 38. As a newcomer, I would be shocked to read that the document as cited by Pressac not only completely omits anything of any criminal nature, but explicitly denotes the building in question as a delousing facility. Source per Mattogno - “Vorhaben: Kriegsgefangenenlager Auschwitz (Durchführung der Sonderbehandlung),”
VHA, Fond OT 31 (2)/8, pp. 9-10.
.....

[Hektor]

The guy asks questions as if revisionism just emerged now.

And responds rather incoherent insinuating that phrases with special ('sonder') must mean something sinister.
Well, there are other views on this:
https://archive.org/details/SpecialTreatmentInAuschwitz

Since all the German military vehicles of WWII were called "special purpose vehicles," it's no surprise the first alleged gas chambers of the Holohoax were said to be gas vans.
....

Indeed, there was a general inflation of terms that started with Sonder-? And one gets this in the concentration camp related correspondence as well. The eterminationist line of argument does however work on innuendo meaning they will insist that usage of the terms had some sinister meaning. Add to this were terms with -gas- are used, again something sinister will be insinuated. That is of course never empirical proven, just asserted over and over again. And that's how they then claim that there is 'overwhelming documentary evidence' and that 'the Holocaust' is the 'best documented genocide in human history'.... And when you ask then for the documents and where there is something direct on an extermination program or orders of industrial gassings they simply jump to the cop out that 'the Nazis destroyed evidence'... Now if the Holocaust wasn't a privileged narrative, this won't fly of course. And if the same arguments are made in other contexts the same people would call this a 'conspiracy theory' or 'myth'.

[Eye of Zyclone]

And responds rather incoherent insinuating that phrases with special ('sonder') must mean something sinister.
Well, there are other views on this:
https://archive.org/details/SpecialTreatmentInAuschwitz

Since all the German military vehicles of WWII were called "special purpose vehicles," it's no surprise the first alleged gas chambers of the Holohoax were said to be gas vans.
....

Indeed, there was a general inflation of terms that started with Sonder-? And one gets this in the concentration camp related correspondence as well. The eterminationist line of argument does however work on innuendo meaning they will insist that usage of the terms had some sinister meaning. Add to this were terms with -gas- are used, again something sinister will be insinuated. That is of course never empirical proven, just asserted over and over again. And that's how they then claim that there is 'overwhelming documentary evidence' and that 'the Holocaust' is the 'best documented genocide in human history'.... And when you ask then for the documents and where there is something direct on an extermination program or orders of industrial gassings they simply jump to the cop out that 'the Nazis destroyed evidence'... Now if the Holocaust wasn't a privileged narrative, this won't fly of course. And if the same arguments are made in other contexts the same people would call this a 'conspiracy theory' or 'myth'.

True. When the authorities of the 3rd Reich issued a dementi of the Allies' gas-chamber atrocity story, U.S. newspapers just derided it and pretended that claiming to get rid of typhus-carrying lice in clothes with poison gas for sanitary purposes made no sense at all (although Zyklon B was also being used and even produced in America for the same purpose).

[Callafangers]

I hope readers here recognize the significance of the excerpts Eye of Zyclone has shared on this thread. Not only is it a huge slap in the face to the recent 'gas vans' work by Cameron Munro (further reinforced by his conspicuous outright-dodging of anything regarding delousing vans) but it also raises an interesting question about the timing of this "new enemy" (typhus) relative to the alleged 'extermination decision' at the Wannsee Conference. Apparently, Germany had just developed ample reason to accelerate the removal of Jews from the Polish territories in particular (e.g. Warsaw, to make conditions less crowded and disease-prone), also confiscating their property (per Aktion Reinhardt) and having great quantities of it (clothing, furniture, etc.) needing to be disposed of, evidenced extensively by the post-war excavations/diggings at Treblinka and other sites. What we see here is that Jews were a threat not only as carriers of Bolshevism but also prominently as carriers of typhus:

hmm.jpg (86.29 KiB) Viewed 263 times

The vast regions with great potential for isolation and quarantine of this population within the occupied Eastern territories perfectly justified (in the context of German geopolitical goals at the time) sending the Jewish population far into quarantine in these territories, while carefully controlling information about this operation to limit things like partisan recruitment, although the more physically-fit Jews would be used for labor anyway, leaving only less-fit Jews (i.e. those less concerning for partisan recruitment) to be dealt with in this manner.

[bombsaway]

Does the Turner letter speak of delousing vans used for literal disinfestation?

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... html#_doc5

Already some months ago, I shot dead all the Jews I could get my hands on in this area, concentrated all the Jewish women and children in a camp and with the help of the SD got my hands on a "delousing van," that in about 14 days to 4 weeks will have brought about the definitive clearing out of the camp, which in any event since the arrival of Meyssner and the turning over of this camp to him, was continued by him. Already some months ago, I shot dead all the Jews I could get my hands on in this area, concentrated all the Jewish women and children in a camp and with the help of the SD got my hands on a "delousing van," that in about 14 days to 4 weeks will have brought about the definitive clearing out of the camp, which in any event since the arrival of Meyssner and the turning over of this camp to him, was continued by him. Then the time is come in which the Jewish officers to be found in prisoner of war camps under the Geneva Convention find out against our will about their no longer existing kinfolk and that could easily lead to complications.

They were disinfected into oblivion it would seem, under the revisionist view, forget Turner's repeated mention of Jews being killed or disappearing or passing into non-existence (either some kind of cosmological esoteric process or their death). Historians believe the document is genuine, and so you have conclusions being made that require very little inference, whereas a lot of convoluted thinking is needed to justify the disinfestation hypothesis.

[Hektor]

Since all the German military vehicles of WWII were called "special purpose vehicles," it's no surprise the first alleged gas chambers of the Holohoax were said to be gas vans.
....

Indeed, there was a general inflation of terms that started with Sonder-? And one gets this in the concentration camp related correspondence as well. The eterminationist line of argument does however work on innuendo meaning they will insist that usage of the terms had some sinister meaning. Add to this were terms with -gas- are used, again something sinister will be insinuated. That is of course never empirical proven, just asserted over and over again. And that's how they then claim that there is 'overwhelming documentary evidence' and that 'the Holocaust' is the 'best documented genocide in human history'.... And when you ask then for the documents and where there is something direct on an extermination program or orders of industrial gassings they simply jump to the cop out that 'the Nazis destroyed evidence'... Now if the Holocaust wasn't a privileged narrative, this won't fly of course. And if the same arguments are made in other contexts the same people would call this a 'conspiracy theory' or 'myth'.

True. When the authorities of the 3rd Reich issued a dementi of the Allies' gas-chamber atrocity story, U.S. newspapers just derided it and pretended that claiming to get rid of typhus-carrying lice in clothes with poison gas for sanitary purposes made no sense at all (although Zyklon B was also being used and even produced in America for the same purpose).

The notion that 'the gas chambers' were actually 'delousing devices' circulated for years through the media after 1945.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/arti ... chamber%22#

It only vanished between 1960 and 1990, when Revisionist rediscovered this small, but important fact.

[Callafangers]

Does the Turner letter speak of delousing vans used for literal disinfestation?

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... html#_doc5

Already some months ago, I shot dead all the Jews I could get my hands on in this area, concentrated all the Jewish women and children in a camp and with the help of the SD got my hands on a "delousing van," that in about 14 days to 4 weeks will have brought about the definitive clearing out of the camp, which in any event since the arrival of Meyssner and the turning over of this camp to him, was continued by him. Then the time is come in which the Jewish officers to be found in prisoner of war camps under the Geneva Convention find out against our will about their no longer existing kinfolk and that could easily lead to complications.

They were disinfected into oblivion it would seem, under the revisionist view, forget Turner's repeated mention of Jews being killed or disappearing or passing into non-existence (either some kind of cosmological esoteric process or their death). Historians believe the document is genuine, and so you have conclusions being made that require very little inference, whereas a lot of convoluted thinking is needed to justify the disinfestation hypothesis.

Here is a larger excerpt of the Turner letter's text:

Months ago, I had all Jews in this country who could be found shot and all Jewish women and children concentrated in a camp. At the same time, with the help of the SD, I had a “delousing wagon,” which will have finally cleared the camp in about 14 days to 4 weeks. However, since Meyssner's arrival and the handover of these camp matters to him, he has continued this work. Then the moment will have come when the Jewish officers in the prisoner-of-war camp under the Geneva Convention will, willy-nilly, follow their relatives who are no longer there, and that is likely to lead to complications.

If those concerned are now released, they will have their final freedom the moment they arrive, but like their fellow tribesmen, not for too long, and that should then settle this whole issue once and for all. The only concern could be repercussions for our prisoners in Canada if it comes out that those released here are not walking around freely... I personally do not share these concerns.

Here is yet another case where only when the reader wears "Holocaust goggles" do they see direct evidence of mass gassing operations. Here is what Turner does say, here:

• He participated in killing male Jews who could be seized during a particular late 1941 security sweep as focused reprisals due to events of that specific period and context
  • Note: he mentions "all [male] Jews in this country" but this amounts to a few thousand total, given the low Jewish population there
• During that same sweep, women and children were sent to a camp (Sajmište) to be quarantined and deloused -- an utter necessity in this region
• Those Jews from the outside who are released per the Geneva convention and return home (to Serbia) will find their families not at home, since these families have already been processed for transit and sent to various labor sites or to the east (Sajmište was a well-known transit hub for many thousands of travelers even after any allegedly 'gassed' Jews)
• Turner also comments in his second paragraph above how Jews released per Geneva would be free "not for too long", thus resolving the "whole issue once and for all", emphasizing that these Geneva Jews will be "not walking around freely" -- all of this supports control/imprisonment as the policy focus; not generalized killing

Moreover:

• Turner claims he procured the "delousing wagon" however the official history is that it was procured by Schäfer after Meyszner's January 1942 assumption of camp control; if such a van did arrive at all, Turner has apparently lied about it
• Turner claims Meyszner has "continued this work" however the official history is strongly that Meyszner had no knowledge or involvement in these alleged 'gassings'
• Christopher Browning and others have regarded Turner's letter primarily as inaccurate and as a self-serving bureaucrat's boast amid SS-Wehrmacht rivalries

In other words, nobody on either side of this debate supports taking Turner's statements at face value.

---

EDIT: Regarding the stance of Browning and others, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Meyszner

And regarding Sajmište:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sajmi%C5% ... ation_camp

[Callafangers]

Worth noting that my own interpretation on this letter differs starkly from that of the 'Holocaust Encyclopedia' citing Alvarez (2023):

https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/histo ... arald/891/

I have not studied enough of Turner to determine whether the discrepancies on his usual patterns (writing style, character) are altogether sufficient to invalidate the letter wholecloth but they certainly add fuel to the fire. If we assume Turner was just sloppy in this instance, the language still reasonably aligns with revisionist interpretations.

This point about the problematic SS rune (per the Encyclopedia) remains compelling, in any case:

The writer of this letter faked a “rune SS” by superimposing a set of double slashes on a dash and adding another set of double slashes a three-quarter line lower: Harald Turner, fake Rune-SS. This has never been seen in any document. As other letters written by Turner show, he had at his disposal a typewriter with proper SS runes. But even if not, then a simple double-SS was perfectly acceptable. Somebody clearly tried to fake something here.

Here is some of the letter with the problematic SS runes in question:

rune.jpg (100.06 KiB) Viewed 220 times

Here is how it should be:

ss.png (156.3 KiB) Viewed 220 times

For situations like this, I cannot help but wonder if it's something that might be considered a "soft forgery", where a letter that has actually existed in some form is rewritten by someone with a desire to reframe it, such as by adding the quotation marks around "delousing van" or other ambiguous language that has sparked our current debate. This is a useful tactic in building a lie as it ensures that most of your document as "evidence" aligns with the context of what the original author talks about. Interestingly enough, the last page of Turner's alleged letter does not have this problematic SS rune/character on it, but it does have his signature. This could suggest that this third/last page is authentic whereas prior page(s) have been forged or modified.

[Nessie]

You know the images do not show up for me. Please post a link to the book and page number, thanks.

Proof you aren't reading replies, and merely gish galloping your nonsense ad infinitum:

....
https://dn790009.ca.archive.org/0/items ... ionism.pdf

....the first bullet point listed is contained within part 2, section 3, beginning on page 38. As a newcomer, I would be shocked to read that the document as cited by Pressac not only completely omits anything of any criminal nature, but explicitly denotes the building in question as a delousing facility. Source per Mattogno - “Vorhaben: Kriegsgefangenenlager Auschwitz (Durchführung der Sonderbehandlung),”
VHA, Fond OT 31 (2)/8, pp. 9-10.
.....

Which page, is the page in the image? Simple question, not hard for you to answer.

[Nessie]

Since all the German military vehicles of WWII were called "special purpose vehicles," it's no surprise the first alleged gas chambers of the Holohoax were said to be gas vans.
....

Context and usage, determines what special refers to. It could be a military vehicle, or it could be a gas chamber.

Indeed, there was a general inflation of terms that started with Sonder-? And one gets this in the concentration camp related correspondence as well. The eterminationist line of argument does however work on innuendo meaning they will insist that usage of the terms had some sinister meaning. Add to this were terms with -gas- are used, again something sinister will be insinuated. That is of course never empirical proven, just asserted over and over again. And that's how they then claim that there is 'overwhelming documentary evidence' and that 'the Holocaust' is the 'best documented genocide in human history'.... And when you ask then for the documents and where there is something direct on an extermination program or orders of industrial gassings they simply jump to the cop out that 'the Nazis destroyed evidence'... Now if the Holocaust wasn't a privileged narrative, this won't fly of course. And if the same arguments are made in other contexts the same people would call this a 'conspiracy theory' or 'myth'.

True. When the authorities of the 3rd Reich issued a dementi of the Allies' gas-chamber atrocity story, U.S. newspapers just derided it and pretended that claiming to get rid of typhus-carrying lice in clothes with poison gas for sanitary purposes made no sense at all (although Zyklon B was also being used and even produced in America for the same purpose).

Delousing chambers were used in most camps. But, what were the Kremas used for? Evidence of usage is needed to determine that. For some reason, so-called revisionists like to gather all sorts of evidence, except that which directly relates to the use of the Kremas. Why is that?

[Callafangers]

Delousing chambers were used in most camps. But, what were the Kremas used for? Evidence of usage is needed to determine that. For some reason, so-called revisionists like to gather all sorts of evidence, except that which directly relates to the use of the Kremas. Why is that?

Kremas (Crematoria) are obviously for cremation. Did you mean the morgues?:

[Pressac] notes that the dates of death and cremation on the urns often indicate a lag of four or five days, during which time the bodies would have been in the morgues.

I am reminded of Nessie's complaints that an affirmed history of "what really happened" at the crematories and morgues of Auschwitz/Birkenau is not often described by revisionists.

Well, Nessie: there ya' go.

viewtopic.php?p=18407#p18407

[fireofice]

On the quotations around "delousing van", I don't find that particularly ominous. I know I have used quotations around words before even when I'm not intending to be sarcastic or mocking. In fact, I've done it in this very thread, this very post in fact!

Looking at Turner's letter, I could easily see myself putting quotation marks exactly where he did in a non sarcastic way if I were in his position. It's hard to explain, but I probably would have done it because it's a kind of unusual phrase. I had ChatGPT explain some it:

1. Distance or Tentativeness

When you wrote “delousing van”, you were probably signaling that you’re not entirely comfortable with the phrase — not because it’s ironic, but because it feels odd, technical, or potentially ambiguous.

You’re saying to the reader, in effect:

“This is the term people use — or the most literal one I can think of — but I’m aware it’s strange.”

Quotation marks act here like protective gloves: they let you handle a term that feels a little alien or loaded, without fully claiming ownership of it.

2. Acknowledging the Phrase’s Unusual Register

“Delousing van” isn’t an everyday expression. It sounds bureaucratic, mechanical, maybe even slightly clinical or grim. By putting it in quotes, you flag that the term belongs to a certain register — perhaps official, technical, or historical — and that you’re aware of that.

Example: The prisoners were taken to a “delousing station.”
→ The quotes quietly tell the reader: This is what it was called, but I recognize the phrase’s sterile or euphemistic tone.

Even if your case was literal (a van that delouses things), the same effect occurs: you’re drawing attention to the fact that this is a peculiar or coined phrase.

3. Metalinguistic Awareness

Sometimes quotation marks arise from a kind of metalinguistic reflex — you sense that the phrase is constructed rather than natural. “Delousing van” feels like a label, a compound that isn’t standard English vocabulary, so you bracket it off visually to acknowledge its artificiality.

In other words, you’re saying:

“I know this isn’t a common word; I’m using it for lack of a better one.”

That’s distinct from irony — it’s a writer’s way of showing linguistic precision and self-awareness.

4. Echo or Citation

If you’ve seen or heard the phrase used elsewhere (say, in a document, film, or quote), you might have subconsciously used quotation marks to indicate this isn’t my phrasing — it’s a term I’ve picked up.

Writers often do this when a phrase carries external associations.

Summary

So in your case, the quotation marks likely reflected one or more of these instincts:

[*]The phrase sounds odd or bureaucratic, and you wanted to acknowledge that.

[*]You were being precise but cautious, aware of possible overtones or misunderstandings.

[*]You sensed it’s a label, not ordinary language.

[*]Or you were echoing someone else’s terminology.