On Euphemisms and Code Words

[Nessie]

The paper trail was of the construction of heated undressing rooms, ventilated gas chambers, mass corpse cremation ovens and barracks to store property. That paper trail, matches the chronology of usage provided by eyewitnesses who worked inside the Kremas. That evidence, is why historians state that "special" was a murderous euphemism, when it was used in documents, in 1943 and 1944, pertaining to the Kremas.

No, court historians say that "special" was a murderous euphemism because saying otherwise is no option. Saying otherwise would amount to denying the existence of god(s) in a theocracy.

A historian or a court knows that to say "special" meant something else, they would have to evidence another form of usage.

And even court historians know that there are countless of eyewitnesses to all kinds of fictional things. But they don't pretend to believe in bigfoots, ghosts and alien abductions because there are way more eyewitnesses to those things than to Nazi gas chambers.

But there is a lack of other evidence for alien abductions, ghosts and bigfoot.

[bombsaway]

responding to callafangers posts here: https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=18511#p18511



HC Blog did a rebuttal of Alvarez on the Turner letter,

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... urner.html

The "suspicious" rune appears in other letters by Turner. It's therefore a marker of authenticity more than the opposite. The gas van is corroborated by numerous testimonies in the camp (nothing for a proper delousing van), Jews are referred to as "no longer existing" rather than moved elsewhere, the "delousing van" is referred to as being used to "clear" the camp, so if taken literally (assuming the revisionist perspective) it was not a delousing van but a mere transport vehicle. The assertion that Browning says the letter is inaccurate is misleading and also hurts the revisionist argument. If this is a matter of Turner "boasting" about killing Jews with a gas van when this didn't happen (not Browning's claim but whatever) that's an admission that that meaning is being pretty clearly conveyed by the letter, otherwise why would Turner have put it in. Furthermore, even if it was a lie, boasting about killing Jews with a gas van to ingratiate himself with superiors would be senseless unless such a policy was actually desirable from their perspective and so in place elsewhere.

Amused yawn

[HansHill]

Very interesting that none of the Allied apologists have taken up the Churchill Euphemism challenge:

"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

[Callafangers]

HC Blog did a rebuttal of Alvarez on the Turner letter,

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... urner.html

The "suspicious" rune appears in other letters by Turner. It's therefore a marker of authenticity more than the opposite. The gas van is corroborated by numerous testimonies in the camp (nothing for a proper delousing van), Jews are referred to as "no longer existing" rather than moved elsewhere, the "delousing van" is referred to as being used to "clear" the camp, so if taken literally (assuming the revisionist perspective) it was not a delousing van but a mere transport vehicle. The assertion that Browning says the letter is inaccurate is misleading and also hurts the revisionist argument. If this is a matter of Turner "boasting" about killing Jews with a gas van when this didn't happen (not Browning's claim but whatever) that's an admission that that meaning is being pretty clearly conveyed by the letter, otherwise why would Turner have put it in. Furthermore, even if it was a lie, boasting about killing Jews with a gas van to ingratiate himself with superiors would be senseless unless such a policy was actually desirable from their perspective and so in place elsewhere.

Amused yawn

This feigned confidence of yours is transparent, bombsaway.

Keep in mind, my own assessment on this matter has been taking Turner's letter as authentic, at least initially, which is where my strongest argument lies (I simply noted Alvarez's interpretation for completeness' sake, after-the-fact). Turner's self-aggrandizement (e.g., claim of procuring a van which official historiography says was requested by Schäfer, with Meyszner and Turner having zero involvement) align with Browning's characterization of Turner's report as "suspect, inaccurate, and self-serving" amid SS vs Wehrmacht turf wars. It altogether evokes routine hygiene or transit operations in a typhus-ridden camp where Wikipedia notes "numerous influenza epidemics" and "many inmates freezing to death" in the 1941-2 winter, killing many Jewish inmates before a van supposedly arrived.

Testimonies of homicidal 'gas vans' in this case come from postwar [Soviet/Yugoslavian] interrogations of low-level figures like Andorfer and Enge (who received minimal sentences in the 1960s), as always lacking physical corroboration (no forensics, blueprints, actual vans).

I am not sure what to say about your (and the HC blog's) ridiculous claim that "nicht mehr vorhandenen" ("no longer there") actually means "no longer existing" in some absolute, ontological sense. Everything I am finding in searches for translation and contemporary context of this phrase (tried translation services, AI, etc.) consistently indicate this phrase has no such necessary interpretation and is far more commonly used to refer to what is present or available in some accessible way (e.g., like "the items are no longer vorhanden in the warehouse" = not there/stock depleted, not vaporized). It seems this is yet another example of your camp grasping at fabricated straws.

Per Turner's usage, statements of "no longer there" and "clearing" (Räumung) best describe internment/dispersal to labor sites, especially as Sajmište became a well-documented transit hub under Meyszner's oversight and post-May 1942. The issue being "settled once and for all" via Geneva-released POWs being "not free for too long" explicitly signals re-imprisonment/control, not killing, while any exaggeration reflects Turner's well-known boastfulness in a reprisal context (i.e., a few thousand males shot as partisans), not endorsement of some nonexistent 'gassing' policy.

Worth noting there is also total absence of any Himmler/Wolff replies probing this matter further.

Once again: only with "Holocaust goggles" can someone read this document as evidence of 'homicidal gas wagons'.

[Eye of Zyclone]

And even court historians know that there are countless of eyewitnesses to all kinds of fictional things. But they don't pretend to believe in bigfoots, ghosts and alien abductions because there are way more eyewitnesses to those things than to Nazi gas chambers.

But there is a lack of other evidence for alien abductions, ghosts and bigfoot.

And like Holohoaxers, alien abduction, ghost and bigfoot believers are at a loss and take refuge in convenient conspiracy theories like government secrecy when unambiguous palpable solid evidence is requested.

[fireofice]

In my opinion, the best argument for the Turner letter being a forgery is the reference to reprisals against POWs in Canada. Why specifically them? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. HC's response is just to say there were a significant number of POWs in Canada, but that is far from a satisfactory explanation to me. It still doesn't make sense to specifically bring them up, instead of POWs in general or Russian POWs. It reeks of a forgery by a Canadian. That said, I won't say it's definitively a forgery, but it's still weird and sticks out like a sore thumb to me.

[Nessie]

And even court historians know that there are countless of eyewitnesses to all kinds of fictional things. But they don't pretend to believe in bigfoots, ghosts and alien abductions because there are way more eyewitnesses to those things than to Nazi gas chambers.

But there is a lack of other evidence for alien abductions, ghosts and bigfoot.

And like Holohoaxers, alien abduction, ghost and bigfoot believers are at a loss and take refuge in convenient conspiracy theories like government secrecy when unambiguous palpable solid evidence is requested.

How is an exchange between a lawyer and a witness in a court in Canada in the 1990s, evidence that "special" in documents pertaining to the Kremas, did not refer to gassings in the Kremas?

[Nessie]

In my opinion, the best argument for the Turner letter being a forgery is the reference to reprisals against POWs in Canada. Why specifically them? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. HC's response is just to say there were a significant number of POWs in Canada, but that is far from a satisfactory explanation to me. It still doesn't make sense to specifically bring them up, instead of POWs in general or Russian POWs. It reeks of a forgery by a Canadian. That said, I won't say it's definitively a forgery, but it's still weird and sticks out like a sore thumb to me.

You don't argue something is forged, you evidence it is forged.

[fireofice]

You don't argue something is forged, you evidence it is forged.

The evidence is the content of the letter. But why are you arguing with me about this? You didn't even give a rebuttal, but just some nonsense that has nothing to do with what I said. I just gave my views and what I thought was weird but ultimately said I am not definitively saying it's a forgery. Do you really have to argue over every little non-issue? Get a life bro.

[Nessie]

You don't argue something is forged, you evidence it is forged.

The evidence is the content of the letter. But why are you arguing with me about this? You didn't even give a rebuttal, but just some nonsense that has nothing to do with what I said. I just gave my views and what I thought was weird but ultimately said I am not definitively saying it's a forgery. Do you really have to argue over every little non-issue? Get a life bro.

My point is, and it one I make a lot here, that you do not know how to investigate and evidence. Instead, you rely on your opinion.

[fireofice]

My point is, and it one I make a lot here, that you do not know how to investigate and evidence. Instead, you rely on your opinion.

no u

[Eye of Zyclone]

But there is a lack of other evidence for alien abductions, ghosts and bigfoot.

And like Holohoaxers, alien abduction, ghost and bigfoot believers are at a loss and take refuge in convenient conspiracy theories like government secrecy when unambiguous palpable solid evidence is requested.

How is an exchange between a lawyer and a witness in a court in Canada in the 1990s, evidence that "special" in documents pertaining to the Kremas, did not refer to gassings in the Kremas?

And why did that witness, who was nothing less than "the preeminent [antirevisionist] scholar on the Holocaust," didn't bring those documents before that court in order to conclusively prove that "special" referred to gassings in the Kremas and didn't even dare to show up 3 years later, when Ernst Zündel was being tried again before that court?

[borjastick]

Why? Because as we all know the claims of the 6m deaded and gas chambers do not stand up to critical analysis despite the IIDF representatives here, who are paid by the kilo, banging on and bloody on about it. The claims don't stand scrutiny.

[Nessie]

....

How is an exchange between a lawyer and a witness in a court in Canada in the 1990s, evidence that "special" in documents pertaining to the Kremas, did not refer to gassings in the Kremas?

And why did that witness, who was nothing less than "the preeminent [antirevisionist] scholar on the Holocaust," didn't bring those documents before that court in order to conclusively prove that "special" referred to gassings in the Kremas and didn't even dare to show up 3 years later, when Ernst Zündel was being tried again before that court?

You failed to answer my question.

It is not up to a witness to bring documents to a trial and lodge them as evidence, it is up to the lawyers on the prosecution or defence to do that. Was Hilberg cited as a witness for the second trial?

[Eye of Zyclone]

....

How is an exchange between a lawyer and a witness in a court in Canada in the 1990s, evidence that "special" in documents pertaining to the Kremas, did not refer to gassings in the Kremas?

And why did that witness, who was nothing less than "the preeminent [antirevisionist] scholar on the Holocaust," didn't bring those documents before that court in order to conclusively prove that "special" referred to gassings in the Kremas and didn't even dare to show up 3 years later, when Ernst Zündel was being tried again before that court?

You failed to answer my question.

It is not up to a witness to bring documents to a trial and lodge them as evidence, it is up to the lawyers on the prosecution or defence to do that. Was Hilberg cited as a witness for the second trial?

I had answered your question (which was based on a reversed burden of proof fallacy, as usually) with another question (which was based on the Holohoaxers' failure to prove their assertion that special treatment meant mass murder).

Raul Hilberg was not a witness per se. He was the world's best anti-revisionist expert on the Holocaust. At the 1st Zündel trial, he claimed that special treatment meant mass murder (see the newspaper report above). The least he could do was prove his claims. That's what experts are for after all. If he could do that, he would have done it with joy (since that show trial aimed to show the general public that Holocaust deniers talk nonsense). But he couldn't. And so he did not do it.

Was Hilberg cited as a witness for the second trial?

Yes. But I'd say that he rather ran away like an embarrassed kid very afraid to be caught again with his pants down while trying to defend an untenable lie...