On Euphemisms and Code Words

[Nessie]

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).

I asked you how is a trial in Canada evidence the use of the term special does not refer to gas chambers? That is not the reversal of the burden of proof. You do not want to answer, because you know the answer is that it is not. Typically for someone who does not know what they are doing, you introduce irrelevance, to try and evidence your claims, rather than contemporaneous, pertinent evidence that directly relates to the usage of the Kremas.

Raul Hilberg was not a witness per se. He was the world's best anti-revisionist expert on the Holocaust.

Which would make his appearance as an expert witness.

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.

He does not get sight of the questions before the trial and the court did not order the seizure of documents as evidence. Hence, he did not have any documents. How do you not know that about trials?

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...

He wrote to the main prosecutor, to say he did not thinks his second appearance would do any good, he gave his reasons why, he suggested an alternative expert and as a result, he was clearly not cited as a witness for that trial. You clearly do not know much about how trials are run.

[Eye of Zyclone]

I asked you how is a trial in Canada evidence the use of the term special does not refer to gas chambers? That is not the reversal of the burden of proof. You do not want to answer, because you know the answer is that it is not. Typically for someone who does not know what they are doing, you introduce irrelevance, to try and evidence your claims, rather than contemporaneous, pertinent evidence that directly relates to the usage of the Kremas.

Of course, that's a reversal of the burden of proof. You and Hilberg are the accusers in this matter. So the burden of proof is on you, but you never take it and never did. And never will. You just assert unproven things and claim that those who disagree with you are horrible people whose words mean nothing. You've been using the same technique non-stop since the 1940s.

He does not get sight of the questions before the trial and the court did not order the seizure of documents as evidence. Hence, he did not have any documents. How do you not know that about trials?

Like all Holohoaxers, he never did, neither before that court, nor in his books, nor anywhere else, from day one.

He wrote to the main prosecutor, to say he did not thinks his second appearance would do any good, he gave his reasons why, he suggested an alternative expert and as a result, he was clearly not cited as a witness for that trial. You clearly do not know much about how trials are run.

Or in short, he evaded it in a grotesque way because he didn't want to get his ass kicked like the first time. Only too obvious...

[Nessie]

I asked you how is a trial in Canada evidence the use of the term special does not refer to gas chambers? That is not the reversal of the burden of proof. You do not want to answer, because you know the answer is that it is not. Typically for someone who does not know what they are doing, you introduce irrelevance, to try and evidence your claims, rather than contemporaneous, pertinent evidence that directly relates to the usage of the Kremas.

Of course, that's a reversal of the burden of proof. You and Hilberg are the accusers in this matter. So the burden of proof is on you, but you never take it and never did. And never will. You just assert unproven things and claim that those who disagree with you are horrible people whose words mean nothing. You've been using the same technique non-stop since the 1940s.

How does a trial in Canada evidence what the term special meant? There is a ton of evidence to prove the gas chambers.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ce-on.html

He does not get sight of the questions before the trial and the court did not order the seizure of documents as evidence. Hence, he did not have any documents. How do you not know that about trials?

Like all Holohoaxers, he never did, neither before that court, nor in his books, nor anywhere else, from day one.

Again, you have dodged my point about how trials are run.

He wrote to the main prosecutor, to say he did not thinks his second appearance would do any good, he gave his reasons why, he suggested an alternative expert and as a result, he was clearly not cited as a witness for that trial. You clearly do not know much about how trials are run.

Or in short, he evaded it in a grotesque way because he didn't want to get his ass kicked like the first time. Only too obvious...

He was unhappy about the way the defence hijacked him. If the defence had lodged the documents that referenced special, to be used in the trial, then Hilberg would have easily explained them. Why did the defence not do that?

[Wetzelrad]

For accuracy, Raul Hilberg was asked to appear in the second trial, but since he refused, the judge instead allowed his testimony from the first trial to be read to the jury. This was over the objection of Doug Christie who pointed out that, were Hilberg to take the stand again, he would be at risk of a charge of perjury since the new (1985) edition of his book contradicted that testimony.

You can read a transcript of Hilberg's testimony here. He basically said that in the many documents he had searched, "the word killing [...] was not used", but instead it was always euphemisms. Also his interpretation of euphemisms was at odds with Kaltenbrunner and Korherr.

In the last forty years, this debate has advanced to many new sources Hilberg was not apprised of, but it also hasn't moved at all. I think exterminationists are afraid to make any concessions on euphemisms because it has become a foundational claim for them. Perhaps the whole thing falls apart if they start to admit that resettlees were resettled or that special treatment involved delousing.

[Nessie]

For accuracy, Raul Hilberg was asked to appear in the second trial, but since he refused, the judge instead allowed his testimony from the first trial to be read to the jury. This was over the objection of Doug Christie who pointed out that, were Hilberg to take the stand again, he would be at risk of a charge of perjury since the new (1985) edition of his book contradicted that testimony.

You can read a transcript of Hilberg's testimony here. He basically said that in the many documents he had searched, "the word killing [...] was not used", but instead it was always euphemisms. Also his interpretation of euphemisms was at odds with Kaltenbrunner and Korherr.

In the last forty years, this debate has advanced to many new sources Hilberg was not apprised of, but it also hasn't moved at all. I think exterminationists are afraid to make any concessions on euphemisms because it has become a foundational claim for them. Perhaps the whole thing falls apart if they start to admit that resettlees were resettled or that special treatment involved delousing.

How do you accurately determine what a euphemism refers to? I say look at the evidence of usage.

If special is used in relation the operation of a delousing chamber, then it is a euphemism for delousing. Would you agree?

If it was used in relation to a process, of which part of that process involved delousing, would you say that it was not just in relation to delousing?

If the term resettled is used, do you just assume that resettlement happened? Or do you want to see evidence of actual resettlement taking place?

Hilberg determined what terms meant, by looking for evidence of usage. If it was used in relation to an action, that involved Jews, undressing rooms, gas chambers, mass corpse cremation ovens and delousing of clothing seized, then the evidence is the term is being used to include mass murder. If it was used in relation to resettlement, but there was no evidence of resettlement, then it is not about actual resettlement.

[Wetzelrad]

Hilberg determined what terms meant, by looking for evidence of usage. If it was used in relation to an action, that involved Jews, undressing rooms, gas chambers, mass corpse cremation ovens and delousing of clothing seized, then the evidence is the term is being used to include mass murder. If it was used in relation to resettlement, but there was no evidence of resettlement, then it is not about actual resettlement.

Did you just make this up, or can you show where this actually occurred? In his book, Hilberg concluded that words were euphemisms because he needed them to be to support his theory. He did not take any of the steps you claim.

Hilberg's replacement at the 1988 trial, Christopher Browning, seems to have been even worse on the matter of euphemisms.

He [Browning] was not aware that German words like “Gaswagen,” “Spezialwagen,” “Entlausungswagen” (delousing van) could have perfectly innocent meanings.
[...]
Browning claimed to have found irrefutable proof of the existence of a policy of exterminating the Jews in the Frank diary. He had discovered one incriminating sentence. He did not know that Frank had given the Tribunal an explanation of that kind of sentence, chosen beforehand from the hundreds of thousands of sentences in a personnel and administrative journal of 11,560 pages.
[...]
Finally, his own personal explanation of a “policy of the extermination of the Jews” was the same as Hilberg’s. Everything was explained by the “nod” of Adolf Hitler. In other words, the Fuhrer of the German people did not need to give any written or even spoken order for the extermination of the Jews. It was enough for him to give a “nod” at the beginning of the operation and, for the rest, a series of “signals.” And that was understood!

https://ihr.org/journal/v08p417_faurisson-html

In these examples Browning's ignorance led him to false conclusions. It really does appear as if Holocaust historians approach the topic with a preconceived outcome, such that they willfully misinterpret every piece of evidence they find to fit that outcome.

[Nessie]

Hilberg determined what terms meant, by looking for evidence of usage. If it was used in relation to an action, that involved Jews, undressing rooms, gas chambers, mass corpse cremation ovens and delousing of clothing seized, then the evidence is the term is being used to include mass murder. If it was used in relation to resettlement, but there was no evidence of resettlement, then it is not about actual resettlement.

Did you just make this up, or can you show where this actually occurred? In his book, Hilberg concluded that words were euphemisms because he needed them to be to support his theory. He did not take any of the steps you claim.

Are you seriously claiming that Hilberg presented no evidence of the gassing process at A-B, or what happened at the AR camps, which was not resettlement?

Hilberg's replacement at the 1988 trial, Christopher Browning, seems to have been even worse on the matter of euphemisms.

He [Browning] was not aware that German words like “Gaswagen,” “Spezialwagen,” “Entlausungswagen” (delousing van) could have perfectly innocent meanings.
[...]
Browning claimed to have found irrefutable proof of the existence of a policy of exterminating the Jews in the Frank diary. He had discovered one incriminating sentence. He did not know that Frank had given the Tribunal an explanation of that kind of sentence, chosen beforehand from the hundreds of thousands of sentences in a personnel and administrative journal of 11,560 pages.
[...]
Finally, his own personal explanation of a “policy of the extermination of the Jews” was the same as Hilberg’s. Everything was explained by the “nod” of Adolf Hitler. In other words, the Fuhrer of the German people did not need to give any written or even spoken order for the extermination of the Jews. It was enough for him to give a “nod” at the beginning of the operation and, for the rest, a series of “signals.” And that was understood!

https://ihr.org/journal/v08p417_faurisson-html

In these examples Browning's ignorance led him to false conclusions. It really does appear as if Holocaust historians approach the topic with a preconceived outcome, such that they willfully misinterpret every piece of evidence they find to fit that outcome.

Fine, how about you evidence resettlement of millions of Jews, arrested by the Nazis 1939-44, to prove the use of the term resettlement was not a euphemism? Then, evidence what Kremas II to V were used for 1943-4, that was not gassing, to prove the term special did not refer to a process that included gassings.

Browning has looked at the evidence and correctly concluded that mass murder took place, 1941-4, whereby millions of Jews were shot and gassed. He has then looked for evidence of the planning for that genocide amongst the most senior of the Nazis, and he has found very little. He has then correctly concluded that those senior Nazis were very careful to hide the evidence and conceal their involvement.