Whether a word should be taken literally, or treated as a code word, depends on what is evidenced to have happened. If a document records people being evacuated, and there is evidence they were evacuated, then take the word literally. If there is no evidence they were evacuated, then treat it as a code word.TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 29, 2024 1:58 pm .....
That 'evacuate' is a "code word" for extermination is argued to be disproven by the word in some cases clearly referring to no-killings, such as the phrase "Evacuation of Jews from Baden and the Palatinate to France" referring to transportation to the concentration camp in Gurs in the French Pyrenees, with Gurs not being one of the alleged "extermination camps". Another example is the phrase "Evacuation of Jews from the Reich area and the Protectorate to Theresienstadt", with Theresienstadt also not being one of the alleged "extermination camps".
Which is why revisionists are constantly asked to evidence millions of Jews in the east, since if millions were not killed, they would be traceable, since the Nazis were meticulous in registering and recording any Jews.The revisionists Jürgen Graf, Thomas Kues, and Carlo Mattogno: "The conclusion we may draw from the analysis of the Korherr report is that the “special treatment of Jews” stood only for the deportation of western Jews
That there is evidence of tens of thousands of Jews being used as slave labour and being transported to camps for that purpose, is well evidenced. That leaves millions who went missing from the records, after they arrived at certain camps. If a document records a prisoner movement and their use as labourers as "special" then that it was it means, in that instance. It does not therefore follow that all references to "special" mean the same. At the A-B Kremas, "special" referred to gassings, since that is what is evidenced to have happened.... (those from the Altreich with Sudetenland, Ostmark and Protectorate) and of the eastern Jews (those from Ostgebiete with Bialystok and General Government with Lemberg) to the East, i.e. beyond the confines of the Greater German Reich. The Jews deported within these confines, in particular the roughly (121,428+8,500=) 130,000 Jews sent to Auschwitz, were not subjected to “special treatment.” Neither were the 69,084 Jews deported from the Altreich, Ostmark, Protectorate, and Slovakia to Nisko and the Lublin district formally subjected to it. We say formally, because they acquired the status of “specially treated” (sonderbehandelt) gradually as they were transited from the Polish ghettos through the various camps. This is also true for the 18,004 Jews deported to Theresienstadt and then from that ghetto to Treblinka. In practice there was a double accounting system: one for the Jews evacuated from individual countries, and one for the Jews who were transited through the above camps and who were counted independently of their origin."
So forget special treatment as a euphemism for your atrocity delusions.
As for delusions, I leave that to revisionists who believe that the Nazis were secretly accommodating millions of Jews in 1944, whilst they knew they were being accused of killing them.
