On Euphemisms and Code Words

[Wetzelrad]

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.

This is of course nonsense if you actually read this and other documents. The actual context is that Auschwitz had multiple real baths including at the Zentralsauna, BW 5a, BW 5b, and there are indications for places labelled BW 34, infirmary block 27, sick bay block 14, and another disinfection plant at subcamp Buna. If "bathing installation" refers not only to bathing but also to showers, then it could very well be talking about any number of such facilities, including the functional showers at Crematoria II and III, which Bischoff even referred to as "bathing facilities".

As you may be aware, it was common practice to utilize exhaust gases for heating. It was intended that the showers at Cremas II and III would derive their hot water from either the cremation furnace exhaust or the garbage incinerator exhaust, but I'm not sure which was implemented. In the case of this document describing "bathing facilities for special operations", it also describes a plan which was scrapped to install cremation ovens there. Likely this was a plan to heat water with exhaust gases again. But why did they need hot water and all the plumbing if the showers were fake?

So at least in the documentary record there is really substantial and undeniable evidence that showerbaths were used to shower, and none at all for your bathing = gassing theory.

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.

On the contrary, historians in trying to convince readers of their preordained story are forced to ignore not only the bulk of the documentary record but also the countless errors and admissions against interest by witnesses, e.g. those who say gas or water came out of shower heads. Witness testimony can easily be employed against the narrative. It's simply not worth the squeeze where the documentary record is so much more clear.

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.

So in your mind the numerous documents which use "special treatment" in describing disinfection facilities but not in describing crematoria are somehow irrelevant to the question of what "special treatment" means. Rather than taking this as proof that this terminology does not mean homicidal gassings, you think it actually shows Mattogno is looking in the wrong place? You seem totally incompetent to debate.

I want to return to this statement:

The list of documents does not allow anyone to be conclusive on what special means.

This is not an unreasonable statement, but I think it belies your lack of confidence in Holocaust historians. You say that historians draw conclusions from all the evidence including eyewitnesses, yet in actuality when historians write about "special treatment" they do so using only the documents. Three examples.

Hilberg concluded that "special treatment" and "passed through" were "camouflage" for killing. He only cited wartime documents to make this claim. He made no reference to eyewitnesses or any other type of evidence.

Pressac uniquely claimed his book Die Krematorien von Auschwitz "does without oral or written eyewitness reports". This because they are unreliable. Despite this he still drew the same definitive conclusions about the meaning of "special treatment". (At least that is according to Mattogno. I haven't read it.) This is exactly the opposite of what you claim is possible.

Van Pelt concluded that not only "special treatment" but also "specially lodged" was "an obvious euphemism for killing", on an incorrect factual basis, again citing only documents.

All three of these historians had less access to the relevant documents than you do with that list, yet all three came to a conclusive opinion on what "special" means, without citing other materials. Now, we aren't stupid. It's obvious to me and to you that historians work backwards from other knowledge to make interpretations of the documents. But doesn't it then give away their deception when they work forwards from the same documents, presenting them to the reader as self-evident proof?

[Nessie]

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.

This is of course nonsense if you actually read this and other documents. The actual context is that Auschwitz had multiple real baths including at the Zentralsauna, BW 5a, BW 5b, and there are indications for places labelled BW 34, infirmary block 27, sick bay block 14, and another disinfection plant at subcamp Buna. If "bathing installation" refers not only to bathing but also to showers, then it could very well be talking about any number of such facilities, including the functional showers at Crematoria II and III, which Bischoff even referred to as "bathing facilities".

As you may be aware, it was common practice to utilize exhaust gases for heating. It was intended that the showers at Cremas II and III would derive their hot water from either the cremation furnace exhaust or the garbage incinerator exhaust, but I'm not sure which was implemented. In the case of this document describing "bathing facilities for special operations", it also describes a plan which was scrapped to install cremation ovens there. Likely this was a plan to heat water with exhaust gases again. But why did they need hot water and all the plumbing if the showers were fake?

So at least in the documentary record there is really substantial and undeniable evidence that showerbaths were used to shower, and none at all for your bathing = gassing theory.

There is zero evidence of anyone actually having a shower inside any of the Kremas. When special refers to bathing, you flip to the Kremas as showers hypothesis. Then you will flop to another hypothesis, about corpse stores, bomb shelters and delousing, when another documents comes along, that uses the term "special" in realtion to the operation of the Kremas.

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.

On the contrary, historians in trying to convince readers of their preordained story are forced to ignore not only the bulk of the documentary record but also the countless errors and admissions against interest by witnesses, e.g. those who say gas or water came out of shower heads. Witness testimony can easily be employed against the narrative. It's simply not worth the squeeze where the documentary record is so much more clear.

What documents, pertaining to the Kremas, are being ignored?
What witness who worked inside a Krema, speaks to another usage apart from gassing?
How is the documentary record clear, when so-called revisionists flip flop between bomb shelters, delousing chambers, showers and corpse stores?

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.

So in your mind the numerous documents which use "special treatment" in describing disinfection facilities but not in describing crematoria are somehow irrelevant to the question of what "special treatment" means. Rather than taking this as proof that this terminology does not mean homicidal gassings, you think it actually shows Mattogno is looking in the wrong place? You seem totally incompetent to debate.

You have been unable to refute my point about Mattogno's logical fail. Just because he found the use of the term special, to reference usage that was not gassing, does not therefore mean the term special can never be used to refer to usage that was gassing.

I want to return to this statement:

The list of documents does not allow anyone to be conclusive on what special means.

This is not an unreasonable statement, but I think it belies your lack of confidence in Holocaust historians. You say that historians draw conclusions from all the evidence including eyewitnesses, yet in actuality when historians write about "special treatment" they do so using only the documents. Three examples.

Hilberg concluded that "special treatment" and "passed through" were "camouflage" for killing. He only cited wartime documents to make this claim. He made no reference to eyewitnesses or any other type of evidence.

Pressac uniquely claimed his book Die Krematorien von Auschwitz "does without oral or written eyewitness reports". This because they are unreliable. Despite this he still drew the same definitive conclusions about the meaning of "special treatment". (At least that is according to Mattogno. I haven't read it.) This is exactly the opposite of what you claim is possible.

Van Pelt concluded that not only "special treatment" but also "specially lodged" was "an obvious euphemism for killing", on an incorrect factual basis, again citing only documents.

All three of these historians had less access to the relevant documents than you do with that list, yet all three came to a conclusive opinion on what "special" means, without citing other materials. Now, we aren't stupid. It's obvious to me and to you that historians work backwards from other knowledge to make interpretations of the documents. But doesn't it then give away their deception when they work forwards from the same documents, presenting them to the reader as self-evident proof?

Now quote a historian such as Hilberg, stating that every single witness who worked inside a Krema lied, or cannot be other wise relied upon. I do not believe your claim, that the historians ignored the eyewitness evidence and concluded gassing was proven by the documents alone.

[HansHill]

It's obvious to me and to you that historians work backwards from other knowledge to make interpretations of the documents. But doesn't it then give away their deception when they work forwards from the same documents, presenting them to the reader as self-evident proof?

+1

Circular reasoning
Begging the question
Confirmation bias

Here is a handy chart i prepared while preparing my "Exterminationist Tactics Pt2" thread that feels relevant here with regards the interpretation of "special"



viewtopic.php?p=3049#p3049

[Nessie]

It's obvious to me and to you that historians work backwards from other knowledge to make interpretations of the documents. But doesn't it then give away their deception when they work forwards from the same documents, presenting them to the reader as self-evident proof?

+1

Circular reasoning
Begging the question
Confirmation bias

...

Historians work by....gathering evidence. Since there is evidence of mass gassings and cremations in the Kremas, 1943-4, then references to "special actions" or "special treatment" in relation to the usage of the Kremas, 1943-4, logically and evidentially refer to gassings and cremations.

[HansHill]

Hall of fame post right there.

[Nessie]

Hall of fame post right there.

How would you go about investigating what special referred to, in documents in relation to the operation of the Kremas, 1943-4?

[Wetzelrad]

There is zero evidence of anyone actually having a shower inside any of the Kremas.

You deny it? But the documents show that they had functional plumbing installed. Showers, faucets, drains, even some waterproofed lights. There are floorplan drawings of the shower fixtures. The builders refer to showers with hot water. Then the witnesses, in turn, say that they went in to what they had heard were gas chambers but instead water came out of the shower heads. They did in fact bathe. See the testimony of Eva Speter, Gena Turgel, Helen Schwartz, and Maria Van Herwaarden.

This is a real convergence of evidence. I can also add in the many witnesses who said gas came out of shower heads, which was a physical impossibility, but also an easy lie for them to concoct if they knew there were real showers there. These therefore also converge to the same point. See especially the testimony of Bruno Piazza as well as the incomplete list of witnesses on this page:
https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/absurdities/showers/

All of this however skirts around the issue, which is that this document referred to "bathing installations" which actually existed, both in and outside the crematoria. Therefore it is not a reference to alleged and undocumented homicidal gas showers.

When special refers to bathing, you flip to the Kremas as showers hypothesis. Then you will flop to another hypothesis, about corpse stores, bomb shelters and delousing, when another documents comes along, that uses the term "special" in realtion to the operation of the Kremas.

I don't think it's that complicated. If you were honest you would admit that "special treatment" is a generic term with infinite meanings, as it is in English. I don't see anywhere that it was used in describing "corpse stores" or "bomb shelters", but it was used in broadly describing the entire Birkenau POW camp and many narrower activities in and around it. Since it is used variously to refer to Jewish resettlement, property seizure, and delousing, which were all done in concert, it stands to reason that this is the program it referred to. Surely you must agree with that much.

All of this is amusing, but I do wonder if you have any response directly to the OP. You have so far avoided it.

[Eye of Zyclone]

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.

[Nessie]

There is zero evidence of anyone actually having a shower inside any of the Kremas.

You deny it? But the documents show that they had functional plumbing installed. Showers, faucets, drains, even some waterproofed lights. There are floorplan drawings of the shower fixtures. The builders refer to showers with hot water. Then the witnesses, in turn, say that they went in to what they had heard were gas chambers but instead water came out of the shower heads. They did in fact bathe. See the testimony of Eva Speter, Gena Turgel, Helen Schwartz, and Maria Van Herwaarden.

This is a real convergence of evidence. I can also add in the many witnesses who said gas came out of shower heads, which was a physical impossibility, but also an easy lie for them to concoct if they knew there were real showers there. These therefore also converge to the same point. See especially the testimony of Bruno Piazza as well as the incomplete list of witnesses on this page:
https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/absurdities/showers/

All of this however skirts around the issue, which is that this document referred to "bathing installations" which actually existed, both in and outside the crematoria. Therefore it is not a reference to alleged and undocumented homicidal gas showers.

Now evidence the witnesses were inside and the documents refer to a Krema during 1943-4.

When special refers to bathing, you flip to the Kremas as showers hypothesis. Then you will flop to another hypothesis, about corpse stores, bomb shelters and delousing, when another documents comes along, that uses the term "special" in realtion to the operation of the Kremas.

I don't think it's that complicated. If you were honest you would admit that "special treatment" is a generic term with infinite meanings, as it is in English.

That is my point, it is a generic term, so because it is found to describe the usage of buildings elsewhere, at other times, which did not have homicidal gas chambers, does not mean that term cannot be referring to homicidal gas chambers in the Kremas 1943-4.

I don't see anywhere that it was used in describing "corpse stores" or "bomb shelters",

You don't know about Crowell and Butz, who argue those various purposes were what the Kremas were used for?

...but it was used in broadly describing the entire Birkenau POW camp and many narrower activities in and around it. Since it is used variously to refer to Jewish resettlement, property seizure, and delousing, which were all done in concert, it stands to reason that this is the program it referred to. Surely you must agree with that much.

All of this is amusing, but I do wonder if you have any response directly to the OP. You have so far avoided it.

My response to the OP and your comment above, is that there is evidence the Kremas were used for gassings, 1943-4, so any reference to special treatment, in relation to the Kremas, during those years, is about gassing. The term special was also used to describe other usages, in other buildings, at other times. In relation to those not selected for work, who were sent to the Kremas, there is no evidence they were subsequently resettled.

It is clear from your responses that you do not understand evidencing, as you use eyewitnesses who were never inside the Kremas, to evidence their supposed usage as showers and you do not know other so-called revisionists claim other forms of usage for the buildings. You also do not get simple logic and how the term special can be applied to all sorts of usages, which means it can also be applied to homicidal gassing.

[HansHill]

Hall of fame post right there.

How would you go about investigating what special referred to, in documents in relation to the operation of the Kremas, 1943-4?

Question unclear - question framed as if I intend to author original work on the topic, which I've never stated, nor would I have access to the archives even were I intending to do so. I will answer from the perspective of an outside person learning about this for the first time, in an efficient way as possible, with the resources already at my disposal, in this thread nonetheless (!) which you have seem to ignored.

1) As Fire Of Ice has already provided, this encyclopedia entry:

https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/conce ... guage/450/

I would use this to familiarize myself with the "problem statement" if I weren't already familiar, and from there ascertain is there merit in the Revisionist position. Once satisfied that the Revisionist position is merited, I would open a new folder to my notes and proceed as Hektor has suggested with this work:

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

2) For my learning proper, I would start with Mattogno's Introduction section where he restates the "Problem Statement" giving additional context, and then Part 1 where he explains to us Pressac's interpretation and it's origins. After analyzing this, I would review Mattogno's "Conclusion" paragraph which summarizes his position, and revisit each of the paragraphs he bases this on. For example, he notes:

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

3) For each of these conclusions I will review the merits of each as cited, for example, 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.

Satisfied that Mattogno is more than merited in the first pillar of his conclusion, I continue working through the material in this manner until I am satisfied that each pillar of his conclusion is well founded.

4) Penultimately I will review what the common rebuttals to these are, starting with your inane babbling here. I would find it utterly impotent in light of what I had just learned.

5) Finally I would create an account on CODOH confident I am now a holocaust revisionist.

[Nessie]

Hall of fame post right there.

How would you go about investigating what special referred to, in documents in relation to the operation of the Kremas, 1943-4?

Question unclear - question framed as if I intend to author original work on the topic, which I've never stated, nor would I have access to the archives even were I intending to do so. I will answer from the perspective of an outside person learning about this for the first time, in an efficient way as possible, with the resources already at my disposal, in this thread nonetheless (!) which you have seem to ignored.

1) As Fire Of Ice has already provided, this encyclopedia entry:

https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/conce ... guage/450/

I would use this to familiarize myself with the "problem statement" if I weren't already familiar, and from there ascertain is there merit in the Revisionist position. Once satisfied that the Revisionist position is merited, I would open a new folder to my notes and proceed as Hektor has suggested with this work:

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

2) For my learning proper, I would start with Mattogno's Introduction section where he restates the "Problem Statement" giving additional context, and then Part 1 where he explains to us Pressac's interpretation and it's origins. After analyzing this, I would review Mattogno's "Conclusion" paragraph which summarizes his position, and revisit each of the paragraphs he bases this on. For example, he notes:

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

3) For each of these conclusions I will review the merits of each as cited, for example, 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.

Satisfied that Mattogno is more than merited in the first pillar of his conclusion, I continue working through the material in this manner until I am satisfied that each pillar of his conclusion is well founded.

4) Penultimately I will review what the common rebuttals to these are, starting with your inane babbling here. I would find it utterly impotent in light of what I had just learned.

5) Finally I would create an account on CODOH confident I am now a holocaust revisionist.

IOW, you would copy Mattogno's investigation. You would not look at the evidence of usage for the Kremas and instead, you would somehow determine the Kremas usage, by looking at other buildings in the camp. So, if special was used for the prisoner's hospital, for which there is no evidence it was used for gassings and the evidence is that it was only used as a hospital, that somehow means when special was used about the Kremas, it cannot have been about gassings.

How do you not see the logical flaw in Mattogno's argument? How do you not see he determines special, when used about the prisoner's hospital, is not about gassing, because the evidence of usage, is that it was used only as a hospital? Evidence determines usage and that determines the meaning of special. When usage varies, the meaning of special varies.

[HansHill]

IOW, you would copy Mattogno's investigation.

What are you prattling on about.

Reading a book =/= conducting an investigation you muppet. People are allowed read books. Fair enough maybe not in your region, but in most other parts of the world they are.

[Stubble]

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.

[HansHill]

+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.

[Nessie]

IOW, you would copy Mattogno's investigation.

What are you prattling on about.

Reading a book =/= conducting an investigation you muppet. People are allowed read books. Fair enough maybe not in your region, but in most other parts of the world they are.

You don't know how to conduct an investigation, so you copied Mattogno, as he produces the result you support.