General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[MaxMurx]

I don't have a good feeling when self appointed experts of German euphemisms who are no native speakers of the German language discuss the secret meanings of certain terms. One example is comparing the "euphemisms" of medical personel being written into patient charts with those of a military chain of command. In a medical documentation the term "Behandlung" (treatment) can mean anything from curative to terminal. The term "desinfection" for killing minors could be seen behind the background that the US Journal of Psychiatry in 1942 claimed Euthanasia for psychic "abnormal" children and claimed that positive feelings of the parents of those children towards their children to be an own psychiatric disease. In the mind of those Euthanasia physicians "desinfection" could mean to "desinfect society from unworthy life" but also can mean the person's opposition documented in blank cynism. From the records of the public health office in Dillingen/Donau it is known that children born with disabilities often were diagnosed as " Club foot / Roman Catholic" which meant "disabled", knowing that Heinrich Himmler had a club foot and was a deeply religious Roman Catholic. The diagnose above was intented to prevent (and did prevent) further investigation. People having that "diagnose" were unlikely to be euthanized.
Another questionable interpretation of an euphemism is from the Auschwitz physician Johann Paul Kremer's diary, Auschwitz being "anus mundi" (Latin for: "ass of the world"). That was and is the oldest joke of German physicians for any place they don't like and has nothing to say about Auschwitz in particular being a death camp or anything like. It simply says Kremer disliked the place. That "anus mundi" quote however often is cited as evidence for the special wickedness of the particular place.
How would an AngloAmerican specialist for German euphemisms solve the following case: "To go home" in German means: "Heim gehen" and "nach Hause gehen". "Heim gehen" in German hospitals is an euphemism for "to decease", "Nach Hause gehen" stands for "to be discharged". It is a very common occurrence that a shift doctor asks another one about the whereabouts of a patient, receiving the answer "Gegangen (gone)". The next question then is "Heim oder nach Hause, "home" or "home" for "deceased" or "discharged". With no understanding of the fine differences of double meanings of words in the German language nobody can discuss about "euphemisms".
All of the above might be possible in some professions like human medicine but not in chains of command, in particular not in the military. "Attack at 12 p.m." cannot mean "Retreat at 11 a.m" especially when people assume it can mean both, depending when and where the command is given. With such an encryption method every military campaign would fail. That is why miltary coded words are words for items being unlikely to occur. That is why enemy fighter planes are "Indians". Simply because Indians can't fly. To assume that "evacuation" sometimes means "evacuation" and sometimes "extermination" is absurd. It is not only absurd but also problematic. With such a "technique of interpretation" all kind of defense in front of a court would be futile. The defendant's words "Let's buy some ice cream" being re interpreted by the judge and the jury as euphemism for "Let's rob a bank" would make any court in the world a waste of time.

 

[000063]

I don't have a good feeling when self appointed experts of German euphemisms who are no native speakers of the German language discuss the secret meanings of certain terms.

I think Dr. Terry - who you are clearly referring to - could hardly be called "self-appointed". In fact, he's considered so influential that there are several websites dedicated to decrying him as a "hate blogger". Personally, that gives me a good feeling about him.

Also, I think you're veering dangerously close to a personal remark. Do be careful, won't you? Oh, and if it's not to much trouble, could you discuss Dr. Terry's actual claims, in post #6878, instead of trying to rebut them by comparison?

All of the above might be possible in some professions like human medicine but not in chains of command, in particular not in the military.

That sounds exactly like an Unbacked Assertion to me, Max. Also, military life is filled with euphemisms and "in" phrases. For example, a "Jarhead" does not literally have a jar for a head, and "waterboarding" is not an amusing aquatic pastime, nor are other "enhanced interrogation techniques" any more pleasant. Or are you saying that those are impossible too?

To assume that "evacuation" sometimes means "evacuation" and sometimes "extermination" is absurd. It is not only absurd but also problematic. With such a "technique of interpretation" all kind of defense in front of a court would be futile. The defendant's words "Let's buy some ice cream" being re interpreted by the judge and the jury as euphemism for "Let's rob a bank" would make any court in the world a waste of time.

Unless the prosecution were able to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants used such a code, of course. And we know good and well that the Krauts were Krazy for euphemisms, despite your verbal smokescreen.

 

[Nick Terry]

I don't have a good feeling when self appointed experts of German euphemisms who are no native speakers of the German language discuss the secret meanings of certain terms.

Sorry, Max, but if this is a barb aimed at me then I am hardly 'self-appointed', but fully qualified, with a doctorate in German history. I have read more German documents than every single Holocaust denier in the entire history of their movement put together.

Moreover, there are countless native German speakers who have confronted the same sources and arrived at the same conclusions as non-native speakers with a good command of the German language: these sources contain euphemisms.

For a euphemism to work, it has to convey a clear meaning within a specific social and institutional context. Nazi euphemisms do exactly that; there is nothing 'secret' about the meaning of Sonderbehandlung; it quite clearly means execution based on how it is used in the documents produced by the RSHA, WVHA and indeed, Wehrmacht, during the 1940s. Because it is used interchangeably with liquidation and execution.

One example is comparing the "euphemisms" of medical personel being written into patient charts with those of a military chain of command. In a medical documentation the term "Behandlung" (treatment) can mean anything from curative to terminal. The term "desinfection" for killing minors could be seen behind the background that the US Journal of Psychiatry in 1942 claimed Euthanasia for psychic "abnormal" children and claimed that positive feelings of the parents of those children towards their children to be an own psychiatric disease. In the mind of those Euthanasia physicians "desinfection" could mean to "desinfect society from unworthy life" but also can mean the person's opposition documented in blank cynism. From the records of the public health office in Dillingen/Donau it is known that children born with disabilities often were diagnosed as " Club foot / Roman Catholic" which meant "disabled", knowing that Heinrich Himmler had a club foot and was a deeply religious Roman Catholic. The diagnose above was intented to prevent (and did prevent) further investigation. People having that "diagnose" were unlikely to be euthanized.

This blether totally ignored the example highlighted of the Hartheim statistics using 'disinfected' to refer to a group of 70,000 people, whose 'disinfection' saved substantial quantities of foodstuffs and money.

Unless you can offer an explanation for why 'disinfection' would save on what were evidently complete rations for adults for 10 years, then the term quite patently in this context and this document was a circumlocution and therefore, a euphemism.

Another questionable interpretation of an euphemism is from the Auschwitz physician Johann Paul Kremer's diary, Auschwitz being "anus mundi" (Latin for: "ass of the world"). That was and is the oldest joke of German physicians for any place they don't like and has nothing to say about Auschwitz in particular being a death camp or anything like. It simply says Kremer disliked the place. That "anus mundi" quote however often is cited as evidence for the special wickedness of the particular place.

But nobody interprets the reference to anus mundi on its own. The use of the term clearly conveys the fact that Auschwitz was an unpleasant place, but the same could be said for Guilford, and many an English speaker has called their home town the equivalent of anus mundi.

Kremer's diary also bluntly calls Auschwitz the Lager der Vernichtung. It is therefore in conjunction with anus mundi and other remarks that the diary has to be interpreted.

How would an AngloAmerican specialist for German euphemisms solve the following case: "To go home" in German means: "Heim gehen" and "nach Hause gehen". "Heim gehen" in German hospitals is an euphemism for "to decease", "Nach Hause gehen" stands for "to be discharged". It is a very common occurrence that a shift doctor asks another one about the whereabouts of a patient, receiving the answer "Gegangen (gone)". The next question then is "Heim oder nach Hause, "home" or "home" for "deceased" or "discharged". With no understanding of the fine differences of double meanings of words in the German language nobody can discuss about "euphemisms".
All of the above might be possible in some professions like human medicine but not in chains of command, in particular not in the military. "Attack at 12 p.m." cannot mean "Retreat at 11 a.m" especially when people assume it can mean both, depending when and where the command is given. With such an encryption method every military campaign would fail. That is why miltary coded words are words for items being unlikely to occur. That is why enemy fighter planes are "Indians". Simply because Indians can't fly.

It's really no use offering hypothetical examples that don't occur in the relevant sources, because contrary to the all too frequent delusions among deniers, language is always contextual, and historical sources can only be understood in context.

To use a historically specific and relevant example, Nazi concentration camps sent out signals to Berlin in 1942 recording their camp strengths, increases and decreases. No words whatsoever were used in the signals, the identification of which column meant increases (arrivals) and which meant decreases follows entirely from simple arithmetic. The decreases included releases, transfers and deaths. From other sources - i.e. context - we know that deaths formed the major part of the decreases, with transfers and releases much less common.

There are also some similar documents that refer to Abgang or Abgaenge for decreases, again a neutral term. Again from context, and comparing with other sources, we would find that most such departures or decreases meant deaths. But nobody would therefore say that they automatically meant death.

It is only where you have sources referring to 'transfers' and the prisoners transferred to a named destination never arrive, and then we find death certificates (i.e., other sources) being filled out a few days later in the camp from which the 'transfers' were being dispatched, that one can infer the correct fate of the 'transferred' prisoners.

The moral of the story is the one that is hammered into history students from their first year of studies - no document exists in isolation and very few are actually easily intelligible in isolation.

To assume that "evacuation" sometimes means "evacuation" and sometimes "extermination" is absurd. It is not only absurd but also problematic. With such a "technique of interpretation" all kind of defense in front of a court would be futile. The defendant's words "Let's buy some ice cream" being re interpreted by the judge and the jury as euphemism for "Let's rob a bank" would make any court in the world a waste of time.

But no assumptions are needed, since the precise meaning of any word used in a historical source is always determined by context. That context consists not only of the rest of the words in the relevant documents but also of

a) all other relevant documents in the same paper-trail

and

b) all other sources related to the location/event/phenomenon in question.

Thus, when a Nazi document says that Jews or any other group were evacuated from A to B and there is evidence that B was a camp or ghetto or ordinary town and the group being evacuated left other evidence of its continued existence, this is an evacuation. One would after all expect that a group of x 1000 people moved from A to B will leave further traces in the historical record; both at the time and subsequently.

A bald reference on its own to a specific resettlement from A to B actually isn't very interesting; it may be 'sufficient' to 'prove' it happened but the story rarely ends with a transfer - historians whether writing about kulaks, Chechens, Poles, Volksdeutsche or Jews like to follow things through. Therefore - other evidence comes into play, and context is still important.

By contrast, where a Nazi document refers to the evacuation of the Jews without naming a destination, and then other documents are alsocoy on the destination, then this is being economical with the truth. After all these evacuees were indeed being deported - something which was done to millions of other people in the 1940s by the Nazis and also by the Soviets.

But when we then find other sources identifying the destination of the intransitive evacuation as Treblinka, and we find further sources clarifying the nature of Treblinka (including contemporary Jewish/Polish documents, eyewitnesses and forensic evidence), then our suspicion that the omission of any destination for the evacuees was in fact deliberate becomes certainty.

This does not retrospectively turn the intransitive use of evacuation into a synonym for extermination. It means that the Nazis were being economical with the truth, and were lying gits.

I can think of several occasions when SS officers did use Umsiedlung as a euphemism. Such as this one, where Eduard Strauch issued an order laying down the practical measures for the 'resettlement' of Jews from Slutsk... into a pit. Good luck trying to interpret this as anything other than a blatant euphemism, especially when there are two (2) separate Nazi contemporary sources about the same operation and same town talking about killing in this case.

 

[FluffyPersian]

The term "desinfection" for killing minors could be seen behind the background that the US Journal of Psychiatry in 1942 claimed Euthanasia for psychic "abnormal" children and claimed that positive feelings of the parents of those children towards their children to be an own psychiatric disease.

What does this have to do with the argument that "disinfection" meant murder?

From the records of the public health office in Dillingen/Donau it is known that children born with disabilities often were diagnosed as " Club foot / Roman Catholic" which meant "disabled", knowing that Heinrich Himmler had a club foot and was a deeply religious Roman Catholic.

That would be Goebbels, not Himmler. You offer no evidence for this, but even if it's true, why does it mean that those diagnosed with mental illness weren't murdered.

<snip>

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited. Moderated thread.

 

[MaxMurx]

Der Kommander der Sicherheitspolizei u.d. SD Weissruthenien

Kommandobefehl

Minsk, den 5. Februar 1943

Am 8. und 9. Februar 1943 wird in der Stadt Sluzk von dem hiesigen Kommando die Umsiedlung der dortigen Juden vorgenommen. An der Aktion nehmen die unten namentlich aufgefuehrten Angehoerigen des Kommandos sowie rund 110 Angehoerige der lettischen Freiwilligenkomp. teil.
Die Leitung der Aktion liegt in den Haenden von SS-Obersturmfuehrer Mueller.
Die Teilnehmer der Aktion treten am 7. Februar 1943 um 11.15 Uhr in unteren Korridor des Dienstgebaeudes zur Abfahrt an. Die Leitung der Kraftwagenkolonne uebernimmt SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Breder. Von den Abteilungen nahmen folgende Fuehrer, Unterfuehrer und Maenner an der Aktion teil:
Comment:

1. As the jheadline shows,this is an alleged "Command Order". Command orders normallyx do not give troop strengths in "around 100" terms. What iss "around 100 Letts" the next day: 99, 200 or 10?
2. The order is for an action taking place 4 days later. Therefore the grammatically correct "future" is used in most verbs. Exception: Lasst sentence. "Nahmen" is pat tense. From the departments the following Leaders, sub leaders and men participated:..
3. The categorization of troops into "leaders, sub leaders and men" is absurd. Are leaders no "men"? If the lowest ranks are meant, the term "Mannschaften" sometimes is used. In military hierarchy however having more than 2 ranks a leader can be a general, a major or a sergeant, "sub leader" the next lower rank. Looking below: who is "leader", who is "subleader"? In the rankings below every "sub leader also i "leader" of another lower rank. "Ordianaries (Mannschaften) do not exist"




Abteilung I/II
Die SS-Obersturmfuehrer Kaul, Merbach,
SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Madecker und Schneider,
die SS-Unterstuf. Wertholz, Mueller, Junker, Schmidt, Wiechert,
SS-Sturmscharfuehrer Krause, Zehmann.
SS-Scharfuehrer Kruse,
Rottwachtmeister Altmann,
die SS-Rottenfuehrer Nikol, Geiger, Gruener, Stroessinger, Egger, Fischer,
SS-Oberscharfuehrer Gennert,
SS-Mann Kraft,
Wachtmeister Krahnke, Mischke
Abteilung III
Die SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Schlegel, Friedrich,
SS-Untersturmfuehrer Eck,
SS-Hauptscharfuehrer v.d. Golz,
SS-Rottenfuehrer Schramm,
die Dolmetscher Julik und Krowetz. [p.2]
Umsiedlungsgelaende:
Auf dem Umsiedlungsgelaende befinden sich 2 Gruben. An jeder Grube arbeitet je einer Gruppe von 10 Fuehrern und Maennern, die sich alle 2 Stunden abloesen. Zeiten 8-10 Uhr, 10-12 Uhr, 12-14 Uhr, 14-16 Uhr.

"Je einer Gruppe" is a confusion of grammatical gender. "Gruppe" is female, correct would be: je eine Gruppe.
Each group ha "10 leaders and men". In a group with 10 leaders it would be possibly a matter of interest how many men are led by those leaders. That however is kept secret.

Grube I:
1. Gruppe:
SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Breder (Leitung),
SS-Oberstuf. Kaul, Merbach, SS-Hauptstuf. Schneider,
SS-Unterstuf. Wertholz, SS-Unterstuf. Mueller, SS-Unterstuf. Junker, SS-Sturmscharfuehrer Fritz, SS-Rottenfuehrer Geiger und Gruener.
2. Gruppe
SS-Hauptstuf. Schlegel, SS-Oberscharfuehrer Burger, Seckinger, Brandlmeier, SS-Hauptscharfuehrer Huettner, SS-Oberscharf. Weller, SS-Unterscharf. v. Toll, SS-Scharfuehrer Rexhauser, Zugwachtmstr. Exner und SS-Unterscharrfuehrer Hoerner.

Grube II:
1. Gruppe:
SS-Obersturmfuehrer Meuller, SS-Unterstuf. Eck, SS-Hauptstuf. Friedrich, Wachtmstr. Krahnke, SS-Hauptscharfuehrer v.d. Golz, SS-Rottenfuehrer Schramm, Stroessinger, Egger, Zehmann, Fischer.
2. Gruppe:
SS-Oberstuf. Oswald, SS-Hauptscharfuehrer Ruebe. SS-Unterstuf. Schmidt, SS-Hauptscharfuehrer Kreimann, SS-Oberscharf. Schuth, Gersberger, Poeckler, die SS-Unterscharf. Strathmann und SS-Oberscharf. Kremer, SS-Unterscharf. Gothmann.

Die Sicherung auf dem Umsiedlungsgelaende uebernimmt SS-Untersturmfuehrer Pierre mit 10 Letten.

The security on the areal is taken over by...

What kind of "security"? Against attacks? Escapes? Thunderstorms? If one In German the terms "die Sicherung des Geländes" or "die Sicherheit auf dem Gelände.." can be used, NOT: die Sicherung auf dem Gelände..


Fuer das Kraftfahrwesens waehrend der Vorbereitungen in Minsk, waehrend des Transportes nach Sluzk und fuer die Aufsicht der Juden vom Ghetto zum Umsiedlungsgelaende ist SS-Unterstuf. Wiechert verantwortlich. Gleichzeitig ist Vorgenannter fuer die Gestellung der Munition zustaendig. Als Patronenausgeber auf dem Umsiedlungsgelaende sind SS-Mann Kraft und Rottwachtmeister Altmann zustaendig. [p.3]

The term "Kraftfahrtwesens" is grammatically genitive and wrong. The term "für die Aufsicht der Juden" means: for the Jews' observations". The correct form is "Aufsicht über die Juden" or Beaufsichtigung der Juden".
The poor man is responsible for everything having to do with motorcars "during preparations in Minsk", "during transport to Sluzk" and for observing Jews from "ghetto" to the "areal". Wouldn't it be nice to tell him if that order to observe jews is valid during the transports and if, which transports and if "from Ghetto" means: "from Slusk Ghetto during the time of the transport" In the form above the one taking the order is responsible for all Jews from any Ghetto for a period of eternity.

Abteilung IV
SS-Obersturmfuehrer Mueller,
SS-Sturmscharfuehrer Fritz,
SS-Hauptscharfuehrer Ehrig,
die SS-Oberscharf. Buchner, Kramer, Burger, Sockinger, Gethmann,
die SS-Unterscharf. v. Toll, Rexhauser, Hoerner,
SS-Obersturmfuehrer Oswald,
SS-Oberscharfuehrer Rumschewitz, Brandlmeier,
SS-Unterscharfuehrer Strathmann,
die Dolmetscher Siesse, Sokolowski, Natarow, Aisupe, Gorschkow, Michelson,
die Hilfsbeamten: Bunte, Santz, Tomson, Sipols
und die Hilfskraefte: Meschek, Roniz, Eglitis, Kublimech, Auschkaps und Wikams.

Abteilung V
Die SS-Hauptscharf. Kreimann, Zeuschel und Huettner,
die SS-Oberscharf. Weller, Gersberger, Schuth, Pockler,
SS-Hauptscharf. Ruebe,
Dolmetscher Kraskowski und
die Hilfsbeamten Osols und Pleuks.

Durchfuehrung der Aktion in Sluzk:
Ghetto:
Die Sicherung und Bewachung des Ghettos uebernimmt die Ordnungspolizei.
Die Auswertung des anfallenden Judeneigentums liegt in den Haenden vom SS-Hauptstuf. Madecker, den fuer diese Aufgabe ein Kommando von 2 Beamten (Kruse, Buchner), 2 Dolmetschern (Michelson, Natarow) und 10 Letten zur Verfuegung stehen.

1. Another mistake of grammatical form. "den für diese Aufgabe" (nominativ) must be dative: "dem für diese Aufgabe" in correct German.
The categories: "Officials", "Translators" and "Letts" is hilaarious. Aren't there any Lettic officials or translators?

Die Aufbringung der Juden im Ghetto steht unter der Leitung des SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Graaf, dem hierzu 6 Kommandos in Staerke von je einen Beamten und je 8 Letten zur Verfuegung stehen. Fuer diese Kommandos sind folgende Unterfuehrer vorgesehen:
Krause, Nikol, Gennert, Ehrig, Weller, Zeuschel.
Der Abtransport der Juden zum Umsiedlungsplatz geschieht mittels 6 Lkw, die von je 4 Letten begleitet werden. [p.4]
Fuer die Verpflegung und die Unterbringung der Fuehrer und Maenner ist SS-Oberstuf, Kaul verantwortlich.
An der Sonderaktion nehmen saemtl. Fuehrer und Maenner der hiesigen Dienststelle, ausser folgenden Fuehrern und Maennern, die in Minsk bleiben, teil:
SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Bohnendorfer, SS-Oberstuf. Dr. Heuser, SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Hartmann, SS-Oberstuf. Feder, SS-Sturmscharfuehrer Much, SS-Oberscharf. Edel, SS-Hauptscharf. Zug, SS-Unterscharf. Koch, SS-Oberscharf, Frolik, SS-Oberscharf. Kunzengruber, SS-Oberscharf. Friedl, SS-Scharf. Wimmer, SS-Scharf. Rau, Wachtmsts. Ruediger, SS-Oberscharf. Kuhnenberger, SS-Oberscharf. Knot. Die Dolmetscher: Eiche, Goile, Schire und Wohlfahrt. Ausserdem bleibt SS-Unterscharf. Wolf, der fuer die Juden im hiesigen Dienstgebaeude verantwortlich ist, zurueck. Die Fernschreibestube, Telefonzentrale und die Kueche bleiben wie ueblich besetzt.
Die nichteingeteilten Fuehrer, Unterfuehrer und Maenner (Aussendienststellen) in Sluzk unterstehen SS-Haupsturmfuehrer Wilke.
Die Rueckkehr fuer die nicht zum Unternehmen 'Hornung' vorgesehenen Fuehrer und Maenner wird in Sluzk bekannt gegeben.


1. "Fernschreibestube" is either "Fernschreiberstube" (telegraph room) or "Fernschreibstube" (telegraphing room), NOT: Fernschreibestube.
2. The first sentence says: ALL men perticipate in the activity, except those listed by name in the section below". Under the name list it is said: Leaders, sub leaders or men not assigned to any group are commanded by...". That is a logical error. All men are assigned to different groups, exactly to 2 groups: those staying in Minsk (name list) and the rest (ALL men except...). There is nobody being "non assigned".
Last sentence: The return for the men not assigned to "Operation Hornung" will be disclosed in Sluzk.

1. "Operation Hornung" is mentioned for the very first time. Who is assigned to the task, who isn't? What is "Operation Hornung"? What does "the return for the men" mean? Time of return, place of return, way of return, mode of transportation? In addition the correct grammatical form is genitive: die Rückkehr der Männer (the return of the men), NOT: the return FOR the men.



gez. Strauch
SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer

Comment: That pamphlet is a ridiculous attempt of some intellectually underpriviliged fraudster to sound like a German. If those texts are taken as authentic it is completely unnecessary to discuss "euphemisms". Somebody using concealed meanings of words and sentences must not make silly mistakes in German grammar and terminology. If the root sentence already is wrong and misleading, how can anybody extract any "concealed" message, which then also is wrong, misleading, has a double or triple meaning, in short: not usable as coded military message.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.

 

[000063]

Max, #6885 seems to be a lot of flat assertions, nitpicking, and "shotgun questioning" to me. It's an "if I ran the zoo" post. I think the most absurd part is the assertion that people can't make any mistakes if they're using euphemisms, because a mistake, by definition, is unintentional. Moreover, assuming every conclusion you make is correct, and not trying to discount evidence on the basis of invented "anomalies", you've "defeated" precisely one document. Which proves nothing about whether the Nazis used euphemisms overall.

Dr. Terry specifically mentioned "context", repeatedly, in his previous post, yet here you seem to be deliberately ignoring context.

 

[Garrison]

That sounds exactly like an Unbacked Assertion to me, Max. Also, military life is filled with euphemisms and "in" phrases. For example, a "Jarhead" does not literally have a jar for a head, and "waterboarding" is not an amusing aquatic pastime,

You missed out the two classics; 'Friendly Fire' and 'Collateral Damage'.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

You missed out the two classics; 'Friendly Fire' and 'Collateral Damage'.

Good examples. Euphemisms are used in a military context all the time. So much so that they become part of the standard language. There's no reason to believe the German military would be any different. If the Nazis used the phrase "special action" or "resettlement in the East" in the context of the Jews and everytime these phrases were used, the Jews were killed it is pretty obvious what those phrasses mean. If the Jews were not always killed when these phrases were used or if those phrases were used in documents related to non-Jews or when the religion was ambiguous, then it's obvious that those phrases don't always refer to extermination. Euphemisms will work when the context makes it clear what the euphemism means and when the euphemism used out of context it doesn't make any sense. The example of "friendly fire" doesn't always mean that an error was made in aiming. It doesn't always mean that your own troops were misidentified as enemy troops. It doesn't always mean bombs or bullets. But if a soldier was killed "by friendly fire" it always means he was killed by his own men. So the question to ask here is are there examples of German documents that use the phrase "special action" where death did not result?

 

[Nick Terry]

Der Kommander der Sicherheitspolizei u.d. SD Weissruthenien

Kommandobefehl

Minsk, den 5. Februar 1943

Am 8. und 9. Februar 1943 wird in der Stadt Sluzk von dem hiesigen Kommando die Umsiedlung der dortigen Juden vorgenommen. An der Aktion nehmen die unten namentlich aufgefuehrten Angehoerigen des Kommandos sowie rund 110 Angehoerige der lettischen Freiwilligenkomp. teil.
Die Leitung der Aktion liegt in den Haenden von SS-Obersturmfuehrer Mueller.
Die Teilnehmer der Aktion treten am 7. Februar 1943 um 11.15 Uhr in unteren Korridor des Dienstgebaeudes zur Abfahrt an. Die Leitung der Kraftwagenkolonne uebernimmt SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Breder. Von den Abteilungen nahmen folgende Fuehrer, Unterfuehrer und Maenner an der Aktion teil:
Comment:

1. As the jheadline shows,this is an alleged "Command Order". Command orders normallyx do not give troop strengths in "around 100" terms. What iss "around 100 Letts" the next day: 99, 200 or 10?
2. The order is for an action taking place 4 days later. Therefore the grammatically correct "future" is used in most verbs. Exception: Lasst sentence. "Nahmen" is pat tense. From the departments the following Leaders, sub leaders and men participated:..
3. The categorization of troops into "leaders, sub leaders and men" is absurd. Are leaders no "men"? If the lowest ranks are meant, the term "Mannschaften" sometimes is used. In military hierarchy however having more than 2 ranks a leader can be a general, a major or a sergeant, "sub leader" the next lower rank. Looking below: who is "leader", who is "subleader"? In the rankings below every "sub leader also i "leader" of another lower rank. "Ordianaries (Mannschaften) do not exist"

1. Ignores the fact that KdS Weissruthenien was one command whereas the Latvian volunteer company was a different subunit. If the commander was promised about 110 Latvians, then that's what he was promised. How could he predict whether there would be 110 Latvians or whether 3 of them would fall sick in the meantime?

2. Pettifogging nitpick.

3. Displays massive ignorance of SS terminology: Fuehrer = officers, Unterfuehrer = NCOs, Maenner = men. Enlisted ranks, i.e. men, *can* be referred to as 'Mannschaften' but are not *always* referred to in this way.

Abteilung I/II
Die SS-Obersturmfuehrer Kaul, Merbach,
SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Madecker und Schneider,
die SS-Unterstuf. Wertholz, Mueller, Junker, Schmidt, Wiechert,
SS-Sturmscharfuehrer Krause, Zehmann.
SS-Scharfuehrer Kruse,
Rottwachtmeister Altmann,
die SS-Rottenfuehrer Nikol, Geiger, Gruener, Stroessinger, Egger, Fischer,
SS-Oberscharfuehrer Gennert,
SS-Mann Kraft,
Wachtmeister Krahnke, Mischke
Abteilung III
Die SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Schlegel, Friedrich,
SS-Untersturmfuehrer Eck,
SS-Hauptscharfuehrer v.d. Golz,
SS-Rottenfuehrer Schramm,
die Dolmetscher Julik und Krowetz. [p.2]
Umsiedlungsgelaende:
Auf dem Umsiedlungsgelaende befinden sich 2 Gruben. An jeder Grube arbeitet je einer Gruppe von 10 Fuehrern und Maennern, die sich alle 2 Stunden abloesen. Zeiten 8-10 Uhr, 10-12 Uhr, 12-14 Uhr, 14-16 Uhr.

"Je einer Gruppe" is a confusion of grammatical gender. "Gruppe" is female, correct would be: je eine Gruppe.
Each group ha "10 leaders and men". In a group with 10 leaders it would be possibly a matter of interest how many men are led by those leaders. That however is kept secret.

1. pettifogging nitpick, presuming that all Germans write 100% fluently/ignoring the fact that it's transcribed.

2. Misreads the point: 10 leaders and men is actually demonstrated by the subsequent details. Group 1 had 7 officers, 2 NCOs and 1 man, Group 2 had 1 officer, 8 SS NCOs and 1 Police NCO.

Sicherheitspolizei units were top-heavy with officers and NCOs, which is why they looked elsewhere for assistance to Latvian auxiliaries or the Orpo when carrying out actions, as there were many chiefs and few Indians. But the unit cultures of Einsatzkommandos, Sicherheitspolizei units and Gestapo offices meant that one did not shirk unpleasant duty like executions simply by virtue of being an officer. This is confirmed from many other sources, but this particular order helps spell it out in extensive detail.

Grube I:
1. Gruppe:
SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Breder (Leitung),
SS-Oberstuf. Kaul, Merbach, SS-Hauptstuf. Schneider,
SS-Unterstuf. Wertholz, SS-Unterstuf. Mueller, SS-Unterstuf. Junker, SS-Sturmscharfuehrer Fritz, SS-Rottenfuehrer Geiger und Gruener.
2. Gruppe
SS-Hauptstuf. Schlegel, SS-Oberscharfuehrer Burger, Seckinger, Brandlmeier, SS-Hauptscharfuehrer Huettner, SS-Oberscharf. Weller, SS-Unterscharf. v. Toll, SS-Scharfuehrer Rexhauser, Zugwachtmstr. Exner und SS-Unterscharrfuehrer Hoerner.

Grube II:
1. Gruppe:
SS-Obersturmfuehrer Meuller, SS-Unterstuf. Eck, SS-Hauptstuf. Friedrich, Wachtmstr. Krahnke, SS-Hauptscharfuehrer v.d. Golz, SS-Rottenfuehrer Schramm, Stroessinger, Egger, Zehmann, Fischer.
2. Gruppe:
SS-Oberstuf. Oswald, SS-Hauptscharfuehrer Ruebe. SS-Unterstuf. Schmidt, SS-Hauptscharfuehrer Kreimann, SS-Oberscharf. Schuth, Gersberger, Poeckler, die SS-Unterscharf. Strathmann und SS-Oberscharf. Kremer, SS-Unterscharf. Gothmann.

Die Sicherung auf dem Umsiedlungsgelaende uebernimmt SS-Untersturmfuehrer Pierre mit 10 Letten.

The security on the areal is taken over by...

What kind of "security"? Against attacks? Escapes? Thunderstorms? If one In German the terms "die Sicherung des Geländes" or "die Sicherheit auf dem Gelände.." can be used, NOT: die Sicherung auf dem Gelände..

Pull the other one. German is a flexible enough language that the line makes perfect sense to anyone who knows it properly.

Execution sites were screened and secured firstly against the prospect of victims fleeing from the killing ground and secondly to protect them against the possibility of attack from outside, e.g. by partisans. This is documented in many other contemporary written Nazi sources as well as copious testimonies.

Fuer das Kraftfahrwesens waehrend der Vorbereitungen in Minsk, waehrend des Transportes nach Sluzk und fuer die Aufsicht der Juden vom Ghetto zum Umsiedlungsgelaende ist SS-Unterstuf. Wiechert verantwortlich. Gleichzeitig ist Vorgenannter fuer die Gestellung der Munition zustaendig. Als Patronenausgeber auf dem Umsiedlungsgelaende sind SS-Mann Kraft und Rottwachtmeister Altmann zustaendig. [p.3]

The term "Kraftfahrtwesens" is grammatically genitive and wrong. The term "für die Aufsicht der Juden" means: for the Jews' observations". The correct form is "Aufsicht über die Juden" or Beaufsichtigung der Juden".
The poor man is responsible for everything having to do with motorcars "during preparations in Minsk", "during transport to Sluzk" and for observing Jews from "ghetto" to the "areal". Wouldn't it be nice to tell him if that order to observe jews is valid during the transports and if, which transports and if "from Ghetto" means: "from Slusk Ghetto during the time of the transport" In the form above the one taking the order is responsible for all Jews from any Ghetto for a period of eternity.

1. This is an extremely common native-speaker error of the period, judging by the fact that I've seen quite a few similar examples in contemporary documents which are not incriminating. Again: get over the notion that Germans write flawlessly. They are human beings, not gods. It's also possible that this was my transcription error.

2. Again a crass misunderstanding: Wiechert was responsible for transport matters during the movement of the unit from Minsk, its headquarters and base, to Slutsk, which was not its base. He was additionally charged with overseeing the Jews when they were to be moved from the ghetto in Slutsk to the execution site ('Umsiedlungsgelaende'). The method of movement was spelled out later in the document: 4 trucks would be made available. As the designated motor transport officer this additional responsibility made sense.

You evidently found the line about the hander-out of cartridges too inconvenient to quibble with it.

Abteilung IV
SS-Obersturmfuehrer Mueller,
SS-Sturmscharfuehrer Fritz,
SS-Hauptscharfuehrer Ehrig,
die SS-Oberscharf. Buchner, Kramer, Burger, Sockinger, Gethmann,
die SS-Unterscharf. v. Toll, Rexhauser, Hoerner,
SS-Obersturmfuehrer Oswald,
SS-Oberscharfuehrer Rumschewitz, Brandlmeier,
SS-Unterscharfuehrer Strathmann,
die Dolmetscher Siesse, Sokolowski, Natarow, Aisupe, Gorschkow, Michelson,
die Hilfsbeamten: Bunte, Santz, Tomson, Sipols
und die Hilfskraefte: Meschek, Roniz, Eglitis, Kublimech, Auschkaps und Wikams.

Abteilung V
Die SS-Hauptscharf. Kreimann, Zeuschel und Huettner,
die SS-Oberscharf. Weller, Gersberger, Schuth, Pockler,
SS-Hauptscharf. Ruebe,
Dolmetscher Kraskowski und
die Hilfsbeamten Osols und Pleuks.

Durchfuehrung der Aktion in Sluzk:
Ghetto:
Die Sicherung und Bewachung des Ghettos uebernimmt die Ordnungspolizei.
Die Auswertung des anfallenden Judeneigentums liegt in den Haenden vom SS-Hauptstuf. Madecker, den fuer diese Aufgabe ein Kommando von 2 Beamten (Kruse, Buchner), 2 Dolmetschern (Michelson, Natarow) und 10 Letten zur Verfuegung stehen.

1. Another mistake of grammatical form. "den für diese Aufgabe" (nominativ) must be dative: "dem für diese Aufgabe" in correct German.
The categories: "Officials", "Translators" and "Letts" is hilaarious. Aren't there any Lettic officials or translators?

1. pettifogging nitpick, presuming that all Germans write 100% fluently/ignoring the fact that it's transcribed.

2. Again with the massive historical ignorance. Property sorting was a task for administrators, thus the presence of officials, and involved dealing with native collaborator administrators, thus the necessity of translators, and involved gathering valuables, thus the necessity of having guards, i.e. the Latvians. If your objection is that the Latvians are simply called Latvians, then there are tons of other documents putting it in the same way.

Die Aufbringung der Juden im Ghetto steht unter der Leitung des SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Graaf, dem hierzu 6 Kommandos in Staerke von je einen Beamten und je 8 Letten zur Verfuegung stehen. Fuer diese Kommandos sind folgende Unterfuehrer vorgesehen:
Krause, Nikol, Gennert, Ehrig, Weller, Zeuschel.
Der Abtransport der Juden zum Umsiedlungsplatz geschieht mittels 6 Lkw, die von je 4 Letten begleitet werden. [p.4]
Fuer die Verpflegung und die Unterbringung der Fuehrer und Maenner ist SS-Oberstuf, Kaul verantwortlich.
An der Sonderaktion nehmen saemtl. Fuehrer und Maenner der hiesigen Dienststelle, ausser folgenden Fuehrern und Maennern, die in Minsk bleiben, teil:
SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Bohnendorfer, SS-Oberstuf. Dr. Heuser, SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Hartmann, SS-Oberstuf. Feder, SS-Sturmscharfuehrer Much, SS-Oberscharf. Edel, SS-Hauptscharf. Zug, SS-Unterscharf. Koch, SS-Oberscharf, Frolik, SS-Oberscharf. Kunzengruber, SS-Oberscharf. Friedl, SS-Scharf. Wimmer, SS-Scharf. Rau, Wachtmsts. Ruediger, SS-Oberscharf. Kuhnenberger, SS-Oberscharf. Knot. Die Dolmetscher: Eiche, Goile, Schire und Wohlfahrt. Ausserdem bleibt SS-Unterscharf. Wolf, der fuer die Juden im hiesigen Dienstgebaeude verantwortlich ist, zurueck. Die Fernschreibestube, Telefonzentrale und die Kueche bleiben wie ueblich besetzt.
Die nichteingeteilten Fuehrer, Unterfuehrer und Maenner (Aussendienststellen) in Sluzk unterstehen SS-Haupsturmfuehrer Wilke.
Die Rueckkehr fuer die nicht zum Unternehmen 'Hornung' vorgesehenen Fuehrer und Maenner wird in Sluzk bekannt gegeben.


1. "Fernschreibestube" is either "Fernschreiberstube" (telegraph room) or "Fernschreibstube" (telegraphing room), NOT: Fernschreibestube.
2. The first sentence says: ALL men perticipate in the activity, except those listed by name in the section below". Under the name list it is said: Leaders, sub leaders or men not assigned to any group are commanded by...". That is a logical error. All men are assigned to different groups, exactly to 2 groups: those staying in Minsk (name list) and the rest (ALL men except...). There is nobody being "non assigned".

1. pettifogging nitpick, presuming that all Germans write 100% fluently/ignoring the fact that it's transcribed.

2. Historical ignorance. The Dienststelle from which all men would participate in the action was KdS Weissruthenien i.e. the headquarters company. There was an antipartisan operation already ongoing which involved the redeployment of many of the Aussendienststellen to the combat zone, including the Aussendienststelle in Slutsk. There were several such Aussendienststellen subordinated to KdS Weissruthenien at this time.

Last sentence: The return for the men not assigned to "Operation Hornung" will be disclosed in Sluzk.

1. "Operation Hornung" is mentioned for the very first time. Who is assigned to the task, who isn't? What is "Operation Hornung"? What does "the return for the men" mean? Time of return, place of return, way of return, mode of transportation? In addition the correct grammatical form is genitive: die Rückkehr der Männer (the return of the men), NOT: the return FOR the men.

1. grammatical nitpick is definitely irrelevant; this is perfectly comprehensible German of the kind that Germans of this era would actually write, rather than the fantasy copperplate German you incredulously believe is the only kind of German.

2. Historical ignorance: Operation Hornung was a major antipartisan operation launched by SSPF Weissruthenien, the parent SS and Police command in Generalbezirk Weissruthenien, to which KdS Weissruthenien was subordinated. As Christian Gerlach explains in lavish detail in Kalkulierte Morde (1999), his monster 1400 page dissertation on the Nazi occupation of Belorussia, it had become standard practice for Sicherheitspolizei detachments to be assigned to antipartisan operations as reconnaissance forces but also interrogators, prisoner screeners and executioners once screened prisoners were identified as partisans or partisan suspects.

The liquidation of the remaining Jews of the Slutsk ghetto was ordered 'en passant' during the operation, something which Wilke in his diary noted was mildly inconvenient as a diversion from the 'military' task but which made sense from a Sipo perspective, as they had a certain concentration of forces in the area already and as the very last line indicates, the movement of part of the HQ company to Slutsk offered a chance to reinforce the overall Sipo commitment to 'Hornung' by retaining some of them after they had killed Jews and sending them on to the operation.

gez. Strauch
SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer

Comment: That pamphlet is a ridiculous attempt of some intellectually underpriviliged fraudster to sound like a German. If those texts are taken as authentic it is completely unnecessary to discuss "euphemisms". Somebody using concealed meanings of words and sentences must not make silly mistakes in German grammar and terminology. If the root sentence already is wrong and misleading, how can anybody extract any "concealed" message, which then also is wrong, misleading, has a double or triple meaning, in short: not usable as coded military message.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.

Your ignorance of historical sources is nowhere more clearly on display than in these final remarks. Firstly, the document comes from a very fat file of orders, reports, documents and personal diary notations of KdS Weissruthenien covering the period from late 1942 to spring 1944. It contains hundreds of pages of documents. It is in fact the file of Hstuf Wilke whose diary is to be found inside. There are countless other deployment orders of KdS Weissruthenien and this one fits perfectly well with how the others are presented.

Secondly, you were already told that there are two other documents relating to the Slutsk ghetto liquidation. The first is Wilke's diary, which is handwritten and clearly the product of a German. The second is one of the Meldungen aus den besetzten Ostgebieten, a serial report compiled from field reports of the Sicherheitspolizei commands in the occupied eastern territories by RSHA Amt IV officials. Both of these documents make it perfectly clear that the Jews of Slutsk were killed in a mass execution; indeed there was a degree of resistance which stalled the action for a time according to Wilke's diary.

Thirdly, your nitpicking with language was a general failure. On several occasions you dogmatically insisted that something 'must' be written a certain way when this is far from guaranteed; on other occasions you overlooked the possibility of transcription errors or simple grammatical mistakes (in some cases this would have been very easy for even native speakers to do)

I cannot be bothered to dig out the original to check to see which were my errors and which might have been in the original, for the simple reason that one cannot assume that spelling/grammar errors are indicators of forgery by non-native speakers, which is your implied argument, and which is a standard denier cliche. Not only do real native speakers make frequent mistakes, the Nazideutsch of the era was pretty bad as a whole, as can be seen in many other sources of a non-incriminating nature. Errors actually make a document more authentic, not less.

Third, there is also no plausible motive for anyone to have forged this. The massacre at Slutsk was already proven by the Meldungen aus den besetzten Ostgebieten report; it was further proven by the Wilke diary which is handwritten and very detailed - to the point where this source couldn't have been forged.

The names of the SS men conform to the known personnel rosters of KdS Weissruthenien as seen in multiple other sources, including the other Einsatzbefehle in the same file, the SS officer files of the named officers, as well as two RSHA listings of officers assigned to the Einsatzgruppen/Befehlshaber der Sicherheitspolizei in the east.

Fourth you failed utterly to refute the point under discussion, which was that Nazis used euphemisms. As multiple posters have observed, militaries and paramilitaries use euphemisms, figurative language and circumlocutions all the time. Expecting that the Nazis wouldn't use such things is completely cuckoo.
Moreover, there are many examples of Nazi circumlocutions, euphemisms and similar quirks, not just one example.

Finally: this has been a great example of how interpreting historical sources demands considerably more time and effort than you have hitherto put in to the task. In order to understand this one document, you need to comprehend things like filing practices within historical institutions such as an SS officer in command of an Aussendienststelle, archiving practices, the organisation of the relevant unit, and the linguistic practices of the institution in question (i.e. the RSHA-Sicherheitspolizei), which extend to how the institution designated people and things, the abbreviations used, and also the times when the institution might lapse into figurative or circumlocutory language This requires that more than a single source is read, in fact it requires that many, many files are read. In the process, through reading many files, very often one encounters other sources on the same event or phenomenon, and can as a result build up the knowledge to understand the source one started with, and to confirm that one's initial intepretation was correct, while also eliminating silly conspiracy theories such as forgery allegations in the process.

The main lesson is: never think that you can interpret a document in isolation. This order can be found in a file of hundreds of pages, mostly about antipartisan warfare. And we know from multiple other contemporary sources not in that file that the Nazis in this region used the occasion of antipartisan operations to massacre Jews. We in turn know from multiple other contemporary sources that the Nazis were happy to discuss Jew-killing in this region and gave each other estimates of how many died in different phases, alongside the 'neater' filed reports of bodycounts and actions.

If you want to try and find a loose thread to unravel the sweater, then start with the 1400 page book by Christian Gerlach entitled Kalkulierte Morde, which covers not only the Holocaust in Belorussia but also antipartisan warfare, the starvation and murder of Soviet POWs, organisational matters and economic policy. This will allow you the chance to see how many sources there are and how many archives hold relevant collections (answer: more than 50 different archives).

 

[Nick Terry]

Good examples. Euphemisms are used in a military context all the time. So much so that they become part of the standard language. There's no reason to believe the German military would be any different. If the Nazis used the phrase "special action" or "resettlement in the East" in the context of the Jews and everytime these phrases were used, the Jews were killed it is pretty obvious what those phrasses mean. If the Jews were not always killed when these phrases were used or if those phrases were used in documents related to non-Jews or when the religion was ambiguous, then it's obvious that those phrases don't always refer to extermination. Euphemisms will work when the context makes it clear what the euphemism means and when the euphemism used out of context it doesn't make any sense. The example of "friendly fire" doesn't always mean that an error was made in aiming. It doesn't always mean that your own troops were misidentified as enemy troops. It doesn't always mean bombs or bullets. But if a soldier was killed "by friendly fire" it always means he was killed by his own men. So the question to ask here is are there examples of German documents that use the phrase "special action" where death did not result?

Circumlocutions and euphemisms don't need to have universal currency to be comprehensible. They can be quite locally specific to subunits or departments.

Other institutions could and did use the term 'Sonderaktion' to refer to relatively peaceful operations; the question is what it meant within the Kommandanturstab of KL Auschwitz. There it clearly referred to the whole process of receiving an incoming transport, selecting them and killing the unfit portion in gas chambers. This we know from multiple other sources.

Within the little niche of Auschwitz, all that was needed was to use a term that was commonly understood by the relevant staff to mean what it meant.

The fact that the term was used unmodified by any qualifier is one clue as to how it functioned. Because you can also sometimes find it used with a qualifier. In one document, an arrest action aimed at civilian workers employed at KL Auschwitz was described as a 'Sonderaktion der Gestapo'. This shows the importance of context: the Gestapo in the vicinity (Staatspolizeileitstelle Kattowitz) who had jurisdiction over the civilian worker camps in the town of Auschwitz were not equipped at this time with gas chambers or gas vans.

The fact that this Sonderaktion was qualified with 'of the Gestapo' was necessary to distinguish it from other Sonderaktionen, otherwise the correspondents inside the Zentralbauleitung of KL Auschwitz and WVHA might have thought that their labour force had just been liquidated. By adding 'of the Gestapo' and by using arrest then the officials of the ZBL and WVHA knew that it was only a matter of arrests, and could if necessary appeal for the release of specialist workers if it turned out that the Gestapo had taken away key workers. In fact the bigger problem in the document was a typhus epidemic preventing the workforce from completing the crematoria.

By contrast, when another ZBL official wrote about 'Badeanstalten fuer Sonderaktionen' in a report of a meeting in August 1942 about ordering extra crematoria, the context makes it clear what was meant were the first gas chambers, the so-called Bunkers. The designation as 'Badeanstalten' (bathing facilities) was virtually unique to the document, a one off euphemism; Sonderaktion and Sonderaktionen appear in other documents where the context makes it clear that the writers were using the term to euphemise the selection-extermination process.

These terms meant something to their writers at the time; for posterity it's a matter of contrasting them with other sources to confirm this understanding. In this particular case, there were no 'Badeanstalten' that could have been associated with crematoria in August 1942 at Auschwitz. The eventual siting of the crematoria in question points in the direction of the so-called Bunkers.

Those gas chambers were completely euphemised and appear under a variety of guises: they were technically known as Sonderkommando I and II, they were not built by the ZBL but had been constructed by the main Kommandanturstab; but they needed barracks for undressing, which were given a building code and are identified as 'Baracken fuer Sonderbehandlung' in multiple documents. The barracks were not the sites of special treatment (they were not used for gassings), but they were for 'the' special treatment as it were.

The one euphemism that became nearly universally understood to mean killing was Sonderbehandlung. This was used by the RSHA from September 1939 onwards to refer to an extrajudicial execution. In the autumn of 1939, another agency, a suboffice of the Party Chancellery, used Sonderbehandlung in the sense of preferential treatment, but the RSHA use of the term had not spread universally at this time.

Because the RSHA used the term so frequently, it caught on with the future WVHA in the KZ system, and spread to Nazi civilian administrations as well as the Wehrmacht, over 1941-1945. Within the SS, it clearly meant extrajudicial execution, method irrelevant.

Thus, when we find documents from Auschwitz referring not only to Baracken fuer Sonderbehandlung, but also an order for extra Zyklon B billed as Material fuer Sonderbehandlung, this is very strong evidence that killing was going on.

Other terms could be used flexibly - a Sonderkommando did not have to have a killing function, a Sonderaktion could involve impressing Russian civilian labour - but Sonderbehandlung was used almost exclusively to refer to killing.

Thus, when witnesses come forward and say that the facilities were used for killing, this confirms the contextual interpretation of the documents, and in turn the documents confirm the witnesses.

One cannot interpret the documents independently from the witnesses because history, law and journalism don't interpret source types independently of each other: they interpret the totality of the evidence which is put on the plate.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Yes, you did. In response to my point about Jewish resistance. In other words, you contrasted "perform productive labour" with "resist". Of course, there's plenty of evidence to show both were present.

Even referring to your labour claim, I still pointed out that you were basing your claims that it was impossible on nothing more than your personal incredulity. What, pray tell, do you think the Jews should've done? Resist, as you've claimed before? They did that. Do nothing? Wouldn't passive resistance also lead to punishment? Were they physically incapable of working? Then the implied question of choice is irrelevant, isn't it?

What position are you advancing?What do you think they would they have done instead of "productive work"?

Also, you're still wrong about Wiesel.

Personal incredulity? No. Just common sense. The inmates were more like trustees than prisoners.

You're saying Wiesel's tattoo is real? You're saying Wiesel's tattoo is real is not a fabrication?

FYI The above average education of the Jewish inmates would make them more sensitive to the alleged brutality against Jewish children, women and men in their midst. If they had to walk on egg shells as you insist they would never had the initiative needed to perform productive labor. It's called the stick and the carrot.

 

[000063]

Personal incredulity? No. Just common sense. The inmates were more like trustees than prisoners.

A prisoner can be both. How much productive labour can a "trustee" perform when they're on a starvation diet, pray tell?

You're saying Wiesel's tattoo is real? You're saying Wiesel's tattoo is real is not a fabrication?

I was referring to your claim that Wiesel and his dad chose to go with the Nazis, when he claims they were forced to at gunpoint. I said nothing and have no opinion on any tattoo.

FYI The above average education of the Jewish inmates would make them more sensitive to the alleged brutality against Jewish children, women and men in their midst.

What are you talking about? One's ability to empathize with others is dependent on one's education level? Poppycock.

If they had to walk on egg shells as you insist

I've pointed out there was Jewish resistance several times.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9652498#post9652498

Yes, they had to they would never had the initiative needed to perform productive labor.

Did you forget to type part of that sentence? Because those two sentence don't actually seem to be sequential points. How would heightened empathy lead to lack of initiative?

It's called the stick and the carrot.

"Initiative"? What on earth are you talking about? "Do what we say or we'll kill/punish you" is pretty much just the stick, and has historically proven to be rather effective in a variety of situations. We discusses this extensively around page 167 or so.

Why didn't you answer even a single one of my questions? I asked you, what do you think the Jews would've done, if the story was real, once they heard about the injustices? Just become more sensitive? Were you trying to say that the Nazis would've walked on eggshells? For the people they have at gunpoint?

 

[Mondial]

Personal incredulity? No. Just common sense. The inmates were more like trustees than prisoners.

You're saying Wiesel's tattoo is real? You're saying Wiesel's tattoo is real is not a fabrication?

FYI The above average education of the Jewish inmates would make them more sensitive to the alleged brutality against Jewish children, women and men in their midst. If they had to walk on egg shells as you insist they would never had the initiative needed to perform productive labor. It's called the stick and the carrot.

Elie Wiesel is above criticism by the media because he is presented as some kind of saint of holocaustianity. But all they have to do is ask a few hard questions and his whole story will fall apart like a house of cards -
www.eliewieseltattoo.com
www.ihr.org/leaflets/wiesel.shtml
It was the same with Simon Wiesenthal. Only after his death did articles appear criticising him even though information such as this article linked to had been written years before -
www.ihr.org/leaflets/wiesenthal.shtml

 

[Mondial]

David Cole is now more determined than ever before to present his case as to why he became a holocaust revisionist. His new website is up and running -
www.countercontempt.com
For those who are not familiar with his story David Cole is a holocaust revisionist who happens to be a Jew. He started out back in 1992 by making this documentary on Auschwitz -
http://codoh.com/library/document/1001

 

[Dash80]

David Cole is now more determined than ever before to present his case as to why he became a holocaust revisionist. His new website is up and running -
www.countercontempt.com
For those who are not familiar with his story David Cole is a holocaust revisionist who happens to be a Jew. He started out back in 1992 by making this documentary on Auschwitz -
http://codoh.com/library/document/1001

So a Jewish holocaust denier has credibility but Jewish holocaust survivors are just lying filth?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

David Cole is now more determined than ever before to present his case as to why he became a holocaust revisionist. His new website is up and running -
www.countercontempt.com

"By 21 years of age, he was universally condemned as the “Jewish Holocaust denier,” even though he never denied the Holocaust

I see. So do you now agree with David Stein that there was a holocaust or did you forget to read the link first?

 

[CaptainHowdy]

"By 21 years of age, he was universally condemned as the “Jewish Holocaust denier,” even though he never denied the Holocaust

I see. So do you now agree with David Stein that there was a holocaust or did you forget to read the link first?

I read the link. Do you believe that David Cole/Stein never denied the Holocaust?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I read the link. Do you believe that David Cole/Stein never denied the Holocaust?

Of course he denied the holocaust. You can read all his early holocaust denial quotes in the internet. Didn't you look first?

"I feel even more secure in my position as a Revisionist that there exists no convincing evidence that Jews or anyone else were taken EN MASSE into gas chambers and killed by the Nazis"

David Cole 1992.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Of course he denied the holocaust. You can read all his early holocaust denial quotes in the internet. Didn't you look first?

"I feel even more secure in my position as a Revisionist that there exists no convincing evidence that Jews or anyone else were taken EN MASSE into gas chambers and killed by the Nazis"

David Cole 1992.

Then why did you ask Mondial if he agreed with David Cole/Stein that there was a Holocaust if you believe David Cole/Stein in fact said that there was not a Holocaust?

 

[Mycroft]

Then why did you ask Mondial if he agreed with David Cole/Stein that there was a Holocaust if you believe David Cole/Stein in fact said that there was not a Holocaust?

Because what David Cole/Stein does and what he says he does may be two different things. he did deny the Holocaust, that's how he got on TV and everyone said he was a weird creep. He also claims to have not denied the Holocaust, which is refuted by the words Matthew Ellard quoted.

It's not terribly unusual for deniers to make claims about their own arguments that are patently untrue, nor is it unusual for them to quote a source that seems to support one part of their belief that also contradicts another part of their belief, all while seeing no need to reconcile them.