Mattogno's "Special Treatment"

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 32074
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Mattogno's "Special Treatment"

Post by Nessie »

Werd wrote:
Thu Mar 25, 2021 7:25 pm
Nessie wrote:
Thu Mar 25, 2021 6:35 pm
The argument that because the word "special" was used in relation to non-homicidal purposes, does not therefore mean its use in relation to the Kremas is non-homicidal.
It's a hell of a leap to claim they kept the language but changed the semantics. :lol:
Why? The word special in conjunction with needs, is commonly used for adults with learning difficulties. It is also used to signify someone very talented who is, for example, rather special at playing a musical instrument. It is one of those words with numerous applications and meanings;

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... sh/special
the Franke-Gricksch Report, which is specific about the murdering of Jews in gas chambers;

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... on-of.html

"The so called “resettlement action” for the Jews proceeds as follows...The unfit go to a biggish house, into the basement rooms....arrive in a big basement room that resembles a shower room. In this room, there are three big pillars. Into these it is possible from above, outside the basement, to lower certain products. After 300 to 400 people have gathered in this room, the doors are closed and from above the containers with the products are lowered into the pillars. When the containers reach the floor of the pillars, they produce certain substances that put the people to sleep in one minute."

It is rather odd using a report that admits to gassings as evidence of no mass gassings!
Who wrote this document? When? Authentic letterheads or not? Certified true copy of an original? All these questions.[/quote]

Mattogno is happy enough to use it;

viewtopic.php?p=183614#p183614

He argues that since "special" was used in relation to AR and the seizing of property, it does not therefore mean gassings when used about an action in the Kremas, which is clearly a non sequitur.
Let's see what HC has to say:
The US historian Charles W. Sydnor wrote in the postscript of Soldiers of Destruction: The SS Death's Head Division, 1933-1945:
"The Franke-Gricksch Memorandum, entitled "Umsiedlungsaktion der Juden" and originally discovered by this author in 1976, is a verbatim typed copy, in German, made from one of the carbon copies of the original at the time the carbon was first found, in the autumn of 1945, by a documents analyst of the U.S. Army, assisting in the process of assembling and evaluating materials for possible use as evidence in the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials. The carbon copy has never been relocated, and quite possibly is still buried in the mass of unindexed Nuremberg trial materials. The original of the Frank-Gricksch Memorandum, written for and submitted to the chief of the SS Personnel Office, Maximilien von Herff, has never been found.
The typed copy made from the carbon, found by this writer in a collection of private papers, was given along with the entire collection to the Tauber Institute at Brandeis University and is now deposited there."
The document analyst who located the report after the war was Eric M. Lipman of the U.S. Third Army, who typed a crude copy of the document (Figure 1). His copy included some English words ("had" instead of "hat", "and" instead of "an") and typos ("vörübergehend" instead of "vorübergehend"). Jean-Claude Pressac noted in his analysis of the Franke-Gricksch report that Lipman "seems to remember finding the carbon copy of the original report among a set of documents in a place he cannot recall exactly, somewhere in Bavaria".
Laughable! Given what codoh has written about it I may have to do a rodoh topic about it soon. It's another useless piece of "evidence."
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?p=100063#p100063
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13756
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=8872
and
https://archive.is/MyD5q
Then you will admit Mattogno is wrong to use it here;

Image

That further rubbishes his argument that just because special is used to mean something other than gassings elsewhere, does not mean therefore it does not mean homicidal gassings inside the Kremas.
The documents evidence gas chambers, a special action involving Jews and mass cremations inside the Kremas.
Clearly not.
Plenty of examples of "special" having non homicidal contexts within Kremas.

Special basements = corpse cellars. Nothing more.
viewtopic.php?p=183693#p183693

Nessie once tried to say that erecting horse stable barracks for special treatment was code for homicide. I showed otherwise.
viewtopic.php?p=184142#p184142

The special cellars were literally corpse cellars with an air exchange/ventilation system.
viewtopic.php?p=184575#p184575

The doors and windows were meaningless and already refuted.
viewtopic.php?p=184065#p184065
viewtopic.php?p=183691#p183691
Links to links to pages with no analysis from you beyond a sentence of shouting in bold. Instead, a blind acceptance Mattogno is correct, but you cannot explain why :lol:
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

SUPPORT RODOH!
Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH? Please kindly contact Scott Smith ([email protected]). Any and all contributions are welcome!


Werd
Posts: 11011
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Mattogno's "Special Treatment"

Post by Werd »

Nessie wrote:
Thu Mar 25, 2021 7:54 pm
Then you will admit Mattogno is wrong to use it here;

Image
It says the special unit deals with Jewish property.So if Mattogno removes this one piece of questionable evidence of transporting Jews east, what does that do for like the other 3 or 4 I already showed from the archive of the Central Construction Office of Aushwitz (RGVA archive in Russia), that they are storing and disinfecting Jewish personal effects? NOTHING! :lol:

Interesting that you've just confirmed you're reading the Mattogno pages I post. Therefore you have no excuse to pretend to not know what's on there is in fact Mattogno's arguments that are superior to Pressac's in terms of what is NOT a criminal trace.
Links to links to pages with no analysis from you
I never said it was mine. And it doesn't have to be for reasons already explained. You and the forum readers can read English. So you know what Mattogno means and says.

I love how the goal posts have shifted.

First it was special treatment and special action are codes for murder and documents prove it. Turns out there are examples where it wasn't.

Then it became, ST and SA mean murder when talking about kremas. Then I showed plenty of examples where it wasn't, along with examples of harmless doors and windows in Krema II here.

Now it has become oh well those are Mattogno's words that quote LONG OR ENTIRE extracts from the documents and not yours.

:roll:

Nessie truly has nowhere to go. That's why he takes the goal posts with him.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 32074
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Mattogno's "Special Treatment"

Post by Nessie »

Werd wrote:
Thu Mar 25, 2021 8:11 pm
Nessie wrote:
Thu Mar 25, 2021 7:54 pm
Then you will admit Mattogno is wrong to use it here;

Image
So if Mattogno removes this one piece of evidence of transporting Jews east, what does that do for like the other 15-20 that he has? :lol:
The same argument applies. If it is not to do directly with what was happening at the Kremas, then it is not necessarily relevant. Your OP starts with a claim about Building BW5a&b, which is not relevant to the Kremas. Just because gas doors were used there for delousing, does not mean they were used in the Kremas for delousing. The form of argument used is flawed.
Interesting that you've just confirmed you're reading the Mattogno pages I post. Therefore you have no excuse to pretend to not know what's on there is in fact Mattogno's arguments that are superior to Pressac's in terms of what is NOT a criminal trace.
Pressac and Mattogno disagree about what various documents mean and their context. Please explain in your own words why Mattogno's arguments are superior to the way historians have proved what happened inside the Kremas, with evidence from the Kremas.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

Werd
Posts: 11011
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Mattogno's "Special Treatment"

Post by Werd »

Nessie wrote:
Thu Mar 25, 2021 8:17 pm
Just because gas doors were used there for delousing, does not mean they were used in the Kremas for delousing. The form of argument used is flawed.
Good thing that's only a strawman you're arguing against. I'm saying that doors and windows for Krema II are not for anything homicidal because of the documentary traces.
viewtopic.php?p=184065#p184065
viewtopic.php?p=183691#p183691
Pressac and Mattogno disagree about what various documents mean and their context.
Mattogno uses 6 other documents per criminal trace that Pressac either never found or just ignored.
Please explain in your own words why Mattogno's arguments are superior to the way historians have proved what happened inside the Kremas, with evidence from the Kremas.
It's all in the documents that Mattogno quoted and the words he wrote around his quotations. Interesting that you've just confirmed you're reading the Mattogno pages I post. Therefore you have no excuse to pretend to not know what's on there is in fact Mattogno's arguments that are superior to Pressac's in terms of what is NOT a criminal trace.
Nessie wrote:
Thu Mar 25, 2021 6:35 pm
The documents evidence gas chambers, a special action involving Jews and mass cremations inside the Kremas.
Clearly not.
Plenty of examples of "special" having non homicidal contexts within Kremas.

Special basements = corpse cellars. Nothing more.
viewtopic.php?p=183693#p183693

Nessie once tried to say that erecting horse stable barracks for special treatment was code for homicide. I showed otherwise.
viewtopic.php?p=184142#p184142

The special cellars were literally corpse cellars with an air exchange/ventilation system.
viewtopic.php?p=184575#p184575

The doors and windows were meaningless and already refuted.
viewtopic.php?p=184065#p184065
viewtopic.php?p=183691#p183691

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 32074
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Mattogno's "Special Treatment"

Post by Nessie »

Werd wrote:
Thu Mar 25, 2021 8:28 pm
Nessie wrote:
Thu Mar 25, 2021 8:17 pm
Just because gas doors were used there for delousing, does not mean they were used in the Kremas for delousing. The form of argument used is flawed.
Good thing that's only a strawman you're arguing against. I'm saying that doors and windows for Krema II are not for anything homicidal because of the documentary traces.
viewtopic.php?p=184065#p184065
viewtopic.php?p=183691#p183691
What do you mean by "the documentary traces"? Be specific, give examples using documents.
Pressac and Mattogno disagree about what various documents mean and their context.
Mattogno uses 6 other documents per criminal trace that Pressac either never found or just ignored.
Give me an example where Mattogno actually found 6 documents to Pressac's 1 and show the documents.
Please explain in your own words why Mattogno's arguments are superior to the way historians have proved what happened inside the Kremas, with evidence from the Kremas.
It's all in the documents that Mattogno quoted and the words he wrote around his quotations.
I am asking you to explain in your words how Mattogno's argument works.
Interesting that you've just confirmed you're reading the Mattogno pages I post. Therefore you have no excuse to pretend to not know what's on there is in fact Mattogno's arguments that are superior to Pressac's in terms of what is NOT a criminal trace.
I say his arguments are not superior, because he uses the faulty argument that because "special" was used to mean non homicidal actions, therefore it only ever meant that. Pressac realised that when all of the evidence is considered, the only logical conclusion is that "special" in the Kremas meant homicidal gassings. Historians, using their methodology of corroborating and converging evidence also concluded homicidal gassings were proved.

You have been unable to explain why Mattogno is correct and the rest are all wrong.
Nessie wrote:
Thu Mar 25, 2021 6:35 pm
The documents evidence gas chambers, a special action involving Jews and mass cremations inside the Kremas.
Clearly not.
Plenty of examples of "special" having non homicidal contexts within Kremas.
You link to and quote one such document and in your own words, you explain how that document evidences something non-homicidal taking place inside the Kremas.
Special basements = corpse cellars. Nothing more.
viewtopic.php?p=183693#p183693

Nessie once tried to say that erecting horse stable barracks for special treatment was code for homicide. I showed otherwise.
viewtopic.php?p=184142#p184142

The special cellars were literally corpse cellars with an air exchange/ventilation system.
viewtopic.php?p=184575#p184575

The doors and windows were meaningless and already refuted.
viewtopic.php?p=184065#p184065
viewtopic.php?p=183691#p183691
So, why are you unable to use your own words to explain how documents that include references to gas chambers/cellars, special actions involving Jews and mass cremations taking place inside the Kremas in 1943-4, prove people were showered, their clothing deloused and then they left the camp? Why do you just link back to Mattogno? If you understood him, you would be able to explain him.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

Werd
Posts: 11011
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Mattogno's "Special Treatment"

Post by Werd »

Nessie wrote:
Thu Mar 25, 2021 8:46 pm
What do you mean by "the documentary traces"? Be specific, give examples using documents.
Nessie doesn't know how to click links and read English. Sorry. Not buying. :lol:
Give me an example where Mattogno actually found 6 documents to Pressac's 1 and show the documents.
Start at the beginning of this topic and read the whole thing. Or if you want a short version, here's an example.

Mattogno obliterates Pressac's "criminal traces"
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3716
I dare you to show me any mistakes Mattogno made. As I said long ago in that topic
Nessie can't cite a paragraph, much less a page number to show where Mattogno went wrong. I suspect he is most angry at sections 5.7 (since that dealt with the March 29 document he is so fond of as seen in my OP above), 4.3 and 4.4 :D
I am asking you to explain in your words how Mattogno's argument works.
Please repeat yourself and extend this topic artificially so others will get bored, or see the huge amount of page numbers, and just not bother on account of the sheer extra volume that I demand you create pointlessly.
Interesting that you've just confirmed you're reading the Mattogno pages I post. Therefore you have no excuse to pretend to not know what's on there is in fact Mattogno's arguments that are superior to Pressac's in terms of what is NOT a criminal trace.
because he uses the faulty argument that because "special" was used to mean non homicidal actions, therefore it only ever meant that.
Strawman again. Mattogno doesn't use documents about for example horse stable barracks or BW 5a and 5B to claim that there is no humans killed in the kremas. HE USES MORE DOCUMENTS ABOUT KREMAS AFTER THE DOCUMENTS ABOUT KREMAS PRESSAC SELECTED. You know this and are just wasting time lying now.

After moving the goal posts so many times as I illustrated here:
Werd wrote:
Thu Mar 25, 2021 8:11 pm
I love how the goal posts have shifted.

First it was special treatment and special action are codes for murder and documents prove it. Turns out there are examples where it wasn't.

Then it became, ST and SA mean murder when talking about kremas. Then I showed plenty of examples where it wasn't, along with examples of harmless doors and windows in Krema II here.

Now it has become oh well those are Mattogno's words that quote LONG OR ENTIRE extracts from the documents and not yours.

:roll:

Nessie truly has nowhere to go. That's why he takes the goal posts with him.
you are now wanting to waste time in meta-debates. Sorry. Not happening. This is not about getting a lying troll like you to face the truth about the non criminal side of these "criminal" traces. This is about showing rodoh how Mattogno is right and you and HC have their heads up their asses.
Why do you just link back to Mattogno? If you understood him, you would be able to explain him.
Non sequitor. I just get right to the meat of the bones. Mattogno is the one who spent all the time in the archives and quotes documents AT LENGTH, not just one stupid out of context line like HC. His work is superior. It doesn't need me to speak for it, fool.

Go ahead have the last post. People can see how full of shit you are. This topic has run its course. You tried to hard to find criminal meanings in documents about kremas with doors, windows, and special cellars. Turns out, it was all nothing. :D

Turnagain
Posts: 10638
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Mattogno's "Special Treatment"

Post by Turnagain »

Nessie is an expert at moving goal posts and exercising double standards.

Werd
Posts: 11011
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Mattogno's "Special Treatment"

Post by Werd »

It used to be special treatment or action was always code.
Then it was sometimes code.
Then showers and doors and special cellars were code.
Then it turns out they were not after all; hence no corroboration with lie-witnesses.
Then it was Nessie reading English translations of Mattogno and fully comprehending it (just like me) to point out Mattogno quotes Franke-Gricksch.
Now it's that I don't understand Mattogno in English at all nor can I read and comprehend the documents he quotes in English.

The goal posts just keep moving. It's hilarious.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 32074
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Mattogno's "Special Treatment"

Post by Nessie »

Werd wrote:
Fri Mar 26, 2021 2:31 am
Nessie wrote:
Thu Mar 25, 2021 8:46 pm
What do you mean by "the documentary traces"? Be specific, give examples using documents.
Nessie doesn't know how to click links and read English. Sorry. Not buying. :lol:
....
I see documents. Each document is potential evidence. What it evidences can only be established by looking for other evidence that is directly related to that document. So, if the document references a Krema, it is connected to Kremas and we look for other evidence relating to Kremas, such as other documents and people who worked there. That is corroboration and convergence of evidence. You claim that it is begging the question and it is wrong.

So what do you mean by "documentary traces"? Be specific, give examples using documents.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 32074
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Mattogno's "Special Treatment"

Post by Nessie »

Werd wrote:
Fri Mar 26, 2021 2:31 am
Nessie wrote:
Thu Mar 25, 2021 8:46 pm
...
Give me an example where Mattogno actually found 6 documents to Pressac's 1 and show the documents.
Start at the beginning of this topic and read the whole thing. Or if you want a short version, here's an example.

Mattogno obliterates Pressac's "criminal traces"
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3716
....
That links just goes to pages you have copied out of his book. Show me one specific document that Pressac uses and then six specific documents that Mattogno uses to refute Pressac's claim. Failure to do so will be considered you backing down and the 6 to 1 claim being a lie.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests