>>82767639
>Because then whoever found it without being involved in the process would have no idea what you're talking about. How were they so incompetent that they wrote their secret murder plans down and then left them laying around for people to find when they fled?
Many of the documents we have are explicitly made in the way you describe. This is why, in their speeches, for example, they never outright referenced the killing of the jews, just their "deportation", "processing", "cleansing", and every other euphemism you can think of.
Congratulations, on your very own, you have made the argument that historians make when analyzing these topics.
Usually, neo-nazis use the lack of the explicit word "killed", as proof that "there was no killing". Instead, you just made the argument that Holocaust scholars themselves use, as it is obvious what those euphemisms are referring to in context.
Congratulations, anon. You just agreed with Holocaust historical analysis.
Some documents do say things like "shot" or reference killing, again, these were encrypted, thus could be later edited to remove any use of those words. But the British had broken their code, Nazi Germany didn't know about that, so they kept running things as they had been doing.
There is even an anecdotal witness testimony of an SS officer who knce mentioned the camps in a phone call to Hitler's secretary, the latter then flew into a rage chastising the soldier because they weren't supposed to reference such things through the phone, where they lacked the proper security.
