> You can argue about the semantics (i.e., death camps versus concentration camps) Saying that the difference between death camps versus concentration camps is

> You can argue about the semantics (i.e., death camps versus concentration camps) Saying that the difference between death camps versus concentration camps is "semantics" is extremely problematic point of view. This is like arguing that the difference between an electric car and an electric chair is "semantics", since both "use electricity". It completely misses the intent. The Khmer Rouge, for example, murdered about two million of their own population, from 1975 to 1979, with 60% of them by direct execution, over a vast territory — places known today as "killing fields" (mass graves which today are a morbid place of remembrance). Compare that to Treblinka, where the Nazis managed to murder about one million, in about one year, and all that in an area of two football fields — while leaving almost no traces. So, the Nazis were about 4 times more "effective" with regards to rate, thousands of times more "effective" with regards to area, and indefinitely more "effective" with regards to not leaving traces. This is because Treblinka was built by using the Nazi industrial complex, as a modern factory, but instead of producing as much stuff as possible in the most effective way, they have planned and built it to murder (and burn) as many people as possible in the most effective way. The intent is what differentiates the concentration camps (basically, a prison, and a very terrible one!) and the extermination camp (basically, industrial complex for killing people).