Line Line
Jun
17
2010

The “Special Treatment” of Registered Auschwitz Inmates

Print This Post Print This Post

By Carlo Mattogno

In a discussion of my study Special Treatment in Auschwitz. Origin and Meaning of a Term (Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago 2004), Holocaust blogger Sergey Romanov puts forth the following critique:

«Mattogno discusses lots of Auschwitz documents which contain the code words, and an unsuspecting reader might be duped into believing that Mattogno really did discuss (and rip to shreds) all the Auschwitz-related documentary evidence containing the code words. However, Mattogno deceptively omits the most crucial source on the use of the code word»

He concludes:

«Therefore, by omitting any mention of these prominent documents Carlo Mattogno has engaged in a gross and unforgivable deception. We hope to treat Mattogno’s other arguments from this and other books in the future, but it has already been established that one cannot rely on him to present the evidence fairly».[1]


If there is anyone who is “deceptive” here it is Sergey Romanov. In the abovementioned book I not only have never claimed to have considered «all the Auschwitz-related documentary evidence containing the code words», but I explicitly stated otherwise. In footnote 18 on pp. 11-12 I alert the reader:

«Likewise, a systematic treatment of all registered prisoners who were subjected to a “special treatment” would amount to an extensive analysis of the current claims of gassing as well as of the fates of various groups of prisoners, which would exceed the bounds of this investigation. […]. In addition, a comprehensive study on this subject in preparation».

Therefore, by omitting any mention of this notification, Sergey Romanov has engaged in a gross and unforgivable deception, thus confirming once again his true nature, which has already been abundantly demonstrated in my book Olocausto: dilettanti nel web (Effepi, Genoa 2005).

The announced study, one of the most difficult I have undertaken, has now finally been published. Its title is Auschwitz: assistenza sanitaria, “selezione” e “Sonderbehandlung” dei detenuti immatricolati (Auschwitz: sanitary service, “selections” and “special treatment” of registered inmates) and it consists of 333 pages (sized 17 x 24) with 60 documents, many virtually unknown to specialists.

The table of contents below clearly shows the structure of study, so I will limit myself to presenting the conclusion. Here should only be noted that Chapter 4 contains detailed statistics on the number of prisoners unfit for work and unemployable, the stationary ill and invalids (!) who were constantly present in the hospitals of Auschwitz-Birkenau, which were established in accordance with the directive of the SS-WVHA of June 24, 1942. In Chapter 7 I have further devoted 28 pages to analyzing the documents which, according to Sergey Romanov, I ”omitted” from my previous book.

Here follows the conclusion:

«The thesis that at the hospitals of the Auschwitz camp complex registered inmates who due to illness had become unfit for work were selected to be sent to the alleged gas chambers has no documentary basis. On the contrary, documents show that at Auschwitz the SS always tried to improve, wherever possible, the living conditions and health of the inmates by establishing hospitals for the sick in which, inter alia, thousands of surgeries were performed. Some sick detainees were even transferred to other camps in order to receive a more appropriate care.

The plans – fully documented but implemented only in part due to undetermined reasons – for a huge camp hospital in Birkenau Bauabschnitt III, originally revealed by Pressac, blatantly contradicts the claims of mass extermination and demonstrates that the SS policy toward inmates unfit for work was not one of killing, but of medical treatment.

An analysis of the alleged selections of registered inmates for the gas chambers as listed by Danuta Czech shows that none of them has any historical documentary basis; rather they are often flatly contradicted by the documents. In fact, they are all based on not only the mere speculation of witnesses, but above all on unheard-of manipulations which reveal the true nature of the Auschwitz “Kalendarium” as not an historical and historiographical instrument enabling us to understand the events, but a propaganda tool for their systematic distortion».

Table of Contents:

PART ONE – THE INMATES

CHAPTER 1 – THE LIVING CONDITIONS OF THE INMATES
1.1 Provisions related to the improvement of the inmate living conditions
1.2. The selection of prisoners upon arrival
1.3. Treatment of inmates according to concentration camp regulations
1.4. Punishments
1.5. Premiums for productivity
1.6. The postal service
1.7. Food
1.8. Releases and the “Arbeitserziehungslager Birkenau”

CHAPTER 2 – THE INMATE HOSPITAL (HÄFTLINGSKRANKENBAU)
2.1. Measures taken by the SS-Standortarzt and the SS-Lagerärzte for safeguarding the health of the inmates
2.2. Reports on the medical treatment of inmates
2.3. The medical registry of the Häftlingskrankenbau
2.4. The inmate hospital in the camp Auschwitz III-Monowitz
2.5. The projected circulating air delousing facilities (Umluft-Entwesungsanlagen) for the sick inmates of Birkenau Bauabschnitt II

CHAPTER 3 – THE HÄFTLINGSLAZARETT IN BIRKENAU BAUABSCHNITT III
3.1. The discovery of Jean-Claude Pressac
3.2. Origin and implementation of the project for a camp hospital in Birkenau Bauabschnitt III

CHAPTER 4 – THE FATE OF THE REGISTERED INMATES UNFIT FOR WORK
4.1. The treatment of registered inmates unfit for work
4.2. Statistics on the sick in the Quarantänelager
4.3. Registration and transfer of sick inmates

PART TWO – THE “SELECTIONS” OF SICK INMATES FOR THE “GAS CHAMBERS”: A HISTORICAL DOCUMENTARY ANALYSIS

CHAPTER 5 – THE “SELECTION” OF SICK INMATES FOR THE “GAS CHAMBERS” ACCORDING TO THE AUSCHWITZ “KALENDARIUM”: THE MINOR “SELECTIONS”
5.1. “Sonderbehandlung 14 f 13” and the origin of the “selections” at Auschwitz
5.2. The death certificates of the “selected”
5.3. “Sonderbehandlung 14 f 13” and the “phenol injections” at Auschwitz
5.4. THE “SELECTIONS” IN THE “KALENDARIUM” OF DANUTA CZECH
5.5. THE “SELECTIONS” IN 1941: THE “FIRST GASSING”
5.6. THE “SELECTIONS” IN 1942
5.6.1. The “selection” of 11 June 1942
5.6.2. The “selection” of 3 August 1942
5.6.3. The “selection” of 29 August 1942 in Auschwitz Block 20, Room 3
5.6.4. The “selection” of 5 September 1942
5.6.5. The “selection” of October 1942
5.6.6. The “selection” of 14 November 1942
5.6.7. The “selection” of 3 December 1942
5.6.8. The “selection” of 5 December 1942
5.6.9. The “selection” of 8 December 1942
5.7. THE “SELECTIONS” IN 1943
5.7.1. The “selection” of 17 January 1943
5.7.2. The “selection” of 28 February 1943
5.7.3. The “selection” of 21 August 1943
5.7.4. The “selection” of 29 August 1943
5.7.5. The “selection” of 8 October 1943
5.7.6. The “selection” of 22 October 1943
5.7.7. The “selection” of 19 November 1943
5.7.8. The “selection” of 10 December 1943
5.7.9. The “selection” of 12 December 1943
5.7.10. The “selection” of 19 December 1943
5.8. THE “SELECTIONS” IN 1944
5.8.1. General considerations
5.8.2. The “selection” of 23 January 1944
5.8.3. The “selection” of 3 February 1944
5.8.4. The “selection” of 3 April 1944
5.8.5. The “selections” of inmates in the women’s camp BIIc in October 1944: the deceptions of L. Langfus and D. Czech
5.9. THE “SELECTIONS” LISTED BY THE FORMER INMATE OTTO WOLKEN
5.9.1. The documentation of Otto Wolken
5.9.2. The “selection” of 29 August 1943
5.9.3. The “selection” of 2 October 1943
5.9.4. The “selection” of 10 October 1943
5.9.5. The “selection” of 14 November 1943
5.9.6. The “selection” of 1 January 1944
5.9.7. The “selection” of 14 January 1944
5.9.8. The “selection” of 22 January 1944
5.9.9. The “selection” of 14 April 1944
5.9.10. The “selection” of 18 April 1944

CHAPTER 6 – THE MAJOR “SELECTIONS” ACCORDING TO THE AUSCHWITZ “KALENDARIUM”: THE THERESIENSTADT FAMILY CAMP AND THE GIPSY FAMILY CAMP
6.1.1. The establishment of the “Family camp” BIIb and the alleged homicidal gassings
6.1.2. The sources
6.1.3. The inmate strength of camp BIIb
6.1.4. The transports in September and December 1943
6.1.5. The “gassing” of the Jews of the “Family camp”: a historically sound thesis?
6.1.6. The cremation of the corpses from the “gassing” on 8 March 1944
6.1.7. The transport to Heydebreck
6.1.8. The “liquidation” of the “Family camp” (July 1944)
6.1.9. Deaths and survivors
6.1.10. The transport of 7 October 1943
6.2.THE SELECTION AND GASSING OF THE GYPSIES AT AUSCHWITZ ON 2 AUGUST 1944
6.2.1. The historical reconstruction of Danuta Czech
6.2.2. The documents
6.2.3. Interpretation of the documents

CHAPTER 7 – DOCUMENTS ON “SONDERBEHANDLUNG
7.1. Documents concerning the “Frauenlager
7.2. The “Sonderkommando Zeppelin”
7.3. “S.B.” in the main registry of the Gypsy camp (Hauptbuch des Zigeunerlagers)
7.4. “S.B.” in the reports on inmate strength and employment in the Frauenlager (women’s camp)
7.5. “S.B.” in the Stärkemeldung of the Frauenlager
7.5.1. The Jewish inmates of the “Durchgangslager
7.5.2. Changes in the inmate strength of the Frauenlager in October 1944
7.5.3. “S.B.” and the “Durchgangs-Juden
7.5.4. The “S.B.” of 3 October 1944
7.5.5. The “S.B.” of 7 October 1944
7.5.6. Conclusions
7.6. The “selections” at the HKB of the camp Auschwitz III-Monowitz
7.7. The report of SS-Untersturmführer Kinna from 16 December 1942
7.8. The “selections” of Polish boys from Zamość and other locations in Poland
7.9. The letter from the head of SS-WVHA Amt DII dated 26 April 1944

CONCLUSION


[1] Mattogno’s special treatment of evidence, http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/03/mattognos-special-treatment-of.html. Bolds in original.