IBM and the Holocaust

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
J William
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 151
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 2:21 pm

IBM and the Holocaust

Postby J William » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Feb 01, 2005 6:38 am)

I came upon the article below on the JTA-Global Jewish News site. My question to the board is: Does anyone have any information on the allegation that IBM punch machines had a code (6) for persons gassed in concentration camps? It sounds like a lot of hyperbole to me.
Swiss court ruling opens door
for historic Gypsy suit against IBM
By Edwin Black



WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 (JTA) — A European Gypsy group suing IBM for conspiracy to commit genocide has prevailed in its efforts to secure jurisdiction in Switzerland, charging that the company consciously coordinated its punch-card automation for the Nazis out of its European headquarters in Geneva.
Switzerland’s highest court, the Federal Tribunal in Lausanne, affirmed a lower court ruling from last summer that it did not seem “unreasonable” to conclude that IBM aided Nazi efficiency.

The high court ruled last month but only released its decision Thursday, the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.

IBM New York relocated its European headquarters from Paris to Geneva after 1935 to facilitate foreign exchange with the Third Reich, thus opening a basis for later jurisdiction in Switzerland.

In an April 29, 1942 letter, Werner Lier, IBM’s general manager in Geneva, outlined for the American consul in the city exactly how IBM Geneva operated.

“You will readily understand,” Lier explained, “that this office is a clearing office between the local organizations in the various countries and the New York Headquarters.”

IBM President Thomas Watson ordered Lier to instruct the firm’s German employees to assist in the 1941 Romanian census that identified many Gypsies as well as Jews. Romanian intelligence units used the census to help round up Gypsies and Jews.

In the concentration camps, IBM’s code for Jews was 8 and its code for Gypsies was 12. General executions were IBM-coded as 4, death by gas chamber as 6. The Nazis used these IBM codes to manage and track their prisoners efficiently.

Of the Nazis’ prisoners, only Jews and Gypsies were murdered systematically in gas chambers.

IBM also developed punch-card systems to track and schedule trains running to concentration camps and elsewhere throughout Europe.

The historic lawsuit by the Geneva-based Gypsy International Recognition and Compensation Action, originally filed in January 2002, has set a precedent for jurisdiction against companies that collaborated with the Nazis, now that the United States and Germany have recognized a global Holocaust restitution agreement.

IBM quietly paid several million dollars into the fund just before disclosures in 2001 that it automated many aspects of Nazi aggression during Hitler’s 12-year reign. However, Switzerland has not recognized the restitution agreement.

The Swiss high court rejected IBM’s contention that it was unaware of how its machines were being used and affirmed the lower court ruling.

That lower court concluded, “The precision, speed and reliability of IBM’s machines, especially related to the censuses of the German population and racial biology by the Nazis, were praised” in IBM publications.

“It does not thus seem unreasonable to deduce that IBM’s technical assistance facilitated the tasks of the Nazis in the commission of their crimes against humanity, acts also involving accountancy and classification by IBM machines and included in the concentration camps themselves,” the lower court continued.

“In view of the preceding, IBM’s complicity with material and intellectual assistance in the criminal acts of the Nazis during the Second World War by means of its Geneva establishment does not appear to be ruled out, as there is a great deal of evidence indicating that the Geneva establishment was aware that it was aiding and supporting these acts.”

Jean-Phillipe Sambuc, the attorney for the Gypsy group, said he tried repeatedly to discuss the matter with IBM.

“I sent three or four letters to all the directors of IBM in New York, and to IBM in Paris and Geneva, and they never answered,” he told JTA. “This silence is the arrogance of money and the shame of the guilty.”

Sambuc explained that his movement was open to Jews and other victims of Nazi aggression whose suffering allegedly was aided by IBM, and that the Gypsy case was only “a test case.”

“IBM is doing its best to kill the case by delay,” Sambuc said, adding that one of the five Gypsy plaintiffs in the suit already has died.

IBM repeatedly declined to respond to questions from this reporter about the latest ruling. Jewish leaders also said they have been rebuffed as they tried to get answers from IBM.

“The fact that IBM stills shirks its responsibilities and isn’t facing up to the proven realities of its record in World War II is very disturbing,” said Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice-chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.

When earlier disclosures about IBM’s war record emerged, company spokeswoman Carol Malkovich told media outlets throughout 2002, “We’re a technology company, not historians.”

In 2004, when IBM’s director of worldwide media relations, John Bukovinsky, was asked about the company’s involvement in facilitating the extermination of millions of Jews, Gypsies and others, he characterized the disclosures as “old news.”

When a reporter pointed out that the Holocaust itself was some 60 years ago, Bukovinsky replied, “So what? What is the point?”

Edwin Black is the New York Times bestselling author of “IBM and the Holocaust” (Crown, 2001), which first revealed IBM’s involvement with the Third Reich. The book won the American Society of Journalists and Author’s two highest awards, best book of the year and best investigative article for a Village Voice cover story, “Final Solutions: IBM at Auschwitz.”

Turpitz
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 975
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 12:57 pm

Postby Turpitz » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Feb 01, 2005 6:58 am)

All the usual hoards of Zionist pariah’s and gangsters are up to their old tricks again.

What are IBM's options? Tell the Zionist's to get stuffed and let it be known the industry is the biggest swindle the world's ever witnessed that cannot be substantiated by any physical or documentary evidence? Then face the wrath of the world as the Zionist journaille start their venomous smear campaigns that could very well destroy IBM.

Or do they just tow the line and pay out loads of blackmail money and keep their heads down like all the other companies have in the past, which will more than likely secure their survival, albeit at a very heavy financial cost?


If you wish to strengthen a lie, mix a little truth in with it.

Zohar.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9842
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Feb 01, 2005 10:16 am)

This is a great example of the primary function served by the absurd 'holocau$t' as alleged .... big time cash. Follow that with preferrential treatment of judeo-supremacists, political power gained by them, and judeo group unity their lies provide.

This IBM example is classic, right up their with suing the US government for not bombing non-existent 'gas chambers'.

Some people have no pride, no shame.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

gasto
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 11:40 am
Location: Argentina

Postby gasto » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Feb 01, 2005 1:36 pm)

I read "IBM and the Holocaust" some time ago...It tells how IBM helped nacional socialists to track jews all over Europe....but I don´t remember reading anything about the gas chambers in it.....
If Human Soap rumour was fake, why can´t all the other absurd claims be too??

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9842
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Feb 01, 2005 1:43 pm)

Counting Jews is not the same as 'tracking' Jews. Words are important here.

So now it's a case that any census/population count that included Jews aided the Germans in the absurdly alleged 'plan of extermination'. What a farce!

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

gasto
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 11:40 am
Location: Argentina

Postby gasto » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Feb 01, 2005 2:11 pm)

yes....Tracking, Identifying and Classifying are the words used in the back of the book...
If Human Soap rumour was fake, why can´t all the other absurd claims be too??

User avatar
Veritas
Member
Member
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 3:21 am

Re: IBM and the Holocaust

Postby Veritas » 8 years 10 months ago (Wed Nov 03, 2010 10:16 am)

J William wrote:[...] Does anyone have any information on the allegation that IBM punch machines had a code (6) for persons gassed in concentration camps? It sounds like a lot of hyperbole to me.
[...]
In the concentration camps, IBM’s code for Jews was 8 and its code for Gypsies was 12. General executions were IBM-coded as 4, death by gas chamber as 6. The Nazis used these IBM codes to manage and track their prisoners efficiently.
[...]

Apparently F 6 was the "type of departure" ("Abgangsart") code for "special treatment" ("Sonderbehandlung") in concentration camp index files, which in turn is translated as "death by gas chamber" by orthodox holocaust historians. And according to the following facsimile, which comes from holocaustcontroversies and was supposedly sent to them by Edwin Black, this interpretation seems to be the most plausible:
120890370_524d1bafac.jpg
Decoding key for concentration camp card index files

Holocaustcontroversies also points out that this document was not mentioned in Carlo Mattogno's "Special Treatment
in Auschwitz: Origin and Meaning of a Term" and in fact neither a search on vho.org nor ihr.org brought something up, and a search in this forum brought me to this thread. My question therefore is: How do revisionists deal with this document which seems to prove that "special treatment" did in fact mean extrajudicial killing.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3325
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: IBM and the Holocaust

Postby Hektor » 8 years 10 months ago (Sun Nov 07, 2010 5:32 am)

Veritas wrote:....
Apparently F 6 was the "type of departure" ("Abgangsart") code for "special treatment" ("Sonderbehandlung") in concentration camp index files, which in turn is translated as "death by gas chamber" by orthodox holocaust historians. And according to the following facsimile, which comes from holocaustcontroversies and was supposedly sent to them by Edwin Black, this interpretation seems to be the most plausible:
Now let's assume that this really an authentic document and that they got it from Edwin Black. How is "homicidal gassing" the most plausible interpretation for "Sonderbehandlung"?
Veritas wrote:....
Image
Holocaustcontroversies also points out that this document was not mentioned in Carlo Mattogno's "Special Treatment
in Auschwitz: Origin and Meaning of a Term" and in fact neither a search on vho.org nor ihr.org brought something up, and a search in this forum brought me to this thread. My question therefore is: How do revisionists deal with this document which seems to prove that "special treatment" did in fact mean extrajudicial killing.

If it can be authentified, Mattogno should include it in the next edition. But I don't see how one can seriously conclude from this document that Sonderbehandlung meant "extrajudicial killing" or even "homicidal". That would already be covered by "Exekution" D4 and there is no other opening covering quarantine or other exceptional departures. So I don't think this document is a reason for Revisionists to revise their conclusions, as it apparently confirms the conclusions in place.

Your claim that a search on vho.org doesn't deliver anything seems to be quite funny as well. I found something without even limiting the search to vho.org:
A widely known prominent example of a survived “Sonderbehandlung” (special treatment) is Simone Veil, born Jacobs, who also had a “SB” entered in the lists of the KZ Auschwitz, but survived this treatment and later could advance to the position of the President of the European Parliament.
http://www.vho.org/tr/2004/4/Baum374-378.html

Hans
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 178
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 2:44 am

Re: IBM and the Holocaust

Postby Hans » 8 years 10 months ago (Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:31 am)

Veritas wrote:Holocaustcontroversies also points out that this document was not mentioned in Carlo Mattogno's "Special Treatment
in Auschwitz: Origin and Meaning of a Term" and in fact neither a search on vho.org nor ihr.org brought something up, and a search in this forum brought me to this thread. My question therefore is: How do revisionists deal with this document which seems to prove that "special treatment" did in fact mean extrajudicial killing.


This can be answered very easily. The Revisionist treatment of the document will follow the following pattern:

First, they will ignore it.

Then they will claim it is a forgery.

Third, they will claim it means something entirely else (but NOT killing).

Finally, they will claim it is a forgery.

(the third and second/forth explanation can also be claimed simultaneously, so it is a forgery, but if it is not it means something entirely else)

Hans
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 178
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 2:44 am

Re: IBM and the Holocaust

Postby Hans » 8 years 10 months ago (Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:51 am)

Hektor wrote:But I don't see how one can seriously conclude from this document that Sonderbehandlung meant "extrajudicial killing" or even "homicidal". That would already be covered by "Exekution" D4


No, since the emphasis is on "extrajudicial". "Exekution" in the context of these concentration camp files was apparently only covering judicial ordered killings by courts. However, the German police and paramilitary forces also carried out extrajudicial killings, which were not based on judicial decisions. These had to be authorised by the high command of the executive itself, like Himmler. One frequent term to describe and refer to these extrajudicial executions was "Sonderbehandlung". There are numerous examples in the documents and testimonies for this.



and there is no other opening covering quarantine


Quarantine is no departure.

or other exceptional departures.


So tell us what departure there is other than release, transfer, died, executed, suicide and escape?

The distinction between extrajudicial and judicial killings is real and a plausible and reasonable explanation for the departure "Sonderbehandlung" in this file, which is - again - also the only explanation backed up by numerous documents and testimonies.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3325
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: IBM and the Holocaust

Postby Hektor » 8 years 10 months ago (Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:29 am)

Hans wrote:
Hektor wrote:But I don't see how one can seriously conclude from this document that Sonderbehandlung meant "extrajudicial killing" or even "homicidal". That would already be covered by "Exekution" D4

No, since the emphasis is on "extrajudicial". "Exekution" in the context of these concentration camp files was apparently only covering judicial ordered killings by courts. However, the German police and paramilitary forces also carried out extrajudicial killings, which were not based on judicial decisions. These had to be authorised by the high command of the executive itself, like Himmler. One frequent term to describe and refer to these extrajudicial executions was "Sonderbehandlung". There are numerous examples in the documents and testimonies for this.
The distinction between judicial and extrajudicial is misplaced, since this is what someone from the outside critiquing the regime would do. The regime itself would consider all killings as legitimate executions and hence won't make such a distinction. An execution is an execution. There is also no reason why one would name this with obscure, ambiguous terminology in your own internal documents.

What are your examples for Sonderbehandlung (in an official authentic document) refering to an execution and why didn't you give any in your post?


Hans wrote:
and there is no other opening covering quarantine

Quarantine is no departure.
Well, it is. It's departure from the active population of prisoners. Quarantine is separating a prisoner from the rest of the prisoner population. In Auschwitz there was even a separate camp for this (Quarantaenelager). There are numerous examples were Sonderbehandlung or words including "sonder-" relate to quarantine and measures to combat diseases. I mean Mattogno has written a downloadable book on this (Special treatment in Auschwitz).

As W. Stromberger and Carlo Mattogno indicated, the word “Sonderbehandlung” in Auschwitz actually stands for special hygienic measures for the prevention of epidemics, i.e. delousing, physical cleaning, quarantine etc.2 Frau Schindler herself supports this interpretation when reporting that she was in the quarantine section of the camp inside a cordoned-off barrack where she had to stay for an extended period of time. Also, her alleged first observation of the gas chamber sounds of such a measure. She reported that she observed buses or trucks driving to a building directly adjacent to the sick camp, wherein she only assumed (!) that there were gas chambers (she did not see any, as she said so herself)....
http://www.vho.org/tr/2004/4/Baum374-378.html

Tell me what the purpose is of putting people under quarantine that you actually want to gas to death, after that you can ask me for more examples of Sonderbehandlung meaning quarantine or other disease preventing measures.


Hans wrote:
or other exceptional departures.

So tell us what departure there is other than release, transfer, died, executed, suicide and escape?
... and except putting under quarantine, which is separating a prisoner from the others. There would be i.e. cases when prisoners weren't treated in an ordinary way like the ones in Bergen Belsen, Theresienstadt or like Martin Niemoeller.
Hans wrote:The distinction between extrajudicial and judicial killings is real and a plausible and reasonable explanation for the departure "Sonderbehandlung" in this file, which is - again - also the only explanation backed up by numerous documents and testimonies.

No, it's not. And I've given you the reasons for this above. You however did not care to give even one verifyable example were "Sonderbehandlung" meant a homicidal gassing of a person.
Last edited by Hektor on Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:58 am, edited 5 times in total.

ps
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 11:29 am

Re: IBM and the Holocaust

Postby ps » 8 years 10 months ago (Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:29 am)

@Hans
Do you mean with "Sonderbehandlung" mybe killing with Zyklon B at 16000°F within 2 minutes in the gas chamber?

But you know, the melting point of steel is only 2800°F. Is it your preferred temperature ?

But what is then at 12 minutes gasing time "Sonder..." ?

User avatar
Balsamo
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 305
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 1:44 pm

Re: IBM and the Holocaust

Postby Balsamo » 8 years 10 months ago (Sun Nov 07, 2010 12:20 pm)

Hektor said

Code: Select all

If it can be authentified, Mattogno should include it in the next edition. But I don't see how one can seriously conclude from this document that Sonderbehandlung meant "extrajudicial killing" or even "homicidal". That would already be covered by "Exekution" D4 and there is no other opening covering quarantine or other exceptional departures. So I don't think this document is a reason for Revisionists to revise their conclusions, as it apparently confirms the conclusions in place.


What is interresting is that "Sonderbehandlung" is a form of "departure" that is Not execution, NOT freedom, NOT transfer (Uberstellung), NOT natural death, NOT suicide, NOT escape...What kind of "departure" could that mean :?: :wink:

Some suggestion ?

Hans
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 178
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 2:44 am

Re: IBM and the Holocaust

Postby Hans » 8 years 10 months ago (Sun Nov 07, 2010 2:35 pm)

Hektor wrote:
Hans wrote:
Hektor wrote:But I don't see how one can seriously conclude from this document that Sonderbehandlung meant "extrajudicial killing" or even "homicidal". That would already be covered by "Exekution" D4

No, since the emphasis is on "extrajudicial". "Exekution" in the context of these concentration camp files was apparently only covering judicial ordered killings by courts. However, the German police and paramilitary forces also carried out extrajudicial killings, which were not based on judicial decisions. These had to be authorised by the high command of the executive itself, like Himmler. One frequent term to describe and refer to these extrajudicial executions was "Sonderbehandlung". There are numerous examples in the documents and testimonies for this.
The distinction between judicial and extrajudicial is misplaced, since this is what someone from the outside critiquing the regime would do.


The curious thing is that the exact opposite is true. For anybody critiquing the regime it is rather irrelevant if an execution is authorized by the judiciary or the executive, since both were seen as a tool of the same regime.

For the people involved it might make some sense to distinguish, however, since there is a different legal authorization, responsibility and treatment related to both types of executions.

The regime itself would consider all killings as legitimate executions and hence won't make such a distinction.

The distinction was not between legitimate or non-legitimate, but between inside or outside of the proper jurisdiction. It is also the expression of the rivalry of justice and police in the NS.

What are your examples for Sonderbehandlung (in an official authentic document) refering to an execution and why didn't you give any in your post?


I just cite the two documents where Sonderbehandlung first appears in this context in the RSHA, where it originated.

Heydrich on 20 September 20 1939:

[Fernschreiben des Chefs der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD]
Abschrift
Geheim!
Berlin Nue 193 870 20. 9. 39 20.25
An alle Stapoleit- und Stapostellen,
nachrichtlich an die Insp. der Sipo.
B e t r i f f t : Grundsätze der inneren Staatssicherheit während des Krieges.
Ich nehme Bezug auf meine Erlasse.
A. vom 3. 9. 1939 PP (II) Nr. 223/39, Grundsätze der inneren Staatssicherheit während
des Krieges betreffend1, Ziffer 4,
B. vom 7. 9. 1939 (FS) Ziffer 3,
C. vom 14. 9. 1939 (FS), die Meldung von Einzelfällen betreffend.
Zur Beseitigung aller Mißverständnisse teile ich folgendes mit:
1) Wie in den Grundsätzen vom 3. 9. 1939 zum Ausdruck gebracht wurde, muß
jeder Versuch, die Geschlossenheit und den Kampfeswillen des Deutschen Volkes
zu zersetzen, von vornherein mit rücksichtsloser Härte und Strenge unterdrückt
werden. —
2) Andererseits sind jene Fälle mit psychologischem Verständnis und erzieherisch

bestärkendem Bemühen zu behandeln, die auf innere oder äußere Not oder auf
Augenblicksschwächen zurückzuführen sind.
3) Die Grenzziehung zwischen Ziffer 1 und 2 muß ich den Stapoleit- und Stapostellen
überlassen.
4) Bei den Fällen zu Ziffer 1 ist zu unterscheiden zwischen solchen, die auf dem
üblichen Wege erledigt werden können, und solchen, welche einer Sonderbehandlung
zugeführt werden müssen. Im letzteren Falle handelt es sich um solche
Sachverhalte, die hinsichtlich ihrer Verwerflichkeit, ihrer Gefährlichkeit oder
ihrer propagandistischen Auswirkung geeignet sind, ohne Ansehung der Personen
durch rücksichtslosestes Vorgehen (nämlich durch Exekution) ausgemerzt
zu werden. Solche Fälle sind z. B. Sabotageversuche, Aufwiegelung oder Zersetzung
von Heeresangehörigen [sic!] oder eines größeren Personenkreises,
Hamsterei in großen Mengen, aktive kommunistische oder marxistische Betätigung
usw. —
Diese Fälle sind nur als Beispiel zu werten und haben keinen Anspruch auf Vollständigkeit.
Auch hier muß es den Stapoleit- und Stapostellen überlassen bleiben,
mit psychologischem und politischem Fingerspitzengefühl vorzuentscheiden, ob sich
dieser oder jener Fall zu einer Sonderbehandlung eignet. Glaubt die Stapoleit- und
Stapostelle in einem Fall, daß sich dieser zur Sonderbehandlung eignet, ist sofort
Schutzhaft zu verhängen und schnellstens (Blitz-FS) anher zu berichten. Hierbei
müssen nun meine vorerwähnten Richtlinien beachtet werden, so daß sich Rückfragen
nach Möglichkeit erübrigen. Weitere Weisung bleibt sodann abzuwarten.
Zweifelsfälle sind anher zu berichten.
5) Jene Fälle, welche sich auf Grund des Sachverhalts zu einer Sonderbehandlung
nicht eignen, sind, wie bisher, in eigener Zuständigkeit zu bearbeiten, d. h., es
ist ggf. mit Schutzhaft, mit Erstattung einer Strafanzeige, mit Verwarnung usw.
vorzugehen. Die Berichterstattung über solche Fälle anher regelt sich in der bisher
üblichen Weise. —
6) Die Berichterstattung über jene Fälle, welche sich für eine Sonderbehandlung
eignen, muß verantwortungsbewußt und gründlichst erfolgen, damit jede Fehlentscheidung
ausgeschlossen ist.
7) Es ist Vorsorge zu treffen, daß die Kreis- und Ortspolizeibehörden besonders
schwere Fälle sofort an die zuständige Stapoleit- und Stapostelle melden, so daß
durch entsprechende Anordnung die Überstellung der festgenommenen Personen
an den Ermittlungsrichter bis zum Eintreffen der Endentscheidung vermieden
wird. — Dieser Erlaß eignet sich nicht zu Weitergabe an die Kreis- und
Ortspolizeibehörden.
Der Chef der Sicherheitspolizei gez. Heydrich — B. Nr. PP (II) 39.


Heller on 26 September 1939:

[Geheimes Staatspolizeiamt]
- II A - (Siegel) Berlin, den 26. September 1939
In der heutigen Referentenbesprechung legte Abteilungsleiter II2 nochmals die
Richtlinien dar, nach denen die sogenannten Kriegsdelikte zu behandeln sind:

a) S o n d e r b e h a n d l u n g (Exekution):
Sonderbehandlungen werden grundsätzlich bei I I A 3 bearbeitet mit Ausnahme
von Fällen der Sonderbehandlung gegen Geistliche, Theologen und Bibelforscher,
für die I I B4 zuständig ist.
I n der Vorlage an den Reichsführer SS soll n u n nicht etwa der Bericht der Stapo-
(leit)stellen wörtlich verwandt werden, sondern es soll eigener Stil (möglichst Telegrammstil)
zur Anwendung kommen. Der Bericht m u ß enthalten:
Die wirtschaftliche Lage, persönliche Verhältnisse, Sachverhalt, Würdigung.
Es ist ein Vorschlag zu machen, entweder lautend auf Exekution, oder es ist die
Bitte u m Weisung, was geschehen soll, auszusprechen. Darüber hinaus sollen dem
Reichsführer SS auch Fälle vorgelegt werden, die besonders gelagert sind und besonderes
Interesse beanspruchen, ohne daß Sonderbehandlung (Exekution) erforderlich
ist. Hier kann der Zusatz gemacht werden: „Eignet sich nicht zur Sonderbehandlung.
"
Zur Zuständigkeit von I I A gehören auch Sonderfälle der Hamsterei, in denen es
auch denkbar ist, daß Exekution vorgeschlagen wird.
b) H e i m t ü c k e :
Heimtückefälle sind von verschiedenen Referaten zu bearbeiten, u n d zwar:
V o m R e f e r a t I I A, sobald es sich u m kommunistisch-marxistisch eingestellte
Elemente handelt,
v o m R e f e r a t I I C5 bei sogenannten Reaktionären und politisch farblosen Leuten,
dazu schwarze Front,
v o m R e f e r a t I I B in Fällen, i n denen die katholische Einstellung richtunggebend
ist (aber nicht Fälle, in denen es heißt „Marxist"
und „Katholik", solche Fälle würden bei I I A zu bearbeiten
sein).
Die Statistik über Heimtücke soll nach wie vor bei I I A geführt werden.
c) An die Stapo(leit)stellen sollen von hier aus konkrete Anweisungen nicht gegeben
werden, damit die Stapo(leit)stellen selbst Initiative entwickeln und auch die
Verantwortung tragen. In allen diesen Fällen ist zurückzuschreiben mit dem Bemerken,
daß in eigener Zuständigkeit zu entscheiden ist. Ausgenommen sind natürlich
die u n t e r a) erwähnten Fälle, die für eine Sonderbehandlung in dieser oder
jener Form geeignet sind.
d) Aus der bei POL H ö f e r geführten K a r t e i sind alle diejenigen Fälle herauszusuchen
(Heimtückefälle), die von den betreffenden Referaten i n eigener Zuständigkeit
weiterbearbeitet werden sollen.
e) A b h ö r e n a u s l ä n d i s c h e r S e n d e r:
Bezüglich des Abhörens ausländischer Sender hat I I L 6 auf Sondervortrag entschie-
den, daß die Stapostellen zunächst dem Gestapa diese Fälle melden sollen, damit hier
Erfahrungen gesammelt werden können. Das Verfahren wird also demnach so sein,
daß die Stapostelle entscheidet, ob der Betreffende in Schutzhaft zu nehmen ist oder
nicht. Die Vorgänge betr. Radio-Abhörens sind hier gesondert zu sammeln. Ab
26. 9. hätte jeden Tag Wiedervorlage der gesammelten Fälle zu erfolgen, um festzustellen,
in welchen Fällen Strafantrag durch die Stapostellen zu stellen ist. Entscheidung
erfolgt durch II L.
gez. Heller


Both documents are cited from Broszat's classic article from http://www.ifz-muenchen.de/heftarchiv/1958_4.pdf


Hans wrote:
and there is no other opening covering quarantine

Quarantine is no departure.

Well, it is. It's departure from the active population of prisoners. Quarantine is separating a prisoner from the rest of the prisoner population. In Auschwitz there was even a separate camp for this (Quarantaenelager).


The quarantine blocks were actually part of the camp, so these prisoners were not subjected to a departure. Prisoners in quarantine or prisoners not fit for work are listed as actual prisoners of the camp for instance in the labour force report, so this explanation can be ruled out.

There are numerous examples were Sonderbehandlung or words including "sonder-" relate to quarantine and measures to combat diseases.

There is not a single document where Sonderbehandlung is related to quarantine. And don't refer to the single gesondert-untergebracht-document, since "gesondert untergebracht" was just a variant of Sonderbehandlung in the sense of killing, see for instance testimony of Hans Stark at Auschwitz trial:

"Die Berichte über die Erschießungen wurden jeweils nach Durchführung schriftlich dem RSHA gemeldet, und zwar unter der Deckbezeichnung, daß "soundso viel Personen gesondert untergebracht" worden seien. Diese ganze Aktion richtete sich hauptsächlich gegen Personen der jüdischen Rasse und wurde "Sonderbehandlung" genannt." (Frankfurter Auschwitz-ProzessS. 4534 (vgl. Blatt 946), quoted from h-ref.de).

Secondly, this document in question mentions that the men selected for labour were actually subjected to quarantine. Accordingly, the special treatment of the Jews selected as unfit for labor can hardly mean quarantine, since this is already what the Jews fit for work received.

There are very few documents where Sonderbehandlung is related to processing of belongings of Jews according to the central construction office in Auschwitz. This is because in this office, so very locally and by people not directly involved in the Sonderbehandlungen, the meaning of Sonderbehandlung extended to mean the whole treatment of Jewish transports, including killing and processing of the Jewish property.

I mean Mattogno has written a downloadable book on this (Special treatment in Auschwitz).


...where he did not discuss the most incriminating Sonderbehandlung documents and failed to put most of the rest in their proper context.

Tell me what the purpose is of putting people under quarantine that you actually want to gas to death, after that you can ask me for more examples of Sonderbehandlung meaning quarantine or other disease preventing measures.


The point of putting the Theresienstadt Jews for six months "under quarantine" was to cover the extermination policy.



Hans wrote:
or other exceptional departures.

So tell us what departure there is other than release, transfer, died, executed, suicide and escape?
... and except putting under quarantine, which is separating a prisoner from the others.


Except that quarantine is no departure. It is just an internal transfer.

TreeHuggingHippie
Member
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 3:47 pm

Re: IBM and the Holocaust

Postby TreeHuggingHippie » 8 years 10 months ago (Mon Nov 08, 2010 12:51 am)

Hans wrote:The distinction between extrajudicial and judicial killings is real and a plausible and reasonable explanation for the departure "Sonderbehandlung" in this file, which is - again - also the only explanation backed up by numerous documents and testimonies.

I assume you are not talking about gassings since we're told the gassees weren't registered in the first place. Saying guards and camp commanders went around killing prisoners willy-nilly is problematic as well because one camp commander was actually sentenced to death for killing several prisoners.

So I am guessing your theory is that Hitler or Himmler had prisoners executed with no due process. How many people do you believe were killed this way? I don't think this can be used to support the claim that millions were killed in German concentration camps.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests