Dubious Chelmno Documents

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Hebden
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:17 am
Location: Here and there, mostly there

Dubious Chelmno Documents

Postby Hebden » 1 decade 5 years ago (Sat Dec 13, 2003 2:04 pm)

The following document was selected by Professor Hilberg for his book Documents of Destruction (Quadrangle, 1971) :

[Biuletyn Glowney Komisji Badania Zbrodni Hitlerowskich W Polsce (Warsaw, Wydawnictwo Prawnicze) XII, 1960, pp. 27F-29F.]

L Hö/S
[Higher SS and Police Leader in Warthegau/SS-Major Rolf-Heinz Höppner]
to
Reich Security Main Office Office IV B 4
Attention SS-Lt. Col. Eichmann
Berlin
July 16, 1941

Dear Comrade Eichmann,
Enclosed is a memorandum on the results of various discussions held locally in the office of the Reich Governor. I would be grateful to have your reactions sometime. These things sound in part fantastic, but in my view are thoroughly feasible.

1 enclosure

L, Hö/S Poznan July 16, 1941

Memorandum

Subject: Solution of the Jewish question

During discussions in the office of the Reich Governor various groups broached the solution of the Jewish question in Warthe province. The following solution is being proposed.

1. All the Jews of Warthe province will be taken to a camp for 300,000 Jews which will be erected in barracks form as close as possible to the coal precincts and which will contain barracks-like installations for economic enterprises, tailor shops, shoe manufacturing plants, etc.

2. All Jews of Warthe province will be brought into this camp. Jews capable of labor may be constituted into labor columns as needed and drawn from the camp.

3. In my view, a camp of this type may be guarded by SS-Brig. Gen. Albert with substantially fewer police forces than are required now. Furthermore, the danger of epidemics, which always exists in the Lodz and other ghettos for the surrounding population, will be minimized.

4. This winter there is a danger that not all of the Jews can be fed anymore. One should weigh honestly, if the most humane solution might not be to finish off those of the Jews who are not employable by means of some quickworking device. At any rate, that would be more pleasant than to let them starve to death.

5. For the rest, the proposal was made that in this camp all the Jewish women, from whom one could still expect children, should be sterilized so that the Jewish problem may actually be solved completely with this generation.

6. The Reich Governor has not yet expressed an opinion in this matter. There is an impression that Government President Übelhör does not wish to see the ghetto in Lodz disappear since he [his office] seems to profit quite well with it. As an example of how one can profit from the Jews, I was told that the Reich Labor Ministry pays 6 Reichsmark from a special fund for each employed Jew, but that the Jew costs only 80 Pfennige.


This document is also quoted in the book Nazi Mass Murder (YUP, 1993), it being apparently the sole documentary evidence for the planning stage of the Chelmno death camp.

Professor Hilberg refers to SS-Major Höppner as the Higher SS and Police Leader in Warthegau, when this position was, in fact, held at the time by SS-Gruppenführer Wilhelm Koppe:

http://www.skalman.nu/third-reich/ss-hohere-warthe.htm

The Nazi Mass Murder book, whose chapter on Chelmno is authored by Dr. Schmuel Krakowski, relegates the SS-Major to "the staff of the chief of police (who was also the SS leader) in the Warthegau." In other words, SS-Gruppenführer Koppe was his boss.

So was this just a simple case of Professor Hilberg misattributing a job title? And was the appearance of this document, in a bulletin of the Polish commission for the investigation of Nazi crimes, in 1960, the year of the Eichmann kidnapping, mere coincidence?

In any event, the document duly made an appearance in the Jerusalem court, the following year:

With the Court's permission I shall now submit a number of documents and thereafter I shall produce witnesses bearing on the question of the Litzmannstadt Ghetto - in Lodz. The first document is a letter addressed to Eichmann from a man by the name of Hoeppner. Our number is 1410. The man writes "Lieber Kamerad Eichmann."

Presiding Judge: This will be T/219.

Attorney General: He writes from Posen on 16 July 1941: "Re: Solution of the Jewish Problem. In paragraph 1 he talks of 300,000 Jews of the Warthegau waiting in the camp. In paragraph 4 he talks of the fact that a danger exists that it would no longer be possible to supply food to the Jews, and hence it should be considered whether the most humane solution would not be to liquidate the Jews by some kind of rapid-action measure. At any rate, he says "it would be more pleasant ("waere doch angenehmer") than to watch them dying of starvation."

In paragraph 5 the man seeking the humane solutions suggests that the Jewish women should be sterilized so that in this generation the Jewish Question could be finally solved.

Judge Halevi: Where were these discussions, the discussions in the Office of the Reich Representative (Reichsstatthalterei) - what is that?

Dr. Servatius: I should like to ask where the name Hoeppner comes from? I have not found it in my document.

Presiding Judge: Where does it actually come from?

Attorney General: Your Honour, we think this was so, since he was the man who handled questions of removal of the population on behalf of the Accused, in that region.

Judge Halevi: Where did he reside?

Attorney General: In Poznan. If it was not Hoeppner, we shall be glad to hear from the Accused who it was.

Presiding Judge: We see here "Hoe."

Attorney General: Yes.

Judge Halevi: What is Reichsstatthalterei?

Attorney General: That was the provincial authority in Warthegau.

Dr. Servatius: There is also the name Hoefle which is of some importance.

Attorney General: If Defence Counsel is able to help us - we shall be very glad to receive his help. As far as we know, Hoefle was in Lublin. But it is possible that the Accused knows this better than we do.


http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/eic ... 23-04.html


The next document is exhibit T/219, document No. 1410. This is a communication from the Wartheland District, sent by a Sturmbannfuehrer - whose name, according to the reference, must be Hoeppner - to Eichmann. The stamped date of dispatch is not clear. There is a stamp at the top of the communication, 16 July 1941, and another communication, dated the same day, 16 July 1941, Posen, is attached. It is difficult to understand how a communication dated 16 July 1941, can already have an incoming stamp for the same day in Berlin.

This incoming stamp is not entirely legible, but next to it are the initials "UWZ" - Umwandererzentrale (migration centre). In the bottom left-hand corner, it says "Zu den Akten" (for filing). That is how I read this note. In other words, no action was taken. The contents of the communication are particularly significant. I would first refer you to paragraph 1. This states that, as far as the Final Solution of the Jewish Question is concerned, in discussions in the Reichsstatthalterei (Reich Commissioner's Office) - probably meaning Bohemia and Moravia - various references were made to solving the Jewish Question in the Warthe District of the Reich - therefore it was not Bohemia and Moravia, but the Warthe District. Then a proposal is made as to how to solve the problem.

I now turn to paragraphs 4 and 5, five, which are of interest here.

Paragraph 4: "There is a danger this winter that it will not be possible to feed all the Jews. It should be seriously considered whether the most humane solution would not be to do away with the Jews, unless they are capable of working, by means of some quick method. In any case, this would be more convenient than letting them starve to death." The proposal is also made that, in this camp, all the Jewesses who might bear children should be sterilized, in order to provide a total solution to the Jewish Question in this generation.

Witness, did you receive this communication? What steps were taken as a result?

Accused: Had I received the communication and actually held it in my hands, I am quite sure that, despite the twenty years which have intervened, I would have remembered it, because of its drastic contents. I can, therefore, state quite truthfully that I did not receive this communication. I should like, in addition to the explanations given so far, to try and ascertain whether this communication was dispatched at all. In the covering letter it says, "I would welcome your reaction." On the left it says, "z.d.A." - zu den Akten (for filing).

In such cases, normal bureaucratic practice was not to file the correspondence away, but to keep it available for renewed submission. In addition, this communication, if I had received it, would have been the first indication to me of the physical extermination of the Jews, whereas I can remember very clearly that the first reference to this I had heard, came from the Chief of the Security Police and the Security Service, Heydrich, and was made considerably later in time. Thirdly, and in conclusion, I may observe that, if this were the original of the document or the file minute, then it would be signed; if it were the duplicate, it would be initialled - and neither is true here, neither the first nor the last page is signed. That is all I wish to say.


http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/eic ... 78-01.html

We haven't been able to find out much about SS-Sturmbannfuhrer Höppner. He did appear as a defence witness for the SD in the main IMT trial at Nuremberg. Unfortunately, there was no mention of what he was doing in 1941. His interminable testimony does, however, bear out the truth of Mr. Reitlinger's observation that, "Of the distinctions between the Security Police and the SD and of the numerous ramifications of the Main Security Office, RSHA, the Nuremberg court could never make very much."

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tg ... 2-08.shtml

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9836
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 5 years ago (Thu Dec 18, 2003 3:40 am)

Ingrid Weckert discusses this fraudulent letter in her informative piece about Kulmhof/Chelmo that appears in:
The Revisonist - Journal for Critical Historical Inquiry, v.1, n.4, 2003

points made by her:

- Distinct differences in the Hoeppner 'letter' that was reproduced in the book:
'Nationalsozialistische Massentotungen durch Giftgas', 1983, ed. by Kogon Langbein, Rueckerl, et al.

vs. what is reproduced in the book:

'Nationalsozialistische Vernichtungslager in Spiegel deutsher Strassprozesse. Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Chelmo', 1977, Rueckerl ed.

- Curious differences in the official archival description of this 'letter'; in one book it's a letter, in the other it's a 'file memo'.

- In one book the reproduced document says Volume XIII from the communist Polish Archive, in the other book the document says Volume III.

Besides two missing lines, the 'Massentotungen' document has seven linguistic and textual differences as compared to the document reproduced in the other book.

- The 'Massentotungen' book does not state the fact that this alleged note and accompanying letter to Eichmann exist in unsigned copies only.

- and that Hoeppner firmly stated that he did not write this letter.

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

Hebden
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:17 am
Location: Here and there, mostly there

Postby Hebden » 1 decade 5 years ago (Thu Dec 18, 2003 1:30 pm)

Hannover wrote:- Distinct differences in the Hoeppner 'letter' that was reproduced in the book:
'Nationalsozialistische Massentotungen durch Giftgas', 1983, ed. by Kogon Langbein, Rueckerl, et al.

vs. what is reproduced in the book:

'Nationalsozialistische Vernichtungslager in Spiegel deutsher Strassprozesse. Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Chelmo', 1977, Rueckerl ed.

- Curious differences in the official archival description of this 'letter'; in one book it's a letter, in the other it's a 'file memo'.


The Hilberg reproduction indicates that there was both a letter and an enclosed memo, which may account for the confusion. The book Nazi Mass Murder, an English translation of Nationalsozialistische Massentotungen durch Giftgas, gives only the memo but misleadingly refers to it as a letter.

Besides two missing lines, the 'Massentotungen' document has seven linguistic and textual differences as compared to the document reproduced in the other book.


In the same vein, we wonder if these two missing lines actually consist of the omitted letter. Or would such an inference be insulting Ms. Weckert's intelligence?

What are the 7 differences that Ms. Weckert identified? Comparing the two translations that we have, the only significant textual difference we notice is this:

Hilberg: 3. In my view, a camp of this type may be guarded by SS-Brig. Gen. Albert with substantially fewer police forces than are required now.

Nazi Mass Murder: According to SS-Brigadeführer Albert, a camp of this kind could be guarded with fewer police than is present the case.

- and that Hoeppner firmly stated that he did not write this letter.


Under what circumstances? Was a prosecution brought against Mr. Höppner in the 1960s?

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9836
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 5 years ago (Thu Dec 18, 2003 2:09 pm)

Hebden said:
In the same vein, we wonder if these two missing lines actually consist of the omitted letter. Or would such an inference be insulting Ms. Weckert's intelligence?

I rather doubt that 'two missing lines' would be construed to be an entire 'letter'.

Weckert does not specify what the 'seven differences' are. A follow-up to Weckert would be interesting.

I do notice that your document has a volume 'XII' designation, as opposed to the others which are designated vols. 'III' and XIII'. Are we talking of yet another version?

As for the Hoeppner 'prosecution', I can't see that it really matters, he stated that he did not write it.

And ofcourse, as we know, there is curiously only copies which are unsigned.

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

Hebden
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:17 am
Location: Here and there, mostly there

Postby Hebden » 1 decade 5 years ago (Thu Dec 18, 2003 3:47 pm)

Hannover wrote:Hebden said:
In the same vein, we wonder if these two missing lines actually consist of the omitted letter. Or would such an inference be insulting Ms. Weckert's intelligence?

I rather doubt that 'two missing lines' would be construed to be an entire 'letter'.


Except the text of the letter is:

Dear Comrade Eichmann,

Enclosed is a memorandum on the results of various discussions held locally in the office of the Reich Governor. I would be grateful to have your reactions sometime. These things sound in part fantastic, but in my view are thoroughly feasible.


Which is three lines in English, but may, given the German penchant for compound sentences, be only two in the original.

Weckert does not specify what the 'seven differences' are. A follow-up to Weckert would be interesting.


If Ms. Weckert cannot be troubled to detail her claims, something she did in her article on the gas vans, one can hardly be blamed for not dwelling on the matter. Still, if you would care to contact her, be our guest.

As for the Hoeppner 'prosecution', I can't see that it really matters, he stated that he did not write it.


Have you ever served on a jury?

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9836
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 5 years ago (Thu Dec 18, 2003 4:04 pm)

Once again, Weckert did not specify that the 2 missing lines were a 'letter', which would be a physically separate item.

Again:
- I do notice that your document has a volume 'XII' designation, as opposed to the others which are designated vols. 'III' and XIII'. Are we talking of yet another version?

- And ofcourse, as we know, there is curiously only copies which are unsigned.

Yes, I've served on many juries. Your point?

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

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 5 years ago (Thu Dec 18, 2003 4:14 pm)

Hebden wrote: The Hilberg reproduction indicates that there was both a letter and an enclosed memo, which may account for the confusion. The book Nazi Mass Murder, an English translation of Nationalsozialistische Massentotungen durch Giftgas, gives only the memo but misleadingly refers to it as a letter.

The German original of Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen duch Giftgas refers to a "Schreiben" (memo) fromHöppner to Eichmann.
The German NS-Vernichtungslager talks about an "Aktenvermerk" (memo to file) of which a copy was sent from Höppner to Eichmann.

The missing lines seem to be in the heading of the memo to file.

The 6 points of the memo to file though look similar in both books, except for the seven differences, which seem to be minor, just sloppy work during the transcription.
In the same vein, we wonder if these two missing lines actually consist of the omitted letter.

Could also be. Except that the letter has in the book 5 lines.

What are the 7 differences that Ms. Weckert identified? Comparing the two translations that we have, the only significant textual difference we notice is this:

No, it would be necessary to compare the German texts. But, the differences are very minor. For example:
NS-Vernichtungslager: …der Jude aber nur 60 Pfg. kostet.
Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen duch Giftgas: … der Jude aber nur 80 Pfg. kostet.
(…the Jew costs only 80 pennies)

Under what circumstances? Was a prosecution brought against Mr. Höppner in the 1960s?

According to NS-Vernichtungslager Höppner was tried again in Germany, in Bonn. There (as well as during the trial in Poland) he did firmly deny to have written the memo to the RSHA and the memo to file.

Rückerl did not believe him. However the court dropped the trial against Höppner anyway.

fge

Hebden
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:17 am
Location: Here and there, mostly there

Postby Hebden » 1 decade 5 years ago (Thu Dec 18, 2003 4:32 pm)

Hannover wrote:Once again, Weckert did not specify that the 2 missing lines were a 'letter', which would be a physically separate item.


Unless she misunderstood what she was reading. It is not obvious on first inspection that the memo is not part of the letter's text.

Hebden
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:17 am
Location: Here and there, mostly there

Postby Hebden » 1 decade 5 years ago (Thu Dec 18, 2003 5:35 pm)

Sailor wrote:
The missing lines seem to be in the heading of the memo to file.


Either way, it does not exactly bode well for Ms. Deckert's article.

In the same vein, we wonder if these two missing lines actually consist of the omitted letter.


Could also be. Except that the letter has in the book 5 lines.


We may yet have to consign our idea to the scrap heap.

What are the 7 differences that Ms. Weckert identified? Comparing the two translations that we have, the only significant textual difference we notice is this:


No, it would be necessary to compare the German texts.


Naturally. What does the German have regarding the discrepancy we pointed out concerning SS-Brigadeführer Albert?

Under what circumstances? Was a prosecution brought against Mr. Höppner in the 1960s?

According to NS-Vernichtungslager Höppner was tried again in Germany, in Bonn. There (as well as during the trial in Poland) did he firmly deny to have written the memo to the RSHA and the memo to file.

Rückerl did not believe him. However the court dropped the trial against Höppner anyway.


What trial in Poland would that be?

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 5 years ago (Thu Dec 18, 2003 6:16 pm)

Hebden wrote: Naturally. What does the German have regarding the discrepancy we pointed out concerning SS-Brigadeführer Albert?


It is in both books the same:

"3. Ein derartiges Lager läßt sich nach Meinung von SS-Brigadeführer Albert mit bedeutend weniger Polizeikräften bewachen, als dies jetzt der Fall ist."

(3. Such a camp can according to SS-Brigadeführer Albert be guarded with considerably less police force, as it is now the case.)

What trial in Poland would that be?

According to Adalbert Rückerl NS-Vernichtungslager,
Höppner was sentenced to a lifelong term imprisonmentl by the District Court in Posen on March 15, 1947. He was discharged after ten years.

fge

Hebden
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:17 am
Location: Here and there, mostly there

Postby Hebden » 1 decade 5 years ago (Thu Dec 18, 2003 8:05 pm)

Let's move on to another important document in the Chelmno story, Reichstatthalter Artur Greiser's letter to Reichsführer Himmler of May 1, 1942:

TRANSLATION OF
DOCUMENT NO-246 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 196

LETTER FROM GREISER TO HIMMLER, I MAY 1942, CONCERNING THE PLAN FOR MASS EXTERMINATION OF TUBERCULAR POLES

Reich Governor of the Reichsgau Wartheland.

Poznan, Schlossfreiheit 13, 1 May 1942
Telephone No. 1823 24

[Handwritten note]
P 802/42
Top Secret

Personal.
To the Reich Leader SS Heinrich Himmler,
Fuehrer Headquarters.

Reich Leader,

The special treatment [Sonderbehandlung] of about 100,000 Jews in the territory of my district [Gau], approved by you in agreement with the Chief of the Reich Security Main Office, SS Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich, can be completed within the next 2-3 months. I ask you for permission to rescue the district immediately after the measures taken against the Jews, from a menace which is increasing week by week, and use the existing and efficient special commandos for that purpose.

There are about 230,000 people of Polish nationality in my district, who were diagnosed to suffer from tuberculosis. The number of persons infected with open tuberculosis is estimated at about 35,000. This fact has led in an increasingly frightening measure to the infection of Germans who came to the Warthegau perfectly healthy. In particular, reports are received with ever-increasing effect of German children in danger of infection. A considerable number of well-known leading men, especially of the police, have been infected lately and are not available for the war effort because of the necessary medical treatment. The ever-increasing risks were also recognized and appreciated by the deputy of the Reich Leader for Public Health [Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer], Comrade Professor Dr. Blome, as well as by the leader of your X-ray battalion, SS Standartenfuehrer Prof. Dr. Hohlfelder.

Though in Germany proper it is not possible to take appropriate draconic steps against this public plague, I think I could take responsibility for my suggestion to have cases of open tuberculosis exterminated among the Polish race herein the Warthegau. Of course only a Pole should be handed over to such an action who is not only suffering from open tuberculosis, but whose incurability is proved and certified by a public health officer.

Considering the urgency of this project I ask for your approval in principle as soon as possible. This would enable us to make the preparations with all necessary precautions now to get the action against the Poles suffering from open tuberculosis under way, while the action against the Jews is in its closing stages.

Heil Hitler !

[Signature] Greiser


Associated documents listed here:

http://www.mazal.org/archive/nmt/01/NMT01-T768.htm

What do you make of it? What does Ms. Weckert make of it, if anything?
Last edited by Hebden on Fri Dec 19, 2003 11:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 5 years ago (Thu Dec 18, 2003 9:36 pm)

Let's do it tomorrow, Mr. Hebden. I am a little under the weather, got a cold or something.

fge

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9836
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 5 years ago (Fri Dec 19, 2003 3:17 am)

Greiser's alleged letter and any assertions about documents concerning Chelmno must be examined in lieu of the alleged method of 'extermination' and body disposal at Chelmno.

The murder weapon was alleged to be 'gas vans' which Weckert has utterly demolished. Not to mention P.F. Berg's debunking of these laughable 'murder weapons' and Widukind's spanking of Jamie McCarthy of the so called 'holocaust' History Project.
see here:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=73

The body disposal was allegedly via huge mass graves, exhumation, and cremation in a variety of ridiculous ways; depending on which lying 'eyewitness' is examined.
However, there has never been any mass grave shown to exist at Chelmno that supports the preposterous story. None.

As we know, any mass grave (essentially a very large hole), regardless of whether it has been filled in or not, is easily detected. And ofcourse, there would be massive human remains, cremation or not. There's no ash pits, no massive bodily remains....nothing. The story is just another fraud in a long line of absurd 'holocau$t' lies.

Given the lack of evidence, Greiser's alleged 'letter' as was shown is necessarily another transparent Communist creation, of which there were many...ie: note the debunked Hoeppner letter we discussed earlier in this thread.

No evidence = no 'holocau$t' as alleged.

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

Hebden
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 467
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:17 am
Location: Here and there, mostly there

Postby Hebden » 1 decade 5 years ago (Fri Dec 19, 2003 11:22 am)

Mr. Arthur Butz addresses the letter in The Hoax of the Twentieth Century (pg. 113 in our edition):

"...and NO-246, a letter from Artur Greiser to Himmler dated 1 May 1942, asking permission to give Sonderbehandlung, specified as getting them "locked up" (abgeschlossen), to about 100,000 Jews in the Warthegau (part of annexed Poland."


We emailed Mr. Butz to enquire about his apparent mischaracterisation of the letter. He has requested we come back to him with this in January, after the holiday season.

Does anyone have the German version of this letter?

Secret Anne X
Member
Member
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 11:12 pm

Postby Secret Anne X » 1 decade 5 years ago (Fri Dec 19, 2003 3:40 pm)

Hi,

Don't have much time for this, what with holidays and all, however:

Die von Ihnen im Einvernehmen mit dem Chef des Reichssicherheitshauptamtes SS-Obergruppenführer Heydrich genehmigte Aktion der Sonderbehandlung von rund 100,000 Juden in meinem Gaugebiet wird in den nächsten 2-3 Monaten abgeschlossen werden können


The key is that Butz misunderstood the meaning of "abgeschlossen" here, it means more "can be wrapped up" than "can be locked up." Beyond that, it depends how you want to define Sonderbehandlung.

Since no one has ever provided any good evidence for gas vans, I really don't see the point ....


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests