Sonderbehandlung 14f13 at Gross Rosen

On April 3, 1942, Arthur Roedl, commandant of Gross-Rosen, wrote that the "the special treatment ) of 127 prisoners has been completed on 2 April 1942." Proof that this meant 'killed' can be derived from the same author's message of March 26, 1942, collected in 1234-PS. This notes that 214 arrestees were "mustered out" on 19-20 January, of whom 36 had died by March 17th and 51 had been declared capable of work. The 127 remaining were killed at Bernburg in batches of 70 and 57: the transfer of the first 70 is shown here.

The process of selection for Sonderbehandlung 14f13 is documented in 1151-PS [scans], summarized in the Staff Evidence Analysis here. Liebensehel wrote on December 10, 1941, that a DoctorsCommission would visit nine camps to make selections. Forms were then issued (NO-1945). The selections at Gross Rosen on 19-20 January were discussed in a letter by Mennecke to his wife (NO-907). The euthanasia centre Bernburg wrote to Gross Rosen on March 3rd to arrange the transfers, noting that "inmates from other concentration camps will arrive" and thus "an interim is necessary for us in order to be able to carry out all this work."

How Reliable is the Statement of Maximilian Grabner?

The post-war statement scripted by the former head of the Political Department in Auschwitz Maximilian Grabner in Vienna, probably in late September 1945, was recently published by Sergey. In this posting, the reliability of his testimony will be assessed in some more detail. As a result, Grabner is a fairly reliable witness on most of the Auschwitz history touched by him, including atrocities. Only anything tangent to his own role and fate in the camp has been distorted and perverted to serve his purpose and discharge himself from any misconduct.

A point for point dissection of his testimony can be found in the appendix. This exercise is meant to assist in gauging the reliability and credibility of his account. A trained historian may do such en passant while studying the source, but it's use full to remind Holocaust deniers that corroboration forms a bond between evidence that needs to be broken first else it is greatly enhancing their mutual strength and that pointing out a few deliberate or undeliberate mistakes in a lengthy testimony (of which typically only some are real mistakes, while others are simply made up by denier's historical ignorance and personal incredulity) is not sufficient to dismiss it as uncredible, nor does it explain anything.