Sonderkommando Kulmhof in German Documents - The Extermination of 100,000 Jews

Mass Killing Unit of Warthegau

Sonderkommando Lange in German Documents:

 Euthanasia 1940/41

Sonderkommando Kulmhof in German Documents:

Part I: Origin and Foundation

Part II: The Extermination of 100,000 Jews

Part III: Body Disposal (Appendix)

Part IV: Pabianice Sorting Camp

Part V: Funding

Part VI: The Polish Working Detail

Part VII: Motor Pool and Fuel (Appendix)

Part VIII: Drinks and Tobacco (With Excursus on the Extermination of the Sinti and Roma)

Part IX: Farewell (1943)

Figure 1: Google Earth view on the final train stations (Kolo/Warthbrücken & Powierce), the ruins of Kulmhof Extermination Camp and its Body Disposal Site in Rzuchow Forest

"Brought to the Final Solution"

On January 3, 1946, Wisliceny admitted in court that Jews sent to Auschwitz from Hungary were  "brought to the final solution". On February 19, 1944, a document on executions in Piaski gave a list of Jews who were "brought to the final solution." ["der Endlösung zugeführt wurden" [YVA O.53/82, pp.50-52]. These types of executions had been defined by Heydrich as special treatment [Sonderbehandlung], as quoted here. We therefore have a convergence of documentation and testimony that "final solution" in the context of SS operations in Auschwitz and in Poland generally meant killing, albeit disguised as "special treatment" [Sonderbehandlung] in which death was meted out via extralegal executions.

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."

Reply to Nicholas Kollerstrom on the Auschwitz Death Books

The Revisionist Nicholas Kollerstrom, the author of the book Breaking the Spell, has recently commented on my blog post Open Letter to Nick Kollerstrom on the Auschwitz Death Books. Here's my reply to him.

Rebuttal of Mattogno on Auschwitz, Part 5: Construction Documents, F: Cremation with Simultaneous Special Treatment

Rebuttal of Mattogno on Auschwitz:

Part 1: Indoor Cremation

Part 2: Gas Introduction at the Crematoria

Part 3: Eyewitnesses (Supplement)
Part 4: Sonderkommando Handwritings
Part 5: Construction Documents:
A: Introduction
B: Ventilation & Elevators
C: Undressing Room
D: Outward Opening Door & Removal of Corpse Chute
E: Gas Detectors
F: Cremation with Simultaneous Special Treatment

Mattogno's Fatal Concession: The Killing of Tubercular Poles

Mattogno makes this concession regarding tubercular Poles:

On May 1st, 1942 (NO-246), Gauleiter Greiser proposed to Himmler to kill them. [MGK, Sobibór, p.280 n.850].

This is fatal for Mattogno because those killings were referred to as Sonderbehandlung by Greiser, Himmler, Koppe and Blome in the chain of documents shown here and because Greiser had used Sonderbehandlung in NO-246 to refer to "100,000 Jews in the area of my Gau." Slam, dunk.

«What is Katyn against that?»

The blog Thomas Kues on Maly Trostenets: Lying about a German Court Judgment includes a partial translation of a file note written on 20 July 1943 by SS-Obersturmbannführer Eduard Strauch, in which Strauch reports about a confrontation he had with Wilhelm Kube, the Generalkommissar for the part of the Nazi-occupied Soviet territories known as White Ruthenia, following the execution of 70 Jews employed by the Generalkommissar.

Thomas Kues on Maly Trostenets: Lying about a German Court Judgment

In a judgment issued on 21.05.1963, the Court of Assizes (Landgericht - LG) in Koblenz, German Federal Republic, sentenced several former participants in mass crimes committed in the years 1941-44 in the areas of Minsk, Koidanow, Rakow, Slonim and Sluzk in present-day Belarus, including the Maly Trostenets killing site near Minsk.

Mattogno's special treatment of evidence continues

In a posting at the antisemitic "Inconvenient history" blog Carlo Mattogno announces his new book about selections in Auschwitz and finally comments on my old posting entitled "Mattogno's special treatment of evidence" (2006):

Mattogno's Abuse of History

During the last two years, we have posted a multitude of blogs demonstrating how 'sonderbehandlung' was used as a euphemism for killing in numerous Nazi documents. One of these blogs is Sergey's excellent shredding of Mattogno's shameless Auschwitz screed. This stands alongside other demolitions of Mattogno's dishonest pseudo-scholarship that we have conducted at HC since 2006, including Roberto's superb analysis of Mattogno's distortions concerning Kola's work at Belzec.

Read more!

Mattogno is different from other deniers in that he does attempt to use a range of primary source materials. However, his stock technique is to present these materials in a way that distorts, and even reverses, their contextual, geographical and chronological framework. Here is another example of this technique in action.

One of the documents that Mattogno seeks to whitewash is this report from Schwarz dated 8 March 1943, which describes the processing of arrivals at Auschwitz as follows:

Transport aus Berlin, Eingang 7. März 43, Gesamtstärke 690 einschließlich 25 Schutzhäftlingen. Zum Arbeitseinsatz gelangten 153 Männer und 25 Schutzhäftlinge (Buna) und 65 Frauen. Sonderbehandelt wurden 30 Männer und 417 Frauen und Kinder.

Translation:

Transport from Berlin, arrival March 7, 1943 total strength 690 including 25 prisoners in protective custody. 153 men and 25 prisoners in protective custody were assigned for work (Buna), and 65 women, 30 men and 417 women and children received special treatment.

How does Mattogno deal with this obvious reference to gassing? I am grateful to Hans at RODOH forum for supplying this extract from Mattogno's attempted whitewash of the documentation:

How was this 'special treatment' managed in practice? In the third paragraph of a letter dated June 4, 1943, already cited on p. 41, Bischoff wrote of the central sauna, then under construction:145

"The large dressing and undressing rooms are absolutely necessary,
since the influx of an entire transport (approx. 2000), most of which arrive
at night, must be confined within a single area until the next morning. Having
the arrivals wait in the fully occupied camp is excluded due to the danger
of transmission of lice."

This citation is both amateurish and fraudulent. It is amateurish because, as Hans notes, Kremer's diary shows that "transports arriving at night were usually not locked somewhere until the next morning but immediately selected." It is fraudulent because, as Nick Terry observes on the same thread:

Mattosha shows his usual incredible grasp of chronology by citing a document from three months after the document he is trying to 'neutralise'.

Mattogno claims that the Jews undergoing sonderbehandlung in the March 8th document were being treated in a Central Sauna that was still 'under construction' on June 4th. He also claims that these Jews were then sent on to the USSR, at a time when the Germans were, to put it mildly, suffering 'major reversals' at the hands of the Red Army and Soviet partisans. As I have noted elsewhere, this is blatantly dishonest because Mattogno has cited in his Treblinka screed that:

On 31 July 1942, the Reichskommissar for White Russia, Wilhelm Kube, sent a telegram to the Reichskommissar for the Ostland, Heinrich Lohse, in which he protested the dispatching of a transport of "1,000 Jews from Warsaw to work at Minsk," because this would lead to danger of epidemics and an increase in partisan activity.

Mattogno is seriously asking us to believe that officers in the USSR who bitterly protested the arrival of 1,000 Jews in July 1942 would have given the nod to far greater deportations in 1943 and even 1944, when the phrase 'S.B.' was still appearing in the so-called prisoners' strength reports (Staerkemeldungen) of the women's camp at Birkenau, at a time when the military situation for the Germans fighting the Red Army and partisans had become dire. Moreover, at least one of the Staerkemeldungen mentioning 'S.B.' was dated November 29th, 1944, whereas the Red Army recaptured Minsk on 3 July 1944 and Riga by 13th October, 1944. It is therefore no surprise that Mattosha ignores these documents, as even he would not insult his gullible denier readership by pretending that Auschwitz Jews were being resettled in Soviet territory that was no longer in Nazi hands.

Finally, another part of the extract cited by Hans shows the desperation of Mattogno's sourcing:

According to Radio Moscow, several thousand Jews were resettled in the Ukraine. In its issue number 71 of April 1944, the Jewish underground newspaper Notre Voix was able to report...

Needless to say, Mattogno would excoriate any orthodox historian who resorted to such piss-poor use of a state propaganda outlet and secondary source. That such a source should be Mattosha's primary weapon against authentic Nazi documentation is simply an admission on his behalf that he is fighting an ideological battle by dishonest means, not engaging in honest historical scholarship.

Eduard Strauch

The documented words and deeds of SS-Obersturmbannführer Eduard Strauch, the commander of the Security Police and SD (KdS) in White Ruthenia, pose three unsurmountable problems for deniers. Firstly, Strauch "admitted that, to his own knowledge, a Jew had to be killed just because he was a Jew". This admission was made, not only at his 1948 trial, but also in documents that he wrote for his superiors, which are discussed below. Secondly, Strauch used euphemisms such as "special treatment" and "resettled" in contexts that were so blatant that they could not camouflage their true meaning. Thirdly, Strauch's actions can be traced through testimony showing that they were systematic and ordered from the centre. Deniers cannot therefore claim that Strauch's forces were killing Jews because they were partisans, nor that their actions were ad-hoc and reactive.

Read more!

On July 25th, 1943, Strauch sent a long report to his superior, von dem Bach (Nuremberg file NO-2662), in which he complained bitterly about the behaviour of the Generalkommissar of White Ruthenia, Wilhelm Kube. The report is reproduced in full at the Axis History Forum here. The report includes the following revealing paragraphs:

On numerous occasions Kube has said to me personally that Jews evacuated from the Reich could be spared without any problem since they do not understand the local language and would therefore not pose a danger in so far as their becoming involved in guerrilla activities was concerned.

I am convinced from the evidence that deep down Kube is opposed to our actions against the Jews. If he does not admit to this outwardly the only reason is his fear of the consequences. He is in agreement with actions against Russian Jews because he is able to appease his conscience by the fact that the majority of Russian Jews collaborate with the guerrillas.

Every false denier claim, from Butz downwards, that the Einsatzkommandos were 'just' killing partisans can be safely trashed using this one extract. It confirms what was already obvious to anyone who has read the Operational Situation Reports, such as those in this link, namely that Jews were killed purely on the basis of their assumed 'racial origin'.

Strauch's use of euphemisms has already been the subject of an excellent blog by Nick Terry, revealing how the term 'resettlement' was used euphemistically when Strauch gave the order to kill the Jews of Sluzk. Nick's translation:

On 8 and 9 February 1943 there will be a resettlement in the town Sluzk by the local command the resettlement of the Jews there.
The evacuation of the Jews to the resettlement place happens by means of 6 trucks, each to be accompanied by 4 Latvians.
At the resettlement area are 2 pits. At each pit a group of 10 leaders and men will work, to be relieved every 2 hours. Times 8-10 o'clock, 10-12 o'clock, 12-14 o'clock, 14-16 o'clock.

Strauch's report to von dem Bach, cited above, provides further proof that deniers are pissing in the wind when they try to read 'resettlement' literally in any document produced during the occupation period:

On 1 March 1942 an action was to take place against the Russian ghetto in Minsk. The Generalkommissar received prior notification. In order to disguise the action the Council of Elders was to be informed that 5,000 Jews from the Minsk ghetto were to be resettled. These Jews were to be notified by the Council of Elders and told to get ready. Each Jew would be permitted to take along 5 kg of luggage.

As can be proved, the actual intentions of the Security Police were betrayed by the Generalkommissariat. Those Jews employed in the Generalkommissariat were not allowed into the ghetto for several days but were made to stay in the Generalkommissariat, as a result of which it became clear to the ghetto Jews that the version put out by the Security Police was not correct. In addition, further indiscretions were committed, as emerges from liaison reports. At the time it was not possible to prove these incidents. It is clear, however, that the Gauleiter used his knowledge to save his Jews.

Furthermore, the documents of Strauch, Kube and Lohse give several examples of how Sonderbehandlung was used as a euphemism for genocidal killing. Lohse, when forwarding a report from Kube to Rosenberg on 18 June 1943, wrote that:

The fact that Jews receive special treatment requires no further discussion. However, it appears hardly believable that this is done in the way described in the report of the General Commissioner of 1 June 1943. What is Katyn against that? Imagine only that these occurrences would become known to the other side and exploited by them! Most likely such propaganda would have no effect only because people who hear and read about it simply would not be ready to believe it.

To lock men, women, and children into barns and to set fire to them does not appear to be a suitable method of combating bands, even if it is desired to exterminate the population. This method is not worthy of the German cause and hurts our reputation severely.

Strauch's report to von dem Bach gives an example of such 'special treatment':

During a major ghetto action it was made known by informants that the German Jewish Ordnungsdienst made up predominantly of former World War I servicemen, was intending to put up armed resistance. In order to avoid bloodshed on the German side the Ordnungsdienst was made to assemble and was told that a fire had broken out in the town and they should be at the ready for fire duty. The Jews were then loaded on to trucks and sonderbehandelt.

The Nuremberg judgement against Strauch, cited above also noted that:

On 20 July 1943 Strauch wrote a letter narrating how he had subjected 70 Jews to special treatment and expressing his resentment because complaint had arisen from the fact that he had had the gold fillings removed from the mouths of these Jews before they were killed.

Finally, deniers will be distressed to read that Strauch was acting from higher orders. Heydrich met Strauch in Minsk in April 1942, and his presence enabled this sequence of events, described by Strauch at his trial:

In response to a question regarding the Jewish problem in White Ruthenia, Strauch replied that the Fuehrer Order was valid in White Ruthenia, as everywhere else. He testified that he had a conference with Kube and that Kube told him Jews were needed and he could not do without these Jews, since they should be used in bringing in the harvest, working in an armament factory, and doing other jobs. The defendant thereupon talked to Heydrich and was directed to postpone the execution of the Fuehrer Order until the harvest was brought in.

The harvest of evidence relating to Strauch will thus leave an unpleasant taste in mouths of Hitler-kissing deniers.

Documents about the murderous purpose of SK Lange

In addition to Roberto's posting about Arthur Greiser's letter [NO-246], I should note that there is a whole series of documents dealing with "special treatment" of tubercular Poles.

One of the more interesting documents is Wilhelm Koppe's letter to Karl Brandt of 02.05.42 [NO-247]. As the only possible solution to the problem of Poles incurably ill with tuberculosis, it recommends that they be:

... admitted to the detachment (Kommando) Lange for special treatment (Sonderbehandlung).

(You may remember the expression "zur Sonderbehandlung zugefuehrt" from this posting.)

From further correspondence we learn that Himmler granted permission to subject tubercular Poles to Sonderbehandlung (see his letter of 27.06.42 [NO-244]) and that Chief of Security Police and SD had no scruples about Sonderbehandlung of incurable Poles [NO-245]. In a reply to Himmler's permission to specially treat the incurable Poles, Greiser says that it is not necessary to inform Hitler, since the latter had given him permission to do as he sees fit [NO-249]. Attached to this reply is a letter from Dr. Kurt Blome with objections to Sonderbehandlung of the incurably ill Poles [NO-250]. Blome lists two other alternatives - isolation of seriously ill persons, and creation of reservation for all TB patients. It was Blome who wanted Hitler to give explicit permission for this "radical procedure" of Sonderbehandlung, if it was necessary after all:

I could imagine that the Fuehrer, having some time ago stopped the program in the insane asylums, might at this moment consider a "special treatment" of the incurably sick as unsuitable and irresponsible from a political point of view. As regards the Euthanasia Program it was a question of people of German nationality afflicted with hereditary diseases. Now it is a question of infected sick people of a subjugated nation.

Blome then warned that this action couldn't be made secret, as they knew from experience with the "euthanasia" action. He was worried that the news of this action would be used in enemy propaganda.

Himmler was impressed by Dr. Blome's arguments. In a subsequent letter he withdrew his permission and asked to search for another way to proceed [NO-251].

It seems, however, that at least 2,000 tubercular Poles were "sonderbehandelt", as follows from Greiser's 27.06.42 letter to Brandt [NO-252].

From this set of documents it inevitably follows that in this case "Sonderbehandlung" was murder, that Sonderkommando Lange was used to perform this "Sonderbehandlung", that at one time there were plans to use Sonderkommando Lange to murder tens of thousands of incurably ill Poles, and that Sonderkommando Lange had already been used for "Sonderbehandlung" of at least 100,000 Jews in Warthegau.

And indeed, we know from many other sources that Herbert Lange's Sonderkommando was engaged in murder of Jews and incurably sick persons in Chelmno and other places [cf. also NO-2908; NO-2909].

Mattogno's special treatment of evidence

In a 100+ page treatise Special Treatment in Auschwitz. Origin and Meaning of a Term [large PDF] leading Holocaust denier Carlo Mattogno argues that the terms like "Sonderbehandlung" (special treatment) and "Sonderaktion" (special action) had an innocent meaning when used in Auschwitz documents. Mattogno concedes that outside of Auschwitz the term "Sonderbehandlung" could have meant execution, so I won't dwell on this well-known fact here, noting only that it meant execution in the absolute majority of known documents [old link no longer works; see this for examples].

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. Before discussing Mattogno's deception, I should say that I agree with Mattogno that "Sonderbehandlung" did not always mean "murder" in Auschwitz. Cost estimate for expansion of Birkenau [1, 2], first published by F. Freund, B. Perz and K. Stuhlpfarrer ("Der Bau des Vernichtungslagers Auschwitz-Birkenau", Zeitgeschichte, Jg. 20/1993, H. 5/6) mentions the following buildings:

16a) Delousing facility 1. for special treatment [...] Extra charges for heating, shower and disinfestation facilities RM 73,680.00 310,000.00 16b) 2. For the guard troops [...] Extra charges for heating, shower and disinfestation facilities RM 7,920 RM 30,000"

Building 16a, "delousing facility for special treatment", was actually the so-called Central Sauna, the purpose of which was not murder, but rather disinfestation of deportees and their belongings. Mattogno ties the term "Sonderbehandlung" to hygienic measures on this basis, but there is no justification for doing so. By this logic, not only the designation "delousing facility for special treatment" is tautological, but the second delousing facility is also for this "special treatment", so why the first one was called such, but not the second? The meaning of "special treatment" in this case can probably be explained on the basis of Eichmann's testimony. Eichmann claimed during his trial:

A. I would like to say the following about this. The term "special treatment" (Sonderbehandlung) has various meanings. As Poliakov says, in Poliakov - Black or Red - I can give the page number right away...I have it in my files somewhere...he reproduces forms. On these forms it says, "Re: Special Treatment" - first of all for Poles suitable for Germanization (eindeutschungsfaehig), and the same word, special treatment, is also for Poles not suitable for Germanization, that is those to be sent from the Eastern Occupied Territories to the Generalgouvernement. So that is one meaning of special treatment (Sonderbehandlung). Special Treatment also means - I want to say this here in this context as well, although I know that it is known - also means all transports of Jews, the deportation transports.

Taken alone, this claim might be seen as a defensive lie. But if we assume that Eichmann was telling the truth, everything clicks into place: Central Sauna was a delousing facility for the deportees (perhaps specifically Jews), i.e. those who came into the camp as a part of "Sonderbehandlung". The second delousing facility is strictly for the guard troops. Thus, "Sonderbehandlung" was probably roughly synonimous with the term "Final Solution", which included not only immediate murder, but also deportation to the labor camps. (I should also note that in an earlier interrogation by Less, Eichmann claimed that everybody knew that "special treatment" was killing; this claim does not actually contradict Eichmann's later testimony. Eichmann did not claim that it meant only killing. However, it follows from this early interrogation that killing was the primary meaning of "Sonderbehandlung").

This hypothesis is certainly much more plausible than Mattogno's baseless musings about "hygienic measures". But it also shows that one must be careful not to make hasty conclusions about any document containing this term. For example, historians Goetz Aly and Heinrich Schwendemann both mistook "Entwesungsanlage fuer Sonderbehandlung", i.e. (relatively) innocent Central Sauna, for homicidal gassing facility, hinting that Speer, to whom the cost estimate had been sent, must have known about the gas chambers...

Given this, each document containing the code words should be examined on its own merits. And it so happens that there is a crucial group of documents in which "Sonderbehandlung" meant killing. The documents which Mattogno chose not to mention in his book despite their significance. These are the so-called prisoners' strength reports (Staerkemeldungen) of the women's camp at Birkenau. The typical Staerkemeldung looks like this:

Frauen-Lager, KL. Au. II
Abteilung III/a
BIa-b/B.II b.g.c/B.III                  Birkenau, den 8.10.1944


S t ä r k e m e l d u n g


Stärke am 7.10.1944                            38792 Hftl.
[Strength on 7 October 1944                     38792 prisoners]

Zugänge am 7.10.1944
[Arrivals on 7 October 1944]

Einlieferungen                     7
[Entries                           7]

Überstellungen                     1              8    "  
[Transfers                         1              8    "]

Abgänge am 7.10.1944
[Departures on 7 October 1944]

Gestorben nat. Todes               7
[Natural deaths                    7]

S.B.                             1229

Entlassungen                       8
[Releases                          8]

Überstellungen                  1150           2394    "
[Transfers                       1150           2394    "]

SA.:         36406 Haeftl.
[Total:      36406 prisoners]

Only a handful of reports exist for the women's camp, all of those for 1944. I have most if not all of them in possession thanks to Prof. John Zimmerman. I also have several strength reports for camp BIIe in Birkenau. It seems that the reports for other parts of Birkenau have been destroyed. So, how do these reports help us? Note that the meaning of all entries is clear with one exception. What could S.B. mean? Prof. van Pelt argues, repeating the argument used in the book Nazi Mass Murder : A Documentary History of the Use of Poison Gas:

Rudolf asks at the bottom of this picture the question "'Sonderbehandlung' or 'Schonungsblock'?" The obvious answer is "Sonderbehandlung." The document Rudolf introduced lists two sub-classes of "Departures." The first lists "Died a natural death." The second category, S.B., is not defined. It seems plausible that it refers to "Died an unnatural death."

Prof. van Pelt's response is not fully satisfying. Since the reports cover only the women's camp, he cannot exclude that S.B. meant a special kind of transfer into into a block for convalescents (Schonungsblock) in another part of the camp (for example, because this block in the women's camp was full). Obviously, this alternative looks implausible, and yet it still should be excluded before proceeding further. So the first question we should ask is whether "S.B." meant "Sonderbehandlung" or "Schonungsblock".

There are three conclusive lines of evidence which establish that "S.B." meant nothing but "Sonderbehandlung" and killing.

1) The first argument is based on comparison of several documents mentioning the phrase "der Sonderbehandlung zugefuehrt" ("sent to special treatment") or variations thereof. In March 5, 1943 report of SS-Obersturmfuehrer Schwarz there is a mention of a number of arrived Jews who were "sent to S.B." ("der S.B. zugefuehrt"). The report was published in 1946 in Dokumenty i materialy, edited by Nachman Blumenthal. Unfortunately, there was a typo made by the publisher - the line which begins "Davon 200 Frauen..." has been accidentally typed instead of the first line of the second paragraph. According to information from Danuta Czech's Auschwitz Chronicle (1990 edn., p. 344), the first line contained the information about 632 men, of whom 517 were registered. The second line of the second paragraph, which contains the words "der S.B. zugefuehrt", pertains to those Jewish men who had not been selected. In another report by Schwarz, written on March 8, 1943, we read:

Am 5. und 7. März trafen folgende jüdische Häftlingstransporte ein. Transport aus Berlin, Eingang 5. März 43, Gesamtstärke 1128 Juden. Zum Arbeitseinsatz gelangten 389 Männer (Buna) und 96 Frauen. Sonderbehandelt wurden 151 Männer und 492 Frauen und Kinder. Transport aus Breslau, Eingang 5.Maerz 43, Gesamtstärke 1405 Juden. Zum Arbeitseinsatz gelangten 406 Männer (Buna) und 190 Frauen. Sonderbehandelt wurden 125 Männer und 684 Frauen und Kinder.

The structure here is the same: some people are selected as fit for labor, and the rest are "specially treated" (Sonderbehandelt). Thus it is proven that "S.B." was abbreviation for "Sonderbehandlung" and not "Schonungsblock". There are more documents which use the phrase "sent to special treatment", or its variations. One is Liebenschel's 28.3.1942 letter to concentration camp commanders concerning "Sonderbehandlung 14 f 13" (which was the name of "euthanasia" program in the camps):

Through the report of a camp commander it became known, that 42 of the 51 inmates selected for special treatment 14 f 13 became "fit for work" again after some time wich made their transfer for special treatment unnecessary [der Sonderbehandlung nicht zugeführt]. This shows that the selection of these inmates is not being effected in compliance with the rules laid down. Only those inmates who correspond to the conditions laid down and, this is the most important thing, who are no longer fit for work, are to be brought before the examining commission.In order to enable the concentration camps to carry out the tasks they are set, every inmate fit for work is to be put at the disposal of the camp. The camp commanders of the concentration camps are asked to give their special attention to this matter.

The second document is Liebenschel's 10.12.41 letter to concentration camp commanders on the same topic:

After the checks are finished, submit a report to the inspector of the concentration camps, the number of prisoners sent to Sonderbehandlung '14 f 13' [der Sonderbehandlung '14 f 13' zugeführten] is to be reported. The exact date of the arrival of the doctor-commission will be announced at time.

The third document is a telex from the Stapo office Nuernberg-Fuerth to the Stapo central office in Munich received on 24.1.42:

To the Stapo central office - to the hands of H[err?] Reg. Rat Schimmel Munich . ::-:: Secret = U R G E N T ::-:: present immeadiately. == Re.: Check of Soviet-Russian POWs - So far 2009 Soviet-Russians (652 officers and 1357 troops) were selected and sent to Sonderbehandlung [der Sonderbehandlung zugeführt] by the Einsatzkommandos of the Stapo office. - The coorperation with the commandant of the POWs in the Wehrkreis Roem. 13, Generalmajor Schemmel, is excellent, there were no difficulties whatsoever so far. == STAPO office Nuernberg-Fuerth. signed Otto Krim[inal]-Rat

Finally, it should be noted that "S.B." in Schwarz's telegram cannot mean "Schonungsblock" for purely linguistic reasons: since "Schonungsblock" is masculine (as opposed to "Sonderbehandlung", which is feminine), the phrase would have read as "dem S.B. zugeführt". Case closed. Note: This line of evidence has been single-handedly developed by Hans at RODOH.


2) Let's analyze what "S.B." could and could not have been. "S.B." is a kind of departure.

• a) But it cannot cover transfers out of Auschwitz camp complex, because this is covered by "Transfers".
• b) Neither can it cover natural deaths, because this is covered by "Natural deaths".
• c) Neither can it cover releases, because this is covered by "Releases".
• d) Neither can it cover transfers to another Auschwitz sub-camp like Auschwitz I or Monowitz.
This is proven by the fact that such transfers were either included in the "Transfers" category, or were mentioned explicitly. In the 8.11.44 report about the situation in Birkenau women's camp on 7.11.44 we read:

gest. nat. Todes 2 S.B. 8 Überstellungen 86

According to the Auschwitz Chronicle for that date, 30 of these transferred women were deported to other camps and 56 - to Auschwitz I (Czech relies on one of Auschwitz I strength reports). This means that transports to Auschwitz I (and, by induction, to other sub-camps) have been included in the general category "Transfers". In the 29.11.44 report about the situation in Birkenau women's camp on 28.11.44 we read:

gestorben nat-Todes 4 S.B. 5 Überstellungen 141 Verlegt nach Auschw. 148

This means that sometimes transports to Auschwitz I (and, by induction, to other sub-camps) had their own separate entries. All this means that "S.B." cannot cover these transfers.
• e) Neither can it cover internal Birkenau transfers from one section to another.
In the 21.7.44 report about the situation in Birkenau women's camp on 20.7.44 we read:

gestorben nat.Todes 6 S.B. 1 Entlassungen 17 verl. b.BII/e 7

Reproduction quality is not the best here, so, just to be sure, here's an excerpt from the strength report of section BII/e for that date, in which you can see that 7 women did arrive from the women's camp: Note that the transfer of 7 women to section BII/e (also part of Birkenau) is covered explicitly. This means that S.B. cannot cover these transfers.

Since all the possibilities have been exhausted, "S.B." can only mean an unnatural death. Case closed, for the second time now.

3) Edwin Black in his book IBM and the Holocaust mentions a decode key for concentration camp card index files (p. 365; the archival reference is in the notes). I wrote to Mr. Black and he kindly supplied me with a copy: SB = Sonderbehandlung. Case closed once and for all. Notably, this list contains the entry "Exekution", which obviously means a legal execution. "SB", thus, was an extrajudicial execution.

---

We have established that "S.B." in the prisoner's strength reports meant extrajudicial execution (i.e., simply murder), and was an abbreviation for "Sonderbehandlung", not "Schonungsblock".

What does Mattogno say about these reports in his book? Absolutely nothing.

It cannot be argued that he doesn't know about them - everybody with a real interest in Auschwitz history knows about them. It cannot be argued that he thought that "S.B." meant "Schonungsblock", and thus chose not to include these documents. Obviously, since "S.B." in these documents has always been assumed to be "Sonderbehandlung" by the historians, he should have mentioned these documents if only to refute such an interpretation.

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.