The Revisionist Nicholas Kollerstrom, author of the book Breaking the Spell, has recently commented on my blog posting Open Letter to Nick Kollerstrom on the Auschwitz Death Books. Here's my reply to him.
1.)
I think we can close this point, as we seem to agree that the death books are incomplete.2.)
"You say that cause-of-death reports have been falsified. I’m merely saying that both the Arolsen Archives and the Death Books of Au show a lot of trouble to report the causes of death, at great length, and not one single one anywhere has death by gassing or by cyanide – just as nobody in any German labour-camp reported seeing a bright shocking pink body, which is what results from death by cyanide. I have simply stated a fact, that these death records do not report the murder of any ethnic group eg Jews: which is correct. Inmates were shot at Auschwitz, if they tried to escape. The decrypts make that clear."
(Nicholas Kollerstrom, comment on Open Letter to Nick Kollerstrom on the Auschwitz Death Books)
I do not object to your statement that the deaths books do not mention any gassings (which is a fact of course). My problem is that you do so without pointing out that the death causes in the death books are unreliable anyway, but which is a very important information in this context. The lack of gassing (or injection) in the death books is little relevant for the question if anyone was gassed (or killed by injection) in Auschwitz, as these death certificates have been systematically falsified. I would like to kindly ask you to comment on this point (or if you disagree that death certificates have been falsified I would like to ask you to comment on the evidence presented here).
3.)
"concerning the (mysterious) decline in reported Jewish deaths in 1943 (see here http://www.whatreallyhappened.info/decrypts/Death_Certs_IMH_Auschwitz_Charts.html) you aver that this ‘indicates’ that most Jewish deaths were not being recorded. That is mere conjecture on your part, which I try to avoid. You CANNOT SHOW any authentic Nazi document suggesting that such selective non-reporting was taking place."
(Nicholas Kollerstrom, comment on Open Letter to Nick Kollerstrom on the Auschwitz Death Books)
Yes, I cannot show any German document that such selective non-reporting was taking place. But why is this supposed to be so crucial and relevant? Most of what was going on in Auschwitz is not known from any authentic German documents. This is already so because most of the Germans documents were destroyed by the Germans themselves. If we were only accepting what is told from German documents, we would know very little about this place. That would be a pity, from the point of view of "historical exactitude" as well.
But it's also so because the SS in the concentration camps did not have to write down everything that is relevant and interesting for us these days. If there was an oral order from above not to record Jewish deaths from RSHA transports in 1943 than it is likely that this would have been done regardless if there ever existed a written document on it. Maybe there was such written order, maybe not. Since the surviving German Auschwitz records have more holes than Swiss cheese this is hard to tell now.
But whatever was ordered in written form, what is clear from the available evidence is that most Jews, who died in the camp, were not entered into the death books anymore in 1943. This is not a "mere conjecture", but follows from testimonial evidence corroborated by the available German records.
Already the German records allow to infer that there is something very fishy with the number of Jews in the death books in 1943. Let's collect some explanations for the heavy decline of Jewish deaths (compared to non-Jewish deaths) in the Auschwitz death books in 1943:
a) only few Jews stayed in Auschwitz in 1943 → obviously false
b) the conditions in Auschwitz were much better in 1943 → but non-Jews continued to die at high rate → highly improbable
c) the conditions for Jews were much better than for non-Jews in Auschwitz in 1943 → absurd within the framework of the Nazi ideology and challenged by existing documentation on the conditions in the Jewish camps → highly improbable
Do you know any other explanations? Then please add them to this list. Here's the last one I can think of:
d) most Jews who died were not recorded in the death books anymore in 1943 → possibly → in the absence of any reasonable alternative explanation the one most likely to be true.
So we have four different explanations, but only one of those is actually conceivable, while the other three are highly improbable. Unless you come up with a fifth explanation that is comparable conceivable, it is not a "mere conjecture" to say that most Jews were not entered into the death books anymore in 1943, but it's the most reasonable explanation.
Moreover, this explanation is supported and confirmed by testimonial evidence. For instance, one of the female prisoner's clerks working for the Political Department in the civil registrar's office in Auschwitz stated:
"When it was decided not to write death certificates for the Jews anymore in 1943, we had of course much less to do."
(Jenny Spritzer, Ich war Nr. 10291, reprint from 1980, p. 53, my translation)
It worth to point out that Spritzer wrote this in 1946, i.e. more than 40 years before the bulk of the death books seized by the Soviets were made accessible or even evaluated. Spritzer's testimony and the statistical evaluation of the available death books are independent sources, and they agree to the a large extent on this issue. Spritzer claimed that Jews (more accurately: Jews from RSHA transports other than from Theresienstadt) were not longer registered in the death books in 1943 (more accurately: less frequently before and not longer after March 1943) and indeed the available death books show a drastic and otherwise incomprehensible decline of Jewish deaths compared to Non-Jewish deaths since February 1943. The statistical evaluation of the death books independently corroborates Spritzer's account and adds a lot of confidence to her testimony.
To sum this up, that most Jews were not entered into the death books anymore in 1943 was already the most likely explanation simply by elimination of the other possibilities, but it is further verified by multiple testimonial evidence (note that there are a some more testimonies from prisoner's clerks confirming this practise, cf. Grothum, Das digitale Archiv, p. 246).
4.)
"No it cannot be shown! I challenge you to do this. Its just an unverifiable phantasm, that hordes of Jews were gassed-on-arrival without being registered.
Concerning your next paragraph, many Jews unfit for work were lodged at Birkenau camp rather that Auschwitz. Your hunch that ‘specially lodged’ was a code for extermination is again a mere pipedream: that is not the way to do history. The ‘Special treatment’ here alluded to the preocedure, instigated in the summer of 1942 whereby all new arrivals were shaved, had their clothing removed and deloused, and showered, and it worked: slowly the dreadful mortality from the typhus epidemics were brought under control.
Your last paragraph assumes what you are trying to prove, that because ‘only’ 2841 Jewish deaths were reported, that ‘therefore’ jews selected as unfit for work were being exterminated. I believe You cannot produce any Nazi document to support this."
(Nicholas Kollerstrom, comment on Open Letter to Nick Kollerstrom on the Auschwitz Death Books)
Well, strictly speaking I did not say something about gassings on arrival (note that I did not use the term "gas" once in the Open Letter), I wrote "killed after their arrival". Here it is again:
(Me, Open Letter to Nick Kollerstrom on the Auschwitz Death Books)
You obviously disagree that "special treatment" meant killing, but which is untenable as I've pointed out elsewhere some days ago. Note that it can be ruled out that special treatment "alluded to the preocedure, instigated in the summer of 1942 whereby all new arrivals were shaved, had their clothing removed and deloused, and showered", as you say, because in this case it would apply also those selected as fit for work (by the way, did you know that - in contrast to those selected as fit for work - none of the photographs in the so called Auschwitz Album shows any Jews selected as unfit for work after they were "deloused and showered"? Guess why?).
"Special treatment" meant extrajudicial killing on people in custody according to the language regime of the German police and paramilitary forces at the time. There are numerous "Nazi documents" to make this a solid case. The cited Auschwitz document says that Jews unfit for work in German custody were specially lodged which was a variant of specially treated. From what we know about the SS language regime, those people were likely executed in Auschwitz.
To boost this from "likely" to "beyond reasonable doubt" we need to take into account further evidence. I've compiled some testimonies exclusively from German personnel from the commandant's office and the Political Department on the meaning of Sonderbehandlung in Auschwitz reports on prisoners:
We could add numerous testimonies from former prisoners working in the SS offices to this, but the point should be already clear. There is strong testimonial evidence confirming that special treatment aka specially lodged were euphemisms for killings in Auschwitz specifically when used on incoming transports of Jews in German custody. Thus, those 3.383 Jews unfit for work "specially lodged" on 21 and 24 January 1943 were beyond much reasonable doubt killed in Auschwitz.
Well, strictly speaking I did not say something about gassings on arrival (note that I did not use the term "gas" once in the Open Letter), I wrote "killed after their arrival". Here it is again:
"On 21 and 24 January 1943, 3.383 Jews considered unfit for work were “specially lodged” in Auschwitz. The term was a variant of “special treatment” (see telex from Heinrich Schwarz to SS-WVHA of 5 March 1943), which in turn was an euphemism at the concentration camp administrations for unnatural deaths without judicial decision.
However, the death books contain only 2.841 Jewish deaths for the entire months January 1943. Therefore, it is clear that Jews selected as unfit for work at the ramp and killed after their arrival without registration in the camp books were not registered in the death books either, even when this was still practiced for the deaths among registered Jews."
(Me, Open Letter to Nick Kollerstrom on the Auschwitz Death Books)
You obviously disagree that "special treatment" meant killing, but which is untenable as I've pointed out elsewhere some days ago. Note that it can be ruled out that special treatment "alluded to the preocedure, instigated in the summer of 1942 whereby all new arrivals were shaved, had their clothing removed and deloused, and showered", as you say, because in this case it would apply also those selected as fit for work (by the way, did you know that - in contrast to those selected as fit for work - none of the photographs in the so called Auschwitz Album shows any Jews selected as unfit for work after they were "deloused and showered"? Guess why?).
"Special treatment" meant extrajudicial killing on people in custody according to the language regime of the German police and paramilitary forces at the time. There are numerous "Nazi documents" to make this a solid case. The cited Auschwitz document says that Jews unfit for work in German custody were specially lodged which was a variant of specially treated. From what we know about the SS language regime, those people were likely executed in Auschwitz.
To boost this from "likely" to "beyond reasonable doubt" we need to take into account further evidence. I've compiled some testimonies exclusively from German personnel from the commandant's office and the Political Department on the meaning of Sonderbehandlung in Auschwitz reports on prisoners:
We could add numerous testimonies from former prisoners working in the SS offices to this, but the point should be already clear. There is strong testimonial evidence confirming that special treatment aka specially lodged were euphemisms for killings in Auschwitz specifically when used on incoming transports of Jews in German custody. Thus, those 3.383 Jews unfit for work "specially lodged" on 21 and 24 January 1943 were beyond much reasonable doubt killed in Auschwitz.
How were they killed? That's another issue. But according to the high number of victims and the overwhelming evidence on homicidal gassings in Auschwitz, these people were most likely killed with poison gas at the Bunker extermination sites.