The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Deceit & Misrepresentation
The Techniques of Holocaust Denial

The Meaning of "Special Treatment"
Part 2 of 3

Perhaps, rather than quoting Faurisson in a vain attempt to confuse the issue, Holocaust deniers should consider Adolf Eichmann's comments. (Unless, of course, they are going to claim that Eichmann doesn't qualify as an "expert" in "special handling," while Dr. Faurisson does?)

During his interrogation by the Israelis, the following question was asked: "What does 'special treatment' mean, and who was subjected to it?" Eichmann's response is at variance with Faurisson's, which comes as no surprise. It is interesting to note here Faurisson's employment of the "if it sheds doubt on my thesis, I will ignore it" technique of Holocaust denial. Consider Eichmann's answer:

Eichmann: Special treatment was killing. Who thought up the term - I don't know. Must have been Himmler, who else could it have been - but then, I have no proof, maybe Heydrich thought it up after Göring gave him his authorization. But I really don't know. I'm just trying to puzzle it out. [4]

"Special treatment was killing." (What part of that do Holocaust deniers not understand? Why do Faurisson and Porter ignore this?)

Interrogator: But you knew special treatment meant killing?

Eichmann: Everybody knew that, yes, Herr Hauptmann, everybody knew. When a shipment was marked "for special treatment," they decided at the point of arrival who was fit for labor and who wasn't. [5]

"Everyone knew that," except, apparently, Dr. Faurisson, Mr. Gannon, Mr. Porter, and the rest of the Holocaust denial social set.

There is an interesting correlation between the use of "special treatment" by the Nazis, and the similar employment of the words "special healing procedure" (Besonderes Heilverfahren) as they related to the shipment of disabled and mentally ill children to Grafeneck and similar Nazi installations.

Only a Nazi could use such a term to describe the deliberate murder of thousands of children! [6] Let's get back to Mr. Kaltenbrunner, shall we? Since Holocaust deniers like Faurisson and Porter are fond of quoting some of his Nürnberg testimony, it is apparent that they consider him a valid source of information on this subject. That's encouraging, in light of the following:

During the first two and one-half years of the occupation, the security police in the government-general shot seventeen thousand Poles, a figure that led Frank to comment: "We must not be squeamish when we learn that a total of seventeen thousand people have been shot; these persons who were shot were nothing more than war victims." [7] In 1943, executions in Poland and Russia accelerated, even though Kaltenbrunner directed that, "as a rule, no more children will be shot [and] special treatment is to be limited to a minimum." So that this order would not be misunderstood, he explained that "if we limit our harsh measures for the time being, that is only done [because] the most important thing is the recruiting of workers. ...[Emphasis Nizkor's]" [8]

Let's take a look at the witness Kaltenbrunner, in light of Mr. Gannon's assertion that "special treatment" equated with champagne and bon bons, and Faurisson's silliness about keeping the Jews alive.

Kaltenbrunner wanted to keep Poles alive so they can be employed as slave labour. In order to effect this end, he orders that "special treatment is to be limited to a minimum."

Isn't it ironic that Kaltenbrunner would order "special treatment," Dr. Faurisson's "keeping the Jews alive," to be "limited to a minimum" in order to keep the Jews alive? What's wrong with this picture?

On September 20th, 1939, SS-Gruppenführer Heydrich sent a telegram to Gestapo regional and subregional headquarters on the "basic principles of internal security during the war." You can find this in Nürnberg document 1944-PS. Paragraph four of the telegram reads:

To avoid any misunderstandings, please take note of the following: ...a distinction must be made between those who may be dealt with in the usual way and those who must be given special treatment. The latter case covers subjects who, due to their most objectionable nature, their dangerousness, or their ability to serve as tools of propaganda for the enemy, are suitable for elimination, without respect for persons, by merciless treatment (namely, by execution). [9]

On September 26th, 1939, a memo at a staff meeting held at the Reich Security Main Office indicates which sections were to be responsible for handling the "special treatments." Next to the words "special treatment" are written, in parentheses, "execution." [10]

Paragraph A, section III of a memorandum from Heinrich Himmler, dated February 20th, 1942, states: "Special treatment is carried out by hanging." [11]

From "USSR Operational Report No. 124," dated October 25th, 1941, page 6: "Due to the grave danger of epidemic, the complete liquidation of Jews from the ghetto in Vitebsk was begun on October 8th, 1941. The number of Jews to whom special treatment is to be applied is around 3,000." The meaning of "special treatment" is clearly spelled out in many such reports from the eastern front. [12]

[ Previous | Index | Next ]

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.