The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Exterminationists claim that the young, the sick and people unable to be put to work were victims of a planned genocide during WWII. Here we will discuss some of the efforts to reduce the fatalities in the camps, the demographics of sick and disabled detainees vs healthy detainees etc. Sources provided will be linked to source.

The first document that I will proved is a letter from Pohl to Himmler regarding the percentage of camp detainees unable to work;

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-021 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 357 LETTER BY POHL TO HIMMLER, 5 APRIL 1944, CONCERNING SE CURITY MEASURES IN AUSCHWITZ; HIMMLER'S ANSWER, 9 MAY 1944 The Chief of the SS Economic and Administrative Main Office D II/I Az.: 27/2 Ma./F. Journal No. 236/44 secret Top Secret! 2 copies-1st copy Berlin, 5 April 1944 Lichterfelde-West Unter den Eichen 126-135 Telephone: local 765261 long distance 765101 To the Reich Leader SS Berlin SW 11 Prinz Albrechtstr. 8 Subject: Security measures in Auschwitz. Reference: Your letter of 24 March 44 Diary No. 38/32/44 secret Bra/H. Enclosures: 2 plans * Reich Leader! The extent and the high number of inmates of the Auschwitz concentration camp induced me already last October to suggest a three way division of the camp. After your approval, it has been carried out as of 10 November 1943. Therefore there are now 3 concentration camps in Auschwitz. As to the security measures taken for case A, I report as follows: 1. Camp I includes the compact camp for men with a present strength of approximately 16,000 inmates. It is surrounded with a fence and by barbed wire which, as in all concentration camps, is electrically charged. Besides there are watch towers mounted with machine guns. Camp II is situated about 3 km. from camp I. It accommodates 15,000 male and 21,000 female inmates. Of a total of 36,000 in mates approximately 15,000 are unable to work. Camp II is also surrounded by an electrically charged wire fence; there are also watch towers. Camp III includes all subsidiary camps attached to industrial establishments in Upper Silesia which, however, are located at considerable distances from each other. At present it consists of 14 subsidiary camps with a total number of approximately 15,000 male inmates. These labor camps are surrounded by the usual wire fence and also have watch towers. The largest of these labor camps is in Auschwitz attached to the I.G. Farbenindustrie A.G. It has at present 7,000 inmates. The other subsidiary camps have a considerably smaller strength. The following is a summary of the situation: Auschwitz I Auschwitz II Auschwitz III 16,000 men 15,000 men 15,000 men 46,000 men 21,000 women 21,000 women Total 67,000 Camp II has the largest number of inmates whereby, however, it must be considered that of the total of 36,000 inmates, 21,000 are wome~. 2. Of the total number of 67,000 inmates those in the sub sidiary camps and those hospitalized have to be deducted if the question of a threatening revolt ·or escapes in Upper Silesia is to be considered. Of the total number, 67,000 inmates; 15,000 are to be deducted, those in subsidiary camps (camp III), and the number of the hospitalized and disabled, 18,000; so that practically 34,000 in mates have to be reckoned with. In case A this would mean danger to Auschwitz if security measures were insufficient. 3. 2,300 SS men are available to guard the inmates of camp 1 and II, including the staff of camp headquarters who are to be 'detailed in case A. In addition there are 650 guards available for .the subsidiary camps of camp III. SS Obergruppenfuehrer Schmauser keeps a company of police of about 130 men, in readiness by the middle of this month. This company shall, if necessary, be used for additional security of camp II. It will therefore be billeted in the close vicinity of this camp. 4. Apart from the direct security of camp I and II by manned watch towers and electrically chargeable wire fences, a line of bunkers has been constructed as an inner ring which will be manned by SS men. On the enclosed map, this line of bunkers is marked in red. In case A, as a further security measure, the outer ring will be formed to be manned by the Wehrmacht. On the enclosed map, this outer ring can be seen on the map indicating the field posi tions with the parts of the Wehrmacht earmarked for the opera tion. Inside the outer ring is also the labor camp at the LG. Farbenindustrie A.G., with at present 7,000 inmates and the en tire factory of the LG. Farbenindustrie A.G.,* in which in addi tion to our inmates, approximately 15,000 people are employed. The deployment [Einsatz] of the Wehrmacht was decided upon a few weeks ago in Auschwitz by SS Obergruppenfuehrer Schmauser and the commanding general of the VIII army corps, Lt. General [Cav] von Koch-Erbach. I further enclose an alert plan according to which the SS post commander in Auschwitz is able to alert directly all stations concerned by telephone, wireless, or teletype in the shortest pos sible time. Further, it has been taken care that a large scale search be carried out under the direction of the Criminal Police Office Katowice in case of mass escapes. The Luftwaffe units stationed in Auschwitz in the strength of 1,000 men are available provided the alert does not coincide with an air raid. These Luftwaffe units can however not absolutely be counted upon. In drafting the plan of operation [Einsatzplan] this has been taken into consideration. Very soon exercises will be carried out with all agencies con cerned. I believe, Reich Leader, that these preparations and security measures will be sufficient in case A. Heil Hitler! [Signed]PoHL SS Obergruppenfuehrer and Lt. General of the Waffen SS The Reich Leader SS Personal Staff

Source NMT Green Series, Volume V, page 384-385

https://archive.org/details/TrialsOfWar ... 3/mode/2up

There are various other supporting documents that show very similar ratios of sick to healthy populations in the concentration and labor camps.

There are also memoranda from Himmler and various SS Officers concerning how to REDUCE fatalities in the camps.

Now, given these facts, and others which will be presented during the run of this thread, my question is, how does the orthodoxy square this with the idea of a planned and executed genocide and with the mainstream claim that the sick and disabled were murdered by the German Authorities at these various sites?

The demographics of Auschwitz include the transports and thus selections on arrival of Jews unfit for work for the gas chambers.

The demographics of registered inmates include
- Polish prisoners
- Belarusians, with children (many thousands overall)
- Roma and Sinti, with children, in the 'Gypsy Camp'
- from September 1943, the Theresienstadt Family Camp, with transports NOT selected on arrival towards a distinctive deception measure (wound up in several gassings in 1944), with children
- new arrivals in quarantine
- prisoners in the hospital blocks, with the duration of a permissible stay extended for Jews due to the overall labour shortage, i.e. more time was allowed for sick or injured inmates to recover before they might be selected and killed.

These are visible in various labour deployment reports, and surviving strength reports for the men's and women's camp in Birkenau, and other snapshot statistics, beyond the reporting which made it up to the WVHA and might have been used at the Pohl trial (like NO-021).

From spring 1943, non-Jews were not generally subjected to selections, whereas Jews continued to be in the whole of 1943 and into 1944 up to October, when they ceased at Auschwitz in all parts of the complex.

By spring 1944, the construction of Birkenau had progressed to the point where it was no longer as lethal as it had been in 1942-3, so the death rates dropped significantly in the snapshot reports which survive, compared to the overall addition-subtraction numbers of missing and dead, and the death books and 1942 strength book showing very high mortality. The camp had been cleaned up.

There's some commentary on an oft-cherrypicked document from 1943 which has been frequently misinterpreted about unfit Jews, and some commentary on NO-021 at the end here from Sergey Romanov in 2017
https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... r-and.html

One comparison would be with the work ghettos and forced labour complexes elsewhere. It wasn't until summer 1943 that the Lublin complex (Majdanek plus the forced labour camps, with 45,000 Jewish workers noted in one report, seemingly not fully including Majdanek) was fully eclipsed for Jewish forced labour by the Auschwitz complex, with a nudge in this direction given by transferring IIRC around 15,000 Polish prisoners to KZs in Germany in spring 1943, and the big expansion of Polish Jews in August-September 1943, which was also when various extra sub-camps were established in what became KL Auschwitz III. By 1944, Polish prisoners were being redirected to Gross-Rosen, so Auschwitz as a whole became a much more Jewish camp complex, albeit still with a large proportion of non-Jewish inmates

In 1943, the Lodz ghetto was larger, having started 1943 with 87,180 inmates, and ended in August 1944 with 67,000, after transferring several thousand workers to other forced labour camps in 1944, like Skarzysko-Kamienna, and experiencing ongoing mortality due to the knife-edge rationing. Lodz differed from Lublin or Auschwitz in that there was still a minority of children in the ghetto, even after the 1942 actions (the September action was supposed to target the unfit, but provoked resistance, so the Germans let sleeping dogs lie in this case, as they did in the work ghettos in the Baltic states). Children were brought into the work process to justify their continued presence.

The same was not true of the Lublin complex of camps, or of the Auschwitz complex for Jewish children until the establishment of the Theresienstadt Family Camp, a conspicuous exception to the usual rule from July 1942 into 1943. (Some Slovakian transports included teenagers who were registered before the onset of systematic selections on arrival, but the last transports from Slovakia in 1942 were selected.)

The Lodz ghetto, Lublin complex and Auschwitz complex all constituted the survivors of extensive deportations and selections. So the profile of the Jewish forced labourers was decidedly towards the able bodied, fit younger end, with Lodz deviating from this profile the most for local exceptional reasons, and arguably less than the Baltic work ghettos until autumn 1943, where workers were permitted to save some of their unfit relatives by policy and design,

Selections of worn out Jewish labourers did occur in the Lublin complex, as they did with the Radom complex of forced labour camps, but survival rates were overall higher, unless the labour camp was liquidated in Operation 'Harvest Festival'. Those landing in Budzyn, a factory camp, survived at very much higher rates, since the camp was excluded from 'Harvest Festival'. Bear in mind that Trawniki and Poniatowa in the Lublin complex were initially stocked up with Warsaw ghetto workers, the survivors of the 1942 Great Deportation, so if one worked for Toebbens and Schulz in 1942-early 1943 one tended to land in those camps. There were reinforcements from selections from the Bialystok ghetto actions, but there wasn't a 100% turnover of Jewish workers in such camps (up to November 1943 when the inmates were exterminated).

Turnover of registered inmates in the Auschwitz complex was high in 1942-43; 69,000 prisoners dying or being subjected to internal camp selections in 1942, and 80,000 in 1943. In 1942, the total unaccounted for by transfers, death certificates etc was 22,000, in 1943 this discrepancy increased because most RSHA-Transport Jews stopped receiving death certificates from spring 1943, while selections continued (all this from Franciszek Piper's study of the death toll at Auschwitz). Jews in regular Gestapo Sammeltransporte, a minority, and in the Theresienstadt Family Camp, were the main exceptions to the no more death certificates policy, which has befuddled several leading revisionists like Kollerstrom and Mattogno
https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... on-of.html
https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... death.html
https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... om-on.html
https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... om-on.html
https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... rough.html

Revisionists like Mattogno dispute there were selections for gassing of registered inmates,but hitherto have failed utterly to show where the worn-out inmates were sent if not to the gas chambers. The numbers are significant enough to overwhelm any other KZ in the entire system, nor are there any hints of such transfers on a repeated basis, nor any clue given for some non-KZ destination for these imaginary transfers.

Things shifted in 1944 as noted; the 'natural' death rate decreased, while selections and actions against unfit prisoners continued (eg the Theresienstadt family camp and Gypsy camp actions from March-August 1944), and from May 1944 the system was overwhelmed, so minorities of children over and above the 'privileged' categories (like Mengele twins and the TFC children) leaked through. The system as a whole was however capable of returning worn-out unfit Jewish workers from other KZs to Auschwitz in so-called Ruecktransporte, back/return transports, until autumn 1944. These were not then transferred to another KZ or a Unicornville, so pose an additional problem for revisionist accountancy efforts.

Thereafter, the KZ system started to designate specific camp sectors, sub-camps or Belsen as dumping grounds for unfit/worn out prisoners, while also carrying out various gassing actions and massacres in the KZs in Germany/Austria in 1944-45. A formal, systematic policy of killing unfit Jews had technically ended, but informal policies of letting unfit prisoners die emerged, alongside various massacres of prisoners too weak to be evacuated or selections in the KZ hubs.

Mortality in workforces in sub-camps in 1944-45 differed significantly depending on whether these were construction camps (building underground factories/HQs or other construction work) or factory camps; the latter, with more women inmates, had remarkably low death rates explained by the shelter a factory provided versus the greater exertion and potentially exposure to the elements with construction camps. So quite stark differences emerged between male and female prisoner mortality in many camp complexes. Evacuations and death marches could then change this very rapidly.

Standing back to view the overall system, SS policy was to take over direct control of Jewish forced labour, transferring Jews from work ghettos to SS-run labour camps and then converting some to sub-camps of KZs. The expansion of the KZ system in 1943 was driven in part by this, in part by increased arrests and deportations of non-Jewish political prisoners (resistance suspects etc). There were exceptions which eluded SS control until mid-1944, various industrial factory camps in the Radom district being the most prominent example, but when these were evacuated their workforces were added to the KZ system in summer 1944.

The Organisation Schmelt work camps were taken over in late 1943-early 1944 by Gross Rosen and Auschwitz, one of the clearest examples of the direct-control trend. Converting the surviving work ghettos in the Baltic states to KZs or transferring them to a new KZ complex (Vaivara in Estonia) is another example.

Pohl and the WVHA absolutely wanted to improve prisoner productivity and lower mortality; there are several well known directives to this effect, e.g. one from 27 October 1943, and the WVHA Amtsgruppe D directives into 1944 show a continual relaxation of previous strictures for Jewish inmates, as the overall German labour supply worsened.

'Extermination through work' was never applied explicitly to Jewish forced labour, contrary to older views (or in Goldhagen). There was a tendency towards this in various remarks in 1942, and a de facto reality as Jews selected at Auschwitz died building Birkenau with a very high turnover, but this was an extreme case, and not one found in every labour camp or work ghetto. Most conventional historians reject the term to characterise what appears as an obvious shift towards trying to preserve more lives, despite evident failures to achieve this, because of the increasingly apparent labour shortage. The term 'extermination through work' was used explicitly only for non-Jewish 'asocials', former prison inmates handed over to the KZs in 1942-43, of whom two-thirds died within months (Nikolaus Wachsmann has written about this group extensively in his books on Hitler's prisons, the KZs and a separate article).

The expansion of the KZ system by 1944 produced however a paradox: mortality in camps in Germany and Austria hit a new peak with greater numbers and the new tasks (eg Mittelbau-Dora, an underground factory camp). These camps became overcrowded even with the proliferation of sub-camps, while Auschwitz-Birkenau saw lower mortality in 1944 than in 1942-3 among registered inmates.

The policy shift caused by the loss of territories which had hitherto provided non-KZ foreign workers and the overall labour shortage meant by 1944 two things:
1) the KZ system as a whole was now large enough to serve as a reinforcement; the Jan 1945 strength of 700,000 KZ inmates contrast with 7-8 million other foreign workers and POWs in Germany
2) the Nazis were forced into a U-turn regarding Jewish workers. In autumn 1942 the KZs in Germany had been made overwhelmingly judenfrei, with exceptions like Operation Bernhard in Sachsenhausen; Belsen was only established in 1943 as an exchange camp, the other KZs were basically judenfrei. The Hungarian action reversed this entirely and brought several hundred thousand Jews into Germany, starting with circa 110,000 Hungarian Jews and extending to evacuated camps from the Baltic states, Poland and eventually the Auschwitz complex.

Over the course of 1944, the Germans ran out of ever more reservoirs of non-Jewish and Jewish labour, whether entire occupied countries or the remaining workers in a particular ghetto/labour camp complex. So the formal regulations seemingly relaxed, even while new sub-camp construction sites killed thousands of Jews and non-Jews from sheer exhaustion.

You are completely missing my point. The document I cited and provided source to explicitly tallies jews, both able and feeble. These 86% of jews, unable to work, were not exterminated, they were given care and they were tended.

I'm not just pulling your chain here. Look at Mr Frank, look at Mr Weisel's dad. These are prominent examples in the orthodoxy that refute the idea that the sick, the disabled, the infirmed at Auschwitz were put to death.

As a courtesy, if you would be so kind, could you avoid linking holocaust controversies. It is my opinion that they are not only a bias, but also a dishonest source.

Instead, in the future in this thread, would you do the the honor of citing directly to source. I would take it as a personal favor.

As for the rest, I will review it.

Regarding Majdanek, what happened in that camp, while tragic, was not genocide. The only gas chambers in that camp were hygienic, not homicidal, and the almost 80,000 thousand lives extinguished in that camp are a testament to an absolute failure of the German Authorities to provide and care for people they forced into their stewardship. The people of Lublin are not without guilt in this regard as allowing the camp to be hooked up to the cities waste infrastructure sooner would have averted many deaths.

At every turn, what I find is the German Authorities trying to prevent deaths in these camps, not to inflict them. The introduction of shortwave delousing, the use of fumigants to control pests etc. The efforts made to provide more substantial meals to prevent wasting of these detainees through starvation, time made for rest, effort made to promote sport and to build cohesion in the detainees, time set aside for recreation. This list could go on and on.

If you are going to convince me that they killed over a million people in Auschwitz, you are going to have to show me on the ledger. You need to show me the people whose line ends there.

Stubble wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2025 12:34 am You are completely missing my point. The document I cited and provided source to explicitly tallies jews, both able and feeble. These 86% of jews, unable to work, were not exterminated, they were given care and they were tended.

I'm not just pulling your chain here. Look at Mr Frank, look at Mr Weisel's dad. These are prominent examples in the orthodoxy that refute the idea that the sick, the disabled, the infirmed at Auschwitz were put to death.

As a courtesy, if you would be so kind, could you avoid linking holocaust controversies. It is my opinion that they are not only a bias, but also a dishonest source.

Instead, in the future in this thread, would you do the the honor of citing directly to source. I would take it as a personal favor.

As for the rest, I will review it.

Regarding Majdanek, what happened in that camp, while tragic, was not genocide. The only gas chambers in that camp were hygienic, not homicidal, and the almost 80,000 thousand lives extinguished in that camp are a testament to an absolute failure of the German Authorities to provide and care for people they forced into their stewardship. The people of Lublin are not without guilt in this regard as allowing the camp to be hooked up to the cities waste infrastructure sooner would have averted many deaths.

At every turn, what I find is the German Authorities trying to prevent deaths in these camps, not to inflict them. The introduction of shortwave delousing, the use of fumigants to control pests etc. The efforts made to provide more substantial meals to prevent wasting of these detainees through starvation, time made for rest, effort made to promote sport and to build cohesion in the detainees, time set aside for recreation. This list could go on and on.

If you are going to convince me that they killed over a million people in Auschwitz, you are going to have to show me on the ledger. You need to show me the people whose line ends there.

He believes in Danuta Czech that each transport she records gassing on that day or that the Soviets did not have the cunning of disinformation and seized some document that revealed the fate of these deportees and as if all archives of the Soviet era were open to the public. But none of this matters, without coal and without reforming the refractory brick, if there was gassing more than 200 thousand did not die there.

Stubble wrote:As a courtesy, if you would be so kind, could you avoid linking holocaust controversies. It is my opinion that they are not only a bias, but also a dishonest source.

Bro he's a part of holocaust controversies. You are essentially calling him dishonest, which is fine if that's your opinion, but then don't interact with him anymore then if you don't want to interact with anything from that site.

fireofice wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2025 12:46 am

Stubble wrote:As a courtesy, if you would be so kind, could you avoid linking holocaust controversies. It is my opinion that they are not only a bias, but also a dishonest source.

Bro he's a part of holocaust controversies. You are essentially calling him dishonest, which is fine if that's your opinion, but then don't interact with him anymore then if you don't want to interact with anything from that site.

You learn something new everyday.

I'm willing to listen to SanityCheck, I just don't like that source. It is dishonest and bias. If SanityCheck is dishonest and bias, that I have yet to determine.

Thanks for the heads up though Fireofice, I appreciate it.

Stubble wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2025 12:51 am You learn something new everyday.

I'm willing to listen to SanityCheck, I just don't like that source. It is dishonest and bias. If SanityCheck is dishonest and bias, that I have yet to determine.

Thanks for the heads up though Fireofice, I appreciate it.

SanityCheck is Nick Terry, just so you know. He's written several articles on that blog as well as contributed to the HC white paper that Mattogno, Graf, and Kues responded to.

fireofice wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2025 12:59 am

Stubble wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2025 12:51 am You learn something new everyday.

I'm willing to listen to SanityCheck, I just don't like that source. It is dishonest and bias. If SanityCheck is dishonest and bias, that I have yet to determine.

Thanks for the heads up though Fireofice, I appreciate it.

SanityCheck is Nick Terry, just so you know. He's written several articles on that blog as well as contributed to the HC white paper that Mattogno, Graf, and Kues responded to.

Then surely he will understand my dislike for that site and do me the courtesy of citing from source for this thread. I'm not trying to be unduly burdensome, just making sure I am presented the data, such as it is, in as neutral a way as possible and free from any opinion or bias.

Stubble wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2025 12:34 am You are completely missing my point. The document I cited and provided source to explicitly tallies jews, both able and feeble. These 86% of jews, unable to work, were not exterminated, they were given care and they were tended.

I'm not just pulling your chain here. Look at Mr Frank, look at Mr Weisel's dad. These are prominent examples in the orthodoxy that refute the idea that the sick, the disabled, the infirmed at Auschwitz were put to death.

The document NO-21 just refers to 'inmates', not to Jews. This is why I reminded you of key non-Jewish cohorts who were also interned in the Auschwitz-Birkenau complex:
-Poles
-Belarusians
-Roma and Sinti

and also the special deception
-Theresienstadt family camp

and finally the categories of prisoners who cut across groups
-new arrivals in the quarantine camp
-the hospital sector

In Birkenau, these correlate in many cases with specific sectors of the camp. The hospital block, the Gypsy Camp, the quarantine camp for men, the Theresienstadt family camp - 4 sectors of section BII.

I don't know where you're getting 86% of Jews being unable to work from, it certainly doesn't appear in NO-21. The document indicates

Auschwitz I main camp - 16,000 male prisoners, this was where a lot of Polish and German prisoners were held, and conditions by 1944 were better there; Jews were present as well but still subject to selections.

Auschwitz III - Monowitz and the sub-camps - 15,000 male prisoners, overwhelmingly Jews, but subtract a certain percentage for non-Jewish prisoners in functionary roles. These were overwhelmingly working prisoners, with relatively small sick bays.

Auschwitz II - Birkenau - with 15,000 male and 21,000 female prisoners. This is where the Gypsy Camp, Theresienstadt Family Camp and Quarantine Camp were.

As a courtesy, if you would be so kind, could you avoid linking holocaust controversies. It is my opinion that they are not only a bias, but also a dishonest source.

No, I'll not avoid this since the posts will cite and discuss sources.

Instead, in the future in this thread, would you do the the honor of citing directly to source. I would take it as a personal favor.

No, I'll post summary replies if I see fit, then you can ask me for recommendations for further reading.

As for the rest, I will review it.

Regarding Majdanek, what happened in that camp, while tragic, was not genocide. The only gas chambers in that camp were hygienic, not homicidal, and the almost 80,000 thousand lives extinguished in that camp are a testament to an absolute failure of the German Authorities to provide and care for people they forced into their stewardship. The people of Lublin are not without guilt in this regard as allowing the camp to be hooked up to the cities waste infrastructure sooner would have averted many deaths.

At every turn, what I find is the German Authorities trying to prevent deaths in these camps, not to inflict them. The introduction of shortwave delousing, the use of fumigants to control pests etc. The efforts made to provide more substantial meals to prevent wasting of these detainees through starvation, time made for rest, effort made to promote sport and to build cohesion in the detainees, time set aside for recreation. This list could go on and on.

If you are going to convince me that they killed over a million people in Auschwitz, you are going to have to show me on the ledger. You need to show me the people whose line ends there.

80% of deaths were of unregistered Jewish deportees selected on arrival and sent straight to the gas chambers. Revisionists have said these were transited elsewhere, without identifying where the transitees were held while waiting for the outward bound trains, or providing a single source connecting Auschwitz to their actual end destination. So currently the conventional explanation wins hands down for volume of evidence.

The Auschwitz Museum (Piper) calculated 200,000 deaths among registered inmates, including extensive selections for the gas chambers - 95,000 Jews, 64,000 Poles, 19,000 Roma, 12,000 Soviet POWs and 12,000 other nationalities, just for registered prisoners.

Mattogno conceded 130,000 deaths among registered inmates but failed to explain what happened to the 70,000 discrepancy, providing no details on where they ended up, despite all sources - as in, many, many, many thousands of testimonies - pointing to these being worn-out, sick inmates

I gave you the yearly breakdown for registered inmate deaths to some extent, but here it is again
1940-41 - 21,000
1942 - 69,000
1943 - 80,500
1944-45 - 31,500

Jews and non-Jews (see the breakdown above).

Rounding up one ethnicity/nationality for deportation and internment in camps and ghettos IS genocide. Majdanek wasn't a dedicated extermination camp as in extermination only, but 'Harvest Festival' exterminated essentially all Jews in the camp as of November 1943, minus a few hundred used for clean-up and 1005 cremations. Killing close to 100% of all members of a particular ethnicity in one camp is a textbook example of a genocidal massacre.

Genocide is a structure and can be brought about through various means, direct and indirect, extermination is direct killing. Annihilation or destruction as the Germans used the term can involve both, since the term genocide hadn't been coined when this started, and German doesn't use extermination in the same way as English does.

You don't seem to do well with shades of grey, but to put things in black and white terms: Jewish forced labourers after 1942 were the survivors of massive deportations and selections. The Jews of the Government-General had been reduced from 2.2 million to 300,000 at the start of 1943 who remained under German control in ghettos and labour camps. The 300,000 were reduced over the course of 1943 but the survivors still retained value, so over 100,000 Jews were working in the GG by spring 1944, and they were not necessarily dying like flies in the work camps. This was still barely 5% of the original Jewish population of the region so they could have been feted and treated with cream and cakes yet this would not contradict the murder of the other 95%.

Same with Auschwitz: on average 20-25% of each transport was selected for work - the exact percentages varied, but this is about right. The ones selected for work could be given the chance to recover from illness or injuries in sick bays and hospitals but this would not negate the murder of the 75-80% of those who never got to be registered.

Survival chances after registration were not great, since over time conditions would decimate the selectees, so that very few survivors are known from 1942 transports, slightly more from 1943 transports and more still from 1944 transports.

Lots of factors affected survival chances, including language (Greek and Dutch Jews rarely knew German or Yiddish, for example), the camp to which the selected inmates were directed, the chance of a 'good' work commando versus working outside, and whether over time the survivors could advance into functionary type positions like block elders.

Arrivals from May 1944 onwards, in the literal last year of the war, benefited from only needing to survive a year but also from the changed circumstances. Germany needed every labourer it could get (but still did not need obviously unemployable children or elderly en masse) so treatment was relaxed further, after the need to keep prisoner labourers alive had been underscored once again in late 1943.

The changeover from Hoess to Liebehenschel as commandant of the whole Auschwitz complex was associated by the prisoners as the start of a relaxation in many respects - some forms of punishment and chicaneries were ended, the need for labour in the complex had increased, and the camp had been cleaned up enough to stop the worst of the mud and shit combo of 1942 in the newly stamped out of the ground camp sectors. The typhus epidemics of 1942 were brought under control by 1943.

So we'd expect more survivors among those deported in the final 12 months of the war, which includes the Frank family and the Wiesels. You seem to be confusing me with some strawman of your imagination or somebody else. I'm not saying anything different to most historians, and indeed if you read the corresponding chapter of Dan Stone's The Holocaust: An Unfinished History (2023) you'd see him saying very similar things.

A little context would not hurt. Mattogno's concession of 130,000 deaths in Auschwitz as a whole is still higher than any other single German concentration camp - higher than Mauthausen, which is the only other one to have breached 100,000 deaths.

The high death rate in Auschwitz-Birkenau and also the high death rate in 1942 in Majdanek stemmed from building and expanding the camp on a substantial scale; Majdanek's plans were not fulfilled as originally intended, but Birkenau continued to be built to the original scale envisoned. Building each sector of Birkenau effectively cost thousands of lives a time; it was only when the whole of BI and BII were completed along with all the necessary facilities that the death rate lessened, in 1944. Which was noticed and is acknowledged by the prisoners who survived 1943 into 1944.

Building Birkenau didn't save some of the non-Jewish prisoner categories in the new sectors who didn't have to work to build the rest. Roma and Sinti were not expected to work and were housed in the Gypsy Camp as families, men, women and children alongside each other, but typhus as well as other diseases raged through the camp in 1943, so there were many thousands of deaths well before the eventual liquidation of the camp in August 1944. We can account for the selections just before the liquidation of the Gypsy Camp for transfer to other KZs of able-bodied Roma, the whereabouts of the not quite 4000 remaining behind remains a puzzle for revisionists.

As another example, the first transport to the Theresienstadt Family Camp was taken to be exterminated at the start of March 1944, having arrived in September 1943. 5000 deportees had been reduced to under 3800. Meaning 1200 had died in six months, despite being 'privileged' and kept on hand for a possible inspection visit. In a phase when there were genuine improvements and policy shifts, but still almost a quarter of the cohort were dead within six months.

'The document NO-21 just refers to 'inmates', not to Jews. This is why I reminded you of key non-Jewish cohorts who were also interned in the Auschwitz-Birkenau complex:
-Poles
-Belarusians
-Roma and Sinti'

I stand corrected, my apologies. I will form a larger response later, but, I wanted to get this out of the way here and now. I've been reviewing a volume of information and have gotten some wires crossed. I will get it sorted out. Again apologies.

Also, thank you for your prompt and concise response. I appreciate it and I will take more time to go though it and ruminate on it. It is a bit to digest.

I also again extended my thanks for the book recommendations from the other thread. The content is a chore to read, but, I will continue to chew on it as time permits. I will not delve too deeply in to why I consider the reading a chore here, as that would be an aside. Needless to say, it is not because of the number of pages, more the presentation itself.

I'll try to weigh back in on this later this week, as this isn't exactly a cursory subject and I have much work yet to do with my shovel and spade.

Your use of your sources is of course your prerogative, hence I had asked as a courtesy for you to not cite the HC Blog. When you do cite it, I will slog through it. I just don't like or trust that source. I'm sure you understand. Again, I was not trying to impose an imposition, simply asking for a courtesy.

I look forward to exploring this topic further and to seeing how this thread develops.

Looking at the death certificates I've been able to view (I can't actually find a database that reflects the extant death books, rather only samples here or there), near as I can tell, deaths in the camp were caused by 1)Typhus 2)influenza 3)Dysentery 4)Heart Failure and 5)Old Age.

This is not to say that the death rate or quality of life in the camp 'good', hell even the German Authorities didn't say that.

More to point at the fact that these deaths were not the result of a contrived genocide.

Earlier it was mentioned that the death rates spiked with camp expansions. It is important to consider that correlation is not causation. From what I have been able to ascertain, these were also times of terrible epidemics in the camp.

Again, the demographics do not appear to show a campaign of genocide of the jews detained there. These outbreaks and epidemics, they are rather indiscriminate killers, at times taking the lives of staff. Health care workers, doctors and even security personnel.

It is important to consider that one of the modern conveniences we have access to, clean water, does more to combat a myriad of health problems for communities than any other single factor.

The community barrack water barrel, while not a tool of genocide, can be a real killer.

If 1.3 million people were sent to A-B, and about 400,000 were registered as prisoners, then why was the camp population never more than about 152,000?

What happened to everyone else? Where were they being accommodated at the end of 1944, when the last transports arrived at the camp?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/128 ... d-by-year/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/128 ... ackground/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/129 ... by-origin/