Sobibor - Holocaust Propaganda And Reality - Unity of Nobility ...

314 J. GRAF, T. KUES, C. MATTOGNO, SOBIBÓR
Gouvernment, through the camps in Warthegau…’ A different formulation
must not appear. [959]
[…] Korherr’s original wording of page 9 point 4 to which
Himmler objected is not fully known. Only the corrected version is
extant. Korherr must have been too explicit, leaving little doubt that
he meant the killing; otherwise Himmler’s objections to the widely
familiar term Sonderbehandlung in a ‘State Secret’ document could
not be explained. Korherr changed page 9 of the report as requested.
When he sent the corrected version back to Himmler’s office
on 28 April, it apparently escaped the Reichsführer’s notice that
the objectionable term Sonderbehandlung remained on page 10.”
The supposition proffered by Witte and Tyas does not make sense: If
Korherr, on p. 9 item 4 of his report, had really been “too explicit” in
his hint at an alleged killing of the Jews, Himmler would have ordered
him to modify this wording; instead, he ordered him not to use the
words “special treatment of Jews,” which means that in connection with
the letter of 10 April 1943 mentioned above the expression “special
treatment of Jews” did in fact appear on p. 9 item 4 of the report. This is
confirmed by the sum total which appears at the end of item 5 of Korherr’s
report where it is said: 960
“Evacuation, total (incl. Theresienstadt
and incl. special treatment)
1,873,549 Jews”
This figure actually includes the evacuations listed under items 1
(6,504), 2 (170,642), 3 (Theresienstadt: 87,193), 4 (special treatment:
1,449,692) and 5 (159,518), which we will discuss in greater detail later.
The “special treatment” cannot refer to the 5 items mentioned except
for item 3, because in that case the text would simply say “Evacuations
total (incl. Theresienstadt),” as all other “evacuations” would be part of
“special treatment.”
We have here a blatant incongruence of the mainstream interpretation.
In a study of the Korherr report, which the authors quote, 961 the
Jewish French historian Georges Wellers asserted: 962
“Moreover, thanks to Korherr’s mistake, we now have a confirmation
– if one was needed – coming from the top, that the ‘Sonderbehandlung
der Juden’ is a term so unmentionable that it has to be
959
960
961
962
NO-5196.
NO-5197, p. 10.
P. Witte, S. Tyas, op. cit. (note 18), note 51 on p. 485.
G. Wellers, La Solution Finale et la Mythomanie Néo-Nazie, Beate and Serge Klarsfeld,
Paris, 1979, p. 42.