Arthur R. Butz – The Hoax Of The Twentieth Century

Arthur R. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century
(POWs) were also used to the extent that such use did not conflict with the relevant
conventions, as the Germans interpreted their obligations under them. Thus,
Russian POWs were used freely, because Russia did not respect the conventions.
Employment of western POWs was restricted to cases where certain legalistic
“transformations” into civilian workers were possible, as with many French
POWs, 62 or some cases where the work was not considered to be ruled out by the
conventions, as with some British POWs employed under conditions to be discussed.
The number of inmates in the entire German concentration camp system was
about 224,000 in August 1943 and 524,000 a year later. 63 These figures include
only camps referred to by the Germans as concentration camps and do not include
any transit camps or camps referred to in other terms, such as the Theresienstadt
ghetto or any other establishments intended for quartering families.
It is generally accurate to say that there was no such thing as a “concentration
camp” for Jews as such, but this remark must be clarified; there are three distinct
categories of Jews, which must be considered in this connection.
First, a fraction of those interned for punitive and security reasons were Jews,
and under the national socialist system it was natural, in the camps, to segregate
them from the “Aryan” inmates. Thus, sections of the camps could, in this sense,
be considered “for Jews.” Second, specific legislation existed for the labor conscription
of Jews, and many selected specifically for labor found their ways into
concentration camps on this basis.
The third category was Jewish families, but the closest they got to “concentration
camps” was in certain Durchgangslager, transit camps, which in some cases
were independent camps such as Westerbork in the Netherlands 64 and others (to
be mentioned) and in some cases were separate compounds, which existed at
some concentration camps, e.g. Belsen, possibly Dachau, 65 and others (to be mentioned).
The transit camp, as its name suggests, was intended only for temporary
quartering pending transport to some other destination.
In addition to the transit camps, there were “camps” for some Jewish families,
such as Theresienstadt in Bohemia-Moravia and others far to the East, but the
most pejorative term applicable in these cases would be “ghetto,” not “concentration
camp.” In addition, as we shall see, toward the end of the war, as the Russians
were approaching on the eastern front, the Germans put many formerly free
Jews into ghettos for security reasons.
The full story regarding the position of Jews relative to German-controlled
camps of all types is rather complicated. Rather than attempt to say here exactly
what that position was, the subject will be touched on at many points in the book,
and the reader will be able to form a reasonably complete picture.
There is no point in attempting to discuss the entire German camp system here.
For our purposes it will suffice to discuss the three that are referred to most fre-
62
63
64
65
Red Cross (1948), vol. 1, 546-547.
1469-PS and NO-1990 in NMT, vol. 5, 382, 389.
Cohen, xiii.
Aronéanu, 212.
58