Pre-trial interrogation of Dieter Wisliceny

[Laurentz Dahl]

The protocol of this interrogation has been published in Mendelsohn (ed.) The Holocaust. Selected Documents in Eighteen Volumes, vol.12:

Dieter Wisliceny was an SS working under Eichmann for the RSHA, overseeing the Jewish deportations.

In the interrogation, when asked about what "annihilation camps" he knew about, Wisliceny was able to recall Auschwitz as well as Globocnik and "the notorious Maidenek Camp" (p.24). However, following that we read:

A (...) In the immediate vicinity of Lublin there were several other such camps.

Q Do you know their names?

A No, because the designations for these transports always went by the name of Lublin. Maidenek too, was never mentioned by name, but was always referred to in the record by Camp M. It was only by accident that I learned one time that this Camp M was Maidenek

(...)

Q What was Camp T?

A If I correctly recollet(sic), that belonged to the complex Lublin system. I remember having heard the designation Camp T.

Q Was that also an annihilation camp?

A Yes, sir.

(p.26-7)

Now "Maidanek" was the unofficial name of the camp properly known as KZ Lublin. In all preserved German documentation, the camp goes by that designation, not "Maidanek". In the Hoffle telegram, Maidanek is referred to by using the inital "L", not "M". Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Wisliceny's statement on the designation of "these transports" is also incorrect - the names of the Reinhardt camps were not avoided or camouflaged on transportation documents.

Later in the protocol, Wisliceny is once again asked about the "other annihilation camps":

Q Were there others [=other annihilation camps in 1942]?

A As far as I can remember, there were none. Later, when everything was concentrated in Auschwitz, certainly in the period 1943-1944.

(p.40)

But as we know the Reinhardt camps were established in 1942 and liquidated in 1943.

Wisliceny on Auschwitz gassings:

Q Do you know what methods were used to exterminate Jews at Auschwitz?

A As Eichmann told me in a conversation, they were killed in gas chambers with carbon monoxide gas.

(p.40)

However, this was the alleged method in the Reinhardt camps, not in Auschwitz.

[Laurentz Dahl]

The pre-trial interrogation was carried out on the 10,14 and 24 February 1946.

On p.23, Wisliceny states that he saw an extermination order in the shape of a letter from Himmler, quoting Hitler, sometime during the summer of 1943.

Compare this with the statements in a previous Wisliceny statement from 1944, quoted by Mattogno:

In a report drawn up in Bratislava November 18, 1944, Dieter Wisliceny, former Hauptsturmführer and Eichmann's representative in Slovakia, affirmed that to his knowledge "the decision of Hitler that ordered the biological extermination of European Judaism [sic]" must be dated back to "after the beginning of the war with the United States," [25] that is, it would have been after 11 December 1941.

[25] Document XXXVIII47 of the Jewish Contemporary Documentation Center, Paris, (hereafter CDJC), cited by Poliakov & Wulf, The Third Reich and the Jews, Berlin, 1955, p. 94.

http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/8/2/ ... 3-172.html

[jnovitz]

Now "Maidanek" was the unofficial name of the camp properly known as KZ Lublin. In all preserved German documentation, the camp goes by that designation, not "Maidanek". In the Hoffle telegram, Maidanek is referred to by using the inital "L", not "M".

Maidanek was not an unofficial name simply the name of the nearest village or suburb.

It only gained currency when the Russians liberated the camp and began publicising it under the name Maidanek.

There is also a letter allegedly from Frank to Hitler introduced into the Nuremburg trial that refers to Maidanek, dated 4/1943. Equally suspicious IMHO.

[Hektor]

...Wisliceny on Auschwitz gassings:

Q Do you know what methods were used to exterminate Jews at Auschwitz?

A As Eichmann told me in a conversation, they were killed in gas chambers with carbon monoxide gas.

(p.40)

However, this was the alleged method in the Reinhardt camps, not in Auschwitz.

There you will hear the following counter-arguments:
- Two methods are possible.
- He just erred

It's of course plausible that the witness (who as SS-man would be acting against his oath, wouldn't he?) could have been coached by someone that wasn't certain about the later narrative.