Saturday, June 19, 2010

Mattogno's special treatment of evidence continues

In a posting at the antisemitic "Inconvenient history" blog Carlo Mattogno announces his new book about selections in Auschwitz and finally comments on my old posting entitled "Mattogno's special treatment of evidence" (2006):



In a discussion of my study Special Treatment in Auschwitz. Origin and Meaning of a Term (Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago 2004), Holocaust blogger Sergey Romanov puts forth the following critique:
«Mattogno discusses lots of Auschwitz documents which contain the code words, and an unsuspecting reader might be duped into believing that Mattogno really did discuss (and rip to shreds) all the Auschwitz-related documentary evidence containing the code words. However, Mattogno deceptively omits the most crucial source on the use of the code word»
He concludes:
«Therefore, by omitting any mention of these prominent documents Carlo Mattogno has engaged in a gross and unforgivable deception. We hope to treat Mattogno’s other arguments from this and other books in the future, but it has already been established that one cannot rely on him to present the evidence fairly».
If there is anyone who is “deceptive” here it is Sergey Romanov. In the abovementioned book I not only have never claimed to have considered «all the Auschwitz-related documentary evidence containing the code words», but I explicitly stated otherwise. In footnote 18 on pp. 11-12 I alert the reader:
«Likewise, a systematic treatment of all registered prisoners who were subjected to a “special treatment” would amount to an extensive analysis of the current claims of gassing as well as of the fates of various groups of prisoners, which would exceed the bounds of this investigation. [...]. In addition, a comprehensive study on this subject in preparation».
Therefore, by omitting any mention of this notification, Sergey Romanov has engaged in a gross and unforgivable deception, thus confirming once again his true nature, which has already been abundantly demonstrated in my book Olocausto: dilettanti nel web (Effepi, Genoa 2005).
Unfortunately, Mattogno's response is as deceptive as his old book. His book's name is Special Treatment in Auschwitz. Origin and Meaning of a Term. A book with such a name cannot avoid the S.B. documents. And yet these documents are not even mentioned in the book. Q.E.D.

This is akin to a Homeric scholar writing a book called Homer: His Life and Poems, which would omit any mention of the Iliad (but which perhaps would have a footnote promising a more systematic study of Homer's poetry in the future).

Moreover, the S.B. documents are directly relevant to the meaning of Sonderbehandlung in the documents Mattogno does discuss, regardless of his conclusions. So Mattogno's old book is not only deceptive, it is also meaningless.

Mattogno in turn falsely accuses me of being deceptive because I "omitted" his "notification" which supposedly proves that he never claimed to have considered  "all the Auschwitz-related documentary evidence containing the code words" in that book. Except, of course, I never claimed that he claimed this. I was explicitly writing about the impression the book might leave with an unsuspecting reader, who would reasonably expect a book named Special Treatment in Auschwitz. Origin and Meaning of a Term to contain discussion, even if brief, of the most important mentions of Sonderbehandlung in Auschwitz-related documents, especially as this book contains discussion of numerous obscure documents with some or other Sonder- term, some of which have never even been used to prove any criminal intent (cf. p.100).

So how is the "omission" of this irrelevant footnote deceptive? Because it supposedly shows that Mattogno admits in the book itself that he does not deal with all the documents? Here is the full footnote:
Likewise, a systematic treatment of all registered prisoners who were subjected to a “special treatment” would amount to an extensive analysis of the current claims of gassing as well as of the fates of various groups of prisoners, which would exceed the bounds of this investigation. I have published several such analyses elsewhere: Carlo Mattogno, “Die Deportation ungarischer Juden von Mai bis Juli 1944,” Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung, 5(4) (2001), pp. 381-395 (soon to be published in English in The Revisionist); “The ‘Gassing’ of Gypsies in Auschwitz on August 2, 1944,” The Revisionist, 1(3) (2003), pp. 330-332; “Das Ghetto von Lodz in der Holocaust-Propaganda,” Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung, 7(1) (2003), pp. 30-36 (soon to be published in English in The Revisionist). A further article dealing with the Jews deported from Theresienstadt to Auschwitz is in progress and will soon be published in The Revisionist. In addition, a comprehensive study on this subject is in preparation.
There is no mention of dealing with Sonderbehandlung documents, only a vague reference to "prisoners who were subjected to a “special treatment”". Notably, none of the cited articles deal with the S.B. documents. If he thinks that this footnote saves him from accusations of dishonesty, he is even more delusional that I thought.

Mattogno cannot be excused by the fact that now, 6 years later, he publishes a more extensive study. His old book remains just as deceptive and my conclusion stands. Mattogno's response only confirms it.

No comments: