Sunday, February 22, 2015

Rebuttal of Mattogno on Auschwitz, Part 5: Construction Documents, A: Introduction


Rebuttal of Mattogno on Auschwitz:
The so called "criminal traces" in the files of the Auschwitz construction office are strong inferential evidence on homicidal gassing in Auschwitz and corroborate contemporary Polish and Jewish sources as well numerous post-liberation testimonies. In this sub-series of blog postings, I will show that Mattogno was not successful in pointing out documents (or rather arguments on construction documents) that seriously challenge mass extermination in Auschwitz. Furthermore, he was not even able to offer a plausible alternative interpretation that explains all the relevant documentary evidence (let aside other types of sources). 

The term "criminal trace" was coined by the Auschwitz researcher Jean-Claude Pressas as "material proof [evidence] of the existence of gas chambers in the Birkenau crematoriums" (Pressac, Technique, p. 431). One may say more generally that it is a contemporary German (construction) document explained by mass extermination/gassing in Auschwitz. 

His exercise to compile 39 "criminal traces" was a response to his former companion the French Revisionist Robert Faurisson, who asked for "one single clear-cut proof, of the actual existence of a 'gas chamber,' of a single 'gas chamber'". Pressac argued that since human testimony is fallible and unreliable, such a proof could only be provided by "incontestable and irrefutable documents". While a direct proof was not available according to Pressac, he argued that an indirect proof may also suffice:

"By 'indirect' proof, I mean a German document that does not state in black and white that a gas chamber is for HOMICIDAL purposes, but one containing evidence that logically it is impossible for it to be anything else."

 (Pressac, Technique, p. 429)

Such an indirect proof Pressac claimed to have found in the hand-over inventory of crematorium 3 of 24 June 1943 with its references to a "gas tight door" and "14 showers" (+ drawing 2197): an "absolute and irrefutable proof of the existence of a gas chamber fitted with dummy showers... implying the deliberate intention to cause them to die by inhaling a deadly gas" (Technique, p. 429). The handover inventory of crematorium 2 of 31 March 1943 with its references to 4 wire mesh slide in devices and wooden covers (+ the gassing cellar letter of 29 January 1943) was considered by him "an almost incredible supplementary proof".

However, the argument is not as logical sound as Pressac thought. A room equipped with a gas tight door and 14 showerheads (dummy or not) may be (more or less strong) inferential evidence for a homicidal gas chamber, but it's not a definitive and irrefutable proof. Pressac has stretched here the strength of inductive reasoning far beyond its limit. 

The concept of historical proof adapted by Pressac is rather naive anyway. Most scholars would disagree that there is something like a "definitive", "indisputable", "absolute", "irrefutable" historical proof as historical knowledge is probative in nature. Pressac's assumption that "human testimony is fallible" but German letters and documents are not, is easily challenged. Any piece of historical evidence (or more precisely, its researcher's interpretation) can be considered fallible. 

For instance, a single and isolated document stating that people are mass gassed at some place may be a forgery, it may be a joke (thanks to Fred "the gas chamber...may be a joke" from someone "flatulent during that period" Leuchter) or just a misunderstanding. In fact, one may argue that the joint testimony of say 100 people is more powerful evidence on homicidal gassing than a single, isolated document, since the latter is more easy and more likely to fabricate, to misunderstand or simply to err than the corroborating testimony of 100 people. Only in connection with other evidence on mass murder in Auschwitz, such a direct and explicit piece of documentary evidence would gain enough probative strength and become powerful evidence.

Fortunately, Pressac's study was not as methodologically flawed as one might fear from his idealisation of German documents as historical proof. In practise, he often cross checked German documents with testimonies and vice versa, and treated both as complementary evidence, no doubt the most reasonable approach.

Holocaust deniers have devoted several rebuttals to Pressac's collection of "criminal traces", the latest and most comprehensive one being Carlo Mattogno's Auschwitz: The Case for Sanity (2010; hereafter ATCFS). Mattogno too is idealising contemporary German documents. But unlike Pressac, he is disturbingly consequent in this and pushes it to the extreme to rely almost exclusively on files produced by the SS - despite the abundant availability of other types of sources. This obsession with a single type of source is a slippery slope for any researcher as it increases the risk of introducing a systematic bias in ones narrative. This is especially obvious for German documents from the Auschwitz concentration camp interpreted by a Holocaust denier.

Most German records, especially the most relevant one from the political department, the camp administration or the sanitary department, were destroyed and are lost. In fact, Mattogno himself points out that the "documentation on the Auschwitz camp is notoriously incomplete" (ATCFS, p. 531). The most intact archive available comes from the construction office, but which is obviously focused on construction activities and not on the operation of the camp. And there are significant gaps even in the files of the construction office that makes it difficult to understand some of the activities especially with regards to the crematoria or other suspicious sites without relying on other sources. Mattogno even concedes this when he says for example that "all documents which could have shed light on the matter on [gassing cellar letter of 29 January 1943], seem to have disappeared" (ATCFS, p. 57). But instead of filling the incomplete picture left by the German documents by other sources (as any reasonable researcher would do), he sticks to his imagination and conjectures or simply prefers not to know.

Moreover, German documents are demonstrable unreliable with regards to atrocities committed by the SS in Auschwitz. One of the most important surviving source on this matter, the Auschwitz death books, was systematically falsified by the SS to suppress unnatural deaths. Such a massive cover up of atrocities just cries for extreme caution with German documents especially on atrocities and to take into account other sources as much as it is possible. Furthermore, it can be shown that heavy camouflage language was employed by the Germans on atrocities in documents on the operation of the camp. The policy of smoke screening and silence was pointed out and put into practice by the chief of the WVHA (in charge of the Auschwitz concentration camp) Oswald Pohl on 23 September 1942 in Auschwitz:
"During today's observations I have silently noticed that you have an ideal inner relation to the issue at stake and an ideal attitude towards the tasks at hand. This conclusion is especially necessary in relation with the issues and the special tasks, about which we do not have to speak words--issues that belong however to your responsibilities."
(Report of Robert Jan Van Pelt)

Hence, whether the German files spoke openly about atrocities is an extremely poor indicator if atrocities actually occurred in Auschwitz. A Holocaust denier writing about German atrocities using almost only incomplete files, which are deliberately unreliable and nebulous on German atrocities - this just has to go wrong.

In the following blog postings I will examine Mattogno's arguments on the "criminal traces" from the files of the central construction office Auschwitz (Mattogno, Auschwitz - The Case for Sanity [ATCFS], p. 25 - 219). This series will be a kind of guide through concentrating on the most relevant points. 

Mattogno begins his discussion of Pressac's "criminal traces" with an argument that can only be described as epic fail (when reading the following block quote, keep in mind that there are almost no German documents left, which are on activities in the basements of the crematoria - or that may be on activities in the basements if the mass extermination did occur - other than those from the files of the central construction office Auschwitz) :
As early as 1994 I had noticed oddities in the assembly of “traces” presented by Pressac, which no historian has since looked at more closely. By this I mean the fact that all the “criminal traces” are concentrated in the construction phase of the crematoria. If we arrange them by their dates, the items can be grouped chronologically as listed in Table 1 for the four crematoria. It is conspicuous that no suspicious reference to crematorium II is dated later than the hand-over of the building from ZBL to the camp administration (March 31, 1943). [...] This means that this alleged gas chamber would have operated for more than 20 months and caused the death of some 500,000 persons without generating even a scrap of a “criminal trace” during its operation! For crematorium III no trace is dated later than the hand-over date of this installation either (June 24, 1943). According to Pressac, 350,000
persons were gassed and cremated here (p. 183). The latest trace for crematoria IV and V is dated only a couple of weeks after the hand-over of the last installation (April 4, 1943). Pressac tells us that 21,000 persons met their death and were cremated in these two crematoria (p. 236). Hence, 771,000 persons are said to have been gassed in these four
crematoria over a period of more than 20 months without leaving anything like a “criminal trace” in the archive of ZBL (see chapter 15.5), whereas there is a multitude of documents attesting to the frequent breakdowns occurring in the cremation devices (see chapter 8.8.1.).

 (Mattogno, ATCFS, p. 42)

Yep, Mattogno is just saying that it is supposed to be "odd" and "conspicuous" that in the construction documents there are no criminal traces for the crematoria after their construction. Guess Mattogno, why they are called construction documents, because they document their construction and not their operation, then they would be called operation documents. There is nothing odd with a sudden drop of "criminal traces" in the construction documents after the crematoria were constructed. In fact, it is exactly what one would expect. It is a priori likely and plausible that the construction office did not perform work at the gas chambers after their construction. And it's no wonder "no historian has since looked at more closely" since there is not much to see here.

But also in case the construction office performed some extension or maintenance work at the gas chambers after they were put into operation (say replace or add a gas tight door or divide a gas chamber with another wall), the reason this work did not generate criminal traces would be most likely that the buildings were now under the responsibility of the camp administration and political department, and that new construction activities at the gas chambers might have been subjected to more rigorous protocols of secrecy (note that the order and installation of gas tight doors for crematoria 4 and 5 in April 1943, after they were handed over to the camp administration, can be still considered as old construction activity that was just not completed yet for the handover).

Mattogno points out that "there is a multitude of documents attesting to the frequent breakdowns occurring in the cremation devices" (ATCFS, p. 43) during the operation of the crematoria. But the breakdown of cremation devices (whose documentation is incomplete anyway and according to citations provided by Mattogno rather superficial especially for the most relevant year 1944) did not necessarily had to generate "criminal traces", which were typically related to the treatment of living people rather than corpses (speaking about it, already the fact of frequent breakdowns of the massive number cremation facilities in Auschwitz-Birkenau is itself suspicious and supporting that excessive body disposal of killed prisoners was carried out).

"To this we must also add the fact that there is not the slightest 'criminal trace' for the early alleged homicidal gassings – not only for the first alleged gassing in the basement of block 11 and for the experimental ones in crematorium 1 of the main camp (Stammlager), but also for the mass gassings in the so-called 'bunkers' of Birkenau which, supposedly and according to van Pelt, went on for some 15 months and led to the annihilation of 'over 200,000 Jews' (p. 455)."
(Mattogno, ATCFS, p. 43)

The first homicidal gassings in Block 11 in the Auschwitz main camp did not require any activity of the  central construction office Auschwitz. Surely the Schutzhaftlagerführung was able to hung out prison doors and cover windows themselves.

The crematorium 1 in the main camp was made ready for homicidal gassing by drilling some holes in its roof, cover them and replace the doors of the gas chamber tract. This is so little construction activity that it did not necessarily had to show up in the incomplete records of the construction office, leaving aside that it was possibly done by the Schutzhaftlagerführung bypassing the construction office.

The same is true for the installation of the Bunker 1 and 2 gas chambers into the corresponding farmhouses. In fact, I'm informed by N. Terry that testimonial evidence from the 1972 Dejaco trial in Vienna shows that the conversion of the Bunker buildings was actually done by the Schutzhaftlagerführung with improvising work details, and not by the central construction office. As this evidence has not been published yet, for the moment it is sufficient to point out that it is entirely possible that the Bunker adaptions were carried out by the SS personnel in charge of the extermination without ordering the construction office. Aside, the claim that there is not the slightest "criminal trace" for the Bunker sites is false anyway ("bathing installations for special actions", "3 horse stable barracks at the swerve bunkers", Mattogno, STIA, p. 138).

The fact that there are little or only indirectly related "criminal traces" before the construction of the crematoria in the files of the construction office results from that it was simply the first time this authority was also directly involved in the implementation of the gas chambers. Previously, the direct and leading involvement of the construction office seems to have been limited to auxiliary constructions such as the horse stable barracks for undressing or the electricity supply for the Bunker extermination sites. 

______________________
 Changelog:

2 March 2015:  extended first Mattogno block quote. 
4 March 2015: added the following (as the Lesser Bunny didn't get the point in the comments section): "when reading the following block quote, keep in mind that there are almost no German documents left, which are on activities in the basements of the crematoria - or that may be on activities in the basements if the mass extermination did occur - other than those from the files of the central construction office Auschwitz"

25 comments:

realrasmckhaile said...

Night by Elie Weisel ....

"Evacuation. The camp was to be emptied, and we were to be sent farther back.Where to?".........

......"A doctor came into the room and announced:
“Tomorrow, immediately after nightfall, the camp will set out. Block after block.
Patients will stay in the infirmary. They will not be evacuated.”
This news made us think. Were the SS going to leave hundreds of prisoners to
strut about in the hospital blocks, waiting for their liberators?"...........

“All of the invalids will be summarily killed,” said the faceless one. “And sent to
the crematory in a final batch.” ..

As for me, I was not thinking about death, but I did not want to be separated from
my father.
“What shall we do?”
My father did not answer.
“What shall we do, father?”
He was lost in thought. The choice was in our hands. For once we could decide
our fate for ourselves. We could both stay in the HOSPITAL, where I could, thanks to MY DOCTOR ...
get him entered as a patient or a nurse. Or else we could follow the others.

“Let’s be evacuated with the others,” I said to him.....

I learned after the war the fate of those who had stayed behind in the hospital.
They were quite simply liberated by the Russians two days after the evacuation"

QUESTION: What is a hospital doing in an extermination camp? Were the Nazis killing jews and giving medical care to sick jews at the same time? If jews were so sick that they needed medical attention and if there was a policy of exterminating jews, why not just leave the sick to die on their own? What sense does it make to get them better to later kill them, what sense does it make to waste valuable medicine on people who are supposed to be killed when you are fighting a war on 2 fronts? Why would he chose to flee with the very people he knows will end up killing him instead of being liberated, he had a choice?

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«QUESTION: What is a hospital doing in an extermination camp?»

First of all, who said that AB was only an extermination camp? It was also a concentration camp, where Jews and others deemed capable of working were employed in activities related to the war effort.

The approach taken towards those who fell sick or became too weak depended on the labor needs of the moment, and indeed policies decided higher up (which were marked by a conflict of interest between those state entities who wanted a large labor force and those who wanted to kill as many Jews as possible) didn't always make sense to the men on site. Rudolf Höss, for instance, wrote the following in an appendix to his memoirs (translated by Constantine FitzGibbon, Commandant of Auschwitz, pp. 189f.):

«Originally all the Jews transported to Auschwitz on the authority of Eichmann’s office were, in accordance with orders of the Reichsführer SS, to be destroyed without exception. This also applied to the Jews from Upper Silesia, but on the arrival of the first transports of German Jews, the order was given that all those who were able-bodied, whether men or women, were to be segregated and employed on war work. This happened before the construction of the women’s camp, since the need for a women’s camp in Auschwitz only arose as a result of this order.
[…]
The selection of able-bodied Jews was supposed to be made by SS doctors. But it repeatedly happened that officers of the protective custody camp and of the labour department themselves selected the prisoners without my knowledge or even my approval. This was the cause of constant friction between the SS doctors and the officers of the labour department. The divergence of opinion among the officers in Auschwitz was developed and fostered by the contradictory interpretation of the Reichsführer SS’s order by authoritative quarters in Berlin. The Reich Security Head Office (Müller and Eichmann) had, for security reasons, the greatest interest in the destruction of as many Jews as possible. The Reichsarzt SS, who laid down the policy of selection, held the view that only those Jews completely fit and able to work should be selected for employment. The weak and the old and those who were only relatively robust would very soon become incapable of work, which would cause a further deterioration in the general standard of health, and an unnecessary increase in the hospital accommodation, requiring further medical personnel and medicines, and all for no purpose since they would in the end have to be killed.
The Economic Administration Head Office (Pohl and Maurer) was only interested in mustering the largest possible labour force for employment in the armaments industry, regardless of the fact that these people would later on become incapable of working. This conflict of interests was further sharpened by the immensely increased demands for prisoner labour made by the Ministry of Supply and the Todt Organisation. The Reichsführer SS was continuously promising both these department numbers which could never be supplied. Standartenführer Maurer (the head of department DII), was in the difficult position of being able only partially to fulfil the demands of the departments referred to, and consequently he was perpetually harassing the labour office to provide him with the greatest possible number of workers.
It was impossible to get the Reichsführer SS to make a definite decision in this matter.»

Reactionary said...

What do you on Holocaust Controversies think about publishing your pdf book and for example this series about Mattogno? Something like that of Holocaust handbooks? Books in print, paper books.

Hans said...

Hi Reactionary,

I don't know how others feel, but in my opinion there is too little interest in rebuttals of Mattogno's Holocaust denial (which is of course related to the fact that there is not too much interest in Mattogno's Holocaust denial) that would justify printed books (even if I had the writing skills to write a book, which is another point).

I mean let's face it, who wants to know why exactly Mattogno has screwed it up on the ventilation of crematoria 2 & 3 (will be the next part of the series :-)) )? This seems like an issue ideal for a blog IMO.

Hans said...

Hi realrasmckhaile,

the first part of your questions Roberto already answered. Your final question ("Why would he chose to flee with the very people he knows will end up killing him instead of being liberated, he had a choice?") is answered in the book you quoted yourself:

"Were the SS going to leave hundreds of prisoners to strut about in the hospital blocks, waiting for their liberators? Were they going to let the Jews hear the twelfth stroke sound? Obviously not. “All of the invalids will be summarily killed,” said the faceless one. “And sent to the crematory in a final batch.” “The camp is certain to be mined,” said another. “The moment the evacuation’s over, it’ll blow up. As for me, I was not thinking about death, but I did not want to be separated from my father. We had already suffered so much, borne so much together; this was not the time to be separated."

http://www-tc.pbs.org/auschwitz/learning/guides/reading6.1.pdf

Reactionary said...

Hello Hans.

Thank you for your reply and thank you for your interesting articles.


Well because there are thousands and thousands who do not believe in the gas chambers and mass killings. And they will be more. In Europe, they grow slowly forward. But in the Middle East for example, there are millions of people who do not believe in it. So that would be fine with information and discussions. And in fact I think there should be some standard works, some ABC books into detail reveals the deniers' arguments step by step. Although not many will read such a book, so I think it's great that they are physically and not just spread out on the internet in blogs (even though it's good that there's info on the internet too) but I think it is important that they are in physical form, in library for example. You never know what can happen with the internet, it can be hacked and destroyed, pages can be laid down, etc., but books can be composed. You should not rely too much on technology either. Such a book could be used as the basis and source, to make documentaries or for teachers to be able to respond to arguments and so on. In all cases, any standard work would be good if there were in printed form I think.


I take the opportunity to ask some questions, hope that's ok?

Have you and the others, read David Coles blog?:

http://www.countercontempt.com/

He comes out with criticism of the deniers:

Part 1: https://www.facebook.com/adam.parfrey/posts/10154399731275224

Part 2: http://www.countercontempt.com/archives/5335

Part 3: http://www.countercontempt.com/archives/5348

Part 4: Also check this by: https://www.facebook.com/BigInfidel/posts/10152833011214133?pnref=story


I would like to hear your views on what Cole writes. Perhaps you could interview him on the blog? Would be interesting.

And would any of you like to debate with Cole in a radio show, and discuss the points you disagree with each other such as Auschwitz?


Thank you.

Best regards,

Reactionary

realrasmckhaile said...

@Robert

Hoss, after 70 years you still think Hoss and his memoirs is credible? Ok the British allowed him to leave his torture in there so his memoirs must be credible?

Why stop there, what about his actual TESTIMONY? Is this the same Hoss who testified to a camp that didn't exist called Wolzek?

How did he know how much died there again, he wasn't allowed to keep records right? How much did he say died there? According to Hoss how did they remove the bodies again after how many minutes after the door was opened? Eating and smoking while the Zyklon B canisters were still releasing its contents? So here we have not a document, nothing from the Auschwitz Bauleitung but a memoir to prove that Auschwitz the hallowed grounds of the holocaust was really a 'death camp'?

Tricks are for kids man.

Reactionary said...

By the way, are you guys going to write an answer to this critic against you, in this book?: http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=28

realrasmckhaile said...

@Robert

" those who wanted to kill as many Jews as possible"

Who wanted to kill as many jews as possible?


"The weak and the old and those who were only relatively robust would very soon become incapable of work, which would cause a further deterioration in the general standard of health, and an unnecessary increase in the hospital accommodation, requiring further medical personnel and medicines, and all for no purpose since they would in the end have to be killed"


Ok so the weak and the old at 1 point were receiving medical care, because there was a worry about "an unnecessary increase in the hospital accommodation" who would be "requiring further medical personnel and medicines". So who decided that the old and the weak should be killed for the reasons above and what year and month was this?

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«@Robert

Hoss, after 70 years you still think Hoss and his memoirs is credible?»

Any reasons why I shouldn't consider Höss's memoirs to be essentially credible?

«Ok the British allowed him to leave his torture in there so his memoirs must be credible?»

I suggest you inform yourself about when and where Höss wrote his memoirs, first of all.

«Why stop there, what about his actual TESTIMONY? Is this the same Hoss who testified to a camp that didn't exist called Wolzek?»

Is one of the other actual or alleged mistake supposed to be an argument against the essential credibility of Höss's memoirs? By such standards, I dare say there would be no credible witness to any event whatsoever. "Wolzek" is likely to have been nothing worse than a misnomer for the existing extermination camp at Sobibór, by the way.

«How did he know how much died there again, he wasn't allowed to keep records right?»

That wouldn't keep him from doing his own estimates, would it?

«How much did he say died there?»

In pretrial interrogations at Nuremberg and later in Poland he gave a figure of around one million, which is in line with documentary evidence. In his Nuremberg testimony he gave a higher figure, which he expressly dismissed as far too high later in Poland, which he said had been given to him by Eichmann. This figure, around 2.5 million, probably referred not to AB alone but to all extermination and dual-purpose camps. For it tallies with the death toll for all these camps that becomes apparent from documentary evidence. So what's your point?

«According to Hoss how did they remove the bodies again after how many minutes after the door was opened?»

You tell me, with a source please. Then we can discuss if the information is plausible and what it's not being plausible, if that should be the case, would imply for the essential credibility of Höss as a witness. Mind that the duration of an event or process is the detail that witnesses are likeliest to get wrong, according to the findings of forensic psychology.

«Eating and smoking while the Zyklon B canisters were still releasing its contents?»

Feel free to correct me if you think you can, but I don't remember Höss having written anywhere that the body disposal teams were eating and smoking «while the Zyklon B canisters were still releasing its contents».

«So here we have not a document, nothing from the Auschwitz Bauleitung but a memoir to prove that Auschwitz the hallowed grounds of the holocaust was really a 'death camp'?»

You are somewhat misinformed, to put it politely. Actually the testimonies and memoirs of Rudolf Höss are but one out of many elements of eyewitness, documentary and physical evidence converging towards the conclusion that AB was an extermination camp. Read this.

«Tricks are for kids man.»

That's a proper characterization of what arguments you have presented so far. You’ll have to do much better.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«@Robert

" those who wanted to kill as many Jews as possible"

Who wanted to kill as many jews as possible?»

Höss, as already quoted, answered your question:

“The Reich Security Head Office (Müller and Eichmann) had, for security reasons, the greatest interest in the destruction of as many Jews as possible.”

«"The weak and the old and those who were only relatively robust would very soon become incapable of work, which would cause a further deterioration in the general standard of health, and an unnecessary increase in the hospital accommodation, requiring further medical personnel and medicines, and all for no purpose since they would in the end have to be killed"

Ok so the weak and the old at 1 point were receiving medical care, because there was a worry about "an unnecessary increase in the hospital accommodation" who would be "requiring further medical personnel and medicines".»

That was not what Höss wrote. Höss first described the policy underlying selections, which was the following:

“The Reichsarzt SS, who laid down the policy of selection, held the view that only those Jews completely fit and able to work should be selected for employment. The weak and the old and those who were only relatively robust would very soon become incapable of work, which would cause a further deterioration in the general standard of health, and an unnecessary increase in the hospital accommodation, requiring further medical personnel and medicines, and all for no purpose since they would in the end have to be killed.”

Then he remarked that this policy was often not adhered to because

“The Economic Administration Head Office (Pohl and Maurer) was only interested in mustering the largest possible labour force for employment in the armaments industry, regardless of the fact that these people would later on become incapable of working.”

«So who decided that the old and the weak should be killed for the reasons above and what year and month was this?»

For what reason? For becoming incapable of working after having been selected as able to work (instead of being killed upon arrival), contrary to the instructions of the Reichsarzt SS, due to the Economic Administration Head Office’s interest in "mustering the largest possible labour force for employment in the armaments industry"? The camp commandant and/or whoever else was authorized to carry out selections for killing among inmates, whenever such selections were considered necessary.

Reactionary said...

Ok, I'll take up some similar statements I have heard that realrasmckhaile. This is not my claims but it would be interesting to know how you would answer them Roberto (or anyone on this blog)

"If the Nazis and Hitler wanted to eliminate the Jews, why did they educate Jews in agriculture in order to be sent to Israel and rebuild the Zionist state, if they intended to murder the Jews? What would be the benefits of it?"

"How could the Germans gather millions Jews and shoot them in Eastern Europe? How could they know who were Jews? How did they know where all the millions of Jews lived in Poland, Russia, Ukraine and the other countries? How could they find any jews, dragging them out in the woods and shoot them etc? "


Thank you.

Best regards,

Reactionary

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«If the Nazis and Hitler wanted to eliminate the Jews, why did they educate Jews in agriculture in order to be sent to Israel and rebuild the Zionist state, if they intended to murder the Jews? What would be the benefits of it?»

Getting them out of Germany, at a time when the intention was not yet to kill them, presumably before the war.

«How could the Germans gather millions Jews and shoot them in Eastern Europe?»

Place by place, with dedicated killing squads supported by other SS units and police battalions, logistically also by the Wehrmacht (who among other things, IIRC, recorded the Jews in every place it entered as one of its administrative tasks), and to a certain extent by the local civilian population, which especially in Ukraine and the Baltics was hostile to the Jews.

«How could they know who were Jews?»

That was pretty easy as Eastern Jews were mostly unassimilated and could be identified by looks alone. As concerns the assimilated ones, cooperative members of the non-Jewish population would give a hand. Plus, in the Soviet Union Jews had their ethnicity recorded in their identity documents, if I’m not mistaken.

«How did they know where all the millions of Jews lived in Poland, Russia, Ukraine and the other countries?»

From census data and other country-related information, and as they occupied the whole territory anyway, they would go searching for Jews wherever they established their authority, by the methods described before.

«How could they find any jews, dragging them out in the woods and shoot them etc?»

Taking defenceless and unsuspecting people somewhere out of town under pretext of resettlement would not be a big deal, and neither would be tricking them into compliance on site until it was too late to try escaping with any chance of success or offer any resistance, if such could have been organized in the first place. Which was unlikely as a leaderless mass of confused and frightened human beings tends to behave like a herd. Compliant behaviour was not restricted to Jews, by the way. Non-Jewish civilians targeted for mass killing were equally helpless, see the blogs The Kortelisy Massacre.and Black Saturday.

Now a question to you: what’s the point of “how could they” questions supposed to be when there’s conclusive evidence that the events in question happened?

Reactionary said...

Thanks for answers Roberto.

I guess many jews lived in jewish segregated communities, and ghettos when the germans invades this countries? Then that should have been even easier to find and kills the jews, right?


"Now a question to you: what’s the point of “how could they” questions supposed to be when there’s conclusive evidence that the events in question happened?"


Well as I wrote:

"This is not my claims but it would be interesting to know how you would answer them Roberto (or anyone on this blog)"

I dont deny the mass killings of jews. I just want to know the best ways to answer people that do, thats why I took some to their claims, and let you answer it. Thanks for that.


By the way Roberto, what do you think about David Coles latest post about the Holocaust?


Hans said...

Hi Reactionary,

thanks for your comment. Your idea about an interview with David Cole for the blog is definitely worth to think about.

"By the way, are you guys going to write an answer to this critic against you, in this book?: http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=28"

I'm not involved in this work on Aktion Reinhardt camps (I have enough to do with Auschwitz), but I understand there will be an adequate rebuttal (see also Jonathan's recent comment here: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.de/2011/12/belzec-sobibor-treblinka-holocaust.html ).

Reactionary said...

Thank you Hans. That was two good news.

Reactionary said...

Hi again Hans.

By the way, speaking of David Cole. Do you know if someone has answered David Coles 46 unanswered questions?:

http://codoh.com/library/document/987/

Has anyone challenged him on these issues?

He seems willing to discuss this in any case.

Best regards,

Reactionary

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«By the way Roberto, what do you think about David Coles latest post about the Holocaust?»

You mean the links you posted on Monday, February 23, 2015 10:59:00 pm? I like Cole’s arguments, especially what he writes about the Cimetiere des Saints-Innocents. The way the chimps freak out over his posts is also amusing. I’ll post the links under my Challenge to Supporters of the Revisionist Transit Camp Theory.

Reactionary said...

Yes that. I agree with you Roberto. I also like Coles arguments, they are very strong.

Thank you for posting that.

Best regards

/Reactionary

The Black Rabbit of Inlé said...

Oh dear, Hans begins his discussion of Mattogno's ATCFS "with an argument that can only be described as epic fail"

Hans wrote >>>> "Yep, Mattogno is just saying that it is supposed to be "odd" and "conspicuous" that in the construction documents there are no criminal traces for the crematoria after their construction. Guess Mattogno, why they are called construction documents, because they document their construction and not their operation, then they would be called operation documents. There is nothing odd with a sudden drop of "criminal traces" in the construction documents after the crematoria were constructed. In fact, it is exactly what one would expect. It is a priori likely and plausible that the construction office did not perform work at the gas chambers after their construction. And it's no wonder "no historian has since looked at more closely" since there is not much to see here."

That, Hans, is not so much a pathetic straw man, as it is a damned lie. Mattogno said quite clearly for anyone reasonably proficient in English, that not a single one of Pressac's "criminal traces" for Crema II is found in a document that dates from when the actual gassings were supposedly taking place; they're all from ZBL documents. Pressac was of course not limited to ZBL documents in his "criminal trace" hunt for Crema II, yet he was unable to find any anywhere else.

This means that this alleged gas chamber would have operated for more than 20 months and caused the death of some 500,000 persons without generating even a scrap of a “criminal trace” during its operation! - Mattogno, p.43.

This is some real shitty stuff from you here Hans, and that's really saying something.

The Black Rabbit of Inlé said...

Reactionary said...
By the way, are you guys going to write an answer to this critic against you, in this book?: http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=28

No; they're not. Whilst there's no doubt errors in the book HC could expose, they don't want to have to explain the scores of examples of their plagiarism of numerous historians which were irrefutably proven in the book.

It's far easier for HC to rely on people reluctance to read a 1,500 page book, especially one written by a "Holocaust denier".

David Deutsch said...

Roberto, just wanted to clarify and elaborate on a point for reactionary--you wrote the following:

Plus, in the Soviet Union Jews had their ethnicity recorded in their identity documents, if I’m not mistaken.

"Jewish (Evrei) was one of the legally recognized nationalities in the USSR. In places like Ukraine and Belarus (including those parts which had recently been Polish), the Jewish communities were still full of people who were fairly traditional and thus visibly Jewish (even in the USSR, the Soviet policy in a lot of the old Pale of Settlement was that they could leave the old Jews alone with their religion, since the younger generations would be acculturated) Thus, in the areas of densest Jewish population--and I'd included Lithuania, which again, like Eastern Poland, had only just recently been taken over by the USSR--there were still large Jewish populations which would have been distinct in terms of appearance, language, clothing, residence and occupation (i.e., in much of region, artisans were predominantly Jewish).

Add to that passports, add to that names, add to that neighbor willing to identify them, and the fact that in many cases, the Jews reported voluntarily when called upon (i.e., in Kiev, in the lead up to Babi Yar, Jews were ordered to appear), and it's not too surprising that the Germans and their local collaborators were able to locate and kill so many Jews with relative ease.

Arthur Crump said...

The Black Rabbit wrote :

No; they're not. Whilst there's no doubt errors in the book HC could expose, they don't want to have to explain the scores of examples of their plagiarism of numerous historians which were irrefutably proven in the book.

I think you'll find HC will ignore the desperate/pathetic/embarrassing/incorrect accusations of 'plagiarism' and just concentrate on the important stuff.
I am currently reading my way through this book and tbh I find it a complete joke. A large percentage of the content so far is this 'plagiarism' accusation.
Two things spring to mind regarding this, firstly the 'Wop who's a flop' doesn't understand what 'plagiarism' is. And secondly, even if it were true then the only problem he should have is if the words 'plagiarised' were bullshit or incorrect ( See Mattognos Holocaust Handbook Collection for examples)

Hans said...

The Black Rabbit of Inlé said:

"That, Hans, is not so much a pathetic straw man, as it is a damned lie. Mattogno said quite clearly for anyone reasonably proficient in English, that not a single one of Pressac's "criminal traces" for Crema II is found in a document that dates from when the actual gassings were supposedly taking place; they're all from ZBL documents.

Pressac was of course not limited to ZBL documents in his "criminal trace" hunt for Crema II, yet he was unable to find any anywhere else."


That Pressac did not find any "criminal traces" outside the files of the central construction office is already so because there are almost no other German files left on the acitivity in the basements of the crematoria (or that may contain activity in the basements of crematoria if there was mass extermination in them), which could have generated any criminal traces on the gas chambers of the crematoria.

Since there are almost no documents on what was going on inside the crematoria other than those in the construction files, then anyone finding it odd and conspicious that there "all the 'criminal traces' are concentrated in the construction phase of the crematoria" is practically saying that it is odd and conspicuous that in the construction documents there are no criminal traces for the crematoria after their construction, as I said (or meant to say if you didn't get it) in the blog posting. It is, of course, not odd and conspicuous at all. And that's Mattogno's epic fail.

And Mattogno was not only practically meaning it like I said in the blog posting, but also intentionally and explicitely:

"Hence, 771,000 persons are said to have been gassed in these four crematoria over a period of more than 20 month without leaving anything like a “criminal trace” in the archive of ZBL..."

(Mattogno, ATCFS, p. 43, my emphasis)

He was talking about "criminal traces" from the ZBL (central construction office) archive, since he knows only too well that there is no other archive left, where one can seriously expect "criminal traces" on gas chambers in the crematoria if they existed.

By the way, your claim that "Mattogno said quite clearly for anyone reasonably proficient in English, that not a single one of Pressac's "criminal traces" for Crema II is found in a document that dates from when the actual gassings were supposedly taking place" is entirely false.

The first homicidal gassing in crematorium 2 is supposed to have taken place on 15 March 1943 and 45% - and not 0% - of Pressac's "criminal traces" (as itemized by Mattogno, ATCFS, p. 42) are dated after this day. In other words, almost half of the "criminal traces" are dated after "from when the actual gassings were supposedly taking place".

Quite an irony when you write about "quite clearly for anyone reasonably proficient in English" followed by what is "quite clearly" not what Mattogno was actually saying, huh?

Jonathan Harrison said...

Reactionary said...
"By the way, are you guys going to write an answer to this critic against you, in this book?: http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=28"

Some refuting arguments have already been posted.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2014/03/mattognos-deceptions-on-nazi-policy.html

The main refutation will take a while because MGK's 'response' was over 1500 pages long and was full of meandering garbage, so in Lipstadt's phrase MGK are trying to embroil us in a process of "nailing jelly to the wall."