We have already observed the pattern that whenever the denier Carlo Mattogno claims on the Holocaust that something or someone is not known, had nothing to do with something else or did not exist, then there is a good chance that the exact opposite is true.
- Josef "quite unknown" Spacil (SS-Standartenführer, BdS Niederlande, SS economist at the HSSPF Süd-Russland, head of RSHA II)
- Johann "completely unknown" Ernst (SS-Untersturmführer and Technischer Obersekretär, head of SiPo repair garages)
- Guido "completely unknown" Huhn (SS-Obersturmführer, SS-Sondereinheit at concentration camp Auschwitz)
- Friedrich "not a Major in any way" Pradel (SS-Sturmbannführer and Major der Schutzpolizei, RSHA II D 3 a)
- on Sonderkommando 1005 German documents that "there are none" and that the designation "was invented by the Soviets".
- on the Minsk gas-chamber dossier that the "signature of the note in question is by a different hand and is a rather clumsy attempted imitation" and that "there is no trace of any record of the presumed visit to Minsk itself by any Italian fascist delegation".
- on homicidal gas vans that "the word 'Gaswagen,' in the sense of 'mobile homicidal gas chamber' was coined only after the Second World War by the victorious powers".
- on homicidal gas vans that "the term 'Gaskammer' can only refer to a stationary 'gas chamber'".
- on Saurer gasoline driven gas vans that "all Saurer trucks had diesel engines"
- on intercepted decodes on the mass killing unit Sonderkommando Lange that "there is no mention of Sonderkommando Lange, or gas vans, or Novgorod, or mental patients to be killed!".
- on a gas van document that "[c]ontrary to normal practise, the typed name of the author of the letter is missing, as are his name [sic!] and rank and that steel bottles with carbon oxide "does not appear in any document".
- on the testimony of von dem Bach-Zelewski that "the Jewish editors of Aufbau falsified the original document, shamelessly interpolating and adding entire paragraphs".
- on the Auschwitz Jewish Sonderkommando that "not a single one had anything whatsoever to do with the crematoria"
Mattogno never gets tired to deliver explosive ammunition that would have destroyed his reputation as a researcher - if he ever had one. In this posting, we take a look at another case in point from his recent "Holocaust Handbooks": Mattogno argues that the Aktion 1005 leader Paul Blobel "had nothing to do" with Eichmann's office - which is straight away refuted by numerous contemporary German documents.
Here's the leading Holocaust denier stamping towards his next embarrassing mistake with his typical, inimitable certainty:
1. During his visit to Auschwitz on July 17-18, 1942, Himmler decided that the corpses buried in mass graves ought to be cremated.
2. Shortly afterwards, therefore supposedly in the second half of July, Blobel went to Auschwitz and brought to Höss the cremation order issued by the Reichsführer SS.
3. Then Höss went to Chełmno to learn the techniques of outdoor cremation that Blobel was experimenting with (who was not “from Eichmann’s office” with whom he had nothing to do).
(Mattogno, Commandant of Auschwitz, November 2017, p. 253)
In reality, Blobel was in personnel, economic and administrative terms attached to Eichmann's RSHA office IV B 4. In his opus magnum on Aktion 1005, the German historian Andrej Angrick explained in detail how "Blobel let his file administration dealt with in Eichmann's office":
The filing process was generally as follows:Blobel's letters were received at the RSHA telex office at Prinz-Albrecht-Strasse, were registered there, and then transferred to the Eichmann office at Kurfürstenstraße 116. In the anteroom, the office manager Rudolf Jänisch received them and handed them over to Eichmann or his deputy, SS Sturmbannführer Günther. In the absence of both men, Otto Hunsche had to guarantee the proper reception of the post classified as a secret Reich affair and located in a closed envelope.[...]After being informed, the authorized person deposited the information in a special file folder, these "1005 folders" remained with Jänisch, ie in the anteroom to Eichmann's office, and could not be forwarded to the registry.All "1005" operations were kept in the office in sealed folders, the opening of which only Eichmann and Günther was allowed. Günther's room is said to have contained further files by Blobel in a safe containing several closed file cases that Gunther "never released unsealed."Part of the correspondence must have been located directly at Müller, because in the course of the action 1005 many couriers - especially the most trusted driver of the Havel Institute - not only headed for the Eichmann office, but should also regularly receive shipments from the Gestapo chief or had to deliver there.In addition to the safekeeping of the files for "1005," IV B 4 had been required to get the supplies needed by Blobel, ration cards, and other material - including, but not limited to, many thousands of liters of liquid fuel and equipment for burning the corpses from 1943 onwards to order for him, or at least to place the orders and settle the costs later with him.Finally, Blobel also needed the support of female typists from the Kurfürstenstraße, who were demonstrably entrusted with drafting some of the more unsuspicious correspondence of Action 1005."
(Angrick, "Aktion 1005" - Spurenbeseitigung von NS-Massenverbrechen 1942-1945, 2018, p. 91-92; my translation)
While Angrick's representation is based on accounts of the former RSHA staff, several well-known German documents published already some time ago establish that Blobel and Aktion 1005 were linked to Eichmann's office.
On 28 February 1942, the Gestapo chief Heinrich Müller addressed in a letter - filed as "Secret State Affair (1005)" in Eichmann's office - the public disclosure of "alleged incidents in course of the solution of the Jewish question in the Warthegau" towards the Nazi foreign office. Both the file register and the content fit to Blobel's Aktion 1005, which was classified as "Secret State Affair" and dealt with the removal of the traces of Nazi atrocities. Other German documents show that Blobel and his men were engaged at Kulmhof extermination camp in the Warthegau since Summer 1942.
Then there are British intercepted German radio signals from October 1943 between Eichmann's deputy Rolf Günther, Blobel and the Sonderkommando Zeppelin leader Rudolf Oebsger-Röder:
[...]For ROEDER.For the completion of urgent business of winding up in the sphere of the EK 1 and EK 2, exact details are required immediately concerning special places of work from November 1941 up to July 1943. Positional details, special places of work, particularly in GRIGOROVO near NOVGOROD, are to be transmitted at once to SS Stubaf. BLOBEL, at present B.d.S. RIGA and RSHA 4 B 4.All speed essential.GUENTER. SS Hstuf.
To RSHA IV B 4.Secondly. BdS. RIGA SS Stubaf. BLOBEL.Ref. W/T1 message of 11/10 Nr. 18.1) In Ravine near air-force barracks of SIEVERKAJA close to the north-west of the airfield,little material. 2) GATTSCHINA castle grounds about 200 m. distant from the former quarters of the Kdo. Ostuf. BOSSE, former Latvian interpreters TONE, DZELSKELEJ, and others, all apparently ["from" crossed out by hand] RIGA, are able to give information concerning 1) and 2).Russian collaborator, RUTSCHENKO [correction by hand], can also give indications, at present PSKOV UZ.3) Ref. PUSCHKIN, ZARSKOJE, SELO and TOSSNO. Please question Stubaf. Dr. ? ["?" crossed out by hand, and handwritten name "FRANCZ"inserted] and Stubaf. HUBIG, both RSHA I b.[...]Part 2. 4) GRIGOROWO at NOVGOROD not known to me. As EK 2 [is concerned], perhaps Ostubaf. EHRLINGER of Egr. N can give information, or else Hstuf. KRAUS (brother of Stubaf. OTTO KRAUS), who is at present at PSKOV.Sgd. ROEDER, Stubaf.
Eichmann's office requested from a SS leader of SK Zeppelin to obtain details on mass grave sites to be provided both to RSHA IV B 4 as well as directly to Blobel operating in the area of the BdS Riga (perhaps because he was well-connected to local collaborators). The decodes show how Blobel activities were assisted and documented by Eichmann's office. This also supports Angrick's representation on Blobel's file administration.
On 25 December 1943, 64 Jewish prisoners of Sonderkommando 1005 had escaped from Fort Kauen. Some two months later, Eichmann wrote his final report on the incident to the Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler:
The leader of the Sonderkommando 1005 - SS-Obersturmführer Radif - and the leader of the deployed guard unit - Gendarmariemeister Apelt - were arrested after the outbreak for negligent behaviour. Since the investigation has been completed, I have turned the detention into house arrest.I ask for a decision as to whether
1. an SS and police investigation should be carried out or
2. the matter should be closed on ones own responsibility.
It is noteworthy that Eichmann could decide on the arrest measures on Sonderkommando 1005 staff and requested decisions on legal actions against them from Himmler. Thus, he was clearly responsible for the men employed for Blobel's operations.
These four documents are even cited in Mattogno's book "The Einsatzgruppen in the occupied Territories". Of course, he did not bother to correct himself and his false claim that Blobel "had nothing to do" with Eichmann, but added an incomprehensible talk about "forced" interpretation of the decodes:
Tyas dedicated the article cited several times here precisely to Eichmann, as is readily apparent from the title: "Adolf Eichmann: New Information from British Signals Intelligence." But apart from the two messages in question [the British decodes], he does not indicate the slightest link between Eichmann and Blobel, which confirms that the orthodoxy’s interpretation of these documents is forced and therefore unsupported.(Mattogno, The Einsatzgruppen in the occupied Territories, p. 430)
Apart from that the fact that the connection is also indicated in Müller's letter to the Foreign office and clearly established in Eichmann's letter to Himmler, if any interpretation "is forced and therefore unsupported", then it is that these documents do not link Blobel to Eichmann's office.
But as usual, it's getting worse for the best guy Holocaust denial could get to write on the subject.
Other than the RSHA staff cited by Angrick, who else would know about Blobel's affiliation to the RSHA office IV B 4? Let's take Blobel's personal car driver:
(interrogation of Julius Bauer of 4/5 July 1963, in Staatsarchiv Hamburg, Strafsache 141 Js 204/60, Band 13, Bl. 4935- 4954; courtesy of Jens Hoffmann, see also Hoffmann, "Das kann man nicht erzählen", p.80)At this second visit to Berlin, Blobel informed me that his task was a Secret State Affair. I must keep strictest silence about his entire action on our journey and what I see. But I did not know anything yet about which task Blobel had.I think that we were in Berlin for about 8 days on this first visit to IV B4. I slept during this stay at IV B4. I believe that Blobel slept in the first (days) at IV B4 and was later housed or later on visits to Berlin in the guesthouse of the security police on Wannsee.[...]
Blobel left Berlin for Litzmannstadt after being with IV B4 for the first time. There he took up permanent quarters in the hotel "General Litzmann". From there we drove to Kulmhof. There Blobel made corpse-burning experiments.
"Of course, during our travels in the East, we often, even frequently, drove to Berlin, where Blobel went to the RSHA. To whom he reported there, I do not know. We regularly drove to Berlin to office IV b 4 in the Kurfürstenstraße, of which I know that it was headed by Eichmann. I also saw Eichmann there."
(interrogation of Julius Bauer of 12 November 1964, BArch B 162/5858, p. 1845)
What's the strategy of a Holocaust denier with evidence he cannot cope with? Simple rule: if it cannot be kept secret or declared a forgery, mock it and run away:
Spektor [recte: Hoffmann] gives no hint about the source of these fantasies; let’s hope it’s not the same source as given in his Footnote 95, which follows the quotation a few lines down, because that source is in fact the interrogation on 4-5 July 1963 of a certain Julius Bauer, who was none other than Blobel’s driver (Fahrer)!(Mattogno, The Einsatzgruppen in the occupied Territories, p. 433)
Just where's the argument here? Is it the exclamation mark? (its inflationary use - 167 times alone in this book - suggests that Mattogno is constantly turning red with rage or trying to mask his lack of substance)
Last but not least, there are more documents in the files of the RSHA and other SS agencies proving that Blobel was formally affiliated with Eichmann's RSHA office IV B 4:
Document 1.) Blobel's personnel Nazi party file on financial matters:
(BArch R 9361-II/84115)
Document 2.) Order by the RSHA office II D 3 a of 16 April 1943:
(BArch R 58/257)
Offices which receive as attachments the Führer orders of 16.1 and 29.6.42 and 15.11.42 -O-kdo I O (2) 3 Nr. 98/42 I, II and III and of 10.3.43 -O-Kdo. I K (5) 3 Nr. 166/43:
IV B 4 - Copy for SS-Standartenführer Blobel
Document 3.) Notebook on machine guns and ammunition provided by the RSHA office II D:
(BArch R 58/858)
Date No. Name Rank Office
17.5.43 94 Blobel IV B 4[...]
Document 4.) Index card on weapons and equipment provided by the RSHA office II D:
Name: Blobel Official title: SS-Standartenführer Office: 1V B 4
(BArch R 58/1152)
Document 5.) BDC SSO file on Paul Radomski:
Document 5.) BDC SSO file on Paul Radomski:
While cancelling his secondment to the BdS Athens, SS-Stubaf Paul Radomski SD Head Section Stettin is seconded with immediate effect to RSHA - Division IV B 4 - and assigned to the Sonderkommando SS-Staf. Blobel.
(BArch R 9361-III/548980, quoted from Angrick, "Aktion 1005" - Spurenbeseitigung von NS-Massenverbrechen 1942-1945, 2018, p. 677)
So much on Blobel "was not 'from Eichmann's office' with whom he had nothing to do".
The RSHA files on Blobel also contradict Mattogno that "no document relating to 'Aktion 1005' was found in the archives of the Gestapo" (The Einsatzgruppen, p. 429-430).
I guess you can see the pattern.