Friday, December 30, 2011

The e-mail we sent out to Mattogno/Graf/Kues.

To the attention of Jürgen Graf, Carlo Mattogno, and Thomas Kues: 

Please see the attached critique of your works concerning Aktion Reinhard. It has also been made available on Google Documents, RapidShare, and Wayback Machine

Over one year ago, Mr. Graf challenged the Holocaust Controversies blog to provide a “detailed and comprehensive critique” of one of a number of books he offered. By that time we had already decided not to limit ourselves to one Revisionist work, but the three works on the Reinhard camps (Treblinka, Belzec, and Sobibor, which was earlier discussed in the Akte Sobibor brochure). These three works repeat and rely upon one another to such an extent that it would be silly to look at one in isolation. More information on our motivations can be found in the introduction to the work. 

Our formal critique also provides a test for those Revisionists who claim to be interested in ‘open debate’. We encourage those Revisionists who control their own public website to announce the existence of the critique as well as provide a direct link to its contents. We have also established conditions for a response in our conclusion.

Since the critique originally began to appear on the HC blog on Christmas Eve, various responses have arisen from Revisionists on internet forums. When one HC supporter posted web links and a brief introduction to the critique on the CODOH Revisionist Forum and invited critical Revisionist comments on the work (open debate, right?) his post was quickly deleted by the powers-that-be. This was the second time that reference to the critique was censored on the CODOH forum. Other Revisionists have simply engaged in base invective, without offering any substantial criticisms of our work. One fellow-traveller even decided to distract attention by faking an email purportedly from us. We trust that you will join us in unreservedly condemning such puerile antics.

Happy Holidays,

HC Team

P.S. This letter has been sent to other Revisionists as well as professional scholars who we feel would be interested in its content.


  1. I downloaded this work, and at a place where I perceived what I regard as an editing "glitch," I attempted, as I am accustomed to doing with .pdf files, to enter an Annotation (Acrobat's collaborative equivalent to marginalia).
    I was disappointed to discover that the file is "Secured" in some fashion that prevents anyone doing this. I assume the file was Secured to prevent types of editing/alteration of some nature other than Annotations, which do not obscure or conceal any part of the original file, nor support alterations not distinct from it. I don't know whether these other types of alteration even exist, or whether Securing in fact prevents them, but I am frustrated by the prevention of Annotation in the file.

  2. Hello. We have purposefully secured the pdf file for some of the reasons you mention. Our main wish was to maintain the authorial integrity of the file, especially with its open availability online from file transfer websites. We will look into the issue of annotations, but can only act if the security of the file is guaranteed. Apologies for any inconvenience.


Please read our Comments Policy