In his blog Oranienburg: il tracollo dell'anti"negazionismo" internazionale (a brief discussion of the book Neue Studien zu nationalsozialistischen Massentötungen durch Giftgas: Historische Bedeutung, technische Entwicklung, revisionistische Leugnung), Mattogno considered it important to point out the following:
2) Non viene fatta alcuna menzione di olo-blogger alla Romanov o alla Muhlenkamp, il che conferma, come ho già scritto, che nessuno storico olocaustico li prende sul serio.
Nowhere does the book mention "holo-bloggers" like Romanov or like Muehlenkamp, which is supposed to confirm, like Mattogno had written, that no Holocaust historian takes them seriously.
Mattogno's wishful thinking obviously made him jump to conclusions that are not necessarily justified (blog sites are not a source that historians tend to refer to in academic publications, independently of their contents), but I wouldn't bother if he were right. I’m happy with being taken seriously by the "Revisionist" movement's foremost coryphée, as I obviously am judging by, among other things, our long discussion about Bełżec mass graves and archaeology (my response to what Thomas Kues called Mattogno’s "important work" BEŁŻEC E LE CONTROVERSIE OLOCAUSTICHE DI ROBERTO MUEHLENKAMP is still waiting for Mattogno's rejoinder more than two years after publication of the last installment – Mattogno had a go at the first and second installments but then apparently threw in the towel) and the need he felt to state, in his short blog about the Neue Studien zu nationalsozialistischen Massentötungen durch Giftgas, that this book doesn’t mention either Sergey Romanov or me.
Mattogno's apparent obsession with his blogosphere opponents also kept him from realizing the implications of this statement, which is that even amateur "holo-bloggers" like Sergey and me, who are not mentioned in publications of academic historiography, can make mincemeat of the falsehoods peddled by Mattogno and his cronies. Maybe that is one of the reasons why, in an academic publication with 424 pages of main text, which expressly declares "Revisionist" denial to be one of its issues, the current flagship of "Revisionism" is mentioned exactly twice (as one of Italy’s "Revisionists" besides Claudio Moffa on page 375, and as the author of an article about Sachsenhausen concentration camp in the "Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung", briefly summarized on pages 390-91).
It’s not like historians completely ignore Holocaust Controversies, by the way. One of this blog site's founders, Dr. Nick Terry, is a professional historian. Another of its contributors is Dr. Joachim Neander. And the Emory University's Holocaust Denial on Trial website mentions HC articles in several of its Myth/Fact Sheets pages, namely the pages 80,000 People Cannot Be Buried In A Grave The Size Of A Henhouse, There are no Mass Graves in Bełżec, Mass Incineration: Not Enough Room To Crush The Bones, Poland's cold and snowy weather would have inhibited the incineration process, The bodies of Jewish victims would not have burned "on their own", The incineration fires would have needed to much wood: Part 1 of 2, The incineration fires would have needed to much wood: Part 2 of 2 and Where are the teeth that once belonged to that multitude of incineration victims.