Rebuttal of Mattogno on Auschwitz, Part 1: Indoor Cremation

Rebuttal of Mattogno on Auschwitz:

Part 1: Indoor Cremation
Part 2: Gas Introduction at the Crematoria

Part 3: Eyewitnesses (Supplement)
Part 4: Sonderkommando Handwritings

Part 5: Construction Documents:

A: Introduction
B: Ventilation & Elevators 
C: Undressing Rooms
D: Outwards Opening Door & Removal of Corpse Chute 

E: Gas Detectors

F: Cremation with Simultaneous Special Treatment

G: Gas Chambers

Revisionist Carlo Mattogno’s book Auschwitz: The Case for Sanity (September 2010, abbreviated as ATCFS) is hailed as the “the most devastating blow ever” to holocaust historiography according to the Holocaust handbooks webpage or in Mattogno’s own words:

"In fact, I am the author “most damaging” to their [Jean-Claude Pressac and Robert Jan Van Pelt] books about Auschwitz, which I exhaustively refuted in the more than 700 pages of my already quoted study Auschwitz: The Case for Sanity."

(Mattogno [with Graf and Kues], The “Extermination Camps” of “Aktion Reinhardt”, 2013, p. 1496)

Not the first time Mattogno thinks a great deal of his page count (see also Mattogno, Auschwitz: The First Gassing, 2011, p. 7 and Mattogno, Inside the Gas Chambers, 2014, p. 110; Mattogno had been truly hyperactive over the last years, but the other side of the coin is that he missed out to improve the quality of his writings).

The book has some 768 pdf pages, but that’s fortunately not all I had to wade through. It comes along with a large appendix. There are effectively 640 pages of text with about 250,000 words; the figure is not reflecting his original output, since more than 53,000 words are block quotes. Moreover, entire paragraphs and sections have been taken over from at least six previous books and four articles published by Mattogno, a total of about 36,000 words (and I did not even compare the chapter on cremation with his Italian crematoria book; curiously, comments on Aumeier on p. 609 f. are repeated again 30 pages later, something that could have been avoided if the patchwork were subjected to some serious proofreading).

Anyway, the good news is this won’t be a 250,000 words riposte. I won’t go after every single minor issue and follow him on every secondary theatre he pulled on Jean-Claude Pressac and Robert Jan Van Pelt. I will also not synthesize a narrative on Auschwitz – I will leave it to the people who have learnt how to do it (historians) to clear up the timeline and details of the Holocaust in Auschwitz if something is still unclear and contradictory. I will focus on a single issue: Did Mattogno justify reasonable doubts on the mass extermination of Jews in Auschwitz? The book will have to be measured on Mattogno’s own words that “the present work furnishes a coherent and actually converging set of evidentiary elements which show that the holocaust thesis regarding the existence of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz is historically, documentarily and technically unfounded” (ATCFS, p. 24). 

Carlo Mattogno has made the issue of cremation (together with that of the gas introduction openings of crematorium 2, which has been already dealt with elsewhere) to the central pillar of his rebuttal of mass extermination in Auschwitz - so much that it would “destroy his [Robert Jan Van Pelt’s] historical method in a radical way and completely refutes all the conclusions which are based upon it” (ATCFS, p. 663). Since 1988 Mattogno has researched the cremation capacity and fuel consumption of the crematory ovens in Auschwitz and published several works: Auschwitz: The End of a Legend (1994), The Crematoria Ovens of Auschwitz and Birkenau (2000), Supplementary Response to John C. Zimmerman on his "Body Disposal at Auschwitz" (?),  Auschwitz – The Case For Sanity (2010) and I Forni Crematori di Auschwitz. Studio Storico-technico (2012).

The crematoria in Auschwitz were operating with a high throughput of corpses in order to cope with the corpses from the extermination of the European Jews. With the term “high-throughput”, I mean nominal cremation times of < 40 min per (adult) corpse per oven opening (muffle). This time is less than the physiochemical processes of the incineration take at typical operating conditions of an oven. Therefore, these cremations are characterized by multiple cremation techniques, i.e. the simultaneous presence of more than one (adult) corpse in the main incineration chamber (for single cremations, the time to cremate an adult corpse was about 1 hour, see also letter Topf to Mauthausen of 1 November 1940, reproduced in I Forni Crematori di Auschwitz, Documentazione, p. 404). Most of the witnesses, who have testified about the operation of the crematory ovens in Auschwitz, have mentioned multiple cremation techniques - aside numerous Sonderkommando prisoners, also the Topf engineers Kurt Prüfer and Fritz Sander (see Carlo Mattogno and interrogations of Topf engineers) and the SS men Rudolf Höß, Erich Muhsfeldt and Pery Broad (see Mattogno, ATCFS, p. 319).

According to Mattogno, the crematory ovens in Auschwitz “did not allow multiple cremations” and “even if multiple cremations had been possible in the ovens of Auschwitz-Birkenau, they would not have led to any gain in time or in fuel” (ATCFS, p. 285). However, several contemporary German sources provide evidence for high-throughput cremations intended/possible/carried out in crematory ovens in German camps:

• On 14 July 1941, the Topf engineer Paul Erdmann provided the construction office Mauthausen with a cremation rate of 33 to 40 min per corpse “without overloading” the two-muffle oven (Mattogno, I Forni Crematori di Auschwitz, Documentazione, p. 406). 
  

• On 30 October 1941, the SS construction office Auschwitz noted that the planned crematorium 2 will have an arithmetic cremation rate of 15 min per corpse (Bartosik, The origins of the Birkenau camp, p.170). (In reality such a rate would, for example, correspond to simultaneously cremating 2 bodies in 30 min). 
  

 

• On 10 July 1942, the SS construction office Auschwitz informed the SS construction office Stutthof on the three-muffle oven that “incineration takes about ½ hour according to the Topf company” (Mattogno, I Forni Crematori di Auschwitz, Documentazione, p. 424). 
  

• On 8 September 1942, the Topf engineer Kurt Prüfer noted nominal cremation rates of 30 min for the double-muffle oven, 22 min for the triple-muffle oven and 12 min for the 8-muffle oven (Schüle, Industrie und Holocaust, p. 442, see also here).
  
  Note that there is probably a typo/mistake in one of the last two figures since there is no technical reason (or any other evidence) why each muffle of the 8-muffle oven should out-perform that of a three-muffle oven by a factor of almost two.

• On 24 September 1942, the Topf engineer Fritz Sander wrote to the Topf management that the concentration camps “help themselves with a large number of ovens/muffles and by stuffing several corpses in the individual muffles”. (Schüle, Industrie und Holocaust, p. 443, see also here)

 

• In a report of SS-Hauptsturmführer Krone from the WVHA of 20 January 1943, it reads that “two oil-fueled cremation furnaces...can dispose of some 100 bodies in a 12-hour period” in the concentration camp Majdanek, i.e. the arithmetic rate of 15 min per corpse (Graf & Mattogno, Concentration Camp Majdanek) (In reality such a rate would, for example, correspond to simultaneously cremating 2 bodies in 30 min).

• For 28 June 1943, a draft was prepared in the construction office Auschwitz according to which the cremation rate of the Topf two-muffle oven was 26 min per corpse and that of the three- and eight muffle oven 15 min per corpse (Schüle, Industrie und Holocaust, p. 460, see also here). (In reality such a rate would, for example, correspond to simultaneously cremating 2 bodies in 30 min).
  

• List of cremations from Theresienstadt between 3 October to 15 November 1943 according to which the cremation time was less than 35 min in 72% cases (Mattogno, ATCFS, p. 279).

• On 4 February 1944, oven builder Hans Kori wrote to the Majdanek concentration camp that the cremation time of his ovens can be halved to 30 min per corpse by employing multiple cremations (Mattogno, I Forni Crematori di Auschwitz, Documentazione, p. 422).
  
  
  
  Note that the document is only known as Soviet copy, however, since the coke consumption, as well as the corresponding cremation capacity provided in the letter, is far away from Soviet assumptions, there can be little doubt about its authenticity.

It should be emphasized that these sources contradict Mattogno’s central hypothesizes that the cremation rate of the Topf two-, three- and eight-muffle ovens were not exceeding one corpse per 60 min, or that multiple cremations were not possible or at least not beneficial in crematory ovens.

Revisionists usually tend to discard post-war testimonial evidence in favor of incomplete, ambiguous and unclear contemporary German sources in order to deny German atrocities. In this case, however, even most of the relevant contemporary German documents are too problematic from a Revisionist point of view, since they corroborate significant parts of testimonial evidence and further suggest death rates for Auschwitz (experienced or expected) exceeding that of natural deaths and thus supporting unnatural deaths and mass murder in Auschwitz. Instead of taking these German documents as basis for a discussion of the cremation capacity of the crematoria in Auschwitz (as one would intuitively do), Mattogno brushes them away as unreliable (or in case of Sanders’ letter of 25 September 1942 does not understand the content in the first place, see Mattogno, I Forni Crematori di Auschwitz, Testo, p. 375 or in case of the Theresienstadt cremation list and the Erläuterungsbericht from Auschwitz claims it referred to something entirely else than what was possible in Auschwitz) as they contrast to his historical knowledge and technical understanding of crematory ovens. 

The evidence for high-throughput incinerations in Auschwitz consists of numerous testimonial evidence supported by the cited documentary evidence and demographic evidence indicating the disappearance of several hundreds of thousands of people in Auschwitz. Such multiple and corroborating evidence can be considered as strong by any standard. If numerous people of different backgrounds report a specific incident at various occasions and under multiple conditions, if this is to a significant extent backed up by contemporary written sources from authorities and if it thoroughly explains a demographic loss of several hundreds of thousands of people otherwise unexplained, you clearly need some serious evidence that weights way more. Such massive evidence could be in principle a technical/chemical/physical argument agreed upon on by experts in the field relying on experimental and theoretical studies. At a certain point is more likely that evidence from Auschwitz is false than that a significant portion of the scientific community is wrong. 

And here is where Mattogno’s problems begin. A technical/physical/chemical argument brought forward by an autodidact in the field of cremation (supported by Franco Deana of whom nothing else is known other than the academic title dott. Ing.) never peer-reviewed by recognized experts can hardly be considered as authoritative. In other words, it would be more likely that Mattogno has committed an error in his argument (even if at the moment I would not be able to point it out) than that numerous corroborating evidence is false. At best, Mattogno’s work would have raised some questions that could be worth further investigations, most preferable by recognized experts on the field. But it would not immediately refute anything we know about mass extermination at Auschwitz. Unfortunately for Revisionists, things do not work like this already for methodological reasons. Mattogno probably interprets the lack of expert response to his hypothesizes on the crematory ovens as confirmation of the same. However, it is actually the high improbability of his assertions compared to the substantial evidence for mass extermination in Auschwitz and – most importantly – the extremely low impact and publicity of his work, why there is so little attention paid to him. A blog rebuttal at Holocaust Controversies is already the greatest attention Mattogno can expect.

But you do not even have to be a specialist on crematory ovens to recognize that Mattogno is only providing hand-waving arguments and conjectures, but not the rigorous refutation of high-throughput incinerations that is actually required and that he asserts to have delivered.

On the technique of introducing a fresh corpse into the muffle after the previous body has been dehydrated and enters the combustion phase (as he acknowledges it was done in the crematorium in Theresienstadt), he says that “such a procedure was impossible in the Topf crematorium ovens, both because they were coke-fired and because the dimensions of the muffle precluded it” (ATCFS, p.280). However, he provides no explanation of why it was not possible to have one corpse in the combustion phase and one body in the dehydration phase in the muffle if the oven is coke-fired instead of naphtha. Likewise, Mattogno does not demonstrate that the muffle was too small. It is guesswork, but that’s not enough to refute the substantial evidence on cremation cycles as short as 20 to 30 min. 

On the second multiple cremation technique, the introduction of several fresh corpses into the muffle at the same time, Mattogno argues that 1.) it was thermochemically not possible to dehydrate multiple corpses in the muffle, 2.) it was spatially not possible to cremate multiple corpses into the muffle and 3.) it did not decrease the cremation time anyway. For the thermochemical argument, Mattogno estimates the amount of energy required to evaporate the water contained in four corpses per muffle, which would be way less than the amount of energy supplied from the coke gasifier and would lead to a critical decrease of the muffle temperature. He discusses four corpses per muffle, because the figure was supplied by Sonderkommando Henryk Tauber. However, whether Tauber’s figure of 4-5 corpses per muffle is historically correct or exaggerated is not essential for the question of mass extermination in Auschwitz. As rule, one needs to address the minimum claim, where a narrative can still be supported, in order to refute the narrative. In other words, Mattogno should have discussed the heat balance with two instead of four corpses per muffle. But the argument is also more fundamentally flawed. Mattogno has not taken into account a major contribution to the heat balance after fresh corpses are pushed into the openings according to testimonial evidence – the combustion of dehydrated corpses already inside the muffle. 

On the second point, Mattogno claims that “if two or three bodies had been introduced into one muffle, the corpses would have blocked…the passage of the combustion products coming from the gasifiers” (p. 285). According to Mattogno, the muffles of the three-muffle ovens were 70 cm wide, and it is entirely unclear and not obvious at all why two corpses on top of each other or even two corpses with reversed head-feet direction next to each other would have blocked any openings located in the side of the muffles. Mattogno once again failed to demonstrate his assertion.

Mattogno’s last point (“multiple cremations...would not have led to any gain in time or in fuel”, p. 285) is an excellent case example of how not to perform a "rigorous scientific treatment of the matter" (ATCFS, p.229). Mattogno wants to test the hypothesis if multiple cremations as reported for the Auschwitz crematoria would have reduced the nominal cremation time or the required fuel and cites some information on slaughterhouse incinerators mentioned in Wilhelm Heepke’s “Die Kadaververnichtungsanstalten” (1905). However, the operation principle of the cadaver incinerators was significantly different to the one reported for the crematoria in Auschwitz. The data cited by Heepke refers to incinerators that were loaded once with cadavers with a mass equal to 7 – 9 corpses when scaled to the floor area of the Topf ovens (or > 9 corpses when scaled to the volume). In contrast to this, the Topf ovens were only loaded with a fraction of this number of corpses (2-3), but reloaded after a well-defined time (corresponding to the end of the dehydration of the previous load). The benefit of this well-defined reloading (but which required a higher manpower) was saving of external fuel, since the combustion of the dehydrated corpses was efficiently exploited as a source of internal fuel. There is no evidence that this technique was carried out for the slaughterhouse incinerators. Hence, the data provided by Heepke cannot test for the impact of multiple cremations as performed in Auschwitz on the amount of required external fuel. 

It remains to see what Heepke’s data tells about the time required for the incineration if multiple cremations are performed. He shows a table with 10 differently sized slaughterhouse incinerators built in the 1890s and around the turn of the century with their maximal loading and the incineration time of the load. The maximal charges range from 70 to 900 kg. This should haven give a neat data set if only the load of the ovens but not their size was changed. The most serious problem to answer the question of multiple cremations is that all ovens were operated with about the same ratio of load to size and that this ratio is not only extremely high but also much higher than what is reported for the crematoria ovens in Auschwitz. In practice, this means that the data for the 10 ovens collapse to a single data point: at extremely high loading densities the cremation rate for a 60 kg cadaver was about 1 h. It does, however, not say anything about how the cremation rate is at intermediate and low loadings, but which is how the Auschwitz ovens were operated in comparison. Furthermore, the data says nothing about the size of the cadavers and their surface area, but which is in an important factor in the cremation process.

Keeping the size of the muffle and the ratio surface area to volume of the cadavers constant, one would assume that the cremation rate increases upon increasing the amount of mass while increasing the amount of energy until it saturates or even decreases because a) the necessary energy can longer be supplied, b) because the fresh air injection or exhaust gas removal becomes limiting or c) because the ratio of the available surface area to bulk drops below a critical value. In other words, there is no general answer to the question if multiple cremations increase the cremation rate, but it depends on the actual regime, an oven is operating and if sufficient energy is supplied. At low loadings, the cremation rate will increase, at high loadings, it will be saturated or decrease. The fact that numerous eyewitnesses have reported high throughput cremations being carried out in Auschwitz is sufficient evidence to assume that the Topf ovens in Auschwitz-Birkenau were still in a low loading regime with beneficial impact of increasing load on the cremation rate. The additional energy was obviously supplied by the combustion of the dehydrated corpses from the earlier batch. 

It is up to Revisionists to demonstrate that the Topf ovens in Birkenau were already saturated with one adult corpse and that any increase of the number of bodies would have resulted in an at least proportional increase of the cremation time even if extra heat was supplied by the exothermic reaction of the previously dried corpses, if they disagree with this empirical knowledge from numerous eyewitnesses.

Mattogno also argues that the durability of the Birkenau ovens (and lack of documents on rebuilding the brickwork) allowed for only a maximum 92,000 cremations. The figure is based on the limit of 2,000 cremations per muffle provided in an article by Rudolf Jakobskötter from 1941 on electrical Topf ovens (ATCFS, p. 298). However, the argument does not take into account the higher loading per introduction as well as the reduced thermal stress on the refractories (compared to civilian use of crematory ovens), since they were subjected to fewer temperature changes during a) the cremation of fresh and dehydrated corpses at the same time in the muffle reducing the temperature peaks from the different phases of the cremation process and b) continuous operation. The latter was also pointed out by the Topf engineer Erdmann in the letter of 14 July 1941 to the concentration camp Mauthausen:

“It is doing no harm to carry out cremations day and night one after the another, if required. The fact is that the fireclay materials last longer if there is a uniform temperature in the oven all the time.” 

In conclusion, Mattogno has not performed well on this issue of the capacity of the crematory ovens in Auschwitz that he defined as of prime importance and that he studied for almost the last three decades. He cannot explain the paper trail and the numerous sources on high throughput cremations, nor does he provide a rigorous scientific treatment of why high throughput cremations are not possible. 

_________________________________________________________
Changelog: 

21 October 2014: added Pressac and van Pelt to the quote, added citation of letter Topf to Mauthausen, 1 November 1940 (acknowledgment to The Black Rabbit of Inlé).

22 October 2014: linguistic changes, added citations for testimonial evidence.  

27 October 2014: several minor changes to clarify arguments. 

24 November 2014: added reference to part 2, modified posting title.  

12 January 2015 & 10 February 2015: linguistic corrections. 

6 February 2016: introduced additional heat supply from dried corpses to paragraph "Keeping the size..."

10 March 2018: SR further emphasized that the figures are rates, i.e. averages.