Mattogno's "Bunkers" Conspiracy Theory

Carlo Mattogno claimed in his book The Bunkers of Auschwitz that the alleged fact that the term "bunkers" does not appear in the earliest testimonies of Henryk Tauber, Szlama Dragon and Rudolf Höss means something ominous:

The first thing to note is that Dragon, at the time of the Soviet deposition, did not yet know the terms ‘Bunker 1’ and ‘Bunker 2,’ allegedly used even by the SS. (p.75) 

What strikes us here in this respect, is the use of the term “bunkers I and II.” As we have already seen, the term ‘Bunker’ was coined at Auschwitz during the Judge Jan Sehn’s investigation no later than April 1945. (p.135) 

During the trial session of March 11, 1947, Hoess finally adapted himself to the Polish ‘truth’ and its terminology, speaking explicitly of ‘Bunker 1’ and‘Bunker 2’: [...]
The obvious difference between the British and the Polish versions of Hoess’ ‘confessions’ is thus further proof of the fact that they expressed the propaganda orientation of the respective interrogators. (p.139)

In my partial response "Carlo Mattogno, the failed Dragon-slayer" I characterized this attempt at muddying the waters as follows:

Mattogno concocts a whole conspiracy theory - the term "Bunker" was invented by the Poles and adopted by the witnesses. Then it was forced upon even the witnesses who were in the Western Allies' hands, like Aumeier and Hoess.

A seemingly reasonable reading of Mattogno's own words, right?

Not according to Mattogno, who in his later response "Il comitato di soccorso Zimmerman o gli olo-bloggers in (denigr)azione nel web" writes (here and further Mattogno's quotes were Google-translated from Italian since Mattogno is apparently unable to write in English and he can't expect us to learn Italian just to read his nonsense; hence minor translation errors are possible):

About this terminology in "Carlo Mattogno, the failed Dragon-slayer" Romanov explains the fact that in the Soviet deposition of Dragon the term "Bunker" is never used (but only "gazovie kameri", "gas chambers") asserting that his statements were translated into Russian with possible errors and "even intentional corruption." Since no former inmate of the Sonderkommando interrogated by the Soviets ever mentions the term "Bunker", it follows that the alleged "conspiracy theory" which he gratuitously attributes to me, is adopted by himself against the Soviet commission of inquiry!

He adds a footnote regarding me accusing him of concocting a conspiracy theory:

Another invention of Romanov. In fact, I merely pointed out that the term "Bunker" appears for the first time in the deposition of Stanisław Jankowski of April 16, 1945 (The Bunkers of Auschwitz, op. cit., p. 75): what does this have to do with "conspiracy theories"?

Unfortunately this response shows Mattogno's dishonesty. First of all, he absolutely did concoct a conspiracy theory as follows from his own quotes above: he did not "merely" point out that the term first appears in Jankowski's testimony. He also drew the explicit conclusion that the term was invented during judge Sehn's investigation, that the invented term was then adopted by the witnesses who thus lied about the term having been used before the camp's liberation, and that the Nazi witnesses were then compelled to adopt the term, and thus also lied about its contemporary usage. That's a pure conspiracy theory: the victors conspired in the invention of the name for the gas chambers in the farmhouses.

Not being content with dishonestly denying being a conspiracist, Mattogno then accuses me of creating a conspiracy theory about why the Soviet protocols of interrogation of Dragon (and Tauber) don't contain the term "bunkers". And again nothing could be further from the truth, since my hypothesis explains the lack of the term by a simple appeal to common sense, without any dishonesty having been involved on any side: hypothetically, the witnesses did mention "bunkers", but the Soviets translated/wrote down "gas chambers" instead of "bunkers" for clarity's sake. The same way they would usually write "dushegubka" (soul-killer) in the protocols mentioning the gas vans instead of "Gaswagen" or "gazovyj avtomobil'". In neither case is any lying or a conspiracy involved, it's just a translation method Mattogno disagrees with.

So, to reiterate: Mattogno did employ a conspiracy theory. I didn't. And then Mattogno denied creating a conspiracy theory and baselessly accused me of creating one. He is clearly dishonest.

Now, while my hypothesis about the Soviet translation methods in case of Dragon and Tauber is the most reasonable explanation, it is based only on indirect evidence. Whereas my debunking of his conspiracy claim about Höss' allegedly evolving bunkers testimony is almost direct: it can be reasonably shown that Höss mentioned the bunkers on 16.04.1946 and they were translated as "dugouts". Here is Mattogno's response:

He argues that Rudolf Hoess used the term "Bunker" before his extradition to Poland (contrary to what I said) and cites an interrogation of the former commandant of Auschwitz on April 16, 1946 where, however, the term "Bunker" does not appear but rather "dugouts one and two". Romanov said: "Obviously "dugouts one and two" are Bunkers 1 and 2, and the translator was clueless about what Hoess meant." The explanation is quite feeble. The fact is that the text does not mention the term "Bunker", and here we are speaking precisely about terminology. 

During the interrogation of 1 April 1946 Hoess spoke of "two old farms", and on 11 March 1946 of "two old farmbuildings". These terms correspond to the German Bauernhäuse [sic, correct: Bauernhäuser ~SR], so that the term "dugouts" is explained more by an inappropriate translation of Bauerhaus [sic, correct: Bauernhaus ~SR] than that of "Bunker".

This explanation reads like a parody of a parody of "revisionism".

"Dugout" is one of the direct English translations of the German term "Bunker". Indeed, the very English word "bunker" in the military sense of "dugout" came from German, as the online version of OED confirms:

bunker, n. [...]
c. A military dug-out; a reinforced concrete shelter.

1939 War Pictorial 13 Oct. 29/2 A Nazi field gun hidden in a cemented ‘bunker’ on the Western front.

1945 Over-All Report(U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, Europ. War) 30 Sept. 104/1 Germany promised its people ‘bombproof’ shelters for all, and planned the construction of extensive above-ground concrete structures known as ‘bunkers’.

1947 H. Trevor-Roper Last Days of Hitler iv. 117 A curved stair led downwards to a still deeper and slightly larger bunker. This was..Hitler’s own bunker, the stage on which the last act of the Nazi melodrama was played out.

1949 F. Maclean Eastern Approaches iii. iv. 354 The turf-covered ‘bunkers’ in which the Germans and Ustas̆e had made their last stand.

Also cf. J.E.Kaufmann, C.Donnell, Modern European Military Fortifications, 1870-1950: A Selective Annotated Bibliography, 2004, pp.220-1:

BUNKER, PILLBOX, DUGOUT (excavated shelter):
[...]
(German) Bunker, Stand, Unterschlupf
These terms may refer to a dugout or shelter.

Hence, in context, it is obvious that originally Höss used the term "Bunker" which for a native English speaker made sense as a dugout.

At the same time there is no plausible explanation whatsoever as to how a farmhouse/"Bauernhaus" could have been mistranslated as "dugout" even once, much less several times. Additionally, Höss called them "so-called dugouts", signifying that he was giving a special designation. Farmhouses, on the other hand, are just farmhouses and there was no need to call them "so-called". Mattogno is thus dishonestly grasping at non-existent straws in defense of his wild conspiracy theory.

What's more, Mattogno ignored an even more direct piece of evidence for the fact that Höss used the term "bunker" before his Polish captivity. It's the interrogation of Höss by Major G. Draper on 30.04.1946 (which I didn't cite at the time - but about which Mattogno was absolutely obliged to know, given that it is he who is making far-reaching claims denying whole swaths of history):

[Höss:] ... I had the new Unterfuehrer who had experience in these matters of the burning of the graves and it was for that reason that I recall Moll and he had the job of taking care of Station 5.
Q What do you call Station 5?
A There were four crematories in Birkenau.
Q And one broker? [this was corrected, with the correction slightly misplaced, to:] bunker?
A It is this bunker that I designate as No. 5.
Q Was that bunker midway between two and three crematories?
A Not between, but behind three and four somewhat removed from three and four? [sic]

Whether Draper's use of the word "bunker" stems from Höss' earlier statements or from his own prior knowledge (e.g. from the Tesch trial), Höss' affirmation and use of the term is significant, since "bunker" is not a natural way to describe a generic gas chamber or a farmhouse.

And Bunker 5 is of course the name of Bunker 2 during the Hungarian action (as Höss himself would write later, "Die Anlage II, später als Freianlage oder Bunker V bezeichnet...", M.Broszat (Hrsgb.), Kommandant in Auschwitz, S. 249; which is also important because Höss acknowledges, that the gas chamber had several different designations; and indeed, later in the interrogation he even calls it a "crematorium" - by metonymy).

So there you have it. Höss did use the term "bunker" before his Polish captivity and Mattogno's "scholarship" is once again shown to be nothing but a sloppy and dishonest mess.

[Corrected on 13.06.2016]