Nearly two-thirds of the Holocaust Handbooks - based on page volume and principal authorship - can be credited to a single figure. If this weren't bad enough, it's none other than Carlo Mattogno, a prime example in the "How Not To Do History" playbook. It's truly comforting to know that the bulk of revisionist historiography rests on him.
Take Holocaust Handbook no. 23 on the Chełmno (Kulmhof) extermination camp, for instance. It's one of Mattogno's worst contributions, though the competition is fierce. In this work, a lack of proper historical method combines with near-total avoidance of research of the subject and unfortunate timing.
Mattogno sums up his approach in a single statement, which begs to be quoted in its full beauty:
"As there are no documents which can be used as a basis of comparison, this means that for Chełmno the testimonies cannot constitute historical sources, so that there cannot even exist a genuine historiography for this camp."
(Mattogno, Chelmno, p.9)
There's more than half a million words of witness accounts, hundreds of wartime documents, photos, and archaeological studies on the camp. Among all events of mass violence in human history, the extermination camp Chełmno (Kulmhof) is relatively well documented. But why let overwhelming evidence get in the way?
And what does he mean by "genuine historiography" anyway? Historiography, by definition, means that historians have written about a topic, which - spoiler alert - has been the case for Chełmno. Scholars like Shmuel Krakowski, Patrick Montague, Janusz Gulczyński, Michael Alberti, Peter Klein and others have examined the history of this camp.
Now, we come to what is, in my opinion, one of the most absurd remarks ever made by a leading Holocaust denier. Mattogno claims "that for Chełmno the testimonies cannot constitute historical sources" and the related gem a page later that "these legal testimonies have no historiographic value".
A historical source is essentially any source of information about the past:
"…The concept of historical source covers all sources of historical cognition (whether direct or indirect), that is, all information (in the sense of information theory) about the human past, wherever such information can be found, together with the ways in which such information has been transmitted (information channels)."
(Topolski, Methodology of History, p.388).
But Mattogno, ever the innovator, pre-emptively tosses thousands of pages of testimonies right out the window - without even reading them. Any legitimate historian would welcome more evidence, would examine each piece carefully for insights into what truly happened; Mattogno does the opposite, brushes off the most abundant source material on Chelmno with the flick of a pen.
Mattogno tries to salvage his "historian" image by selectively nitpicking through a few witness statements. Of course, with his pre-conviction that testimonies "have no historiographic value," this whole exercise is pure spectacle and the result known beforehand.
He keeps piling on the nonsense - layer upon layer - and we're still in the same sentence. He asserts that "there are no documents which can be used as a basis of comparison". In Mattogno's world, if there's no "document" mirroring a testimony, then the testimony has "no historiographic value". It's a distortion of the historical method, which usually relies on corroboration, plausibility, and common sense, not an arbitrary demand for matching documents. By Mattogno's logic, we'd need a "supporting document" for every single testimony before we could take it seriously, which makes testimonies redundant to begin with. The reason for this bizarre twist is obvious: he needs a pretext to discard inconvenient evidence he'd prefer to ignore.
A "document" is not inherently superior to a "testimony". An official report from a biased individual can be riddled with falsehoods, while an honest observer's account can be remarkably precise. The true value of a source depends on the specific context and the questions asked, making source analysis anything but black and white.
Mattogno, however, dismisses the basics of the historical method. He disregards well-established techniques and practices of the discipline. If one chooses to abandon the field's established methods, the bare minimum expectation would be to provide a solid theoretical framework, justification, and scope for the new approach - that is, to start with a detailed discussion on methodology, rather than just doing things differently.
Mattogno does bring up one piece of literature for his grand theory: a 1987 article on gas vans by German historian Mathias Beer, who at the time was early in his career and not specializing in historical methodology.
Mattogno did not bother to consult modern textbooks on historical methodology and methods. Or read Beer properly in the first place. According to Mattogno, Beer supposedly supports the idea that testimonies "have no historiographic value". However, Beer actually says the opposite and argues that witness statements can establish "probable facts" even on their own. But when you're pioneering the anti-method, who needs accuracy?
Mattogno further distorts Beer's work by claiming that a source's "historiographic value" only exists with direct confirmation from "documents". In reality, Beer suggests that "whenever possible" testimonies should be linked to "critically validated documents" - not that this is a strict requirement. Beer actually argues that even a single document, like one confirming a witness's presence at a location, can strengthen the reliability of the testimony. This approach values a broad spectrum of corroboration, something Mattogno pointedly ignores
In Mattogno's version of history, only an official Nazi document - preferably stamped and signed in triplicate - counts as legitimate (unless it’s incriminating, in which case he dismisses it as a forgery or otherwise flawed). Historiography embraces a much broader concept of what constitutes a document, considering any written source as valuable. Or it utilizes varied classifications, such as distinguishing between intentional and unintentional sources or those consciously versus unconsciously transmitted:
"We have observed that one definition of document is any written language. [...] Documents sometimes are categorized in terms of (a) time of composition in relation to observation of the matter observed, or (b) the audience for which the document is intended, or (c) the intent of the composer."
Shafer, A guide to historical method, p. 47 & p. 51.
Mattogno exhibits an extreme bias in favor of the Nazis and implies that only Nazi documents can serve as proof of their atrocities. The argument is one of his most frequently used gems with some 400 counts throughout his Holocaust Handbooks ("no documents", "no documentary evidence", "not any docoument", "not the slightest document" etc.). If his approach were a serious historical method rather than a tactic of Holocaust denial, it would ease perpetrators' ability to evade responsibility by just arguing we did not document it or we destroyed all our documentation, so it did not happen.
Notably, Mattogno has never applied his method beyond the Holocaust. This fixation on perpetrators' documents, however, does not contribute meaningfully to historical study; it simply reduces the available sources and heavily biases the narrative in favor of perpetrators. The motive behind Mattogno's method is clear: to deny evidence of Nazi atrocities.
If Mattogno had engaged with Beer's work more thoroughly, he would have encountered Beer's subsequent research on the expulsion of Germans from the East. In 1998, Beer reviewed a study from the 1950s on this topic, offering insights into the historical project:
"For the first time, almost exclusively witness reports formed the basis for such an extensive research project. Based on the historical method, a multi-stage process for the source-critical review of witness reports was developed."
(Beer, Im Spannungsfeld von Politik und Zeitgeschichte. Das Großforschungsprojekt "Dokumentation der Vertreibung der Deutschen aus Ost-Mitteleuropa", p. 385)
It is worthwhile to examine the perspective and methodology developed over six decades ago on a topic researched "almost exclusively through witness reports". The German historian Martin Broszat’s paper, Massendokumentation als Methode zeitgeschichtlicher Forschung, elaborates on the method in detail.
Broszat observed that "only a small fraction of the official material is available to the German historian of contemporary history" and that "language regulations of a propagandistic or ideological kind, even within internal communications" had "devalued" official documents of the time. He noted that "official documents on this event are almost entirely missing" and that "diaries and letters are only available in relatively small numbers" so the "main reliance was on information later recalled from memory".
Broszat acknowledged that such reports "often refer to incidents and conditions which, in their singularity, cannot be easily classified as correct or incorrect". However, he emphasized that "almost all experience reports contain some statements that can be precisely verified" and that "the comparison of the various accounts with one another is of decisive importance".
In terms of "the comparative examination of testimonies", Broszat advised against a mechanical approach, emphasizing instead that "all individual circumstances must be taken into account". He argued for assessing the "greater or lesser probability of statements" by considering the relationship of witnesses to the events they reported: whether they played an active, responsible role or were passively involved, whether they observed the events directly or received information from third parties.
When specific details could be confirmed as either accurate or inaccurate, "an essential criterion for assessing other information" could be established. In cases where accuracy could not be definitively determined, credibility was assessed "based primarily on internal criteria - how an incident is presented, the gravity with which it's treated, the clarity and consistency of expression, and other factors".
Ultimately, Broszat concluded that "it has indeed proven possible to separate the reliable from the unreliable, the positive from the negative, and to arrive at a set of sources which, in its entirety, can justifiably be described as not only uncontestable but also as historically valuable."
Thus, six decades ago, German historians were able to establish historical facts on the expulsion of Germans from the East primarily from information subsequently given from memory. Yet Holocaust deniers like Mattogno still struggle to accept such evidence on Nazi atrocities today.
Mattogno claims that "there are no documents which can be used as a basis of comparison" for Kulmhof. But this is simply untrue. Numerous wartime Nazi documents detail the activities of the camp (see Sonderkommando Kulmhof – Documents and Sonderkommando Kulmhof in German Documents). Ironically, Mattogno himself includes photographs of correspondence related to Sonderkommando Kulmhof (documents 6 and 6a in his book).
In short, every bit of his central claim on method is completely, spectacularly false.
> “ Mattogno claims "that for Chełmno the testimonies cannot constitute historical sources" and the related gem a page later that "these legal testimonies have no historiographic value"
ReplyDeleteI will never understand why people say this. You know, I could understand if it was only one man’s testimony, but there’s literally thousands of people saying the same thing. It gets a point where “could be true” becomes “has to be true”
And besides, if it were true that every “survivor” were to be on payroll, you’d think at least one guy would come up and say it’s all a lie. But we’ve gotten squat in that department and it’s been almost 80 years.
Genuine doubt: Is Mattogno a neo-Nazi? Anti-Semite? Does he have any sympathy for the Third Reich?
ReplyDelete