Before reaching the single most important memorandum on cremation capacity at Auschwitz, there is a preliminary issue worth examining because it reveals a great deal about Mattogno’s overall method.
Mattogno has repeatedly claimed to have examined all 88,200 pages of the Auschwitz construction archives held in Moscow. He is very proud of this fact. Yet from those 88,200 pages, almost no documentation recording actual individual cremations survives. After denier critic John Zimmerman pointed out this rather obvious problem, Mattogno eventually produced what appears to be the only document related to an individual cremation in the entire archive: a 1940 test cremation entirely unrelated to the Birkenau crematoria under discussion.
This absence matters enormously, though not for the reason Mattogno would prefer.
We are dealing with one of the largest cremation facilities in Europe, operating continuously during the height of the war. Sparse day-to-day operational documentation is not a neutral historical fact. It is suspicious in itself, and the most immediate question it raises is why. Rudolf Höss, Henryk Tauber, Perry Broad, and others testified that records were systematically destroyed as the war ended. Mattogno, however, shifts attention away from the people with the clearest motive to destroy those records and instead attributes the gap to Soviet archival selection (discussed further in part 5). He acknowledges the documentary absence while attributing it to Soviet archival selection, despite presenting no direct evidence for such intervention.
The rhetorical convenience of this move is worth noting. When surviving German documents support Mattogno’s conclusions, they are reliable and authoritative. When they undermine his conclusions, Soviet tampering becomes plausible. When documents are missing, the implication is that Soviet archivists removed material favourable to the defence rather than that the SS destroyed incriminating records during the collapse of the Reich. Every possible evidentiary outcome is made to support the conclusion Mattogno already wanted to reach. That is not scepticism. It is special pleading: the standards of evidence change depending on which conclusion needs to be defended.
This pattern repeats constantly throughout his work.
Changelog: not directly relevant reference removed 18/6/2026
Does Mattogno ever mention the full scale and evidenced destruction of documents in any of his (extremely dull and poorly written. I can barely get past the first couple of pages) works on Auschwitz? One would expect him to, but then again, it does not fit into his narrative
ReplyDeleteFrom my reading of Mattogno namely his 3 huge cremation books (which makes one suicidal if read for to long) aswell as a few articles he wrote in the 90s he seems to imply a great Soviet conspiracy without saying it outright
DeleteThat’ll be touched upon in part 3 and delved into deeper in part 5 because honestly Mattognos reasoning when it comes to the documents on the crematorium of Auschwitz is an absolute shambles
Sorry, but this order is of suspect provenance. I suggest you read the discussion during the Nuremberg trial. It should not be used as evidence.
ReplyDeleteHere's a whole study about this so-called document. I suggest you rewrite this part as it cannot remain in this form. https://www.academia.edu/42453791/Der_sogenannte_Sprenger_Erlass
ReplyDeleteIt can be deleted and posted anew without the mention the "order".
Oh ok I’ll remove mention. Thanks for the heads up!!
Delete“When surviving German documents support Mattogno’s conclusions, they are reliable and authoritative. When they undermine his conclusions, Soviet tampering becomes plausible.”
ReplyDeleteI've noticed the same tendency surrounding Goebbels’s Diaries as well, usually by the Christian Nazis. I've never understood this subjective bias.
“Rudolf Höss, Henryk Tauber, Perry Broad, and others testified that records were systematically destroyed as the war ended.”
Unrelated to the Auschwitz, but did Mattogno ever address Globnick's letter to Himmler? [5.1.44, NS 19/2234, Bl. 33-34], quote, "In the case of the entire Abrechnung Reinhardt [Reinhardt accounting / settlement], there is the additional factor that its vouchers must be destroyed as soon as possible, after the records of all other work in this matter have already been destroyed"
I couldn’t give a definitive answer because I’d have to re read his and Grafs relevant works on the subject and if mattognos opinion shift (as they often do) however I’d suggest reading the book written by some of the contributors to this blog.
DeleteOn the Goebbels diaries it’s a little pathetic to see deniers have to flounder so much they have to scream forgery and run back to mommy this is so wide spread their slogan should become “if in doubt claim forgery”
Sure thing, I think I'll read works later on;
DeleteAs for Goebbels' diaries, I couldn't but agree, I've been witness lately to the nazi infighting, basically, pagan and Christian Nazis use the everything available against each other to gain scores on the religious affiliation of the prominent NSDAP figures. But less about that, as we know Frank's and Goebbels' diaries contain entries that support the orthodox narrative, pagan Nazis are usually forced to advocate for the entirely authentic diaries because of the anti-christian views of Hitler. But they ran into contradiction because they cannot claim 100% authenticity and remain a denialist. Quite a circus.
100% denial is a dogma and where the wind blows you must go whatever the present Guru says must be taken as gospel a great example of this so Fred Leucther in the 80s and 90s he was hailed as a genius his report was seen as the end of the orthodox claim with a capital T now you’ll hardly see any ‘professional’ denier cite Leucther because a better shiner alternative came namely Germar Rudolf not to mention its numerous historical errors
DeleteDenial is a game of attrition to be the last one standing then you can plant your flag and claim victory simple as that and it’s this attitude which makes holocaust denial denial and not revisionism