How not to Help out Mattogno on Auschwitz

It was a bit surprising to see there was virtually no reaction in the (admittedly manageable) Revisionist community to the series Rebuttal of Mattogno on Auschwitz (not finished yet, but currently pending because of other projects), either from himself or at least from one of his cheerleaders.

It's not that we would expect them to engage in a constructive discussion - that would be a big surprise indeed -, but ignoring a detailed rebuttal of the latest state of Revisionism on Auschwitz does not exactly help when you are an obscure fringe group anyway (though I am not really unhappy with this as it enabled me to move on to the gas vans, which seemed to be the only remaining issue Holocaust deniers hadn't been thoroughly debunked yet).

Somebody named "Root Ofall", apparently a French Revisionist and supporter of Vincent Reynouard Vincent, has now provided a brief critique of Rebuttal of Mattogno on Auschwitz, Part 5: Construction Documents, F: Cremation with Simultaneous Special Treatment in the comment section. Such rare incident needs to be appreciated with its own posting. "Root Ofall" shows his good will to help out Mattogno, but as we'll see, sometimes well-meant is just badly done. 

Rebuttal of Mattogno on Auschwitz, Part 5: Construction Documents, G: Gas Chambers

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 Room
D: Outward Opening Door & Removal of Corpse Chute
E: Gas Detectors
F: Cremation with Simultaneous Special Treatment
G: Gas Chambers

The crematoria in Auschwitz-Birkenau were equipped with gas chambers. Leaving aside testimonial evidence (which also specifies their purpose), this follows clearly and explicitly from documentary evidence from the archives of the central construction office Auschwitz. I will first quote the relevant documents (including a rebuttal of Mattogno's arguments against their homicidal interpretation, which I think is necessary, but is hidden with the HTML spoiler code as it may beyond the interest of many readers), followed by a rebuttal of Mattogno's own hypothesis of the nature of these gas chambers and completed by some photographic evidence for a homicidal gas chamber in Auschwitz, which remains insufficiently explained by Revisionists up to this day. 

Rebuttal of Mattogno on Auschwitz, Part 5: Construction Documents, F: Cremation with Simultaneous Special Treatment

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 Room
D: Outward Opening Door & Removal of Corpse Chute
E: Gas Detectors
F: Cremation with Simultaneous Special Treatment

Rebuttal of Mattogno on Auschwitz, Part 5: Construction Documents, E: Gas Detectors

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 Room
D: Outward Opening Door & Removal of Corpse Chute
E: Gas Detectors

F: Cremation with Simultaneous Special Treatment

G: Gas Chambers

Rebuttal of Mattogno on Auschwitz, Part 5: Construction Documents, D: Outward Opening Door & Removal of Corpse Chute

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 Room
D: Outward Opening Door & Removal of Corpse Chute

E: Gas Detectors

F: Cremation with Simultaneous Special Treatment

G: Gas Chambers

In the previous blog posting, I briefly touched drawing 2003 (ground floor, basement) of crematorium 2 of 19 December 1942, which introduced several changes to the crematorium basement. These modifications - studied in detail by Jean-Claude Pressac in Technique and Operation of the Auschwitz Gas Chambers p. 302 f. - can be explained mainly by the transformation into a mass killing site.

Rebuttal of Mattogno on Auschwitz, Part 5: Construction Documents, C: Undressing Rooms

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

Rebuttal of Mattogno on Auschwitz, Part 5: Construction Documents, B: Ventilation & Elevator

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

Rebuttal of Mattogno on Auschwitz, Part 5: Construction Documents, A: Introduction

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

The so-called "criminal traces" in the files of the Auschwitz construction office are strong inferential evidence on homicidal gassing in Auschwitz and corroborate contemporary Polish and Jewish sources as well as numerous post-liberation testimonies. In this sub-series of blog postings, I will show that Mattogno was not successful in pointing out documents (or rather arguments on construction documents) that seriously challenge mass extermination in Auschwitz. Furthermore, he was not even able to offer a plausible alternative interpretation that explains all the relevant documentary evidence (let aside other types of sources). 

Rebuttal of Mattogno on Auschwitz, Part 4: Sonderkommando Handwritings

Rebuttal of Mattogno on Auschwitz:

Part 1: Indoor Cremation

Part 2: Gas Introduction at the Crematoria

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

The Sonderkommando handwritings are among the most damning individual sources on the mass murder in Auschwitz for Revisionists. Here I look into Revisionist Carlo Mattogno's non- and mistreatment of the manuscripts.

Rebuttal of Mattogno on Auschwitz, Part 3: Eyewitnesses

Rebuttal of Mattogno on Auschwitz:

Part 1: Indoor Cremation

Part 2: Gas Introduction at the Crematoria

Part 3: Eyewitnesses (Supplement)
Part 4: Rebuttal of Mattogno on Auschwitz, 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

Mattogno’s poor treatment of testimonial evidence is a common thread throughout his Auschwitz oeuvre. Whether on Henryk Tauber, Rudolf Höß, Charles Sigismund, Miklos Nyiszli, Filip Müller, Pery Broad, Hans Stark etc., Mattogno does not get tired to repeat the same mindless exercise over and over again: he points out what he thinks are contradictions and false statements in the testimonies and…well that’s it. This flimsy source criticism is already sufficient for him to dismiss any testimonial evidence on mass extermination once for all. Needless to say he does not discuss why this crude and superficial approach is supposed to be justified.

In practise, this scheme follows falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one, false in all). This (controversial) legal maxim assumes that it has been established that a witness has wilfully testified falsely. But it's hard to prove a lie, even more so retrospectively by studying written sources. Indeed, Mattogno does not manage to discriminate between dishonest and honest mistakes in his work. He cannot demonstrate a single lie in the most important accounts. Moreover, falsus in uno usually assumes uncorroborated testimonies, but which is not the case for the mass extermination in Auschwitz. In fact, the powerful concept of independent corroboration enables to extract historical truth with high certainty even from partially contradictionary and false sources. And last but not least, falsus in uno is not a scientific or historiographical principle, but a logical fallacy.

Rebuttal of Mattogno on Auschwitz, Part 2: Gas Introduction at the Crematoria

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

For conventional delousing practise of housings in Auschwitz, the SS paramedics could enter the room to be deloused, open the Zyklon-B can(s) and leave again through the door. The same procedure was not possible for the killing of people as the victims were locked into rooms behind strong wooden gas-tight doors (the first experimental homicidal gassings in Block 11 in the Auschwitz main camp, where the victims were locked behind prisons bars, are an exception to this, but this technique was less efficient/more challenging to camouflage). Instead, the hydrogen cyanide soaked pellets had to be introduced from the outside. The actual method was depending on the structural design of the buildings, which housed the gas chambers. At crematorium 1 in the Auschwitz main camp and at crematoria 2 and 3 in Auschwitz-Birkenau holes were drilled or poured respectively into the flat roofs of the homicidal gas chambers and closed with covers. At Bunker 1 and 2 and crematoria 4 and 5 in Birkenau with their pitched roofs, the gas was introduced via windows in the walls that were closed with gas-tight shutters.

The supposed lack of evidence for gas introduction openings in the roofs of homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz has been a significant argument for Revisionists in the past: from the veteran Revisionist Robert Faurisson (“no holes, no Holocaust”) to Germar Rudolf (Rudolf Report), Brian Renk (Convergence or Divergence?) and Carlo Mattogno (No holes, no gas chambers, Auschwitz Lies, Auschwitz: Crematorium I , Auschwitz: The Case for Sanity ). I already dealt with the gas introduction openings of crematoria 2 and 3 elsewhere in detail. This will be a condensed and polished treatment of the matter. Two new pieces of evidence (German contemporary documents and the 23 August 1944 RAF aerial photograph) are also included. In the second and third part, the gas introduction at crematoria 4 and 5 and the gas openings of crematorium 1 in the main camp are discussed with a focus on Mattogno’s arguments.

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). 

Viewer's Guide to "Auschwitz - The Surprising Hidden Truth" (Minutes 22 - 38)

Viewer's Guide to "Auschwitz - The Surprising Hidden Truth" 

Minutes 0 - 10

Minutes 10 - 16

Minutes 16 - 22
Minutes 22 - 38
Minutes 38 - end

The Prohibited Area Birkenau

Jean-Claude Pressac published this map of Birkenau dated 2 June 1943 (not 1942, as in his caption) in his second book "Die Krematorien von Auschwitz" and noted the interesting feature that "the zone, where Bunker 1 and 2 and their mass graves are located, is declared 'prohibited area'". Revisionist Carlo Mattogno has challenged the explanation, but how substantial is his critique? And can he really offer a reasonable alternative interpretation?

Review of the Debate on the Gas Openings at Crematoria 2 and 3 in Auschwitz - Part III : How it sums up

Part I: Evidence

Part II: Revisionist arguments

Part III: How it sums up  

Review of the Debate on the Gas Openings at Crematoria 2 and 3 in Auschwitz - Part II: Revisionist arguments

Part I: Evidence

Part II: Revisionist arguments

 Part III: How it sums up

Review of the Debate on the Gas Openings at Crematoria 2 and 3 in Auschwitz - Part I: Evidence

The issue of gas introduction openings in the basements of crematoria 2 and 3 in Auschwitz-Birkenau will be dealt with in three postings; this first presents the various pieces of evidence, the second is discussing the most common Revisionist arguments, and the last is concluding some final remarks.  

Part I: Evidence

Part II: Revisionist arguments

Part III: How it sums up

Carlo Mattogno's Scholarly Death Certificate

In a previous blog posting, the systematic falsification of death causes in Auschwitz was pointed out. The evidence is not new, available for some years and accessible for any researcher or interested person. How did Revisionists, namely their frontman on Auschwitz Carlo Mattogno, deal with it?