Showing posts with label Book: The Bunkers of Auschwitz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Book: The Bunkers of Auschwitz. Show all posts

Monday, November 05, 2018

Bunker 2 Extermination Site in Auschwitz-Birkenau in Contemporary Photographs

The Auschwitz State Museum has published a 26-page booklet dedicated to Bunker 2 in Auschwitz-Birkenau (Bartosik & Martyniak, "Biały domek". Historia zagłady w bunkrze II, 2017). As already suggested by the front cover, the gassing facility known as Bunker 2 (in some accounts also Bunker 5) has been spotted on a photograph taken by the SS - AFAIK its only appearance in a contemporary ground photograph (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Construction site in Auschwitz-Birkenau, 1943 (Yad Vashem Archives, Photo Archives, Album FA157/344, Item 66393)

Thursday, July 28, 2016

Mattogno's Bunker 5 Follies.

"Bunker 5" was a name given in 1944 to the gas chamber complex earlier known as "Bunker 2". One plausible hypothesis states that "5" in the name meant the 5th extermination complex after the 4 Birkenau crematoria (that, according to one of the two numbering systems in use, were numbered from 1 to 4).

Sunday, June 12, 2016

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?

Sunday, February 07, 2016

Mattogno and Grabner's Statement

Having posted Maximilian Grabner’s 1945 statement, it is now time to examine Carlo Mattogno’s conspicuous omission of this document from his body of work.  

The statement touches on many topics dear to Mattogno: the first gassing, the Krema I gassings, the Bunkers, the Krema capacities, the holes in the Krema I roof and the wire-mesh Zyklon B introduction columns... 

And yet, seemingly, there is not a single mention of it in any of his major works. I couldn’t check everything of course, but I did check all the relevant books.

In some cases taking into account the information contained in the statement should have influenced Mattogno's reasoning.  

Sunday, November 30, 2014

German Documents Confirm Bunker Sites and Body Disposal Activity of Birkenau Sonderkommando

Recently published contemporary German documents (Bartosik, Martyniak, Setkiewicz, The Beginnings of the Extermination of Jews in KL Auschwitz in the Light of the Source Materials, 2014) hammer another nail in the Revisionist coffin as they support the historical reality of the Bunker 1 and 2 sites in Auschwitz-Birkenau and that their Sonderkommando (special detail) was engaged in body disposal (the historical reality of the Sonderkommando of the crematoria was previously confirmed by a German document).

Monday, June 18, 2012

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?

Friday, January 29, 2010

How Carlo Mattogno distorted Henryk Tauber's testimony

On 27.01.2010 Carlo Mattogno made a guest appearance at the antisemitic CODOH blog "Inconvenient history".

He presented his new comic book about Auschwitz, Le camere a gas di Auschwitz. Studio storico-tecnico sugli “indizi criminali” di Jean-Claude Pressac e sulla “convergenza di prove” di Robert Jan van Pelt, whining that it
has now been in print for several months and, as expected, it has been met with almost complete silence
This complaint is absolutely ridiculous. If even CODOH chimps did not know about this book until now, how would any mainstream scholars learn about it? Not that they would care, of course.

Moreover, the book is in Italian. Don't get me wrong, but if someone wishes to get some more or less quick responses to one's work from the most important scholars, one should publish in English, maybe in German. But Italian? And Mattogno complains? What arrogance. Especially considering Mattogno has yet to reply to the many arguments against him at this very blog.

Monday, January 04, 2010

Carlo Mattogno, the failed Dragon-slayer

(Last revised: 30.01.2010)

Long sections of Carlo Mattogno's book The Bunkers of Auschwitz [PDF] are devoted to the critique of various testimonies of Auschwitz Sonderkommando Shlomo Dragon and his brother Abraham.

First, let's take a look at Mattogno's comparison of Shlomo Dragon's Soviet and Polish testimonies. Since I have examined the original Soviet testimony and have the text before me, I'm in a good position to analyze Mattogno's analysis.

The first thing I want to state is that all the citations from Dragon's testimony in Mattogno's book, given in footnotes in original Russian, are indeed authentic. Mattogno's translation of some of them is another matter, as we shall see shortly...