Mattogno's "Special Treatment"

[Werd]

Mattogno is arguing that a homicidal gas chamber would have holes constructed into the ceiling (page 75), not chiselled (page76).

Correct.

That is just an argument, it is not evidence, nor proof that in 1943-4 something other than homicidal gassings took place in the Leichenkeller.

The idea that the Nazis would be so sloppy as to MORE THAN ONCE forget to put Zyklon B holes in different ceilings in different buildings nonetheless, is absolutely stupid.

[Huntinger]

Lager sortieren....Sortierzentrum...sonderbehandlung

[Nessie]

Mattogno is arguing that a homicidal gas chamber would have holes constructed into the ceiling (page 75), not chiselled (page76).

Correct.

That is just an argument, it is not evidence, nor proof that in 1943-4 something other than homicidal gassings took place in the Leichenkeller.

The idea that the Nazis would be so sloppy as to MORE THAN ONCE forget to put Zyklon B holes in different ceilings in different buildings nonetheless, is absolutely stupid.

Your argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy. Typically, for a denier, you fall for such an argument. The claim that the Nazis would have constructed the holes first, rather than chiselled them through is merely Mattogno's thoughts on how it would be done. That is not evidence.

[Nessie]

.....

Nessie once tried to say that erecting horse stable barracks for special treatment was code for homicide. I showed otherwise.
viewtopic.php?p=184142#p184142

.....

That link goes to this post;

viewtopic.php?p=184142#p184142

Letter from central construction office Auschwitz to SS-WVHA of 9 June 1942 on “erection of 4 horse stable barracks for special treatment of the Jews" [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews..., p.109]

Deja vu.

holocaust controversies trying to hide sources

Letter from central construction office Auschwitz to SS-WVHA of 9 June 1942 on “erection of 4 horse stable barracks for special treatment of the Jews" [Bartosik, The beginnings of the extermination of Jews..., p.109]
Letter from central construction office Auschwitz to SS-WVHA of 9 June 1942 on “erection of 4 horse stable barracks for special treatment of the Jews" [Mattogno, STIA, p. 36]

I am presenting that as evidence that a special treatment involved the Jews. That is all. I am not claiming those documents on their own prove special treatment was code for homicide.

That's the first edition of STIA. The second edition which I've been pasting pages from DOES MENTION 5 horse stable barracks on paperback page 36 THAT I'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED ON PAGE 1.
viewtopic.php?p=183613#p183613

That link goes to this post;

viewtopic.php?p=183613#p183613

You have copied and pasted 4 pages, starting at page 36, from Mattogno and then you shout "SPECIAL TREATMENT IS LINKED TO DISINFESTATION OF JEWS' PERSONAL EFFECTS INSIDE CERTAIN BARRACKS. EVEN A COURT CONFIRMED THIS AS SEEN ALREADY IN CHAPTER 5.". You do not show where the evidence is to prove the barracks were being used to delouse personal effects.

Mattogno refers to a document about the "Distribution of Barracks" and then looks at the link between Action Reinhardt and A-B and the sorting of property. He thinks that if the barracks are part of a special action that involves the sorting and delousing of Jewish property, that means therefore "special" has nothing to do with homicidal gassings.

But the evidence is that prior to being gassed, the Jews were stripped of everything they had on them. Gassing and the theft of Jewish property go hand in hand. That the Jews were stripped of everything and barracks were needed for the property, is actually another nail in the denier coffin, where they claim the Jews were being resettled. If they were being resettled, what were they being resettled with? The Nazis took everything.

But just for Nessie, I'll go back a bit in Mattogno's book.

The document in question there is about 5 barracks, four of which are for "special treatment" and one is for "lodging of prisoners". The evidence is that some Jews were selected to work helping the Nazis, as Sonderkommados, and their job was to help take the Jews to the gas chambers and get them to strip naked and leave their property before entering the chambers. Once gassed, some Sonderkommados emptied the gas chambers and others removed the property from the undressing rooms. Possibly the best known witness is Sonderkommado is David Olere, who produced paintings showing the process.

Mattogno has failed to understand gassings went hand in hand with the theft of Jewish property, of which, again, possibly the best known witness is Nazi Oskar Groening, who came forward and spoke out against deniers and admitted the Jews from whom property was being stolen were being gassed.

That means barracks for accommodating prisoners and for property can also be part of the special action to gas the Jews.

[Werd]

Your argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy.

Nope. It's using induction by comparing how the Nazis built OTHER buildings and then comparing these others ones and seeing if they fit the Nazi profile.

[Werd]

That link goes to this post;

viewtopic.php?p=183613#p183613

You have copied and pasted 4 pages, starting at page 36, from Mattogno and then you shout "SPECIAL TREATMENT IS LINKED TO DISINFESTATION OF JEWS' PERSONAL EFFECTS INSIDE CERTAIN BARRACKS. EVEN A COURT CONFIRMED THIS AS SEEN ALREADY IN CHAPTER 5.". You do not show where the evidence is to prove the barracks were being used to delouse personal effects.

Read the pages you lazy, slob. Middle of page 37 for example. Clear precedent exists for using "special" to talk about treating their personal effects. They did it more than once!

Mattogno refers to a document about the "Distribution of Barracks" and then looks at the link between Action Reinhardt and A-B and the sorting of property. He thinks that if the barracks are part of a special action that involves the sorting and delousing of Jewish property, that means therefore "special" has nothing to do with homicidal gassings.

It's called induction. It's called following a pattern. THE BURDEN IS ON YOU TO PROVE NAZIS RETAINED INNOCENT LANGUAGE FROM OTHER BUILDINGS, BUT THEN KEPT IT AND USED IT AS CODE IN OTHER BUILDINGS. YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF THAT.

[Nessie]

Your argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy.

Nope. It's using induction by comparing how the Nazis built OTHER buildings and then comparing these others ones and seeing if they fit the Nazi profile.

Even if it was the case that no where else did the Nazis chisel through concrete to make a hole, that does not mean therefore they did do that at the Kremas.

[Nessie]

That link goes to this post;

viewtopic.php?p=183613#p183613

You have copied and pasted 4 pages, starting at page 36, from Mattogno and then you shout "SPECIAL TREATMENT IS LINKED TO DISINFESTATION OF JEWS' PERSONAL EFFECTS INSIDE CERTAIN BARRACKS. EVEN A COURT CONFIRMED THIS AS SEEN ALREADY IN CHAPTER 5.". You do not show where the evidence is to prove the barracks were being used to delouse personal effects.

Read the pages you lazy, slob. Middle of page 37 for example. Clear precedent exists for using "special" to talk about treating their personal effects. They did it more than once!

Mattogno refers to a document about the "Distribution of Barracks" and then looks at the link between Action Reinhardt and A-B and the sorting of property. He thinks that if the barracks are part of a special action that involves the sorting and delousing of Jewish property, that means therefore "special" has nothing to do with homicidal gassings.

It's called induction. It's called following a pattern. THE BURDEN IS ON YOU TO PROVE NAZIS RETAINED INNOCENT LANGUAGE FROM OTHER BUILDINGS, BUT THEN KEPT IT AND USED IT AS CODE IN OTHER BUILDINGS. YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF THAT.

It is a non sequitur to argue that because the Nazis used the word "special" to refer to something innocent elsewhere, that means it never referred to gassings at the Kremas.

In any case, Mattogno is missing the point, even though he refers to Action Reinhardt. The special treatment of the Jews needed barracks for undressing, sorting their property and to accommodate Sonderkommados. Once the Jews had undressed, they were sent to the gas chambers and their property was stolen by the Nazis, using Sonderkommados to assist with the operation. "Special" when referring to sorting property is not innocent when it is stolen property from those sent to be gassed.

Mattogno also fails to notice that he is further damaging denier claims of resettlement. Since he admits the arriving Jews had their property stolen from them, what does he think they were being resettled with? The evidence is that for most, arriving at Birkenau was the end of any supposed resettlement. Some were selected to work, most went to the gas chambers.

[Werd]

Even if it was the case that no where else did the Nazis chisel through concrete to make a hole, that does not mean therefore they did do that at the Kremas.

You mean to say this:

Even if it was the case that no where else did the Nazis chisel through concrete to make a hole, that does not mean therefore they didn't do that at the Kremas.

And this is a classic ad hoc/argument from negative fallacy on YOUR part.

It is a non sequitur to argue that because the Nazis used the word "special" to refer to something innocent elsewhere, that means it never referred to gassings at the Kremas.

It's a strawman to claim that is what I or Mattogno is arguing. I've already explained what Mattogno's method is. Find the "criminal trace" in question, then find at times, half a dozen OR MORE documents around the same time frame to establish the true context and meaning of the "criminal trace."

Don't worry, I'll put be putting up an entire chapter soon in Siberian Exile from THE REAL CASE FOR AUSCHWITZ. It will shoot to hell the stupid VERGASUNGSKELLER argument once and for all. Stay tuned. It will be glorious.

[Nessie]

Even if it was the case that no where else did the Nazis chisel through concrete to make a hole, that does not mean therefore they did do that at the Kremas.

You mean to say this:

Even if it was the case that no where else did the Nazis chisel through concrete to make a hole, that does not mean therefore they didn't do that at the Kremas.

And this is a classic ad hoc/argument from negative fallacy on YOUR part.

However it is phrased, you cannot claim that not using a chisel to make holes in concrete anywhere else, is proof that it was not the Nazis who chiselled through the Krema roof. Mattogno is trying to argue what happened, he needs to evidence what happened.

The claim that the Nazis were organised and great engineers, so they would construct the holes and not need to chisel them out, so someone else chiselled them out, is an argument from incredulity. You fall for such so easily!

It is a non sequitur to argue that because the Nazis used the word "special" to refer to something innocent elsewhere, that means it never referred to gassings at the Kremas.

It's a strawman to claim that is what I or Mattogno is arguing. I've already explained what Mattogno's method is. Find the "criminal trace" in question, then find at times, half a dozen OR MORE documents around the same time frame to establish the true context and meaning of the "criminal trace."

You claim it is not what you are arguing, then you admit you do exactly what I say you are doing. Mattogno is trying to find documents that use the term "special" that at least appear to have an innocent context, such as undressing and then he claims therefore every reference to "special" is innocent.

Don't worry, I'll put be putting up an entire chapter soon in Siberian Exile from THE REAL CASE FOR AUSCHWITZ. It will shoot to hell the stupid VERGASUNGSKELLER argument once and for all. Stay tuned. It will be glorious.

Meaning you are bailing out of the debate here because it has got too hard for you. You have had to ignore my point that "special" at A-B was a process that was, as Mattogno said, like Action Reinhardt as it involved the theft of Jewish property. The undressing rooms were because the Nazis wanted to steal all the Jews clothing. So much clothing was stolen they needed barracks to store and sort it. The operation was so big, it needed barracks for Sonderkommandos to live in.

Mattogno pretends that barracks for a "special treatment" that included undressing and to store property is innocent and it has only an "economic function". But the evidence from ALL of the witnesses and circumstantial evidence, is that once undressed, the people were sent to be gassed. That explains how the Nazis were able to steal everything, as nothing was needed for resettlement.