Will HolocaustControversies slow Mattogno's English Einsatzgruppen book?

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
Post Reply
Werd
Posts: 9534
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Will HolocaustControversies slow Mattogno's English Einsatzgruppen book?

Post by Werd »

The Italian edition is already published in two volumes.

Image Image

We see this at holocausthandbooks:
We have submitted a long list of open issues -- including remarks made by the HC Blog -- to the author for his review, and are awaiting his feedback.
I sent Germar Rudolf some links from HC's long critique of Mattogno's arguments. It is a huge blog that is in about 5 parts now. I directed his attention to the end of part 1 called Forgery Claims with special attention paid to the argument in footnote 27, part 2 , and part 3; only those parts deal with Mattogno's alleged justified skepticism about the nature of the 2nd Jaeger report being a forgery or a non forgery.

The most glaring is this example from part 2.

The Jäger’s reports compared with each other and with other documentation about the killing of Jews

Mattogno claims that there are major contradictions between Jäger’s 1st and 2nd report and between the two Jäger Reports and other German documentation about the killing of Jews in Lithuania, namely the Operational Situation Reports USSR of the Einsatzgruppen.[34]

The total number of people executed until 10.9.1941, according to Jäger’s 1st report, is 76,355. The figures up to 10.9.1941 in the 2nd report, according to Mattogno, add up to 62,986.[35] How come this discrepancy? Actually there’s hardly any discrepancy at all; Mattogno just didn’t pay attention. He added up the 2nd report’s figures on pp. 1-4 up to 10.9.1941, which unlike the figures up to that date in the 1st report don’t include the following:

• Teilkommando des EK.3 in Dünaburg in der Zeit vom 13.7-21.8.1941 – 9,585
• Teilkommando des EK.3 in Wilna: 12.8. bis 1.9.41 Wilna-Stadt – 461
• 2.9.41 Wilna-Stadt – 3,700.

Adding these figures (which in the 2nd report appear on page 5 after the Kauen and RKH figures, logically so as these killings were scored up by different detachments of EK3, namely the TKD and the TKW) to the sum of figures on pp. 1-4 up to 10.9.1941 inclusive (which is not 62,986 but 62,983, as Jäger counted 1 too many for Alytus 13.08.1941 and 2 too many for Ukmerge on 19.08.1941) yields 76,349 executions until 10.9.41 inclusive. The difference in regard to the 1st report’s total is, just wait for it, 6. This tiny difference results from the following minor discrepancies:
• 19.7.41, Kauen - Fort Vll (Kaunas): 28 according to the 1st report, 26 according to the 2nd report (17 Jews, 2 Jewesses, 4 male and 2 female Lithuanian communists, 1 German communist). Either the addition in the first report is incorrect, or the number of Jewesses and/or that of Lithuanian female communists, which are both not readable in the YVA copy, was different in the 1st than in the 2nd report, perhaps because 2 of the ladies had been counted twice (as Jewesses and as Lithuanian female communists).
• 13.8.41, Alytus: 719 according to the 1st report, 718 according to the 2nd report corrected by me (the partial figures, 617 Jews, 100 Jewesses and 1 criminal, add up to 718 instead of 719; the incorrect total is stated in both reports).[36]
• 16.8.41, Rokiskis (Rokiškis): 3,208 in the 1st report (the partial figures: 3,200 Jews,[37] 5 Lithuanian communists, 1 partisan, 1 Pole, were incorrectly added) vs. 3,207 in the 2nd report (partial figures were correctly added).
• 19.8.41, Ukmerge (Ukmergė): 645 according to the 1st report, 643 according to the 2nd report corrected by me (incorrect addition of partial figures: 298 Jews, 255 Jewesses, 88 Jewish children, 1 politruk, 1 Russian communist, yields 643 and not 645; the incorrect addition is in both reports).

The number of Jews killed on 6 September 1941 in Georgenburg (Jurbarkas) was changed from 41 in the 1st report to 412 in the 2nd report, according to Mattogno. Actually there was no change at all. It’s just that in the YVA copy of the 1st report the last digit of the figure, obviously a "2" (as this fits the added total) is not clearly visible. Again, Mattogno didn’t pay attention.
and again it goes on in part2 in resolving alleged discrepancies Mattogno thinks he found, but I will stop here.

This argument from HC looks pretty good. This, and other ones, Mattogn and Rudolf certainly must contend with.


Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH, kindly contact Scott Smith. All contributions are welcome!


Werd
Posts: 9534
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Will HolocaustControversies slow Mattogno's English Einsatzgruppen book?

Post by Werd »

Now obviously a related issue is whether or not the Jäger report(s) should be considered authentic or a forgery or a fake of some kind. Indeed, Mattogno tries to cast doubt as revisionists do and this argument is one of the ways he does it in his Italian book. However, there is another counter argument to Mattogno. We will see it in footnote 27 and a user posted comment from part 1, of their 5 part contra Mattogno series.
That German judicial authorities examined the document’s authenticity not only stands to reason (given that the document might be used as evidence in indictments and challenged by defense attorneys, especially on grounds of its having been provided by the Soviets), but is also borne out by the means available to do such examination, which beside the context of other evidence (including without limitation Jäger’s deposition that will be addressed in the next article of this series) included at least three documents handwritten and hand-signed by Jäger that could be compared with each other and with the 2nd Jäger Report. One is a report that Jäger submitted on 9 February 1942 in response to Order Nr. 1331 from the BdS in Riga, instructing the commanders of EK 1 A in Reval, EK 1 B in Minsk and EK 3 in Kaunas to immediately submit information about executions carried out, broken down into A) Jews, B) communists, C) partisans, D) mental patients and E) others (to be specified), furthermore information about how many of the total were men, women and children. [25] The other two documents are farewell letters that Jäger wrote (before his suicide while imprisoned on remand) to the family of his son-in-law and to his interrogator Aedtner, in which he claimed that he had committed no crimes and heaped no guilt on himself, furthermore lamenting the "terrible fate" he had met. [26] It would be easy for a handwriting expert to establish that the handwriting and signature on these documents and the signature on the 2nd Jäger Report had been made by one and the same person.

With little to offer by way of arguments against the 2nd Jäger Report’s authenticity, [27] Mattogno turns to the "no less important" question of the report’s veracity. Mattogno’s arguments in this sense will be examined in the next articles of this series.


[27] On page 182 of his book, Mattogno makes another insinuation in the "forgery" direction, by pointing out, "without wanting to draw a particular conclusion" from this "anomaly", that the report’s heading "Der Befehlshaber der Sicherheitspolizei u. des SD" should, as said Befehlshaber would be Jäger’s superior SS-Brigadeführer Dr. Stahlecker (the commandant of Einsatzgruppe A), have read "An den Befehlshaber der Sicherheitspolizei u. des SD". While it is true that Jäger as Kommandeur der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD (KdS) was subordinated to Stahlecker as Befehlshaber der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD (BdS), Mattogno overlooks the fact that the supposedly misworded heading is followed by "Einsatzkommando 3", suggesting that the document was meant to be a read as a report by the Einsatzkommando 3 "subsidiary", subordinated to the BdS, of the BdS organization. The 1st Jäger Report, dated 10 September 1941, contains the following remark below the date (YVA, O.53-3, p. 82): "Nur zur persönlichen Uebergabe an SS-Brigadefuehrer Dr. Stahlecker" ("Only for personal delivery to SS-Brigadeführer Dr. Stahlecker"). What seems to be the cover letter of the 2nd Jäger Report, dated 10.12.1941 (YVA, O.53-3, p. 87), also bears the letterhead "Der Befehlshaber der Sicherheitspolizei u. des SD Einsatzkommando 3", and is addressed "An die Einsatzgruppe A SS-Brigadeführer Dr. Stahlecker in Riga". So there is no "anomaly" here. "Der Befehlshaber der Sicherheitspolizei u. des SD Einsatzkommando 3" was Jaeger’s letterhead. Between the 1st and the 2nd report, as the YVA collection shows, Jäger also got himself typewriters that had the German Umlaut characters ("ä", "ö", "ü"). He furthermore managed to have "Der Befehlshaber der Sicherheitspolizei u. des SD" printed in Deutsche Schrift on his letterhead.




5 comments:

Hans Metzner said...

Thanks, Roberto. Just some addition to your footnote 27:

Ereignismeldung UdSSR Nr. 146 of 15 December 1941 has Jäger's "Einsatzkommando 3" crossed out and replaced by "K. d. Sipo u. d. SD f. d. Gen.bez. Weißruthenien[!]". Ereignismeldung UdSSR Nr. 149 of 22 December 1941 refers to Jäger finally as "Kommandeur der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD für den Generalbezirk Litauen". This suggests that the structure of commanders of Sipo and SD in the Ostland was only created in December 1941. This is why Jäger did not report to Stahlecker as KdS Kauen yet on 1 December 1941 (or 10 December).

Wilhelm, Die Einsatzgrupe A der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD, p. 121 cites others docs Jäger sent in August/September as BdS/EK 3 or BdS Kauen from Institut für Zeitgeschichte, Fb 101/29.

Jäger writing as Befehlshaber der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD Einsatzkommando 3 was a proper way before he got his KdS office. So the letterhead actually supports the authenticity of the Jäger report.
Saturday, August 18, 2018 10:46:00 pm
So again, there is no problem where Mattogno thinks there is one. This needs to be addressed by the revisionists.

Werd
Posts: 9534
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Will HolocaustControversies slow Mattogno's English Einsatzgruppen book?

Post by Werd »

I have put this on codoh and for some reason, the posters are being very evasive about the apparent bad arguments Mattogno has made. Dietrich made this post:
Deitrich wrote:
Werd- I realise you are not here to teach or deal with a "newb" to this holocaust issue. You also realise what I consider of someone trying to promote something ludicrous (like Jager documents) as "real"- but I wish to leave that aside and ask you to clarify one thing personally for me tagged- "purely" on the grounds that I cannot follow what you write half the time- and to forgive me for that.

This footnote 27 part 1- it was not really clear to me, nor did it really appear to demonstrate anything clinching. What you are saying is that regarding the document, Mattogno, if what your friends are saying is correct, provided only a "weak" argument regarding merely the heading of the document?

Assuming that is in fact true- how does that detract from the fact that the document is demonstrably fraudulent on virtually every angle? Some very strong? I'm sure you have access to what those points are as the rest of us as well as your friends at HC. The total discrepancy with the physical evidence even left aside as coroboratory, on documentary grounds alone it's absurd, as Jager himself tells us before "suiciding" [liar-language for "executed"] I mean you cited Wikipedia, their "alt" counterpart Metapedia gives it a far more convincing spin. https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Einsatzgr ... er_Reports

Basically I'm asking if you could condense the issue and arguments here in "plain language" and digestible form for an entry level person, without reference to the book. If that's not possible I'll understand and wait for the book.

I "assume" that HC is not an undercover revisionist site (I can certainly see how that conclusion can be reached and why some orthodox professional sources attest to that being the case) and legitimately wants to promote the lie (although I do believe that all at HC are total holocaust deniers of course but choose to lie)

I "assume" that the reason for Holocaust Controversies getting in early here is that they have quickly got a foreign language copy, seen their Einsatzgruppen last remaining but most ridiculous corner smashed to pieces and quickly/desperately released what they could prior to the book being released in English in order to wipe as many minds as possible before the book is extant and the jig is up- yeah pretty sure that makes total sense.

I work in psyche and have a 4 year old child ;) I know how it works.... The book is coming out, HC should just yield and work WITH CODOH, not against.
I then responded:
Werd wrote:I don't know what you're asking. And I don't mean this to be rude, but is English your second language? I ask because this post in its entirety and this post at the bottom could not be more clear. English words are used, words have meaning, and the context is clear. If I try to restate the arguments, I will just end up copying and pasting the same thing again. Example: Let's look at the first link:
Mattogno claims that there are major contradictions between Jäger’s 1st and 2nd report and between the two Jäger Reports and other German documentation about the killing of Jews in Lithuania, namely the Operational Situation Reports USSR of the Einsatzgruppen.[34]
That is pretty cut and dry so I don't see why you would need me to explain what this means in other words. So I won't. I will just explain how HC endeavours to prove their point. HC says they can prove their assertion by pointing out how and where Mattogno STOPS adding when he should have CONTINUED.
The total number of people executed until 10.9.1941, according to Jäger’s 1st report, is 76,355. The figures up to 10.9.1941 in the 2nd report, according to Mattogno, add up to 62,986.[35] How come this discrepancy? Actually there’s hardly any discrepancy at all; Mattogno just didn’t pay attention. He added up the 2nd report’s figures on pp. 1-4 up to 10.9.1941, which unlike the figures up to that date in the 1st report don’t include the following:

• Teilkommando des EK.3 in Dünaburg in der Zeit vom 13.7-21.8.1941 – 9,585
• Teilkommando des EK.3 in Wilna: 12.8. bis 1.9.41 Wilna-Stadt – 461
• 2.9.41 Wilna-Stadt – 3,700.
So what happens when HC counts the numbers that Mattogno did NOT count?
Adding these figures (which in the 2nd report appear on page 5 after the Kauen and RKH figures, logically so as these killings were scored up by different detachments of EK3, namely the TKD and the TKW) to the sum of figures on pp. 1-4 up to 10.9.1941 inclusive (which is not 62,986 but 62,983, as Jäger counted 1 too many for Alytus 13.08.1941 and 2 too many for Ukmerge on 19.08.1941) yields 76,349 executions until 10.9.41 inclusive. The difference in regard to the 1st report’s total is, just wait for it, 6.
They find a difference of 6 between the reports and NOT the difference between 76,355 and 62,986, which is 13369. Or rather the difference between 76,355 and 62,983, which is 13372.
HC then says, "This tiny difference results from the following minor discrepancies." Wow. It seems like they have done the extra math and document analysis that Mattogno did not. So let's examine it.
• 19.7.41, Kauen - Fort Vll (Kaunas): 28 according to the 1st report, 26 according to the 2nd report (17 Jews, 2 Jewesses, 4 male and 2 female Lithuanian communists, 1 German communist). Either the addition in the first report is incorrect, or the number of Jewesses and/or that of Lithuanian female communists, which are both not readable in the YVA copy, was different in the 1st than in the 2nd report, perhaps because 2 of the ladies had been counted twice (as Jewesses and as Lithuanian female communists).
• 13.8.41, Alytus: 719 according to the 1st report, 718 according to the 2nd report corrected by me (the partial figures, 617 Jews, 100 Jewesses and 1 criminal, add up to 718 instead of 719; the incorrect total is stated in both reports).[36]
• 16.8.41, Rokiskis (Rokiškis): 3,208 in the 1st report (the partial figures: 3,200 Jews,[37] 5 Lithuanian communists, 1 partisan, 1 Pole, were incorrectly added) vs. 3,207 in the 2nd report (partial figures were correctly added).
• 19.8.41, Ukmerge (Ukmergė): 645 according to the 1st report, 643 according to the 2nd report corrected by me (incorrect addition of partial figures: 298 Jews, 255 Jewesses, 88 Jewish children, 1 politruk, 1 Russian communist, yields 643 and not 645; the incorrect addition is in both reports).
What is so hard to understand about this, Dietrich? Because I'm not having any difficulty. Finally, HC has one last comment. They claim Mattogno's eyesight is not so good.
The number of Jews killed on 6 September 1941 in Georgenburg (Jurbarkas) was changed from 41 in the 1st report to 412 in the 2nd report, according to Mattogno.
Plain English. We understand this. Continuing...
Actually there was no change at all. It’s just that in the YVA copy of the 1st report the last digit of the figure, obviously a "2" (as this fits the added total) is not clearly visible. Again, Mattogno didn’t pay attention.
The one line is key. AS THIS FITS THE ADDED TOTAL! This sounds very much like HC (Roberto Muehlenkamp) is saying that in the document there is an attempt by the document writer to add several numbers together. That there would be something that looks like this example:

A
B
C
D
E
F
+G
________
HIJ

So if an adding column is there with the numbers in place, then obviously the objection that the total number says HI in one document but the total number says HIJ in another document that is adding the same numbers, then obviously it would be a weak objection. Why? Because the column of numbers show the intent of the document writer to take a tally and come up with an actual added total.

Werd
Posts: 9534
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Will HolocaustControversies slow Mattogno's English Einsatzgruppen book?

Post by Werd »

Also posted on codoh by me:

This footnote 27 part 1- it was not really clear to me, nor did it really appear to demonstrate anything clinching. What you are saying is that regarding the document, Mattogno, if what your friends are saying is correct, provided only a "weak" argument regarding merely the heading of the document?
Again, I do not understand why you can't understand this argument, but so I go through it bit by bit. Mattogno makes a claim that the document is not to be trusted because according to him, the forgers "slipped up" and wrote the wrong thing on the document.
[27] On page 182 of his book, Mattogno makes another insinuation in the "forgery" direction, by pointing out, "without wanting to draw a particular conclusion" from this "anomaly", that the report’s heading "Der Befehlshaber der Sicherheitspolizei u. des SD" should, as said Befehlshaber would be Jäger’s superior SS-Brigadeführer Dr. Stahlecker (the commandant of Einsatzgruppe A), have read "An den Befehlshaber der Sicherheitspolizei u. des SD".
Okay? Good so far? Here is how HC responds. They admit Mattogno is correct about the structure of the German hierarchy.
While it is true that Jäger as Kommandeur der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD (KdS) was subordinated to Stahlecker as Befehlshaber der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD (BdS),
Good so far?
Mattogno overlooks the fact that the supposedly misworded heading is followed by "Einsatzkommando 3", suggesting that the document was meant to be a read as a report by the Einsatzkommando 3 "subsidiary", subordinated to the BdS, of the BdS organization.
In other words, the heading is not incorrect because it is addressed to the proper people who are going to be reading it.
The 1st Jäger Report, dated 10 September 1941, contains the following remark below the date (YVA, O.53-3, p. 82): "Nur zur persönlichen Uebergabe an SS-Brigadefuehrer Dr. Stahlecker" ("Only for personal delivery to SS-Brigadeführer Dr. Stahlecker"). What seems to be the cover letter of the 2nd Jäger Report, dated 10.12.1941 (YVA, O.53-3, p. 87), also bears the letterhead "Der Befehlshaber der Sicherheitspolizei u. des SD Einsatzkommando 3", and is addressed "An die Einsatzgruppe A SS-Brigadeführer Dr. Stahlecker in Riga". So there is no "anomaly" here. "Der Befehlshaber der Sicherheitspolizei u. des SD Einsatzkommando 3" was Jaeger’s letterhead.
In other words, both Jaeger reports are properly notated. So therefore, where is the anomaly that apparently the forgers missed? There isn't one.
Between the 1st and the 2nd report, as the YVA collection shows, Jäger also got himself typewriters that had the German Umlaut characters ("ä", "ö", "ü"). He furthermore managed to have "Der Befehlshaber der Sicherheitspolizei u. des SD" printed in Deutsche Schrift on his letterhead.
A commenter then had some remarks:
Ereignismeldung UdSSR Nr. 146 of 15 December 1941 has Jäger's "Einsatzkommando 3" crossed out and replaced by "K. d. Sipo u. d. SD f. d. Gen.bez. Weißruthenien[!]". Ereignismeldung UdSSR Nr. 149 of 22 December 1941 refers to Jäger finally as "Kommandeur der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD für den Generalbezirk Litauen". This suggests that the structure of commanders of Sipo and SD in the Ostland was only created in December 1941. This is why Jäger did not report to Stahlecker as KdS Kauen yet on 1 December 1941 (or 10 December).
Interesting.
Wilhelm, Die Einsatzgrupe A der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD, p. 121 cites others docs Jäger sent in August/September as BdS/EK 3 or BdS Kauen from Institut für Zeitgeschichte, Fb 101/29.

Jäger writing as Befehlshaber der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD Einsatzkommando 3 was a proper way before he got his KdS office. So the letterhead actually supports the authenticity of the Jäger report.
And this ties back into how one can check the authenticity of the report. One point was made earlier about checking handwriting between documents:
That German judicial authorities examined the document’s authenticity not only stands to reason (given that the document might be used as evidence in indictments and challenged by defense attorneys, especially on grounds of its having been provided by the Soviets), but is also borne out by the means available to do such examination, which beside the context of other evidence (including without limitation Jäger’s deposition that will be addressed in the next article of this series) included at least three documents handwritten and hand-signed by Jäger that could be compared with each other and with the 2nd Jäger Report. One is a report that Jäger submitted on 9 February 1942 in response to Order Nr. 1331 from the BdS in Riga, instructing the commanders of EK 1 A in Reval, EK 1 B in Minsk and EK 3 in Kaunas to immediately submit information about executions carried out, broken down into A) Jews, B) communists, C) partisans, D) mental patients and E) others (to be specified), furthermore information about how many of the total were men, women and children. [25] The other two documents are farewell letters that Jäger wrote (before his suicide while imprisoned on remand) to the family of his son-in-law and to his interrogator Aedtner, in which he claimed that he had committed no crimes and heaped no guilt on himself, furthermore lamenting the "terrible fate" he had met. [26] It would be easy for a handwriting expert to establish that the handwriting and signature on these documents and the signature on the 2nd Jäger Report had been made by one and the same person.
Or are these all clever forgeries too? It does seem like HC (Roberto Muehlenkamp) is admitting NO SUCH TEST HAS BEEN DONE! He seems to be saying, "if there was an issue with the handwriting, someone would have raised it. They didn't, so I won't question it."

Werd
Posts: 9534
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Will HolocaustControversies slow Mattogno's English Einsatzgruppen book?

Post by Werd »

My last two big responses to Dietrich where I went through the two HC arguments AGAIN, only piece by piece with my comments interspersed, have been removed by Moderator.
the last time:
The book will not be discussed here until it is available to English readers.
M1
Let's see if my response stays up:
And if those same mistakes are in the English edition, I will be sure to address them. If they do NOT show up, that will be because they were in fact errors that Mattogno and Rudolf had to correct. Which would mean that what I originally posted back on page one were in fact valid criticisms of the Italian edition. It shouldn't matter what language Mattogno's books are in. A mistake is a mistakes is a mistake.

Werd
Posts: 9534
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Will HolocaustControversies slow Mattogno's English Einsatzgruppen book?

Post by Werd »

Nope. My response did not stay up. It is gone. M1 still has the last post. Nobody wanted, or wants to address Mattogno's errors.

Frankie
Posts: 195
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 1:39 am
Contact:

Re: Will HolocaustControversies slow Mattogno's English Einsatzgruppen book?

Post by Frankie »

Werd said of the CODOH thread below:
Nobody wanted, or wants to address Mattogno's errors.
The book is not even available in English, pretty tough to discuss something that does not exist yet. LOL

The moderator at CODOH has clearly & openly stated:
Werd:
Essentially, you are trying discuss a book which is not available yet.
Discussion of that book can certainly take place at this forum when it is available to English speakers.

Also, I will not spend anymore time explaining to you what is obvious. Give the book debate a rest until the book is available in English.
There are many who would find the alleged translations of 'The Industry's' Robert Muehlenkamp untrustworthy. He certainly has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar more than a few times, to say the least.
Until we have the book in English to review, that discussion will cease. Please continue to discuss Jaeger and / or the Einsatzgruppen until then if you wish.
We do note that you have been challenged on some of the points that you claim about the Einsatzgruppen, so please, no dodging here.
M1.
In general, you sure are taking a beating on your silly Einsatzgruppen claims. LOL

I suggest a review here:
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12075

The record is clear, Werd is in over his head.

Werd
Posts: 9534
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Will HolocaustControversies slow Mattogno's English Einsatzgruppen book?

Post by Werd »

:lol:
Right on time, aren't you Frankie?
The book is not even available in English, pretty tough to discuss something that does not exist yet. LOL
Yeah yeah yeah we get it Roberto can't be trusted to read Italian even though he knows basic Italian and Portugese as well as German and English. Or maybe he can and you think he is misrepresenting Mattogno's arguments and making quotes up out of thin air with bogus footnotes or something. Whatever variety you pick, you are entitled to your ridiculous conspiracy theory.
There are many who would find the alleged translations of 'The Industry's' Robert Muehlenkamp untrustworthy.
If you or anyone else at codoh can read Italian, go ahead and show me where Muehlenkamp made mistakes or took certain liberties with quotes and summaries of Mattogno's claims from the Italian edition. Otherwise, be quiet. Oh well. We will just see how this plays out. Obviously Germar Rudolf considered it important enough to send back to Mattogno. So far NEITHER of them have emailed me back saying that the way Muehlenkamp summarizes those arguments from Mattogno and uses footnotes to the Italian edition is wrong or deceptive. So obviously you can tell how little I regard your conspiracy theory.
re·view
noun
a formal assessment or examination of something with the possibility or intention of instituting change if necessary.

Um, that's what the HC series qualifies as, dummy. So the clips I posted were not irrelevant. However, my constant reminders on page two, to deal with what was posted on page one were constantly deleted from codoh. So I gave up. Because they on codoh were the ones who gave up first and didn't want to address Mattogno's mathematical mistakes or his apparently dubious assertion about false headings on documents way back on page one. They brought up red herrings about unopened graves that I never brought up in the first place. Red herrings and dodges on the part of codoh killed any attempt at discussing Mattogno's mistakes.

The interested rodoh reader will see this as yet another example of the codoh moderation team being too overbearing and attempting to stifle debate. Just like they were caught doing here when an entire topic was deleted, but not before I could copy it and send it off to Friedrich Paul Berg. And all because they were running a protection racket for Faurisson, Leuchter and Breker, due to Mattogno and Berg showing them to be wrong on the issue of flammability.
viewtopic.php?p=91468#p91468

By the way Frankie, I would like to officially thank you for proving my point. With this post, you are proving that the counter arguments that Roberto Muehlenkamp has to Mattogno's math in the example I quoted, are in fact very rigid. If there was a mistake on Muehlenkamp's part, you would/could refute it. But neither you, nor anybody has. I guess I will have to wait for a response from Germar Rudolf and/or Carlo Mattogno to see what others think of Muehlenkamp's argument since nobody else wants to deal with it. :D

Werd
Posts: 9534
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Will HolocaustControversies slow Mattogno's English Einsatzgruppen book?

Post by Werd »

I just logged in to codoh and saw this in my codoh PM inbox. Name withheld.
I think you raised legitimate doubts about Mattongos claims. It hurts me that the other participants in the thread do not really get your point. Including the moderator with whom I had also a problem some time ago.

Thank your for raising these issues, because this doesn't look good for CM's new book. Even Rudolf has problems with his work. Seems like Carlo wasn't at his best here and I hope his study is getting a proper rework.
I was going to reply but then I got this:
You are not authorised to send private messages.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Honestly, if these problems are not fixed in Mattogno's book I will not purchase a copy. I would rather Mattogno just stop making foolish mistakes and also stop trying to take on too much. He could just stick to basic skeptical inquiries about the questionable origin of the Jaeger reports and their possible forged nature.
https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Einsatzgr ... er_Reports
Making dumb mistakes like HC has shown him to make, will destroy the quality of his book and give ammunition to holocaust controversies who can then turn around and say, "if these are the best arguments he has against the authenticity of these reports, then he has nothing." And HC would be correct!

Frankie
Posts: 195
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 1:39 am
Contact:

Re: Will HolocaustControversies slow Mattogno's English Einsatzgruppen book?

Post by Frankie »

Wow! Werd continues to take a serous lashing for his comical Einsatzgruppen position. He dodges as much as Nessie. LOL
But then that's what they do when they have no proof of their claims.
I also see that Werd sent a CODOH PM to himself in pure desperation. "Name withheld", of course. LOL He lies when he says he cannot send CODOH PMs, I asked. Oh the desperation of losers.

Then he wants to debate claims about a book, which no one can even access yet. LOL
Instead he trusts the unhinged & rabid Zionists from "Holocaust Controversies" who have been shot to hell repeatedly on their lies. It's not even a contest, Werd has made a fool of himself.

You gotta love Werd's airheadedness as he tries to support the previously exposed fakery about the Einsatzgruppen, and then he cannot show the humans remains of 2,000,000 Jews that the stupid narrative claims actually exist in known places where the Einsatzgruppen allegedly shot them. LOL

But hey, it's all there, look for yourself: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12075

Deitrich, Hektor, Horhug, borjastick, & Hannover, etc. have cut him a new one. Pity the fool.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], MSN [Bot] and 8 guests