Now we are going to examine section 6.2 in Mattogno's book called Eric Von dem Bach-Zelewski and Himmler's Visit to Minsk: Historiographical Interpretations. Mattogo has a quote from Himmler's Dienstkalender
as given by Witte et al in Der Dienstkalender Henrich Himmlers, 1941/42
Friday, 15. August 1941
Morning presence at an execution of partisans and Jews near Minsk.
Tour or a prisoner transit camp.
14.00 lunch, Lenin House
15.00 drive through the Minsk Ghetto - tour of the insane asylum
Subsequently, drive to Sofiose [sic] (managed by the SS)
towards evening return to Minsk
Dinner and overnight stay at the Lenin House
Mattogno then quotes a long extract from Raul Hilberg who talks about Himmler's August 15 visit to Minsk. Hilberg quotes a long story about Himmler asking Einsatzgruppen B commander Nebe to shoot a bunch of Jews in front of him to see what it is like. Himmler spots a blond blue eyed Jew and asks him of his parentage. Both his parents were Jews and Himmler then says 'then I can't help you.' Himmler saw that men were shaken by this killing so he gave a long speech about the certain brutalities of war. It should be mentioned that von dem Bach-Zelewski was present. Himmler then told Nebe he needed to come up with a different way of killing people so as to ease the pain/conscience of those doing the killing. The extract from Hilberg ends and then Mattogno points out that Hilberg claimed his source was something that was actually told by von dem Back himself to the magazine Aufbau
of August 23 1946 pages 1-2. Mattogno then quoted from this magazine, but left out Himmler's long speech. We also see the exchange between Himmler and the blonde blue eyed Jew that was later shot. We also see how Himmler discussed with Nebe a need to find a gentle way to do away with insane asylum inmates.
Retlinger in his 1961 book claimed that in line with finding an easier method to doing away with partisans than bullets, were gas vans. "...it is at least curious that the only film showing the working of a gas chamber should be found in Nebe's former Berlin flat. The gas-chamber plans were discussed at daily luncheons at RSHA headquarters between Ohlendorf, Mueller, Schellenberg, and Nebe."
Mattogno seems to say that Retlinger is reading too much into this Aufbau
article. Because there is no explicit mention in either the article, or Raul Hilberg's rendering of it, of any gas vans. Mattogno then questions whether the rendition of Von dem Bach's testimony as related in the Aufbau
article is true or not. The editors called it "an initial extract from the written testimony of the SS General," given to the Allied Prosecutors at the Nuremberg Trial. Mattogno reproduces both pages of that article starting on page 725 of the paperback.
Von dem Bach was interrogated by US officials many times between October 1945 and March 1946. His statements made to US officials with a view to the Nuremberg trial are in the National Archives in Washington says Mattogno. "Among these documents is a handwritten note by von dem Bach. This note mentions Himmler's visit to Minsk. Under Point 6 is this:
Himmler comes to Minsk for 24 hours. Orders Nebe and myself to appear in his presence, accompanied by Himmler's Gruppenfuhrer Wolff. Himmler is present as this execution of ca. 100 partisans, among them also Jews and 2 women, whom Nebe was ordered to present so that Himmler could get an idea.
Himmler gives a rather long speech after the execution.
Followed by a visit to a small lunatic asylum near Minsk. Himmler orders Nebe to 'deliver' the mental patients from their sufferings.
Nebe is to employ a humane method of killing. Nebe suggests a dynamite explosion. Himmler orders him to proceed.
Mattogno then says that in the total nine interrogations that von dem Bach went through, he made no further mention of Himmler's visit to Minsk. This handwritten note is the only document that truly speaks of it. Mattogno then claims this means that the editors of Aufbau
added a bunch of things:
1. the heroic comportment of the victims, such as to arouse the sympathy of the bystanders
2. the two "incidents" i.e. Himmler's dialogue with the blond boy with blue eyes and the story of the two wounded women
(Werd: They didn't shoot the women fast with one bullet and they suffered, thus necessitating the presiding Reichfuhrer in charge to urge them to hurry up)
3. Himmler's reaction to these incidents.
4. the contents of Himmler's long speech.
Mattogno suspects that given the brief nature of the hand written note, the editors of the magazine took huge liberties in filling in the blanks and adding melodramatic elements that never actually existed.
Mattogno then claims that also in this hand written note in Point 7, von dem Bach recalls that in 1943 at a Mogilev inspection, he was told that a group of civilians under written authorization from Himmler wished to appropriate his factory installation (fabriklange) in Mogilev to install a gassing establishment (Vergasungsanstalt), but that he refused to deliver it. The mention of a "company from Hamburg" is a clear reference to Tesch and Stabenow. Mattogno claims this is obviously a disinfestation chamber.
It is of course that this point others would say, "See, von dem Bach in his March 23 1946 interrogation is admitting he was told (didn't specify who apparently) that this plant was not going to be a delousing gassing plant, but for extermination." Well again, there is reason to be skeptical he said this free of his own will and truly believed it. With that in mind, let us consult the critique of Hans from holocaust controversies.
https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... nd_22.html
Saturday, December 22, 2018
Mattogno, his Einsatzgruppen book and the Gas Vans. Part II: Mental Degeneration or Dishonesty, Your Choice!
Author: Hans Metzner
Mattogno writes that "the Jewish editors of Aufbau falsified the original document, shamelessly interpolating and adding entire paragraphs" (Mattogno, The Einsatzgruppen in the Occupied Eastern Territories, 2018, p. 288). The section is an expansion of a paragraph from Inside the Gas Chambers, where he concluded that the content of the Aufbau article "had been massively manipulated by the editorial staff of the newspaper".
I had refuted the claim in January 2017 on this blog (On Mattogno's Hallucination That von dem Bach-Zelewski's Extended Testimony on the Minsk Shooting Is a Jewish Forgery
We will come back to this article, but first let us take a quick jump for a small select peak at one part of this new article Hans is linking to.
Monday, January 16, 2017
On Mattogno's Hallucination That von dem Bach-Zelewski's Extended Testimony on the Minsk Shooting Is a Jewish Forgery
Author: Hans Metzner
if it were according to the Holocaust denier Carlo Mattogno, von dem Bach-Zelewski's account in Aufbau is a forgery based on his more brief statement from the NARA Record Group 238:
"This anecdote appeared on 23 August 1946 in the New York Jewish newspaper Der [sic!] Aufbau as part of a statement attributed to von dem Bach-Zelewski, but its contents had been massively manipulated by the editorial staff of the newspaper, as is apparent from a comparison with the original statement of this SS offic
(Mattogno, Inside the Gas Chambers, 2nd edition, p. 58)
Unfortunately for Mattogno, this is rubbish. Upon systematically searching the Yad Vashem Archives
digital collection of Yitzhak Stone, who
"was a senior aid to the American prosecutor in the Nazi War Crimes Trials at Nuremberg" for interesting material for the blog (and there sure is, so stay tuned), I stumbled across the English translation of an undated, 60 pages long "declaration von dem Bach" (YVA, O.18/90, p. 20ff.). The declaration contains amongst other things also the passages reproduced in German in Aufbau (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Pages from an undated declaration of von dem Bach-Zelewski, YVA, O.18/90, p. 52-55.
It is therefore apparent that the account was "not massively manipulated by the editorial staff of the newspaper", but is indeed a more detailed declaration given by von dem Bach-Zelewski to the Nuremberg prosecutors, which was obtained by the Aufbau staff.
In all fairness, people do mistakes, so that's not the point. The issue is rather what the blunder tells us about Mattogno's flawed method and reasoning. He claimed the Aufbau account a forgery merely because the lack of an archival reference and because it contains an extended description compared to another declaration from von dem Bach-Zelewski. While the unclear provenance of the account allowed for the possibility that the Aufbau editorial staff might have fabricated it by embellishing the short declaration, it is far from indicating let aside establishing anything such.
In fact, already some basic text analysis suggests that it is implausible that the pro-Jewish, anti-Nazi editorial staff of Aufbau would have created a text according to which the victims were "without exception partisans and their helpers" and were executed in a "military correct" manner, that Himmler intervened "not to torture the women" or that the SS leaders cared to find the "most human method" to kill their victims, just to mention some examples. Given that the text was clearly written from a Nazi point of view, common sense would have demanded - also in the case of uncertain provenance - some pretty good evidence to demonstrate the otherwise unlikely claim of a Jewish forgery.
Now back to the other article.
https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... nd_22.html
The really disturbing part is found in the Italian edition of the Einsatzgruppen book published two years earlier. On p. 275 he cited precisely the English translation of von dem Bach-Zelewski's declaration from Yad Vashem Archives, O.18/90, which he found independently of me and that also contains the passage published in Aufbau. Therefore, by October 2016, Mattogno knew very well that his hypothesis that von dem Bach-Zewelski's testimony in Aufbau "had been massively manipulated by the editorial staff of the newspaper" was false. Indeed, he no longer argued that the newspaper had faked the testimony.
In the now published English translation of his Einsatzgruppen book he performs another turn and claims the forgery again. In theory, it is certainly possible to change one's mind back and forth, if there is a change of evidence or its interpretation. But there is no fresh evidence, he does not invalidate previous evidence and he does not provide a new interpretation. Mattogno simply omits von dem Bach-Zelewski's declaration from the Yad Vashem Archives he had previously cited in the Italian edition and argues as if it never existed (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Mattogno's back and forth on von dem Bach-Zelewski's testimony published in Aufbau. Also, he did not submit the correction in the Italian edition of his Einsatzgruppen book to the revised 2nd edition of Inside the Gas Chambers released in the same month.
I am at a loss for words and cannot explain this as a simple human error.
Perhaps he thought to gamble that nobody would compare the Italian and English edition and notice the 180 degree flip and omission of evidence? Frankly, there are unlikely to be many readers of his Italian Einsatzgruppen book and there are unlikely to be many readers of his English Einsatzgruppen book and there is hardly anybody reading both. But it was very naive of him to assume we would not spot this misconduct. And the benefit stands in no relation to the risk and damage it causes when exposed.
Perhaps we are also dealing here with a grave mistake combined with a proof-reading misconduct? One could speculate that Mattogno had submitted an out-dated Italian manuscript to the Holocaust Handbooks editor - written before he found the declaration of von dem Bach-Zewelski, a manuscript which was then revised for the Italian publication. In addition, he did not proof-read the submitted Italian manuscript and he did not proof-read its English translation or he is no longer capable of proofreading his own work. It is notable that the difference is not just a word or two, but there are several paragraphs affected and it's a central argument, so it is nothing which can be easily missed upon reading (Figure 2).
(by the way, the curious typo "a visita di Hitler a Minsk" on p.275 of the Italian edition was corrected to "Himmler’s visit to Minsk" on p. 288 in the English edition, so there was apparently some proof-reading by somebody)
Figure 2: Comparison of Italian (left) and English (right) edition of Mattogno's Einsatzgruppen book on the testimony of von dem Bach-Zelewski published in Aufbau.
The hypothesis that Mattogno submitted an outdated manuscript would also explain the strange disappearance of a paragraph on SS-Untersturmführer "completely unknown to somebody not performing any research
" Ernst. It might have been a late addition to the Italian edition and was lacking in the older manuscript used for the English translation.
Perhaps it is also true that the presumed mistake with the manuscript was realized at the stage of proof-reading, but the publishing was pushed through anyway?
I can only speculate how to explain these observations. Mattogno and his editor know what happened. They are urged to clear up what went so seriously wrong and why.
In any case, the matter reflects once again discredit on Mattogno's method to justify his Holocaust denial. When he argued in Inside the Gas Chambers in 2014 that von dem Bach-Zewelski's testimony "had been massively manipulated by the editorial staff of the newspaper", he was miles away from demonstrating the point. It was based on the lack of archival citation in the literature, a flimsy argument for somebody who has not searched through any potentially relevant files for this (which is not substituted by Hilberg not citing a file with the testimony) and the existence of a more brief deposition of von dem Bach-Zelewski. His argument was opposed by the fact that the testimony did not correspond to how pro-Jewish, anti-Nazi people would prefer it. Simply put, his theory did not make much sense and it is very strange how an alleged specialist in text analysis did not recognize this (see also here
So Mattogno had very little in his hand, yet accused with certainty that the Aufbau editors had committed the misconduct of forging von dem Bach-Zelewski's account. That's a huge mismatch between the strength of evidence and that of the conclusion. It did not come as a real surprise that one day the forgery allegation would be refuted by finding the account of von dem Bach-Zelewski in some Nuremberg related file; it was only surprising that this day came so soon.
Indeed Carlo Mattogno and Germar Rudolf. How do you guys explain this continued flip flop between different language editions? What is the stance of Mattogno on the English translation sitting in the Yad Vashem archives that was mentioned in the Italian translation but not the English? Because right now the English translation looks like a simple recycling of "Inside the Gas Chambers." Is this English translation not to be trusted? Is it a forgery of an authentic German document, or an outright fake? Somebody needs to answer for this!