Errors in Mattogno's English Einsatzgruppen book & CODOH censorship

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
Posts: 9631
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am

Errors in Mattogno's English Einsatzgruppen book & CODOH censorship

Post by Werd »

This is a long time coming. Especially since Holocaust Controversies has given me a lot to work with. I will of course start small and slow. ... 04#p674804
by nickterry » Fri Nov 30, 2018 7:20 pm

contrary to the remarks on the book-page a month ago that Rudolf had "submitted a long list of open issues -- including remarks made by the HC blog", there appear so far to be no major edits or additions compared to the Italian edition. Instead, Rudolf wrote a foreword which essentially tries to handwave away the recent HC blog criticisms and justify why they did not bother to correct things for the English edition.

This is unfortunate, since the HC team knew of hundreds of other criticisms of the Italian edition, all of which appear to have been included in the English translation, which means that Rudolf is an incompetent editor.

Indeed, nobody bothered to correct the misidentifications of Sonderkommandos and Einsatzkommandos in tables from p.255 onwards - p.255 the listing for Einsatzgruppe B mistakenly includes an entry for SK 4a at Lutsk, which is so freaking obviously Einsatzgruppe C I am astounded; p.260 there is an entry under Einsatzgruppe C for 'Rumanians' which should obviously be under Einsatzgruppe D; p.264 entries for Einsatzgruppe zbV operating in eastern Poland including around Pinsk are slapped under Einsatzgruppe D;p.265 an entry for Kharkov, which should have been attributed to Einsatzgruppe C, is attributed to Einsatzgruppe D, as is an entry for Orel, which was Einsatzgruppe B territory.

These are relatively trivial examples of *obvious* mistakes which could have been picked up on by a half-decent editor at some stage, and corrected without changing a word or anything about the argument.
The page numbers that Nick Terry gives are for the pdf and NOT the paperback. Please subtract a 1 from his given PDF numbers to arrive at the paperback number.
Last edited by Werd on Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Posts: 9631
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am

Re: Errors in Mattogno's English Einsatzgruppen book

Post by Werd »

The page numbers given by Harrison in this article correspond to the paperback and not the PDF file, which is always 1 ahead of the actual paperback number. So saying something was on page 211 in the paperback would make it 212 in the PDF.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... en-in.html
Mattogno on the Killing of 4,273 Children in Kaunas [Kovno]
Author: Jonathan Harrison

The second Jaeger Report stated that, on October 29, 1941, a total of 9,200 Jews were killed in Kaunas [Kovno] consisting of:

2,007 Jews, 2,920 Jewesses, 4,273 Jewish children (mopping up ghetto of superfluous Jews)

Mattogno's Einsatzgruppen Handbook (here p.211) entertains the possibility that these Jews may have been shot in order to make room for five transports due to arrive from the Reich, despite the fact that Jaeger also reports those Jews as having been shot. Mattogno's suggestion would mean that 4,273 Lithuanian Jewish children were shot in order to accommodate transports that (according to Jaeger) only contained 327 children (175 on 25.11 and 152 on 29.11). Mattogno does not acknowledge the significance of the fact that Jaeger sarcastically refers to the Reich Jews as "resettlers" and that he correctly identifies the cities of origin. He is of course refuted by the way in which the selection for the shooting was carried out and the fact that diaries (most notably Tory), witnesses, trials and other sources never identify deported Reich Jews as being in the Kaunas ghetto. However, following Roberto's refutation here (at footnote 129), Mattogno seems to have abandoned his argument in the Italian edition concerning the transfer of Jews from Kaunas to Riga in early February 1942, as it does not appear in the English translation. Rudolf does not acknowledge this deletion in his foreword but instead chooses to imply that no such changes were made in response to criticisms made on this blog.

Moreover, Mattogno's underlying purpose of trying to show that the Nazis allowed Reich Jews to be resettled while shooting Soviet Jews is undermined by his own citation (p.210) of the report from the East of July 3, 1942, stating that Reich Jews deported to Riga the previous winter were "covered by the general anti-Jewish measures in effect in the East." There was thus a "general" policy covering Jews of all national origins, in accordance with Nazi racial constructs that regarded all Jews as a Gegenrasse. All these Jews were eventually meant to die after their usefulness as labour expired, as Lohse made clear on December 2, 1941.
Analysis coming...



So where are these five November transports that were supposed to have been directed to Kaunas but originally meant for Riga? Harrison claims that "Jaeger also reports those Jews as having been shot. " Where in the report? Which ones is he talking about that he thinks filled up those 5 transports?
Mattogno's suggestion would mean that 4,273 Lithuanian Jewish children were shot in order to accommodate transports that (according to Jaeger) only contained 327 children (175 on 25.11 and 152 on 29.11).
Does Harrison wish us to believe that what Mattogno said here:
in fact refutes his claim on page 211 (paperback) on October 29, Jaeger had 9200 local Jews killed in Kaunas to make room for incoming transports that were originally destined for Riga but got re-routed to Kaunas? Because these 5 transports were killed anyway? As in why would you kill Jews in October to make room for Jews in November, only to kill the November ones? Does this mean that those 5 transports were right under Mattogno's nose the whole time? Are those ones that were killed in November part of the ones that were supposed to go to Riga but later went to Kaunas? Yes or no? Is there a way to know for sure? Because that would seem to prove or disprove Harrison's assertion that the November Jews that were supposed to take up the space and room vacated by the murdered October Jews, were in turn, themselves murdered. There appears to be confirmation that these five transports were in fact murdered. Mattogno certainly seems to think so. Scroll down to paperback page 217 and read the second last paragraph from the bottom of the page 217.
And if BOTH of those liquidated transports contained children, then that is more Nazis murdering children. And they likely weren't even partisans as a few CODOH posters always like to insinuate about shot children. Turns out, both of those transports DID contain children.

Furthermore, Harrison claims Roberto Muehlenkamp had something to say. Let's click on the link and check what is in footnote 129.
one cannot reasonably argue that the aforementioned evidence fails to confirm the fact that, as recorded in the 2nd Jäger Report, Jewish deportees from the Reich were massacred at Kaunas Fort IX on 25 and 29 November 1941.

Against the corroborating evidence listed above, what has Mattogno got to offer?

Following his considerations about the decision-making process behind the Kaunas massacre of the Reich Jews, Mattogno cites a letter dated 10 February 1942 sent by the Gebietskommissar of Riga (Land) to the RKO (Lohse), about a transport of Jews from Kaunas that had arrived at Riga two days before, on 8 February.[129] The author of the document complained that instead of 500 male workers only 222 male and 137 female workers had been sent, and asked for an additional 1,000 Jewish workers from Kaunas. Apart from the fact that November 1941 and February 1942 were two different "eras" as concerns German policies regarding Kaunas Jews (the former was before, the latter after it had been decided to spare a certain number of essential Jewish workers and their families as reported by Jäger), it defies understanding what the transfer from Kaunas to Riga of Jewish labor (none of which was stated to be of Reich origin) could have to do with what happened to the Reich Jews deported to Kaunas in November 1941.[130]

As I said at the beginning of this article, Mattogno’s arguments in support of his denial of the Reich Jews’ massacres at Kaunas are as long-winded as they are feeble.

[129] GE1, p. 199. The reference "PS-579", suggesting a Nuremberg prosecution document, is unclear as no document with this reference seems to have been published. The document exhibits in IMT Vol. XXVI move from Document 556(55)-PS to Document 580-PS. I also found no such document mentioned in the index (Vol. XXIV).
[130] Moreover the document suggests a lack of Jewish labor in Riga. That lack of labor was obviously due to the events mentioned here.

1 comment:
Jonathan Harrison said...
Mattogno's claim about the transfer from Kaunas to Riga (n.129) seems not to be in the English translation
Wednesday, December 12, 2018 2:20:00 am
So indeed, why was it dropped? Is it because when Roberto checked this "PS-579" reference he did not find said document? Would that mean that Mattogno cited a source he did not see himself? Or is Roberto lying? Maybe Rudolf can explain this.

A little clarification. GE1 stands for volume 1 of Mattogno's Italian book as stated here
Carlo Mattogno, Gli Einsatzgruppen Nei Territori Orientali Occupati. Parte I - Genesi, compiti e attività . 2017 Effepi Edizioni, Genova. Pp. 173-198. This book will in the following be referred to as "GE1".
Last edited by Werd on Tue Jan 01, 2019 6:15 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Posts: 9631
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am

Re: Errors in Mattogno's English Einsatzgruppen book

Post by Werd »

Andrew Mathis has a problem with the Keine Liquidierung issue that Mattogno dealt with on pages 211 to 217. First let's see Mattogno.


Now Mathis. Keep in mind that the page numbers he uses refer to the paperback and not the PDF.
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... keine.html
Mattogno on Riga, Part One: Keine Liquidierung Revisited
Author: Andrew E. Mathis
To begin, examining the note itself, Mattogno quotes the note in its entirety, followed by Werner Grothmann’s message to Friedrich Jeckeln of 1 December summoning the HSSPF to meet with Himmler at Führer Headquarters three days later and Himmler’s message to Jeckeln informing the latter that Jews being sent to Latvia from the Reich should be treated only according to specific orders from Himmler himself or the RSHA.

According to Mattogno (p. 212), “The original entry’s text has a period after ‘Berlin’ and ‘No’ begins with a capital letter.” What’s curious is that, on the previous page, where Mattogno has quoted the 30 December phone note from Himmler’s Dienstkalender, he does not render the punctuation as Witte et al have in their edition: Witte et al place a period, not a common, at the end of the third line, although they do begin the fourth line with a lower-case letter. Acknowledging that the book is a translation from Mattogno’s original Italian edition, it’s nevertheless odd that a fact-checker or proofreader wouldn’t have been particularly careful on this particular point, given Mattogno’s emphasis of it to make his own case.

At any rate, it’s hard to see how Mattogno’s correction here (if true – see Irving’s reprint of the original) makes any real difference. Of course, Mattogno maintains that “Keine Liquidierung” refers to something other than the “Jew transport from Berlin”; the reasons he gives for this conclusion are disproved by other entries in the Dienstkalender. For instance, we cannot assume that, every time Himmler used a period at the end of a line, he was moving on to a new topic. For example, on 14 November, Himmler’s note following a discussion with Karl Wolff details three distinct topics – award of Knight’s Crosses, motorization of the police divisions, and a visit from Clausen, but none of the lines ends with a period – at least as rendered by Witte et al; for that matter, the original as printed by Irving clearly shows the first line of the 30 November note also lacks a period. Nor is a lower-case letter an automatic indicator that the line in question continues that from the previous line. The note from 17 November following another discussion with Wolff has four topics: distribution of books with letters; Norwegian volunteers; “invitation for tonight”; and the military situation. The second and fourth lines begin with lower-case letters despite being new topics, so neither a lower-case letter nor lack of a period on the preceding line automatically indicate an old topic being continued by Himmler in the Dienstkalender.
So to Mathis' mind, the punctuation argument from Mattogno isn't good enough. The reason his argument is stupid and fails is JUST BECAUSE there are some instances where Himmler doesn't use punctuation and the lack of it still doesn't permit ambiguity, THAT DOESN'T PROVE THAT PUNCTUATION IN OTHER INSTANCES IS MEANINGLESS. The fact that Himmler attempted to use punctuation and in fact did meant HE CHOSE in that instance to use them because of the grammatical rules they included. Perhaps it was because lack of punctuation would IN THIS INSTANCE cause ambiguity, that he in fact chose to use it here, and not other places where lack of punctuation would NOT cause ambiguity. Andrew Mathis is truly a moron here for not considering these points.

All that the punctuation means is that Mattogno's argument looks good AT FIRST GLANCE. So that means we just keep going. And as we will see below, Bob did keep going and he eventually won the debate proving the fourth line has nothing to do with the third line.
To his benefit, Mattogno only briefly entertains the notion put forward in my debate with Bob at RODOH that “Keine Liquidierung” refers to the “liquidation of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.” As I explained then, this argument is also implausible since the appointment of Heydrich as Deputy Reichsprotektor of Bohemia and Moravia in September was designed precisely to prevent the “liquidiation” of the Protectorate’s autonomy in favor of it being incorporated into the Reichsgau system by the Party. Further, were this matter still an issue more than two months after Heydrich’s appointment, Heydrich had seen both Hitler and Himmler in Berlin just a few days earlier – the matter certainly could have been discussed then, rather than when Himmler arrived at FHQ (see below). Finally, there was a new government installed in the Protectorate in January 1942, which also belies the idea that the Protectorate was going to become a Gau.

Referring to Himmler’s activities following his conversation with Heydrich on 30 November, Mattogno writes (p. 212), “In fact, according to the Dienstkalender, Himmler met the Führer after Heydrich’s phone call. This meeting lasted from 2:30 in the afternoon until 4 o’clock.” This is hardly surprising information given that Himmler was at FHQ at the time and had only just arrived (the Dienstkalender notes that he was on the train until 1 p.m. that day).

I’ll pick up on this point in my next blog – to be on the Rumbula massacre and the shooting of Reich Jews on 30 November.
On page 1 of the 8 page topic, Bob had a point:
Bob wrote:
Sat Aug 22, 2015 9:36 pm
aemathisphd wrote:I'm imaging the timeline goes like this:

28 Nov. Himmler and Heydrich speak w/Krüger about the Final Solution in the GG. Heydrich states to Himmler that transports are under way to Riga and Minsk from the Reich. The issue of work consignments arises but is not settled.

30 Nov. On the train from Berlin to Wolfsschanze, Himmler decides to spare the transports from Berlin and phones Heydrich immediately upon arriving at Wolfschanze.
- 28 Nov. which is a day later since the transport left on Nov 27. What forced Heydrich to change his mind radically from usual liquidation to "keine liquidierung" is a mystery, he finally realized that people can be used for labor instead of stupid extermination? Why only one single transport from all? What was so special about this transport?
Indeed. Bob continued:
- not settled, although previously you claimed the order came from Heydrich. Now you are claiming, the order in fact came from Himmler who had the main word on the issue and issued the order but waited nonsensically so long, that the transport was allegedly already gunned down, despite the fact that both Heydrich and Himmler would have been aware of this fact if not decided quickly.

- Himmler decided it on the train and phoned Heydrich immediately due to urgency. Interesting, acc. to the actual movements you accepted and used for your argumentation, Himmler met a journalist between 12-1 p.m. and then worked for some 30 minutes before he finally phoned Heydrich. How is this in line with your fantasy? He obviously did not bother at all about a decision he allegedly made about your supposed transport. You forgot this document or is just your bad faith?

- in that case is reasonable to assume the stop order would have been given asap since you can exterminate people later if you change your mind, but you cannot revive dead people.
Mathis' response was less than convincing:
It was Jews from Berlin. They were (presumably) skilled laborers and people with possible exemptions. There were far fewer worries on the Nazis' part of these Jews being communist. There are any number of reasons to stop this transport. But as I note (again) above, they stopped executions for most of December and January.
It is indeed possible that those arguments about punctuation are ultimately useless and that Himmler could have used punctuation inconsistently. I will side with Bob on this one.
Especially since Thames Darwin on codoh (Andrew Mathis moniker) admitted that the fourth line of Himmler's note was not connected to the third line.
There was also this subsequent exchange on the old codoh topic.
Thames Darwin wrote:
(5) Do you have access to the December 30 letter from Heydrich to Bormann?
Report of December 30, 1941 is available online here, you can read that the autonomy was still a problem: ... oId=366313
It was pictorex who came up with this interesting hypothesis, credit goes to him, he only stimulated my interest since this makes sense and we have support from the period in question. There are more documents I want to check since M. Kárný refers to more documents for the autonomy issue, but I do not have much time.
So in other words, this is an Andrew Mathis failure. Not a Carlo Mattogno failure.
Last edited by Werd on Wed Jan 02, 2019 11:21 am, edited 3 times in total.

Posts: 9631
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am

Re: Errors in Mattogno's English Einsatzgruppen book

Post by Werd »

Andrew Mathis has a further problem with pages 216-217.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... calls.html
Carlo Mattogno’s treatment of the mass shooting of Latvian Jews, as well as a thousand newly arrived Reich Jews, on 30 November 1941 is riddled with errors and lapses in logic. After briefly remarking on the discrepancy between the actual date of the shooting and the date as reported in Stahlecker’s famous report of the following year (“in early December”), Mattogno writes (p. 216), “The exact date is important because the shooting of the Jewish transport early in the morning depended precisely on the large number of persons who were to be killed during the day. This has its logic, but if 45 minutes (from 8:15 to 9:00 AM) was time enough to kill 1,000 persons (according to the verdict in the Riga Trial), then why did it require more than seven hours to kill 4,000 people? At Riga, in fact, the sun only came up at 8:34 AM on 30 November, and it set at 3:50 PM.”

On its face, this might seem like a decent argument. Using simple multiplication, if 1,000 people can be shot in 45 minutes, then 4,000 would take three hours, give or take. However, providing more detail on this point makes it clear why this discrepancy emerges. In their book on the Holocaust in Latvia, Andrej Angrik and Peter Klein cover the matter of the Reich Jews killed at Rumbula on pp. 146-148 (in the English edition).

First, they make clear that the trainload of Reich Jews did not remain at Skirotava station, where they initially arrived, in Riga but rather were moved by train to Rumbula station. This is an important detail: from the ghetto to Rumbula was a 10 kilometer walk, while the distance from Rumbula station was less than a kilometer. If we factor in a travel distance ten times greater and four times the number of people, seven hours doesn’t seem strange, particularly given the fatigue that would have set in among the shooters, to say nothing about the victims. (Also, while the times Mattogno gives for sunrise and sunset are correct, as anyone living on the planet Earth can attest, it is light before sunrise and remains so after sunset -- according to this site, it was already light out at 7:48 a.m.).

On the next page, working from the point that the Reich Jews were shot in the morning but that Heydrich and Himmler did not speak by phone until early afternoon in Berlin (and thus an hour later in Riga), Mattogno writes (p. 217), “But can one seriously believe that the communication of such an important piece of information to the RSHA and to Heydrich required over six hours?” Mattogno's second argument from incredulity in as many pages aside, it’s worth noting that Himmler only arrived at FHQ at 1 p.m. on the day in question. He records in the Dienstkalender (pp. 277-278) being on the train at 11 a.m. on 30 November (the first entry of the day), speaking to two people by telephone and one in person, the latter from noon to 1 p.m. Considering travel time between the train station and FHQ and establishing the need to speak with Heydrich, a conversation at 1:30 is not unlikely.

While it might be protested that Heydrich and Himmler could have spoken while Himmler was on the train, Angrick and Klein again clarify why it took so long for the two to speak:

With Finnberg's assistance, Lange succeeded in relaying his misgivings to Berlin, whereupon the gears of administrative process were set in motion. The matter appeared to so important that nobody in the RSHA central office wanted to make decision on his own, but rather to make everything dependent upon Heydrich, who at the time was in Prague. Repeatedly, the channels of communication were tried, costing valuable time.

We might be willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to Mattogno for not having considered this point, but he cites Angrick and Klein’s explanation of Emil Finnberg’s phone call to Berlin in The Einsatzgruppen, as well as citing the Dienstkalender, so he presumably knows the established explanation for the time delay.
Okay, let's recall pages 216 and 217 once again.
Response coming...

So let's establish what is going on:
The court verdict determined that from 8:15 to 9:00 am, 1000 Reich Jews from Berlin were shot. 45 minutes. Carlo Mattogno points out that scientifically, the sun only came up at 8:34. Mathis counters and says the morning sky before the sun could be seen would have still been light enough from the sun itself at at 7:48. Whatever the bickering is, we need to stick with what the court determined for the sake of argument. So Mathis' little side trip gets us nowhere ultimately. The court didn't say the shooting started at say just around 8:00 am. It said 8:15. So again, 45 minutes to shoot 1000 people.

Mattogno then wonders why it takes 45 minutes for 1000 people once the total number is all gathered in one place, but why does it take 7 hours to kill 4000 Riga ghetto Jews so much that the killing is going on into dusk? Mattogno obviously wants us to be skeptical of this verdict and thus cast doubt on one more aspect of the wild holocaust claims. Such is a revisionist motive. However, Andrew Mathis thinks he can explain why a shooting of 4000 people would take 7 hours in this particular case. Let's examine this further to see who is correct...
This is an important detail: from the ghetto to Rumbula was a 10 kilometer walk, while the distance from Rumbula station was less than a kilometer. If we factor in a travel distance ten times greater and four times the number of people, seven hours doesn’t seem strange, particularly given the fatigue that would have set in among the shooters, to say nothing about the victims.
So Mathis is saying that starting at 9:00am in the morning, 4000 Riga ghetto Jews marched on foot for 10 kilometers to Rumbala and then were shot and buried and this took 7 hours. Furthermore, if shooting 1000 people takes 45 minutes, that means 4000 people takes 180 minutes or 3 hours. So Mathis says therefore that 4000 people marching 10 kilometers would take at least 4 hours. Could be. Interesting. However the court verdict claims not the death march started at 9am but the SHOOTING began a 9 am! In other words, the 4000 Riga Jews were already starting to be shot at 9am in Rumbala/ Meaning the death march had to have commenced way before. So when did the death march of these people actually start and when did the actual shooting at Rumbala commence? And why is Mathis claiming that when the court said the shooting began, he really thinks the court means to say the death march began?
Last edited by Werd on Sun Jan 06, 2019 6:41 pm, edited 7 times in total.

Posts: 9631
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am

Re: Errors in Mattogno's English Einsatzgruppen book

Post by Werd »

Remember when my first topic on Mattogno's Einsatzgruppen book at codoh was shut down?
And Moderator on page 4 said we needed to wait until the English edition came out so we could debate it.
I've locked this thread since the book is now available and this thread has become irrelevant, to say the least.
Anyone wishing to debate the contents of the book are encouraged to do so in a separate thread.
They even started another topic:
Mattogno on the Einsatzgruppen - Discussion suggestions
It was said by Moderator that due to the size of the book, it be discussed chapter by chapter. Well I tried to start a topic on codoh about errors in Mattogno's book. I started with the same single post from Nickterry on SSF. It was removed. Reason:
Topic disapproved:

"Looking for errors in Mattogno's English Einsatzgruppen book"

Forum: 'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News

Reason: The reported message does not fit into any other category, please use the further information field. Your post is as you said, "trivial" You are trolling, not debating on the Einsatzgruppen..
See that? Pointing out mistakes is trolling. :lol: I give up over there. If they're too cowardly to address the points HC is making about Mattogno's book, let it reflect badly on them.

User avatar
Posts: 6419
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh. Swabia

Re: Errors in Mattogno's English Einsatzgruppen book

Post by Huntinger »

IF I may I would suggest you concentrate on this book, it is of extreme importance instead of the constant pissing contest with Nessie who is in exile. What you are doing with him might be fun but for the rest of us is a total waste of space. Nothing has come out of this.
Get this book right please.

𝕴𝖈𝖍 𝖇𝖊𝖗𝖊𝖚𝖊 𝖓𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖙𝖘...𝕾𝖔𝖟𝖎𝖆𝖑 𝖌𝖊𝖍𝖙 𝖓𝖚𝖗 𝕹𝖆𝖙𝖎𝖔𝖓𝖆𝖑


Posts: 9631
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am

Re: Errors in Mattogno's English Einsatzgruppen book

Post by Werd »

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... k-and.html
Tuesday, December 18, 2018
Mattogno, his Einsatzgruppen book and the Gas Vans. Part I: A Dilettante at Work

Some Holocaust deniers might have had high expectations that Carlo Mattogno would address his critics in the English translation of his Einsatzgruppen book, after Germar Rudolf's earlier comment that "we have submitted a long list of open issues -- including remarks made by the HC Blog -- to the author for his review". But deniers who had crossed their fingers that Mattogno would show a fierce reaction would have to be deeply disappointed. Rudolf's foreword tried to excuse Mattogno's decision not to consider internet critiques, lest it should force him to postpone publishing the book; a rather questionable strategy for Holocaust deniers to willfully ignoring the HC blog, given that anyone searching in the internet on the book would likely end up here and learn more about his dilettante treatment of the subject.

They would learn about his total failure on Sonderkommando Lange: placing its headquarters to Soldau in East-Prussia, when it was in Posen in the Warthegau, as any relevant monograph published in the 90s and 2000s or even a document quoted by himself explain (see Figure 1).

The headquarters-in-Soldau claim was scrapped from the English edition, yet he keeps arguing with the false premise that SK Lange was stationed in Soldau in 1941 (p.295), so the deletion does not make much difference. Was this a last minute attempt by somebody to polish the English edition, which just failed because the underlying argument was not touched?


Or that he did not realize that Sonderkommando Lange was a killing commando according to contemporary German documents well known in the literature and published on this blog more than one and half years ago in May 2017. The documented nature of SK Lange as mass murder unit is an existential threat to Mattogno's Holocaust denial, as the commando operated Kulmhof extermination camp liquidating about 150,000 Jews in 1941-1944, a point emphasized again when Mattogno was supposed to review the blog's critique (and which were enough to pull the emergency cord and to postpone the publication until the evidence has been explained away with the usual methods of denial).
So somewhere between Mattogno's Italian original, the translation into English, and Rudolf's examination of an apparent list of "open issues" someone was trying to polish a turd as Hans would put it? Mattogno apparently wants to claim that the headquarters of SK Lange were in Soldau, but he ended up quoting a document which proves it was headquartered in Posen? If this contradiction is genuine, Mattogno and Rudolf NEED to address this. Let's continue:
There are more curious differences between the Italian and the English edition of Mattogno's Einsatzgruppen book. In the former, he wrote that "it is worth noting that the only character mentioned in Becker's letter to Rauff, SS-Untersturmfuhrer Ernst, is completely unknown. He is never mentioned either in the Ereignismeldungen, nor in the Meldungen, or in other known documents" (Mattogno, Gli Einsatzgruppen nei territori orientali occupati, Parte I, p. 341; my translation). It was of course ignorant to ask why some SS-Untersturmführer is not mentioned in the Ereignismeldungen UdSSR and the Meldungen aus den besetzten Ostgebieten, as those set of documents do not mention most of the Einsatzgruppen personnel, or in stray documents on Einsatzgruppe C, if he knows any at all.

The paragraph disappeared from the English translation (Figure 2). Did he find out about SS-Untersturmführer Ernst himself? Certainly not, because apart from that he would have needed to perform some archival research, which he clearly did not, it would have been something to report in this section.

Did he realize the point was not really bright? Such critical self reflection is not likely as we know him and he did keep a similar argument in the book. On p. 430, he writes on a British decode on a Sonderkommando Spacil that "no 'Sonderkommando Spacil' has ever been known to exist, and the name of the person involved is completely unknown". In fact, he found the argument so brilliant that he repeated it again on p. 683 "there was no known 'Sonderkommando Spacil,' and the name of the person is quite unknown" (an indication that Mattogno has passed his peak long time ago: he copies himself in the very same book and cannot search the Wikipedia entry of a Third Reich figure). Given that there is no indication for a sudden brainwave, perhaps the paragraph on SS-Untersturmführer Ernst was merely lost in translation.


Who was SS-Untersturmführer Ernst, then? As expected, since he was mentioned in an authentic contemporary German document on homidical gas vans, he is a true historical person; an RSHA car mechanic and head of garage workshop commanded to the East from mid 1941 to mid 1942 according to his SS files (BArch R 9361-III/523333 & 40094). As with Spacil above or SS-Obersturmführer Huhn in Auschwitz, it is meaningless that SS-Untersturmführer Ernst "is completely unknown" to Mattogno, since this is based on his very limited research on the matter (Major Friedrich "not a Major in any way" Pradel can tell you a thing or two about it, too).
So according to Hans, Mattogno has been caught in a contradiction about where exactly SK Lange had headquarters. As I said, that definitely needs to be addressed and perhaps fixed for a second edition in a year or two. Now let's move on to Ernst. Apparently this guy existed. Hans also says:

"Who was SS-Untersturmführer Ernst, then? As expected, since he was mentioned in an authentic contemporary German document on homidical gas vans"

The hyperlink only leads to this:
Friday, December 25, 2015
Rebuttal of Alvarez on Gas Vans: The Becker Letter
Author: Hans Metzner
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... ecker.html

So I guess I have to do a perform a word search in my internet browser to see exactly where Ernst shows up. I find ONLY this:
The Forgery Hypothesis

The letter heavily incriminates August Becker, who however was a comparably small fish for the investigators and who got punished with 4 years of work camp for being an old Nazi fighter in 1947 but not for his gassing activities that he wisely kept quiet about. The document does not even explicitly (in the text) incriminate Rauff and his involvement can only be inferred from him receiving the letter. Then the letter slightly incriminates a certain SS-Untersturmführer Ernst, who was in charge of a repair garage in Kiev and even less important than Becker. But the reference to Ernst demonstrates extensive insider knowledge of the author. Yet, it does relatively unspecifically incriminate the Einsatzgruppen C and D without providing names, and even more vaguely A and B. It's hard to see any master plan here.
So which letter is genuine that mentions this man Ernst who CAN NOT be debated to have possibly not existed according to the Wikipedia entry Hans found? August Becker's preliminary report 16 May 1942 for Walther Rauff, who was responsible for technical matters in the RSHA, including motor vehicles. Santiago Alvarez addressed this letter and Hans had some replies. I will only bother to quote a little bit; not all. Because that would extend this post of mine too much and result in just quoting Hans' entire article.
Nevertheless, Alvarez "doubt(s) the authenticity of this letter" because its content "leaves behind an awkward impression" (Alvarez, The Gas Vans, p. 55). This impression is, however, only caused by his own technical ignorance as well as poorly substantiated personal incredulity.

Saurer and the Diesel Issue

"In case of Saurer trucks with Diesel engines, their exhaust gases would not have had toxic amounts of carbon monoxide"

(Alvarez, The Gas Vans, p. 53).

We had this already (and we'll get it a few more times in this series), there is no convincing evidence presented by Alvarez that the Saurer had to be Diesel - and this actually leaves an awkward impression on him as somebody suddenly swallowing anything once it serves his purpose.

As pointed out elsewhere, the Saurer homicidal gas vans were most likely on gasoline engines and so could have produced toxic concentrations of carbon monoxide.
That link leads to this article:
Sunday, November 15, 2015
Rebuttal of Alvarez on Gas Vans: Why the Diesel Issue is Still Irrelevant
Author: Hans Metzner
Alvarez refers his readers to the Saurer chronology on the homepage of the Oldtimer Club Saurer in Arbon, Switzerland. The site says that Saurer used both gasoline and Diesel engines for their B series. It explains a new Diesel "injection system" was introduced for the C series, but this does not exclude that gasoline engine continued to be used as well. In short, the site does not consist any evidence that Saurer = Diesel.

There is no way how to deduce from this website the proportion of Diesel to gasoline engines produced by Saurer in its home country Switzerland. There is further no way how to estimate the proportion of engine types produced in the foreign factories after the German occupation. There is finally no way to conclude from this that a factory made engine type could not have been changed before the chassis were provided with the coach works for the homicidal gassing. Thus, there is no way how to exclude that the Saurer gas vans were actually gasoline powered.
Furthemore, Hans also submitted this:
Hans wrote: they produced at least 2800 Saurer trucks with gasoline engines during the war in France (Saurer. Vom Ostschweizer Kleinbetrieb zum internationalen Technologiekonzern, chapter Zwischen den Fronten).


You know, this means that many leading Holocaust deniers provided you with an entirely unfounded and false assertion:

Carlo Mattogno ("all Saurer trucks had diesel engines), Santiago Alvarez ("the Swiss-Austrian truck manufacturer Saurer, who equipped their trucks only with Diesel engines), Ingrid Weckert ("Saurer vehicles always had Diesel engines"), Jürgen Graf ("all Saurer vehicles were driven by Diesel"), Thomas Dalton ("...Saurers, which only run on diesel...these definitely could not have been gasoline"), Scott Smith ("Saurers are always diesels").
And also this link with a lot of post war testimonies talking specifically about gasoline engines.

Tuesday, March 01, 2016
Update on Rebuttal of Alvarez on Gas Vans: Why the Diesel Issue is Still Irrelevant
Author: Hans Metzner
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... n-gas.html

Now even if we admit that the document can not be argued to be problematic because not all Sauers were in fact diesels, then revisionists need OTHER REASONS to claim a possible forgery for this Nuremberg document PS-501. Weckert had her own reasons.
And Alvarez had his own, but Hans had HIS multiple reasons for thinking it was genuine.
Friday, December 25, 2015
Rebuttal of Alvarez on Gas Vans: The Becker Letter
Author: Hans Metzner
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... ecker.html
All that aside, Hans believes Mattogno/Rudolf need to address the Gas Vans rebuttal arguments once again and try and justify ALL their claims that PS-501 is not believable. Let me close this post with a comment posted here at HC by the black rabbit.
The Black Rabbit of Inlé said...

"On the intended dispatch of Sonderkommando Lange to Novgorod according to German radio signals intercepted by the British, Mattogno shouts to his readers on p. 295 that "There is no mention of Sonderkommando Lange, or gas vans, or Novgorod, or mental patients to be killed!" (because he was confused by an incomplete reference in Longerich, Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews) - however, twice on this blog, in January 2016 and then again in May 2017 the relevant decode was published, which indeed requested "Sonderkommando Lange with suitable [apparatus] for the clearing of three of their asylums near Novgorod"."

As you know, but didn't mention, Mattogno did address HC claims on this incident in his lengthy response to the White Paper.

A far stronger criticism of Mattogno's handling of the 3 messages in his recent work is the fact that he ignored that Breitman wrote about them [and provided complete citations for all 3] in Official Secrets [1998], even though Mattogno repeatedly criticises the same Breitman study over interpretations of further decodes found within the very same file[!]; a file which he obviously has access to, considering the number of quotes he provides from it.

Mattogno must've known of the 3 messages, and he had access to the original documents, yet he dismisses the bigger picture by only addressing their coverage in a single secondary source, one in which they're not accurately described, and are poorly referenced.
The Black Rabbit of Inlé also has some strong words for Mattogno. In other words, Mattogno and/or his editor got lazy and didn't stick with the primary source material, but relied on secondary and incomplete renditions of it.
Last edited by Werd on Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 9631
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am

Re: Errors in Mattogno's English Einsatzgruppen book

Post by Werd »

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. " 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 officer."
(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 again).

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!

Posts: 9631
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am

Re: Errors in Mattogno's English Einsatzgruppen book

Post by Werd »

A lot of the other stuff ties back into alleged evidence for gas vans including letters that should be regarded as authentic and NOT forgeries or outright made up fakes as Mattogno and Graf and the others would suggest. I do not intend to get into a long debate about the gas vans here in this topic. That is not the scope of this topic. It is merely to point out certain errors in the English edition that need to be addressed and fixed. Perhaps in another topic or two (that I would have to bump up with recent posts), the issue of gas vans and rebuttals to revisionists can be addressed separately. That being said, here is a series of what I suspect at the most pertinent links to the gas vans debate.

Saturday, December 29, 2018
Mattogno, his Einsatzgruppen book and the Gas Vans. Part III: Genesis and Pictures That Say it All
Author: Hans Metzner
https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... and28.html

Sunday, October 09, 2016
Contemporary German Documents on Carbon Monoxide Gas and Bottles Employed for the Nazi Euthanasia
Author: Hans Metzner
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... arbon.html

Tuesday, October 11, 2016
Mattogno's Falsehoods on the Rauff Letter to the Criminal Technical Institute
Author: Hans Metzner
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... er-to.html

Sunday, November 15, 2015
Rebuttal of Alvarez on Gas Vans: Why the Diesel Issue is Still Irrelevant
Author: Hans Metzner
Rebuttal of Alvarez on Gas Vans
Part I: Why the Diesel Issue is Still Irrelevant (update 1, 2)
Part II: Producer Gas
Part III: The Ford Gas Wagon (update)
Part IV: The Becker Letter (update)
Part V: The Rauff Letter to the Criminal Technical Institute (update 1, 2, 3, cf. on Mattogno & here)
Part VI: The Turner Letter
Part VII: The Schäfer, Trühe & Rauff Telexes
Part VIII: The Einsatzgruppe B Activity & Situation Report (cf. on Mattogno)
Part IX: The Just Memo
Part X: The West-German Trials Against Members of Einsatzkommando 8
Part XI: Einsatzgruppe D in Simferopol
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... s-why.html

That being said, I would like to make one final point. Perhaps the revisionists would be interested in a very convincing argument from Berg about different types of S Wagens.
Later, Berg rebuts Hans' absurd ad hoc hypothesis in the first paragraph of the post here after Berg's initial comment.

This may throw some disrepute upon certain documents. Who knows? The gas vans are not something I am well read upon. Right now I am going back through my Alvarez book, Mattogno's brief comments on the Becker and Just letter beginning on page 349 of English Einsatzgruppen book, and of course relevant HC links.
Last edited by Werd on Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Posts: 9631
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am

Re: Errors in Mattogno's English Einsatzgruppen book

Post by Werd »

I finally got a mention. ... 89#p689489
Statistical Mechanic » Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:15 pm

VFX's "Mattogno EG thread" at Rodoh having veered off into Rollo's illiterate speculations about language and now into been-there's defense of the Germans' wholesale slaughter of communities in the occupied East, Werd has opened up a new thread, the first post addressing the critical issue of PDF vs print page numbers: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3569#p141036 ... 27#p689527
Statistical Mechanic » Mon Dec 31, 2018 9:58 pm

Rodoh should change the name of the "Einsatzgruppen" thread to "Been-There Recommends Shooting," and they should hire an editor for Werd in the "Errors in Mattogno's English Einsatzgruppen book" so that what he posts makes at least a little sense.
Statistical Mechanic shows his lack of mental stamina in the ability to follow and remember arguments. That's funny. Most of what I post comes from Holocaust Controversies themselves. And Statistical Mechanic was all about posting HC links. ... 55#p688055
So what's his goddamn problem this time? My posts are just more of the same material as HC due to my copying and pasting. Is he full of shit or is he even admitting he doesn't understand the arguments of HC and he is therefore just a mindless cheerleader with limited intellectual abilities? :lol: ... 22#p689622
Statistical Mechanic » Tue Jan 01, 2019 9:27 pm

Giving up on trying to find a point to Werd's posts on Mattogno's book, I thought to mention an interesting twist in information about the East reaching the World Jewish Congress and Jewish Agency offices in Geneva. By fall 1941, these organizations realized that Jews in the occupied Soviet Union were at terrible risk but had almost no factual information on the open-air shootings in the occupied territories. OTOH the offices had received a report from outside Zagreb describing arrests of Jews in Croatia, detainment of Jews in camps there, plunder of the property of Croatian Jews, and death of incarcerated Jews in the Croatian camps. The report even alluded to the likely fate of its author - the "surgical knife" of the Croatian authorities. (The Geneva offices were also well informed about the emigration halt of fall 1941 and deportations of Jews from Germany, Austria, and the Protectorate to Lodz, Minsk, Riga, etc). Matthäus, ed, Predicting the Holocaust, pp 40-41, 46-47, 143, 151-156

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 10 guests