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).
Werd
Posts: 9218
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Errors in Mattogno's English Einsatzgruppen book & CODOH censorship

Post by Werd » Thu Feb 14, 2019 4:26 pm

Hans wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 4:15 pm
Mattogno only talks about Einsatzgruppe B in this paragraph exactly because he thinks that the only gas vans in German documents are those of Einsatzgruppe B (or what he falsely considers as this paramilitary unit).
Only the first 6 for sure are being claimed to belong to Einsatzgruppe B. You agreed to this before.
Mattogno argues that "in the best of cases, the [Nazi] documents attest to 2 Diamond 'gas vans' and 4 Saurer: 6 'gas vans'" (p.309). His arithmetic goes as follows:

"2 Saurer vehicles to Einsatzgruppe B" according to the Activity and Situation Report of Einsatzgruppe B of 1 March 1942

"2 Diamond vehicles and 1 Saurer vehicle to Einsatzgruppe B" according to the telex Trühe to Rauff of 15 June 1942 (PS-501)

"1 Saurer vehicle assigned to Einsatzgruppe B" from Belgrad according to the telex Schäfer to Pradel of 9 June 1942 (PS-501).

The sum of this is six gas vans – all to Einsatzgruppe B according to Mattogno's best knowledge (well, that means little as we already know).
I said he does NOT assign the rest of them to Einsatzgruppe B. I based this on other things he wrote further down on page 309.
The "gas vans" are said to have been developed essentially in order to facilitate the massacre activities of the Einsatzgruppen, to whom they had been delivered and precisely for this purpose. According to Beer, of this six presumed "gas vans" from the "first series" (Diamond trademark) build in 1941, one was assigned to Einsatzgruppe C, one to Einsatzgruppe D, and two to Chelmno (Beer, 1987, p. 413); in addition to which another thirty are said to have been assigned in 1942, twenty of which are said to have been consigned in April (ibid, p. 415), one at Chelmno, and the remainder evidently to the Einsatzgruppen.
He has jumped from 6 vans in Einsatzgruppe B, to talking about the rest of the Einsatzgruppen. Which is why I say the other 20, are about other Einsatzgruppen. Look at your own words.
"In the best of cases, the documents attest to 2 Diamond “gas vans” and 4 Saurer: 6 “gas vans” out of at least 26. There is no information at all about the remaining 20 vehicles. The question greatly concerns orthodox Holocaust historians, who make aggressive use of trial testimony without any objective confirmation in attempts to supply even the semblance of an answer...."

The bold part only makes sense if he talks about all gas vans - irrespective of unit.
Clearly he is free and able to talk specifically about Einsatzgruppe B, and then move on to other ones. And he does. It seems you agree that the first 6 on top of page 309 is about Einsatzgruppe B. It seems you also agree that the other 20 are spread out to other units. If you apparently agree with me on both these points, we can move on to the last step so I have something to send to Germar and Mattogno to get them to answer for.

Now, are you alright with everything else I posted back here and summarized as follows?
In summary:
1. Mattogno made a mistake on page 309 of his book when he said that in the Mathias Beer article on page 413, there were two vans that nobody knew where they want. Beer clearly stated where they want. Mattogno either didn't see it, or he did but ignored it and didn't care.
2. There is a typo/discrepancy between the English and Italian editions apparently that Hans pointed out, which would erase any contradictions about Saurer van numbers between pages 323, 326 and 327. But there is still an unresolved issue with the "smaller vans".
3. Mattogno has his chronology about Einsatzgruppe A and Einsatzgruppe B mixed up regarding when each was actually present in Minsk.
Because if you are that means I know where you and I both stand clear as day on the issues. When that is settled, I want to take this to Germar Rudolf like I have the other HC critiques, so that we can get some answers.

Hans
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Errors in Mattogno's English Einsatzgruppen book & CODOH censorship

Post by Hans » Thu Feb 14, 2019 4:44 pm

Werd wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 1:59 pm
Okay so which of those 6 vans listed atop page 309 did NOT go to Einsatzgruppe B and why do you think that? Do you for example contest his footnote 254 at the bottom of page 309?
The 2 Saurer in the Einsatzgruppe B report of 1 March 1942 went to Einsatzgruppe B, obviously (as the two smaller ones omitted by Mattogno for whatever reason he has to explain us). There is no evidence that the group received others than those four.

The two Diamond mentioned in the telex in PS-501 were sent to BdS Ostland/Einsatzgruppe A in December 1941. How do we know? Apart from the fact that they listed in the telex as operating for the KdS Minsk in June 1942, we know who drove them and have those guys testimonies about when and where they were sent to with the vehicles.

The Saurer mentioned in the telex in PS-501 was sent to BdS Ostland/Einsatzgruppe A before June 1942. We know this again from the telex in PS-501. The driver was Harry Rübe (he seems to have died during the war, at least I'm not aware that he was tracked down by investigators), but he is mentioned by former members of KdS Minsk.

The Saurer with the license plate 71463 was sent to BdS Serbien around February/March 1942, after liquidating the Jews in Serbia it returned to Berlin where it arrived on 16 June 1942 and after repair was forwarded to the BdS Ostland to be used at the KdS Minsk in mid July 1942. We know this from the telexes in PS-501.

Now, what Mattogno means with the footnote "As may be deduced from the license-plate number, it belonged to the series sent to Einsatzgruppe B in February 1942" is simply that the Saurer sent to Serbia with the reg. no. 71463 obviously belonged to a series of such vehicles, as the Saurer gas vans sent to Einsatzgruppe B were registered as 71462 and 71457. So the connection between the vehicles is their registration in Berlin, not the units they were assigned to.

Werd
Posts: 9218
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Errors in Mattogno's English Einsatzgruppen book & CODOH censorship

Post by Werd » Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:05 pm

Hans wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 4:44 pm
Now, what Mattogno means with the footnote "As may be deduced from the license-plate number, it belonged to the series sent to Einsatzgruppe B in February 1942" is simply that the Saurer sent to Serbia with the reg. no. 71463 obviously belonged to a series of such vehicles, as the Saurer gas vans sent to Einsatzgruppe B were registered as 71462 and 71457. So the connection between the vehicles is their registration in Berlin, not the units they were assigned to.
This is all very fascinating. No joke, Hans. We've pretty much come to a resolution about 6 vans belonging to B and 20 vans belonging to the rest. All that's left is one last bit before I can contact Rudolf about this new list of problems you have uncovered.

Now, are you alright with everything else I posted back here and summarized as follows? By clicking on that hyperlink, you will see why I have colour coded text. It's key to locating and understanding certain issues.
1. Mattogno made a mistake on page 309 of his book when he said that in the Mathias Beer article on page 413, there were two vans that nobody knew where they want. Beer clearly stated where they want. Mattogno either didn't see it, or he did but ignored it and didn't care.
2. There is a typo/discrepancy between page 327 of the English edition and page 317 Italian edition apparently that Hans pointed out, which once fixed would erase any contradictions about Saurer van numbers between pages 323, 326 and 327. But there is still an unresolved issue with the "smaller vans".
3. Mattogno has his chronology about Einsatzgruppe A and Einsatzgruppe B mixed up regarding when each was actually present in Minsk.
4. Plus, everything you just said in your last post.

This is what I think I need to notify Germar Rudolf about. These four points. If you agree, say yes. I will compose a proper email to send to him. And he will file it away (like the other critiques I sent him) for when the time comes for an updated edition.

Hans
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Errors in Mattogno's English Einsatzgruppen book & CODOH censorship

Post by Hans » Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:17 pm

Clearly he is free and able to talk specifically about Einsatzgruppe B, and then move on to other ones. And he does. It seems you agree that the first 6 on top of page 309 is about Einsatzgruppe B. It seems you also agree that the other 20 are spread out to other units. If you apparently agree with me on both these points, we can move on to the last step so I have something to send to Germar and Mattogno to get them to answer for.
The issue is not that the "remaining 20" (actually 12, presumably) were spread out to other units, but that Mattogno argues that these are not "attested" to in "documents", which is not true and certainly not "in the best of cases", see my slide.

Please ask Rudolf to ask Mattogno - I'm 100% certain that I'm right with my understanding of his argument.

Your point 3. is too generous put for Mattogno. It's not only about mixing chronology, there is a fundamental misunderstanding on his part. He did not understand that KdS Minsk was not branch or whatever of Einsatzgruppe B in 1942, but an own agency formed by units of Einsatzgruppe A. Einsatzgruppe B was stationed in Smolensk in 1942 (350 km East of Minsk) and its sub-units somewhere in the army rear area. All of this is no secret or little known but follows clearly from the Einsatzgruppen reports, which Mattogno has (hopefully) read (else he has an even bigger problem). Take Ereignismeldung UdSSR no. 161. Here is the part with KdS Minsk at the bottom (commanded by Strauch, former head of Einsatzkommando 2 of Einsatzgruppe A). Here is the part with Einsatzgruppe B and its sub-units. Even somebody with no idea about Einsatzgruppen and the Security Police and Service in the East can see that there is no way that KdS Minsk was identical to Einsatzgruppe B listed on the next page at entirely different places. Which makes me wonder why Mattogno did. :?:
Last edited by Hans on Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hans
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Errors in Mattogno's English Einsatzgruppen book & CODOH censorship

Post by Hans » Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:42 pm

Tell Rudi that I only take cash for my proof-reading :lol:

I predict that Mattogno won't get his head out of this rope. Some sloppy errors can be fixed, but others are too substantial and fundamental that there is no way that he will be able to keep up his strict denial (without producing the next round of fallacies), plus the massive loss of credibility. And the chapter on gas vans is still long and I have a long breath, so...

Werd
Posts: 9218
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Errors in Mattogno's English Einsatzgruppen book

Post by Werd » Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:30 am

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... k-and.html
Monday, March 04, 2019
Mattogno, his Einsatzgruppen book and the Gas Vans. Part VII: Semantics
Author: Hans Metzner

If we search through the books published before the Second World War, the word Gaswagen has been used with three meanings: a) short for Holzgaswagen (producer gas vehicle), short for Gastransportwagen (vehicle for transporting gas), c) any vehicle with an internal combustion engine (for sources see Mattogno and the Activity & Situation Report of Einsatzgruppe B on its Gas Vans).

Between 1941 and 1944, the Nazis deployed homicidal gas vans with engine exhaust. The vehicles consisted of a closed cargo box mounted on a light to medium truck chassis and can be described as Kastenwagen (box wagon/van). Vergasungen (gassings) were carried out inside the closed box, so the vehicle would be something like a Vergasungskastenwagen. The bulky term can be shortened to Gaswagen (as in Gaskammer/gas-chamber, the prefix Vergasung- can be simplified to Gas-). It is semantically plausible that the Nazis would have called their homicidal gas vans as Gaswagen.
To that I say this:
Werd wrote:
Sun Jan 06, 2019 6:59 pm
Perhaps the revisionists would be interested in a very convincing argument from Berg about different types of S Wagens.
viewtopic.php?p=97021#p97021
Later, Berg rebuts Hans' absurd ad hoc hypothesis in the first paragraph of the post here after Berg's initial comment.
Now let's move on to something more specific in the article regarding Mattogno's book.
As we have seen, Mattogno is wrong that Gaswagen in a homicidal sense "was coined only after the Second World War by the victorious powers". The term appears in a report of Einsatzgruppe B of March 1942 clearly in the context of homicidal gas vans, and its abbreviation G-Wagen found its way into a radio message of Einsatzgruppe D in February 1943. The variant of Russian native speakers Gasenwagen was passed on by a member of KdS Charkow to Soviet investigators in December 1943. The book The People's Verdict. A Full report of the proceedings at the Krasnodar and Kharkov German Atrocity Trials, which contains the examination of Bulanov on Gasenwagen is even cited in Mattogno's Chelmno book on the very same page he makes his false claim. In February 1944, an SD deflector reported on the Gaswagen as the invention of Arthur Nebe. All of this is further confirmed by numerous post-war testimonies of German perpetrators and bystanders (Figure 1).

Image
Figure 1: Mattogno's unfounded claim and contrary evidence.


Nothing in Mattogno's confidence, with which he advanced the claim, can distract from the fact that he cites no evidence that would even remotely justify his conclusion (just as with his epic fail that "the designation 'Sonderkommando 1005' was invented by the Soviets"). He merely throws in that "it is known that the Soviets called the presumed gas vans 'dushegubki' and even Jeckeln, as late as December 1945, spoke of 'Gasautomaschinen'".

The first point actually challenges his own conviction. The Soviets coined the homicidal gas vans as dushegubki, soul-destroyers, murder vans, death vans. Now, if there had been no Nazi homicidal gas vans termed Gaswagen, it is hardly explicable why such a less bloody and morally loaded designation could win through over the Soviets' terms or that in the letter in PS-501 obtained by US investigators (who made sure that the former head of the RSHA group with the motor pool department, Walther Rauff, spoke of "death vans", too). The fact that Gaswagen was becoming the prevailing term with an increasing number of perpetrators interrogated, makes sense if this was the way how the vehicles were called during the war among the Nazi paramilitary forces. Franz H. of the KdS Minsk did not mind about the Soviet language rules at his trial in Minsk and called gas vans how he knew them - Gaswagen (examination of 16 December 1945, BArch B 162/8425, unpaginated).

On the second point that the Higher SS and Police Leader Friedrich Jeckeln spoke of "Gasautomaschinen" in his Soviet interrogations, I wonder where Mattogno's alleged talent in "text analysis" is when one really needs it?

One can clearly see that the German interrogation protocols of Jeckeln cannot be his verbatim statement; they were processed through Soviet language filters and apparently back-translated from Russian. Jeckeln would have hardly spoke of Sowjetbürger (Soviet citizens), Sowjetpatrioten (Soviet patriots), okkupiert (ocuppied), Konzentrationslagerchefs (concentration camp chiefs), Agentur (literally agency, probably means agents), Generalleutnant des Ingenieurdienstes der SS (instead of Generalleutnant der Waffen-SS and Leiter Chef Amt C (Bauwesen)) or that the Red Army has "cleaned" the Baltic states of German troops. Likewise, "Gasautomaschinen" seems like a loan translation of what was made of something like Gaswagen. Jeckeln was given the chance to correct the German protocol, but he did not bother about the "Gasautomaschinen", which was apparently close enough for him to Gaswagen and which did not concern himself anyway in his opinion (Uhl et al., Verhört! Die Befragungen Deutscher Generale und Offiziere Durch Die Sowjetischen Geheimdienste 1945-1952, p. 356-365).

By the way, Mattogno shoots himself right in the foot with using the term "mobile homicidal gas chamber", since it refutes his own assertion on p. 328 of his Einsatzgruppen book on the von Thadden gas chamber memo that "the term 'Gaskammer' can only refer to a stationary 'gas chamber'" (Figure 2). Indeed, the word Gaskammer can also refer to a gas chamber mounted on a vehicle chassis.

Image
Figure 2: Mattogno refutes his own argument

User avatar
Satyam
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 11:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Errors in Mattogno's English Einsatzgruppen book & CODOH censorship

Post by Satyam » Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:54 pm

To that I say this:
Werd wrote: ↑ Perhaps the revisionists would be interested in a very convincing argument from Berg about different types of S Wagens.
viewtopic.php?p=97021#p97021
Later, Berg rebuts Hans' absurd ad hoc hypothesis in the first paragraph of the post here after Berg's initial comment.
Now let's move on to something more


because of multiple documents its clear what gas/sonderwagen meant.
what this arguments prove is this:
in response to the holocaust industry have also a revisionist industry. (people make a living by writing revisionist books ad a infinitum)
its laughable, what a joke

User avatar
Huntinger
Posts: 5710
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh. Swabia
Contact:

Re: Errors in Mattogno's English Einsatzgruppen book & CODOH censorship

Post by Huntinger » Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:40 am

Satyam wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:54 pm

in response to the holocaust industry have also a revisionist industry. (people make a living by writing revisionist books ad a infinitum)
its laughable, what a joke
This may be correct Satyam but that is indeed another topic. Perhaps you could check Werds error finding mission or indeed read the book yourself. He is doing this hard task alone.
𝕸𝖊𝖎𝖉𝖊 𝖆𝖑𝖑𝖊 𝕵𝖚𝖉𝖊𝖓, 𝕾𝖔𝖟𝖎𝖆𝖑 𝖌𝖊𝖍𝖙 𝖓𝖚𝖗 𝕹𝖆𝖙𝖎𝖔𝖓𝖆𝖑

Werd
Posts: 9218
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: Errors in Mattogno's English Einsatzgruppen book & CODOH censorship

Post by Werd » Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:17 am

Full credit goes to the holocaust controversies group. I am just copying and pasting their arguments. Hans has been kind enough to talk with me on this board outside of his busy work writing articles.

User avatar
Satyam
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 11:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Errors in Mattogno's English Einsatzgruppen book & CODOH censorship

Post by Satyam » Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:07 am

Huntinger wrote:
Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:40 am
Satyam wrote:
Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:54 pm

in response to the holocaust industry have also a revisionist industry. (people make a living by writing revisionist books ad a infinitum)
its laughable, what a joke
This may be correct Satyam but that is indeed another topic. Perhaps you could check Werds error finding mission or indeed read the book yourself. He is doing this hard task alone.
I am responding to what i have quoted.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 11 guests