Thursday, July 28, 2016

Mattogno's Bunker 5 Follies.

"Bunker 5" was a name given in 1944 to the gas chamber complex earlier known as "Bunker 2". One plausible hypothesis states that "5" in the name meant the 5th extermination complex after the 4 Birkenau crematoria (that, according to one of the two numbering systems in use, were numbered from 1 to 4).

In The Bunkers of Auschwitz (2004) Carlo Mattogno claims following about the origin of the designation "Bunker 5":
(p. 109:) Paisikovic’s only contribution to the propaganda story is one of terminology: “Bunker V,” the alleged new designation of ‘Bunker 2’ in 1944, was coined by R. Höß but had remained totally unnoticed.374 This designation, later picked up by Filip Müller, was used after that only by Jean-Claude Pressac, who coined the new term “Bunker 2/V.”
374 The designation “Bunker V” is unknown even to Franciszek Piper. Cf. his paper “Bunkry – prowizoryczne komory gazowe,” in: various authors, Auschwitz 1940-1945…, op. cit. (note 2), vol. III, Zaglada, pp. 113-122. 
(p. 143:) The most curious aspect of this deposition is the designation “Bunker 5”. As I have indicated above, this designation was invented by Rudolf Höß, who wrote that Bunker 2 was “later” – that is in 1944 – called “Bunker V.” This is the genesis of the story (initially concocted by D. Paisikovic) of the redesignation of the alleged gassing installation as “Bunker 5” when it was reactivated in 1944 (if we interpret R. Höß’ adverb “später” (later) in this way).
Mußfeldt was of course aware of the charges against him and hence of the main testimonies assembled by Jan Sehn in the preceding years. However, Mußfeldt misunderstood this point when he asserted that ‘Bunker 2’ was called “Bunker 5” as early as February of 1943. Such a change, for 1943, is even more mysterious than for 1944.

(p. 175): 585 As I have already mentioned, Piper was unaware of the designation “Bunker V” invented by R. Höß and picked up by D. Paisikovic and F. Müller, and of “Bunker 2/V” as coined by Pressac. 
First let's deal with a minor matter: no, there's nothing "curious" or "mysterious" about Mußfeldt calling Bunker 2 "Bunker 5" (a designation that Bunker 2 received only in 1944). It would only have been curious  had Mußfeldt later not served in Auschwitz. More precisely, he supervised the crematoria Sonderkommandos in 1944 and thus was obviously more familiar with the extermination installations as they were in 1944. From his experience he knew Bunker 2 mainly (or even exclusively) as Bunker 5. Hence him calling Bunker 2 "Bunker 5" when describing events of 1943, while slightly inaccurate, is nevertheless completely normal and even expected. Carping on this should be below even Mattogno.

More interesting is Mattogno's claim that it was Höß who invented the designation. What evidence is there that he did? Mattogno does not cite any. He merely assumes that a) the Bunker itself is an invention; b) the term did not appear in any sources earlier than Höß' testimonies. Obviously, he failed to demonstrate both points, so the claim was basically concocted out of thin air.

But it gets better: Mattogno, that alleged "revisionist" "expert" on Auschwitz, was apparently unaware of the contents of the Broad report of 13.07.1945, namely of this sentence:
Also one of the white farmhouses was reactivated. It was named "Bunker 5" and Moll did his bloody deeds there.
Broad's report is a famous and widely available source. It is also much earlier than Höß' report cited by Mattogno. How come Mattogno failed to mention it? Just another example of his ignorance.

There is no doubt that if Mattogno knew about the Broad report's mention of the designation, he would have simply claimed that it was Broad who invented it.

In which case he would have been wrong again, since there is an even earlier, if also more obscure, source mentioning the name. It's the document NO-1949, a 18.06.1945 report written in the Hague by the Dutch Marine and Auschwitz survivor A.F. van Velsen and confidentially circulated on 14.09.1945 by the OSS mission to the Netherlands:
When in 1944, the Russian offensive in Transylvania threatened the Hungarian state, it was decided to take the Jews from Hungary, who until this moment had escaped annihilation, to Auschwitz at an accelerated tempo. For this purpose an old farmhouse, which stood in the neighborhood of the camp, was made gastight and was named "Gasbunker 5".
Van Velsen was a barrack leader in the so-called Gypsy Camp, where he also got acquainted with Broad. Later he testified at the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial where Broad was one of the accused.

There is no evidence to suggest that Broad knew about van Velsen's report in July of 1945 (or required it to write his own, or would have taken such small details - the ones that were later "totally unnoticed" according to Mattogno himself - from it, had he, improbably, had an access to it), so the two pre-Höß mentions of Bunker 5 can be safely assumed to be independent. That Broad and van Velsen knew each other in the camp indicates a certain affinity of experience and thus of knowledge.

From Höß', Mußfeldt's, Broad's, Paisikovic's, van Velsen's testimonies a reasonable person can draw a conclusion that "Bunker 5" was indeed a real designation. Since this goes against Mattogno's religious dogma, he will claim that it was van Velsen who coined the term. This claim will carry no more weight than his initial claim that Höß invented it.

Saturday, July 23, 2016

Mattogno and Father Patrick Desbois (3)

Mattogno and Father Patrick Desbois (1)
Mattogno and Father Patrick Desbois (2)
Mattogno and Father Patrick Desbois (3)

The previous blog of this series dissected Mattogno’s attacks on Desbois’ methodology for establishing mass killing sites, and his accusations of "numerical nonsense".

In this blog, we will have a look at Mattogno’s attempt, in sections 4 and 7 of his critique, to discredit witnesses interviewed by Desbois whose testimonies are rendered in Desbois’ book.

German Footage of a Homicidal Gassing with Engine Exhaust. Part 5: Responsibility (III).

German Footage of a Homicidal Gassing with Engine Exhaust

Part 1: Provenance
Part 2: Location
Part 5: Responsibility (III)
Part 6: Holocaust Denial [in preparation]

The previous part proposed that the Mogilev gassing footage displays the experimental gassing carried out by the Einsatzgruppe B leader Arthur Nebe, Einsatzkommando 8 and Albrecht Widmann of the Criminal Technical Institute of the Security Police in September 1941. The following part will outline some conflicting evidence and evaluate alternative interpretations.

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

The denier logic at its finest: the famous Buchenwald photo.

Deniers wouldn't be deniers if they had a modicum of common sense. Case in point, a guy who goes under the nickname "The Black Rabbit of Inlé".

His blog features a piece of "research" which he must be very proud of. He discovered that the first time Pvt. H. Miller's famous photo of Buchenwald survivors on the camp bunks was published in The New York Times Magazine on 06.05.1945, the survivor standing near the wooden support was not there.

So, he proved that the NYTM published a heavily retouched photo due to some editor's fit of prudishness. The retoucher was so inept that he even forgot to draw the bottom parts of the wooden bunk posts when he deleted the standing man. In the immortal words of Joe Biden, this is a BFD. Not.

But being a Holocaust denier, the Rabbit obviously thinks he uncovered something much more sinister, since his headline screams:
The Most Famous Holocaust Photo a Fraud 
 Um, sorry? All we see is evidence of a retouched photo in a magazine. Is there any evidence that the original photo has been manipulated in any way? There is none.

One only need to take a look at the hi-res version (originally from a DOD site) to see that there's no sign of any tampering. And if one supposes (without any proof) that the standing man was pasted into the negative somehow, it would certainly be the most impressive 1940s fake I've ever seen, what with the textured shadow

and the fine motion blur indicating (to all non-brain-damaged individuals) that the man slightly moved during the process:

The details that are quite superfluous (propaganda-wise) because of the graininess and generally not very high quality of the photo reproductions of that time. And yet these details are there. And the lighting fits. Everything fits. Outstanding! Too bad no one with a functioning brain would argue that such mastery would be wasted on pasting a man on a photo for a reason that cannot be discerned.

I mean, it's almost like one could have just asked the man himself, who in another photo in the series just sits around next to the bunk 27 (also seen on the previous photo), to stand up and pose instead of expending time and energy on such a high-quality photo manipulation, apparently just for fun. Or maybe just use one of the many other photos with similar depictions instead.

Unsurprisingly, many other denier idiots have swallowed the bait. One need only look at the comments below the Rabbit's post. Or google. Then one could find any number of rubes mindlessly parroting the claim, among them our old friend Carolyn Yeager, that notoriously stupid neo-Nazi, screeching about "dishonest photo-fakery" at the pathetic "Elie Wiesel Tattoo" site. Oh, and the moon-landing hoax shadows are making a comeback! ROFL.

On one thing I can agree with the Rabbit and the Goebbels in skirt: there is, indeed, fraud involved here. Just not in the photo.

Sunday, July 17, 2016

Mattogno and Father Patrick Desbois (2)

Mattogno and Father Patrick Desbois (1)
Mattogno and Father Patrick Desbois (2)
Mattogno and Father Patrick Desbois (3)

In the previous blog of this series we have seen that Mattogno’s self-projecting accusation whereby Desbois adopts a "faith-based" methodology in his research is not supported by the source Mattogno cites in support of this accusation, while on the other hand Mattogno’s writing about Operation 1005 shows that he knows or cares little about the "historiographical and scholarly methodology" he invokes.

In this blog, we will have a look at further attacks on Desbois’ methodology in Mattogno’s critique.

Saturday, July 09, 2016

Mattogno and Father Patrick Desbois (1)

Mattogno and Father Patrick Desbois (1)
Mattogno and Father Patrick Desbois (2)
Mattogno and Father Patrick Desbois (3)

In chapter 13 of Mattogno, Graf and Kues’ magnum opus[1], with the self-descriptive title "Asinine, Judeophantic Arrogance", Mattogno (p. 1480) brags about his "devastating article “Patrick Desbois e le ‘fosse comuni’ di Ebrei in Ucraina” (Patrick Desbois and the ‘mass graves’ of Jews in Ukraine”)", suggesting that it was not cited in the HC critique of Mattogno, Graf and Kues[2] because the critique’s authors (who he refers to as the "plagiarist bloggers") "were probably unable to devise any deception in order to counter my essay and to sustain this shooting aspect of the Holocaust, whose significance rises in proportion to the constant and inescapable decrease of the historiographic weight of its gassing aspect".

In this blog series, I will show that the mentioned article is devastating indeed – for the credibility of its author. Or better, that it would be devastating for Mattogno’s credibility if he had any such left.

Tuesday, July 05, 2016

Dumb Neo-Nazi Carolyn Yeager Attacks an Auschwitz Survivor, Beclowns Self.

In her articles Joshua Kaufman vs Reinhold Hanning – Insanity in a German courtroom, I want to see Joshua Kaufman’s Auschwitz tattoo – 109023Further evidence that Joshua Kaufman is lying about being Auschwitz prisoner 109023 and Busted: Joshua Kaufman’s claimed Auschwitz number belongs to someone else the infamously dim neo-Nazi Carolyn Yeager proposes that Joshua Kaufman, an Auschwitz survivor, is lying about his Auschwitz number being 109023 because the number and Kaufman's chronology do not fit together and because someone else was registered in Auschwitz under the same number.

She writes in one article:
Most Hungarian Jews were not touched until Spring 1944, when large numbers were sent to Auschwitz, and from there on to other labor camps. They were tattooed with numbers that began with an A or B. Kaufman said his number was 109023. This doesn't fit with Hungarian deportee numbers we know – Lazar Wiesel was A7713. Paul Argiewizc says he was arrested in 1941 in Poland and his Auschwitz number was 176520. If Joshua were arrested a year or two or three later, his number should be higher than Paul's, not lower.
And in another:
I heard nothing from Kaufman, but I did hear from Carlo Mattogno, the accomplished Italian revisionist. Carlo looked up the numbers and helpfully sent me the following information (my bolding):
A list of inmates compiled by the judge Jan Sehn reports the names of the inmates of a transport that arrived at Birkenau on March 15, 1943. The last number assigned was 108530.
The next number in this list is 109371 – a certain Jakob Zakar – who was part of a transport from Greece which arrived in Auschwitz on March 20, 1943.
This means that the number 109023 was assigned between these two dates.
According to Danuta Czech’s Kalendarium [a source used as official Auschwitz data -cy] the number 109023 was assigned on March 18th, 1943 to a group of 465 male (numbers from 108763 to 109227) and 114 female prisoners (they received the numbers 38469 to 38582) sent to Auschwitz from the SiPo [Security Police] Radom, in the General Gouvernment (now Poland).
Mattogno concludes from this that Kaufman’s story lacks either truthfulness or exact dates. The dates, however, are confirmed by the Kalendarium of Danuta Czech and by the judge Jan Sehn.
And in yet another one:
Like Joseph Hirt, who is a complete fraud, Joshua Kaufman has now been proven to be at least half a fraud. The number he claimed to be his when he told NBC News, “I am not Joshua Kaufman, I am number 109023” belongs to Mateusz Judasz, born September 12, 1901 in Łaznów, Poland.
The problem? Joshua Kaufman never said that his Auschwitz number was 109023.

Here are his words (that Yeager often quotes):
Can you imagine working in a crematorium, when you are only 15 years old? I had to break the bones of the dead to get them untangled … I am not Joshua Kaufman, I am number 109023.
He doesn't say "My Auschwitz number is 109023". Upon reading one of Yeager's pieces, remembering that Kaufman was also a prisoner in Dachau, and immediately realizing that she's twisting his words, I searched for a database of Dachau prisoners.

I found Steve Morse's and Peter Landé's Searching Dachau Concentration Camp Records in One Step and typed "Kaufman" into the search field. Since there were no Joshuas, I searched for the first name that was as close to Joshua as possible, in this case Jeno, and clicked on "details". Luckily, I found our man on the very first try:

 Last Name:  KAUFMANN 
 First Name:  Jeno 
 Birth Day:  20 
 Birth Month:  Feb 
 Birth Year:  1928 
 Birth Place:  Szebreczen 
 Came From:  Auschwitz 
 Residence (town):  Szebreczen 
 Residence (street):   
 Prisoner Number:  109023 
 Date of Arrival:  v. 18 Sep 1944 Auschw. 
 Disposition:  befr. Mühldorf 
 Disposition (translated):  liberated. Mühldorf 
 Category:  befr. Mühldorf 
 Category (translated):  befr. Mühldorf 
 ID:  148039 
 Page:  2658/Sch. 
 Disk:  3 
 Frame:  521 

Just to be sure, I double checked against the Dachau records at fold3. Finding Jeno/Joshua Kaufman(n) was no longer a problem:

So, to recapitulate: Jeno Kaufmann/Joshua Kaufman was a so-called "transit Jew" (Durchgangsjude) in Auschwitz. The Jews belonging to this category usually stayed for a period of time in Auschwitz but were not registered and thus also not tattooed (this is basic knowledge). Kaufman's number 109023 was given to him in Dachau, not in Auschwitz. And neither did he claim that it was his Auschwitz number. It was a figment of Yeager's imagination.

It took me literally a few minutes to "solve" this case (not that there was much to solve in the first place...). But I guess I also should not be surprised that the noted great "revisionist" fraud expert on Auschwitz, Carlo Mattogno, was too slow to understand that he was dealing with a Dachau number, instead churning out lots of seriously looking but ultimately irrelevant information. How ... typical.

Saturday, July 02, 2016

German Footage of a Homicidal Gassing with Engine Exhaust. Part 4: Responsibility (II).

German Footage of a Homicidal Gassing with Engine Exhaust
Part 1: Provenance
Part 2: Location
Part 4: Responsibility (II)
Part 6: Holocaust Denial [in preparation]

In the previous parts of this series, it was established that the gassing footage (shown below as titled compilation and without the sound added after the war) was taken during an action by Einsatzkommando 8 in the Mogilev asylum. In this part, we will look more closely on the circumstances of what may picture the scene.

 (attention: graphic video!)

Sunday, June 26, 2016

Update 2 on Rebuttal of Alvarez on Gas Vans: The Rauff Letter to the Criminal Technical Institute

Rebuttal of Alvarez on Gas Vans

Alvarez had argued that the initials of Rauff and the RSHA clerk on the letter to the Criminal Technical Institute of 26 March 1942 are an anomaly supporting his forgery hypothesis. I have previously rebutted this by pointing out there are only very few reference documents and that precisely this variation to the otherwise formally matching references actually makes the forgery hypothesis implausible easily trumped by the explanation that it would be an exception to a rule in the RSHA bureaucracy. 

Even this last remaining "anomaly" is now pulverised. On 27 May 1940, the head of the RSHA office II B 3 on political churches (after March 1941 office IV B on ideological enemies) Albert Hartl set up a memo on a "conversation with SS-Oberführer Nebe of 25 May on astrology" (reproduced in Rathert, Verbrechen und Verschwörung: Arthur Nebe, p. 80). The memo has the typed initials of the author and the RSHA clerk right after the office designation: "Ht./Pi.", just as in the carbon copy of Rauff's letter.

This demonstrates - on an entirely innocent document - that it was a possible practise in the RSHA to include the initials of author and clerk in documents for their own files. This is once again an example how Alvarez has drawn a serious, far reaching (still implausible and ultimately false) conclusion based on his fatal historical and logical ignorance.

Friday, June 24, 2016

Update on Rebuttal of Alvarez on Gas Vans: The Ford Gas Wagon

Rebuttal of Alvarez on Gas Vans

Santiago Alvarez claimed that, according to the West-German trial verdict against Heinz Rie., there were "only" six hearsay witnesses on a homicidal gas van used by the Secret Field Police in Mogilev (GFP 570) and that the "story sounds more like a rumor than an established fact". However, as pointed out in the original posting, the verdict actually cited three eyewitnesses and five hearsay witnesses - all members of GFP 570 - on the operation of the gas van. Now, according to a report by West-German investigators, there is in fact much more evidence on the existence and operation of this vehicle available.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Mattogno on Klooga

In chapter 13 of Mattogno, Graf and Kues’ magnum opus[1], with the self-descriptive title "Asinine, Judeophantic Arrogance", Mattogno dwells at length (pp. 1481 to1484, plus images on pages 1485 and 1486) on the massacre of mostly Jewish inmates of the Klooga forced labor camp in Estonia in September 1944. I’ll address his arguments in this respect because they briefly touch the subjects of fuel requirements and duration of cremation[2] and my name is mentioned, and also because they further reveal Mattogno’s ill-reasoning and intellectual dishonesty.

Monday, June 20, 2016

Mattogno’s Cremation Encyclopedia (Part 4)

Introduction and Part 1, Section 1
Part 1, Section 2a
Part 1, Section 2b
Part 2, Section 1
Part 2, Section 2
Part 2, Section 3
Part 2, Section 4
Part 2, Section 5
Part 3, Section 1
Part 3, Section 2
Part 4

Cremation Remains

As Mattogno rightly pointed out in his otherwise self-defeating statement addressed in Part 2, Section 5, it follows from my assumption of an incomplete combustion of the corpses on the extermination camps’ pyres (an assumption that, as we have seen, is borne out by ample evidence) that I must consider an amount of human cremation remains "much higher than the theoretical".

Saturday, June 18, 2016

Mattogno’s Cremation Encyclopedia (Part 3, Section 2)

Introduction and Part 1, Section 1
Part 1, Section 2a
Part 1, Section 2b
Part 2, Section 1
Part 2, Section 2
Part 2, Section 3
Part 2, Section 4
Part 2, Section 5
Part 3, Section 1
Part 3, Section 2
Part 4

Duration of Cremations (2)

Based on a number of eyewitness testimonies and a secondary source, the construction and size of a Bełżec cremation grate was reconstructed by Sara Berger as follows[271] (my translation):
Together with some comrades and guards Gley obtained ten railway rails about ten meters long, trolley rails and huge stones. They mounted the rails onto the stones, so that these, together with the trolley rails meant to keep the corpses from sliding through, formed a heightened grid roaster. With the help an excavator and the reinforced working detachment they alternately placed corpses and wood on the railway rails, poured flammable liquid like oil and gasoline over the corpses and ignited them. The Jewish »burning detachment« had to keep the fire going and see to it that the corpses burned completely.

Monday, June 13, 2016

Sunday, June 12, 2016

Mattogno's "Bunkers" Conspiracy Theory

Carlo Mattogno claimed in his book The Bunkers of Auschwitz that the alleged fact that the term "bunkers" does not appear in the earliest testimonies of Henryk Tauber, Szlama Dragon and Rudolf Höss means something ominous:
The first thing to note is that Dragon, at the time of the Soviet deposition, did not yet know the terms ‘Bunker 1’ and ‘Bunker 2,’ allegedly used even by the SS. (p.75) 
What strikes us here in this respect, is the use of the term “bunkers I and II.” As we have already seen, the term ‘Bunker’ was coined at Auschwitz during the Judge Jan Sehn’s investigation no later than April 1945. (p.135) 
During the trial session of March 11, 1947, Hoess finally adapted himself to the Polish ‘truth’ and its terminology, speaking explicitly of ‘Bunker 1’ and‘Bunker 2’: [...]
The obvious difference between the British and the Polish versions of Hoess’ ‘confessions’ is thus further proof of the fact that they expressed the propaganda orientation of the respective interrogators. (p.139)
In my partial response "Carlo Mattogno, the failed Dragon-slayer" I characterized this attempt at muddying the waters as follows:
Mattogno concocts a whole conspiracy theory - the term "Bunker" was invented by the Poles and adopted by the witnesses. Then it was forced upon even the witnesses who were in the Western Allies' hands, like Aumeier and Hoess.
A seemingly reasonable reading of Mattogno's own words, right?