Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Again!

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2280
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Ag

Postby borjastick » 4 years 9 months ago (Tue Jan 14, 2014 7:40 am)

Classic tactics, never accept the premise of the question and try to smear your opponent. All the time avoiding the details and content of any answer simply by not giving one. The holocaust promoters know they are beaten on the key points of the myth, they know it's a hoax and never ever want to discuss the substantive elements of their ridiculous claims.

Further they try to move the goal posts and obfuscate the position. They find it difficult to give direct answers to direct questions let alone supply incontrovertible proof of mass murder etc. This is understandable given that they don't have it and never will.


'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Ag

Postby Werd » 4 years 8 months ago (Sun Feb 02, 2014 4:59 am)

Well, well, well, I had to see it to believe it. David Irving's fpp.co.uk site hosts the HC cut and paste manifesto.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Belzec/Belzec%20etc.pdf

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Ag

Postby Werd » 4 years 8 months ago (Wed Feb 05, 2014 2:38 pm)

I wonder if David Irving is even aware of the 1500 page response from Mattogno, Graf and Kues. If he is, but he does not host it, another question will arise. Has he not read it and is just in the process considering hosting it - and is witholding judgement until he has read it? Or has he read it and found the unflattering references to him in the book which claim that he was never a serious revisonist - and therefore refused to host it? Or does he know about the huge MGK response but is refusing to host it since Graf put the screws to him years ago in that open letter which he published as an essay?
Juergen Graf on David Irving & the Aktion Reinhardt Camps

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Ag

Postby Werd » 4 years 7 months ago (Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:54 am)

Werd wrote:I am halfway through the tome already. As for the HC crowd, they have been caught censoring comments on Roberto's blog.
http://hateblogwatch.nazihunter.net/for ... ?f=3&t=287

Roberto must be really butt hurt over that. I figured he would just post a link to his own blog where he rants against Lisciotto and 'refutes' the allegations against him in an article or two. No, he just deletes it. I am not surprised because one of the links included was this one which gives the full unadulterated story of the criminal activity of the HC crowd.
http://deathcamps.org/editorial/2013%20Part%202.html

That doesn't work but this is the one does.
http://hateblogwatch.nazihunter.net/The ... 0HEART.htm

Comment posted on Roberto's blog.
Jonathan Harrison said...

Gilles, many thanks. MGK partly take this position because they never really engaged with secondary literature before 2011, so they don't see how research relates to work done by previous scholars.

MGK have a fallacy that a man walks into an archive having done no previous reading, and he builds his hypothesis only from the primary documents he sees. He must never have any faith in the translation done by a previous scholar.

Furthermore, there are times when MGK contradict this by using other people's translations, such as Donat's translation for Wiernik. They clearly did not translate every witness statement they have ever cited from the original language text, such as Yiddish. The fetish for the original language cannot always be satisfied because of access and availability of the originals.
Tuesday, October 08, 2013 11:29:00 am

Somebody is surely pissed off that Mattogno, Graf and Kues have shown many examples about how quotes allegedly showing an intent to exterminate all Jews were LIFTED OUT OF CONTEXT from documents. I guess it just irritates these boys how entire paragraphs were quoted in PROPER GERMAN by Mattogno in the PDF file and were followed by an English translation. How could they make this mistake you may ask? Because Mattogno was right in that they largely copied and pasted claims from other books and just copied their footnotes without checking for the documents themselves. If they had, they would not have made these grave mistakes. So the HC crew's retorts to Mattogno's arguments fall flat on their faces.

No one is denying for example that footnotes are an acceptable way to tell your reader about further reading material that would back up your case. But at least have the decency to put things in your footnotes that you have already fucking read yourself and not just copy footnotes from someone else whose work you clearly plagarize. If the HC crew had done just that, they would not have been caught with their pants down putting out quotes that allegedly prove an intent to exterminate, that WHEN READ IN FULL from the actual documents that mattogo HAD THE DECENCY TO TRACK DOWN AND REPRODUCE IN GERMAN IN HIS BOOK, prove just the opposite.

Whine all you want, guys. It won't change a thing. Your scholarship has stooped to the level of Alan Dershowitz, the key plagarist of Joan Peters long ago debunked book on palestine. Pathetic. Not even serious Zionists stand by Peters' work anymore. They wish to forget it. Only idiotic Zionist Christians who disregard the new testament basically still push her crap around.

The holocaust exterminationists are right. The HC arguments are lousy and embarrassing.

On a side note, I was reading Lectures on the Holocaust and in a postscript, Rudolf mentions that Jurgen Graf has translated Mattogno's works FROM Italian INTO German and English. And with this new book currently only in Italian, I find out Jurgen Graf is able to translate from Russian into Italian, which he can then translate into German and English as already stated. So Graf can read Italian, Russian, German and English. That is impressive. Four languages. From Mattogno's biography I see that "In his youth he carried out advanced linguistic studies in Latin, Greek and Hebrew". From reading his works, I detect that he also knows Polish and German. Could it be that this education forms a bit of jealousy in the parts of the HC crowd? Combined with the fact that these revisionists have been to more archives than them? And also, does anyone know how good Mattogno's Greek and Hebrew is? Could Mattogno say pick up a Talmud and read the Mishnah if he wanted?

avatar
Friedrich Paul Berg
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 938
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 11:16 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Ag

Postby Friedrich Paul Berg » 4 years 7 months ago (Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:07 pm)

Juergen Graf's linguistic skills are truly phenomenal; he is a genius. I believe Graf told me once that he can understand about 35 languages and most of them are NOT Indo-European. The Swiss from my experience have great language skills in general--but even for a Swiss-German, Graf is a phenomenon. At a revisionist conference in Germany that I attended at the invitation of Germar Rudolph, Graf translated the speeches and questions into Italian, French, German and English--back and forth--as the speeches and comments and questions were being made with short pauses during which he gave the translated texts in all four languages from his memory alone. He also writes extremely well. I have said he is probably the best writer among us who also understands the technical arguments well enough to even improve upon them.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at http://www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!
Last edited by Friedrich Paul Berg on Mon Feb 24, 2014 8:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Holocaust story is a hoax because 1) no one was killed by the Nazis in gas chambers, 2) the total number of Jews who died in Nazi captivity is miniscule compared to what is alleged.

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1669
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Ag

Postby Kingfisher » 4 years 7 months ago (Mon Feb 24, 2014 4:50 pm)

I have to agree that Graf is probably the most readable Revisionist. No one item really did it for me but The Giant Feet of Clay and L'Holocauste sous le Scanner were among those that made me realise the Revisionists had a strong case and were very probably right. DenierBud finally tipped the scales with Buchenwald.

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Ag

Postby Werd » 4 years 6 months ago (Tue Mar 25, 2014 12:08 pm)

Jonathan Harris has hit back.
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... -2013.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... -2010.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... iceny.html

And in the most recent one.
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... olicy.html
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Mattogno's Deceptions on Nazi Policy: An Updated Analysis

We are currently preparing the 2nd edition of our White Paper, which will update our analysis of the lies, distortions, evasions and pro-Nazi rhetoric in the work of MGK on the policy and camps of Aktion Reinhard. This current blog series previews some of the arguments in my contribution, which will primarily be my response to the ludicrous claims by Mattogno in Chapter 5 of MGK's 'riposte', published in September 2013, which can be read here.

Mattogno's approach the history of Nazi policy follows the same trajectory that Elizabeth Strakosch identified here in the writing of Rassinier:

Instead of basing his history on the convergence of evidence (overwhelming oral testimony, documents, etc), he based it on a convergence of doubt. Unable to cast doubt on the undeniable fact of the camps, he made isolated attacks on various aspects of the seemingly unified narrative of the Holocaust. He concluded that these various errors were linked together by a political conspiracy of the victors, rather than by the fact of the Holocaust. Thus he established the basic pattern of denial - dividing the event into its component parts and attacking smaller targets, thereby casting doubt on the whole without confronting it [Elizabeth Strakosch, 'The Political Methodology of Genocide Denial', Dialogue , 2005, 3/3, p.9].

Mattogno's writing strategy on the three Aktion Reinhard camps was to establish a "convergence of doubt" regarding the "official version." This convergence is then combined with a paranoid epistemology, defined by the exaggerated powers that the paranoiac gives to the forces of darkness. It is a form of chimeria which ignores the fact that the evidence of extermination of the Jews rests on thousands of pieces contained in archives built across continents and decades; documents, testimonies and excavations that converge to a positive conclusion, not a negative.

I can't stop laughing at this. Further down below you will see why. One word hint: Stroop!

P.S. Mattogno's evisceration of Van Pelt in THE CASE FOR SANITY must still be irritating to you guys. Especially his exposure of the unscientific claims of Tauber. That must really irritate you.


The first edition of our White Paper presented only a fraction of the total volume because no work could contain it all without expanding to tens of thousands of pages and millions of words. Equally, the paranoid mind of Mattogno refuses to grasp what is obvious to any neutral, namely that it would be impossible to silence thousands of witnesses to a Jewish resettlement in the East; that a vast number of false confessions by SS officials cannot go unexposed indefinitely without someone retracting or resiling; that no resettled population entirely disappears in modern times without leaving a trace of how it disappeared; that no bureaucracy has yet been devised that could construct a body of thousands of pieces of evidence that converge on one conclusion, namely that the Nazis said they were going to exterminate the Jews and then regularly left traces in documents and physical evidence of this extermination.


I want to remind the readers that Jonathan Harrison and the rest are still butt hurt over the plagraism exposed in chapter 3 that I have already mentioned.

Furthermore, THIS ARGUMENT ITSELF proceeds from a straw man. Nobody is arguing that thousands of witnesses would lie to cover up Jews being transferred to the East and surviving. In fact there have been many reports of Jews making it to the East and never being exterminated in gas chambers or being worked to death. What we are saying is that for many years, evidence of mass transports devoid of any murderous nature has been locked away in archives and only a few years ago did we start getting a glimpse into them.

J. Graf and the illogical canard: 'Where did Jews go then?'

The strategy of convergence of doubt can be quantified. Mattogno's Belzec spends 96 pages on negation before only 12 pages on his alternative account.

Mattogno's Belzec book, despite having a few minor problems one can nitpick at, also made note of absurd and impossible atrocity stories regarding that camp. In the new tome by MGK, Mattogno in an early chapter traces the origins and history of the atrocity propaganda against the Germans. I can't wait to see what distortions and excuses made about that propaganda will be made in the second edition of the white paper.

I wonder if Harrison will also tell his reading audience that the gas chamber propaganda about Dachau was well in place and well prepared.

hermod @ Daily Mail peddles gas chambers in Dachau (again)
Does that matter Allied 'reporters' were already talking about gas chambers at Dachau two and a half years before the beginning of WW2?


Harrison continues on.
The strategy of convergence of doubt can be quantified. Mattogno's Belzec spends 96 pages on negation before only 12 pages on his alternative account. In MGK's Sobibor, the ratio is 346 to 54.

Maybe if there weren't so many lies and scientific absurdities, he wouldn't have to spend so much time on 'negation' as you call it.


In MG's Treblinka the ratio is 176 to 124, but many of the 124 pages of alternative exaplanation spent either on events that occurred before September 1941 (pp.179-183) or on casting doubt on documents such as the Ereignismeldungen (p.204) and the Stroop Report (p. 283).

Still peddling the refuted and documented hoax that is the Stroop report? Have these guys not been paying attention? Unbelievable.

Stroop Report forger misidentified large gun
Stroop Report forger misidentified large gun

Continuing on...
Moreover, these pages display an extraordinary double standard of doubting the exterminatory aspects of the documents (such as Stroop's 56,065 "proven killed") whilst displaying extreme gullibility in looking favourably on the Nazis' stated reasons for killing Jews. For example, Mattogno here callously excuses the claim in Activity and Situation Report no. 6 that "in Mogilev 337 Jewesses had to be shot" because they "displayed especially rebellious behaviour." Mattogno sweeps these murders under the blanket assertion that, in eastern Poland:


The “Soviet Jews” were shot, while the great majority of the remaining resident Jewish population was ghettoized. But also many other eastern Jews were killed: on account of sabotage, anti-German activities, as carriers of diseases, and above all as retaliatory measures for partisan attacks.


This is both gullible in how it accepts the murder of 337 women on the grounds of the Nazis' own claims about "rebellious behaviour" (whilst not querying why the Nazis did not spell out how that behaviour was defined) but also dishonest in omitting the fact that the ghettos of eastern Poland were mostly liquidated in 1942.

I quite frankly don't see why 337 Jewesses should be shot for 'rebellious behavior." Also, it does seem to be common knowledge that Nazis threatened partisan or Nazi resitance with a two-fold or sometimes even higher ratio of retaliation which may have included people who did nothing. To me, this is, and would be, despicable and unjustified. While you may ask questions about the justifications of such actions, we may ask why you white paper authors continue to push hoaxes and ignore evidence of mass Jews transported to the East without being murdered and falsely believing their family members died. If you check out this topic and truly read every word, you will begin to realize how a few isolated cases of Jews mistakenly believing their relatives were dead could number much higher than hundreds. Perhaps thousands. Why don't you guys petition Russia to open up their archives again instead of wasting your time making excuses for citing papers and documents proven to be hoaxes like the Stroop report?

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Ag

Postby Werd » 4 years 6 months ago (Tue Mar 25, 2014 2:11 pm)

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... iceny.html
Lying about the dating of Orders: the Wisliceny Testimonies
Mattogno began writing about Nazi policy in the 1980s. A recurrent theme in that writing has been his attempts to demonstrate that Hitler could not have given an order to exterminate Europe's Jews by the dates claimed by what he calls the "orthodox historiography." Two of the sources he has repeatedly used to make this case are the testimonies provided by Wisliceny at Nuremberg and from prison in Bratislava. Mattogno's devious sleight of hand with these sources shows a long-term technique being perfected of "bait and switch", whereby a testimony is quoted by Mattogno but then an entirely different précis of its contents is given afterwards.

Yep. That clever old Italian nazi who refuted the nonsense about chimneys belching fire years ago
http://vho.org/tr/2004/1/Mattogno73-78.html
is also plotting to trick his readers over the span of around almost two full decades. Must be true.

Mattogno's Bratislava testimony (which is copied here) was quoted by Mattogno back in 1988 in The Myth of the Extermination of the Jews, where Mattogno stated that:

In a report drawn up in Bratislava November 18, 1944 [the year was actually 1946: JH], Dieter Wisliceny, former Hauptsturmführer and Eichmann's representative in Slovakia, affirmed that to his knowledge "the decision of Hitler that ordered the biological extermination of European Judaism [sic]" must be dated back to "after the beginning of the war with the United States," that is, it would have been after 11 December 1941.

In his "Olocausto: dilettanti allo sbaraglio" (see the full work in Italian here), Mattogno provided a longer excerpt from the Bratislava testimony, which still clearly implies a cumulative radicalization starting after the US entry into the war. The translation below comes via Google Translate:

[118] The second wave of tightening--continues Wisliceny--occurred after the US entry into the war. [...]. In this period, after the outbreak of war with the United States, must fall, in my belief, Hitler's decision that ordered biological extermination of European Jewry [...]. The order of Himmler that Eichmann showed me in August 1942 dated back to the spring of 1942; certainly the order of Hitler had been given some time before, because in the order of Himmler the exemption [Zurückstellung] of the Jews able to work constituted the main object.

This excerpt clearly refers to two orders: the Hitler order then a later order by Himmler exempting essential labour from immediate extermination. However, in his 2013 riposte to our White Paper, Mattogno brazenly falsified this context by declaring, on page 268, that:

Harrison lies without reservation in saying that “Wisliceny referred to an extermination order by Himmler in April 1942, because Himmler explicitly referred to the Führer order for the “final solution of the Jewish question,” which for Wisliceny was given by Hitler at that time and for the first time.


The liar here is Mattogno, because the text of Wisliceny's Nuremberg affadavit (see here) concurs with his Bratislava one quoted above:

I was sent to Berlin in July or August 1942 in connection with the status of Jews from Slovakia, which mission is referred to more fully hereinafter. I was talking to Eichmann in his office in Berlin when he said that on written order of Himmler all Jews were to be exterminated. I requested to be shown the order. He took a file from the safe and showed me a top secret document with a red border, indicating immediate action. It was addressed jointly to the Chief of the Security Police and SD and to the Inspector of Concentration Camps. The letter read substantially as follows:

"The Fuehrer has decided that the final solution of the Jewish question is to start immediately. I designate the Chief of the Security Police and SD and the Inspector of Concentration Camps as responsible for the execution of this order. The particulars of the program are to be agreed upon by the Chief of the Security Police and SD and the Inspector of Concentration Camps. I am to be informed currently as to the execution of this order."

The order was signed by Himmler and was dated some time in April 1942. Eichmann told me that the words "final solution" meant the biological extermination of the Jewish race, but that for the time being able-bodied Jews were to be spared and employed in industry to meet current requirements. I was so much impressed with this document which gave Eichmann authority to kill millions of people that I said at the time : "May God forbid that our enemies should ever do anything similar to the German people". He replied : "Don't be sentimental-this is a Fuehrer order". I realized at that time. that the order was a death warrant for millions of people and that the power to execute this order was in Eichmann's hands subject to approval of Heydrich and later Kaltenbrunner. The program of extermination was already under way and continued until late 1944. There was no change in the program during Kaltenbrunner's administration.


Perhaps I am not understanding the English or the intent of the original Italian of Mattogno. Here is a rough timeline.

December 11/12 1941. US enters war
Somewhere in December 12/13 1941 - January 19 1942, Hitler allegedly decides to exterminate all Jews.
January 20 1942 is the Wansee conference convened to allegedly carry out this oral Hitler order.
Spring 1942 Himmler orders execution of Jews, thus backing up Hitler's order.
July/August 1942, Eichmann shows Wisliceny the written Himmler order. Himmler ordered jews to be saved for some labour.

So what does it mean for mattogno to say,

"Harrison lies without reservation in saying that “Wisliceny referred to an extermination order by Himmler in April 1942,” because Himmler explicitly referred to the Führer order for the “final solution of the Jewish question,” which for Wisliceny was given by Hitler at that time and for the first time."

Well Harrison explains.

There is nothing in this statement that says Hitler's order was given at the same time as it was transmitted to Wisliceny.

Is that what Mattogno is saying?

Himmler's order refers to a decision to implement the Final Solution with immediate effect, but implementation is not the same as the original decision. Both of Wisliceny's statements are compatible with a Hitler decision in December in principle to murder the Jews, followed by a further decision by Hitler or Himmler in April to begin full-scale implementation, which Himmler then modified by temporarily exempting labour that was now needed in SS camps to replace Soviet POW labour.

Harrison is claiming that Himmler ordered a modification of the oral Hitler order. Himmler decided to reserve some Jews for labor without the approval of Hilter because this was apparently not in the Hitler order - according to Harrison. Since the game here is to attack mattogno's interpretation of Wisliceny's tesimony, we will stick to that subject. Let us read Mattogno's quote in full as opposed to the chopped version Harrison gives us. From page 268 of TECOAR.

[62] “Mattogno’s treatment of Wisliceny’s testimony is just as poor. Wisliceny referred to an extermination order by Himmler in April 1942 that gave a temporary exemption to Jews required for essential labour. Mattogno gives no plausible reason why Himmler did not have that authority by that date to issue such an exemption without requiring a superior Hitler order.” (p. 116)

Here once more Harrison proves his own dishonesty. Himmler’s alleged order of April 1942, according to Wisliceny, went along the following lines:522

“The Fuehrer had ordered the final solution of the Jewish question [der Führer hätte die Endlösung der Judenfrage befohlen]; the Chief of the Security Police and the SD and the Inspector of Concentration Camps were entrusted with carrying out this so-called final solution. All Jewish men and women who were able to work were to be temporarily exempted from the so-called final solution and used for work in the concentration camps. This letter was signed by Himmler himself. I could not possibly be mistaken since Himmler’s signature was well known to me.”

Harrison lies without reservation in saying that “Wisliceny referred to an extermination order by Himmler in April 1942,” because Himmler explicitly referred to the Führer order for the “final solution of the Jewish question,” which for Wisliceny was given by Hitler at that time and for the first time. Harrison feigns to believe that the order originated from Himmler, while from the context it clearly results that it was Hitler’s order (“The Fuehrer had ordered…”) which had been signed by Himmler to guarantee its supposed authenticity. Therefore it is clear that the “exemption” was part of Hitler’s order (and it was not only valid “for essential labour,” but simply “for work”) and therefore Himmler did not have any authority to change it, in any other way.

Hmmmmm. Perhaps this is why Harrison only quoted part of Mattogno's response in point 62? Because it proves Harrison wrong that Himmler came up with the idea of reserving some Jews for labor in some camps instead of Hitler? Harrison has admitted that Himmler is relaying a Hitler order but he refuses to prove or explain why Hitler would not have made an order to reserve some Jews for labour and Himmler had to step in and do it.


Why did Mattogno lie?

Okay, here it comes. :lol:

Mattogno wishes his readers to believe that the term Endlösung was used to refer to resettlement from July 1941 onwards, with no change of meaning thereafter. This entire baiting and switching of Wisliceny's accounts was therefore done to deny the real meaning of the Wannsee document, in which Endlösung clearly meant killing. Mattogno chooses to believe Wisliceny's account when Mattogno can twist his dating to give a false picture that Hitler did not give an extermination order until after Wannsee.

Is that in fact that Mattogno is arguing? Is that what Mattogno means by saying that in August 1942 Hitler's order was given at that time and for the first time? No. Because Mattogno in point 62 above is not trying to change the chronology of anything. He takes for granted that Himmler's order dates to April 1942. And he also takes for granted that Himmler is, in writing, relaying an oral Hitler order that obviously predates the Himmler's April 1942 written order. So if Mattogno admits that Himmler's order comes from April 1942, then it makes no sense for Mattogno to then claim that this order was given in August 1942 at that time and for the first time. What Mattogno is saying is that when Wisliceny met Eichmann in August 1942 who showed him the Himmler order from April 1942, which was in fact a summary of an oral Hitler order, that was the first time Wisliceny had ever heard of it. In other words, the order "was given by Hitler at that time and for the first time." Yeah...FOR WISLICENY. From his personal, subjective, point of view. We have the chronology of Himmler in April, and Eichmann/Wisliceny in August. So let's read the quote again...

Himmler explicitly referred to the Führer order for the “final solution of the Jewish question,” which for Wisliceny was given by Hitler at that time and for the first time.

It was the first time the order was given...FOR WISLICENY. Harrison is splitting hairs here. Yes, it is a Himmler order written down in April 1942, but ultimately it was a Hitler order. THAT is what Mattogno is getting at. Mattogno is not altering anything. Harrison is grasping at straws here.


This is then used by Mattogno to attack Hilberg for supposedly suppressing the Wisliceny affadavit. For example, in Olocausto: dilettanti allo sbaraglio, Mattogno writes:

we understand easily why Hilberg and his colleagues did not mention Wisliceny's memorandum, which would force them to admit that the term Endlösung at the Wannsee Conference referred to the final solution of the Jewish question "in the form of resettlement."


This is pure fantasy on Mattogno's part, caused by his falsification of Wisliceny's testimonies. Such a modus operandi can be found throughout Mattogno's works.

Again, Mattogno has not falsified anything. Harrison has constructed a strawman based on his inability to actually understand the intent of the words Mattogno has used.

Okay, so we have TESTIMONIES about Wansee. What about EVIDENCE? Jewish authors have admitted that we can not know much about Wansee and what they really meant when they used certain words. That is, unless we check what happened after. We can only verify Wansee if we can verify the gas chambers and the six million number. But what happens when that evidence is lacking and revisionists like mattogno tear huge holes in absurd testimonies like that of Tauber? Well then the exterminationists reverse tactics and point to Wansee to prove the holocaust. So in other words, Wansee decided on extermination because the holocaust happened with gas chambers and six million. And how do we know about the six million and the gas chambers aside from the oh so reliable testimony of frauds like Tauber? Because of what was decided at Wansee. The exterminationists love their circular logic.

"Ausrottung"/"ausrotten" explained

Let's read point 63 which Harrison also refused to discuss.

Pages 269-272.

[63] “Moreover, Wisliceny’s claim is supported by documentation that Mattogno ignores. On May 18, 1942, Müller wrote to Jäger, following the execution of 630 workers in Minsk, to inform him that Jews aged 16-32 in these camps were to be ‘excluded from special measures until further notice.’ Peter Longerich has concluded using documentation from the GG that Himmler actually gave this order on May 18. Thus the order dated by Wisliceny for April 1942 can actually be documented as having been given in May.” (p. 116)

The question is not quite as simple as Harrison presents it. His source, Peter Longerich, wrote in this regard:523

“At the end of April or the beginning of May [1942], the decision was seemingly taken to murder any Jews indiscriminately and with immediate effect. Apparently, at the end of April or in May 1942, the Nazi regime decided
to extend the murder of the Jews of Lublin and Galicia to the entire Generalgouvernement. At the same time, the decision must have been taken to murder en masse the Jews of Upper Silesia.”

He then adds:524

“One significant indication of Himmler’s order in May 1942 to extend the murders has been obtained. In the middle of May 1942, Gestapo chief Müller told the commander of the security police in Riga, Jäger, that, in accordance with a ‘general order of the Reichsführer SS and chief of the German police,’ any ‘Jews and Jewesses fit for work aged between 16 and 32 are to be excluded from the ‘special measures’ until further notice. These Jews are to be assigned to use as closed labour. Concentation camp or labour camp.’”

Wisliceny spoke of a general extermination order by the Führer relating to the “final solution [Endlösung]” dating from April 1942 in which it was stated that the Jews fit for work were temporarily excluded from extermination, without age limitation. Longerich refers instead to a Himmler order of May 1942 which extended to the General Government
a previous order by Hitler, but with a temporary exemption of the Jews able to work between 16 and 32 years old. It is obvious that Longerich’s statements do not confirm Wisliceny’s statements at all. This interpretation only complicates further an already tangled matter. Gerlach describes the significance of the Wannsee conference of 20 January 1942 as follows:525

“First, it was a precondition not just for the execution of the ‘eastern Jews’ but also for the extermination of German and western European Jews. Second, it was closely connected with Hitler’s fundamental decision to proceed with the liquidation of all Jews living in Europe. In my opinion, Hitler made this decision in early December 1941.”

The Wannsee protocol does not explicitly say what fate was reserved for those unable to work (except in one case, which I will analyze below) however it states expressly:526

“Unter entsprechender Leitung sollen nun im Zuge der Endlösung die
Juden in geeigneter Weise im Osten zum Arbeitseinsatz kommen.”
“In the course of the final solution the Jews are slated to be deployed
for labor in the East under appropriate supervision and in an adequate
manner.”

The consequence – from an exterminationist point of view – is that Hitler’s supposed extermination order of early December 1941 envisaged, at least temporarily, the exemption of the Jews fit for work from that “final solution” which referred to “all Jews living in Europe,” including the ones living in the General Government. Therefore the alleged
Himmler order of May 1942 does not make any sense, because both the extermination order and the exemption had already been given by Hitler in December 1941 for the General Government as well. With regards to the Jews unable to work, the alleged Himmler order presupposes an order by Hitler for a total Jewish extermination, those fit for work included, issued no later than the one given in December 1941 (excluding from direct extermination the Jews fit for work), which was then modified by the Reichsführer-SS by excluding the Jews fit for work.

Of this alleged Himmler order no other trace exists outside the document mentioned by Harrison, and this requires a comment. Harrison adduces for it the following source: “FS Müller an Jäger, Betr.: Endgültige Lösung der Judenfrage, 18.5.1942, RGVA 500-1-25, p. 379” (footnote 121 on p. 116). Ignoring that “FS” means “Fernschreiben”
(telegram), Harrison states that “Müller wrote to Jäger,” as if it had been a normal letter. I present the original text of the document:527

“Riga Ft. [Funktelegramm?] Nr. 1533
Geheim.
An den Kommandeur Sipo u. SD Litauen,
SS-Standartenfuehrer Jaeger.
Im Auftrage des Befehlshabers der Sipo und des SD gebe ich folgendes
Ft. zur Kenntnis:
Geheime Reichssache
Betrifft: Endgiltige [sic] Loesung der Judenfrage.
Nach Mitteilung des OKH [Oberkommando des Heeres] sind beim HKP
[Heeres-Kraftfahrzeug-Park] 630 in Minsk als Fachhandwerker beschaeftigte
Juden, trotz gegenteiliger Zusage kuerzlich Sonderbehandlungen unterzogen
worden, wodurch angeblich Leistungspotential dieser Stelle wesentlich
beeintraechtigt wurde. Zutreffendenfalls bitte ich kuenftig in Ausfuehrung
einer generellen Anordnung des Reichsfuehrers SS [sic] und
Chefs der deutschen Polizei, arbeitsfaehige Juden und Juedinnen im Alter
von 16 bis 32 Jahren, bis auf weitere Weisung von Sondermaxnahmen [sic]
auszunehmen. Diese Juden sind dem geschlossenen Arbeitseinsatz zuzufuehren.
KZ oder Arbeitslager.
i.V. gez. Mueller, SS-Gruppenfuehrer” .

Translated:
“Riga Ft. [Radio telegram?] no. 1533
Secret.
To the Commander Sipo and SD Lithuania,
SS-Standartenfuehrer Jaeger.
On behalf of the Territorial Commander of the Sipo and of the SD I
submit the following Ft. for your attention:
Secret Reich matter
Regarding: final [with a misspelled letter in German] solution of the
Jewish question.
According to a communication of the OKH, 630 Jews employed in the
HKP [army motor pool] in Minsk were recently subjected, in spite of a
promise to the contrary, to special treatments, whereby reportedly the internal
efficiency of this institution was considerably impaired. In case of
this being true, I ask that in the future, in following a general directive by
Reichsführer-SS and Chief of the German Police, Jews and Jewesses in the
ages from 16 to 32 years able to work are exempted from special measures
[with a misspelled letter in German] until further notice. These Jews are to
be dispatched to closed working deployments. Concentration camp or labor
camp.
by proxy signed Mueller, SS-Gruppenfuehrer”

The document refers to Soviet Jews, whose fate, as I explained before, was different from that of other Jews. The formulation raises some doubts: the killings of Jews is referred to first as “special treatments,” then “special measures”; the age strata for those able to work is remarkably narrow: 16-32 years. Moreover, the document does not specify that all Jews are to undergo special measures/treatment. It’s a fallacy to claim that, if some Jews are to be protected from any reprisals, there is a policy to kill all Jews.

Already on 12 October 1941, Sonderkommando 1 of Einsatzgruppe
A referred to having ordered in Estonia:528

“1) Festnahme aller männlichen Juden über 16 Jahre,
2) Festnahme aller arbeitsfähigen, in Reval und Umgebung wohnhaften
Jüdinnen im Alter von 16 bis 60 Jahren, die zum Torfstechen eingesetzt
wurden.”
“1) Arrest of all male Jews over 16 years,
2) Arrest of all Jewesses able to work, domiciled in Reval and surroundings,
of the age from 16 to 60 years, who will be assigned to peat cutting.”

This, at least, makes more sense. Since, according to many orthodox holocaust historians, the order for “the execution of Soviet Jews would have occurred in July or August of 1941,”529 one must consider that it also temporarily excluded Jews fit for work, and therefore – again – what was the reason for Himmler’s order of May 1942?


Good question, Jonathan Harrison.

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Ag

Postby Werd » 4 years 6 months ago (Sun Mar 30, 2014 2:24 pm)

Harrison keeps trying.

"Mattogno's 'Riposte', 2013"
5 Comments
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 3391867530
The Black Rabbit of Inlé said...

Table 3, first point.

Here's how Mattogno began the 2.5 pages (pp. 179-181) he devoted to answering you on just this particular point:

"This document of course does contain chilling remarks on the prospective death by starvation of millions of people; indeed, in that sense Harrison might have found even more striking passages in it to quote from. Rather than evidence for the notion that, as Harrison puts it, “death was at the forefront of Nazi intentions for the Soviet population, with Jews at the front of the queue” (p. 95), what in fact emerges from a reading of the full document, however, is something quite different:"

Why have you chosen not to address what Mattogno did write in response to you on this matter?

Tuesday, March 25, 2014 5:41:00 pm

Jonathan Harrison said...

As I said in the introduction, this is a preview, not a full response. My full notes for this document are:

"M ignores the fact that transport to Siberia was explicitly ruled out in a passage M actually quotes. According to the doc's own formulation, this leaves on the table only the mass dying of millions. M then falsifies our own position by stating these deaths would be merely callous and necessary for the war effort, not "death for its own sake". We never claim that starvation planning was "death for its own sake."

Wednesday, March 26, 2014 12:21:00 am

1. Where does the document rule out transport to Siberia? Mattogno followed the footnote given out by Harrison on page 95 of the cut and paste manifesto and he provided German and English renditions in the pdf file of the 1500+ page book. "EC-126, IMT, vol. XXXVI, pp. 145, 153."

“From all this it results that the German administration in this area
might well strive to mitigate the consequences of the certainly impending
famine and to accelerate the naturalization process. One might strive to
cultivate these areas more intensively in terms of an increase of the area
cultivated with potatoes and other high-yielding crops important for consumption.
Famine in this region cannot [however] be avoided thereby.
Many tens of millions of people in this area will be superfluous and will
have to die or migrate to Siberia. A t t emp t s t o s a v e t h e p o p u -
l a t i o n t h e r e f r o m f a m i n e b y u s i n g t h e s u r p l u s p r o -
d u c t i o n f r o m t h e b l a c k - e a r t h z o n e c a n o n l y b e
m a d e a t t h e e x p e n s e o f p r o v i s i o n i n g E u r o p e . T h e y
u n d e r m i n e G e r m a n y ’ s c h a n c e s o f p e r s e v e r a n c e i n
t h e w a r , t h e y u n d e r m i n e G e r m a n y ’ s a n d E u r o p e ’ s
a b i l i t y t o e n d u r e t h e b l o c k a d e . The manufacturing industry
of Belgium and France is far more important to Germany and the German
war effort than that of Russia. It is thus much more important to secure the
nutritional needs of those areas with surpluses from the East, than to seek
out of ambition to preserve Russian industry in the [Soviet] consumption
zone. […]
T h e g u i d e l i n e i n a l l t h i n g s m u s t b e : n o d i s p e r -
s i o n [of resources] o n d e p e n d e n c i e s , b u t r e s o l u t i o n o f
t h e m a i n t a s k , r e l i e f o f t h e f o o d s i t u a t i o n o f
G r e a t e r G e r m a n y .” (Emph. in original)
In other words, what was “at the forefront”

Well Mr. mattogno, why the elipses if you claim this is the document in full? While I am a little disappointed on that front, the quote from Harrison does say, "The issue will be to redirect the population to the Siberian areas. As railway
transportation is out of the question, this problem will also be an extremely difficult one." All this means is that railway is not an option, but then the question becomes, what else could they have used? Probably nothing. Which is why Mattogno had to admit the "chilling remarks." But he did with a caveat. His long document quotation (starts in English on page 180), in fact shows the Germans WANTED to mitigate the situation of starving people but found there was little they could do because in order to keep those inhabitants of German conquered areas fed, they would have to divert food supplies from the greater Europe as well as Germany themselves. There is no conspiracy to deliberately withhold food from the populace. Harrison continues...

The omission of no transports to Siberia has obvious implications for the future resettlement of Jews as of May 1941.

Could that be what those elipses are about in that document Mattogno said would be read in full, but then was not read in full, because it had said elipses? I do have to ask what kind of game Mattogno is playing here. Harrison continues...

They won't be moved to Siberia on trains but will be shoved out by other means, which essentially means a Trail of Tears kind of genocide, even as of the May 1941 planning stage. Clearly Mattogno would want to suppress that and present the foreseen deaths as an unfortunate by-product of military and economic operations, rather than the planned deaths by neglect of tens of millions of a surplus population.

Okay so this document dates from 1941 in May. But wait a second, I thought Harrison was arguing from a different chronology earlier. Here is what I pieced together by going through his other article. This is according to him.

December 11/12 1941. US enters war
Somewhere in December 12/13 1941 - January 19 1942, Hitler allegedly decides to exterminate all Jews.
January 20 1942 is the Wansee conference convened to allegedly carry out this oral Hitler order.
Spring 1942 Himmler orders execution of Jews, thus backing up Hitler's order.
July/August 1942, Eichmann shows Wisliceny the written Himmler order. Himmler ordered jews to be saved for some labour.


So in other words, back in May 1941, before Hitler gave Himmler an order to exterminate the Jews, Hitler had made a pre-decision to exterminate the Jews before he later decided to make a real decision to exterminate the Jews. Or is Harrison arguing that some Nazis took it upon themselves back in May 1941, (and therefore prior to the printing of said document since logic dictates the ideas were in the minds of the document authors at least a little while before being put to paper) to exterminate the Jews behind Hitler's back while the Nazis were still having faith in the Madagascar Plan despite a temporary military setback? From wikipedia...

Plan abandoned

After Germany's failure to defeat the Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain in 1940, the invasion of Britain was postponed indefinitely. This meant the British merchant fleet would not be at Germany's disposal for use in evacuations, and planning for the Madagascar proposal stalled.[17] In late August 1940 Rademacher entreated Ribbentrop to hold a meeting at his Ministry to begin drawing up a panel of experts to consolidate the Plan. Ribbentrop never responded. Likewise, Eichmann's memorandum languished with Heydrich, who never approved it.[17] Establishment of ghettos in Warsaw and other cities in Poland resumed in August 1940.[20] Hitler continued to mention the Plan until February 1942, when the idea was permanently shelved.[21] British Empire forces took the island from Vichy France in the Battle of Madagascar in November 1942 and control was transferred to the Free French.

At the end of 1940, Hitler asked Himmler to draft a new plan for the elimination of the Jews of Europe, and Himmler passed along the task to Heydrich. His draft proposed the deportation of the Jews to the Soviet Union via Poland.[22] The later Generalplan Ost (General Plan for the East), prepared by Professor Konrad Meyer and others, called for deporting the entire population of occupied Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union to Siberia, either for use as slave labour or to be murdered after the Soviet defeat.[23] After the German failure in the Battle of Moscow in December 1941, Hitler resolved that the Jews of Europe were to be exterminated immediately rather than after the war, which now had no end in sight.[24] Since transporting masses of people into a combat zone would be impossible, Heydrich decided that the Jews would be killed in extermination camps set up in occupied areas of Poland.[25] The total number of Jews murdered during the resulting Holocaust is estimated at 5.5 to 6 million people.[26]

Perhaps if Harrison and his crew weren't so convulted and drowning in contradictions, pimping documented allies forgeries such as the Stroop report and making new arguments that change chronologies they have previously accepted and adopted in other articles of theirs, maybe people would take them more seriously.

All one has to do is start reading on page 177 of the huge Mattogno book to get points 1 and 2 before reading 3 (which is the point Harrison was arguing) and then read point 4, after 3 of course. The questions or issues Harrison is bringing up in round 2 are merely old wine in new bottles that have already been dealt with.

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Ag

Postby Werd » 4 years 6 months ago (Mon Mar 31, 2014 12:16 am)

Continuing on...
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 3391867530
Gilles Karmasyn said...

Hi, There is another epic fail from MGK in adressing the Greiser-Himmler correspondance over what to do with Polish people with tuberculosis: the Wilhelm Hagen letter to Hitler from 7th december 1942 (that the HC team had cited): it is a smoking, no, a firing gun proving that the "special treatment" hypothesis for those Polish people is murder, explicitely mentionned by Hagen as beeing what happens to Jews. It both proves that Jews are beeing murdered en masse and that "Special Treatment" is murder...

In MGK's blob, the Hagen letter is very carefully NOT examined from the Greiser-Himmler affair point of view. There is indeed some evasion about it, but from another perspective (always carefully uncorrelated to any other) on page 551-552. MGK carefull not to remind anyone it should be read in the the context of the Greiser-Himmler exchange... How pathetic.

Guess you would have pointed to that anyway.

Great job about how euphemisms are systematically litteraly taken and how clear and violent vocabulary is systematically downgraded as exageration or strong imagery.

Thursday, March 27, 2014 2:08:00 pm

In Mattogno's discussion of this document point 31 running pages 551-552, Mattogo quotes a line from the cut and paste manifesto.
“On December 1, 1942, the chief medical officer of Warsaw, Dr
Wilhelm Hagen, wrote a personal letter to Hitler protesting against the resettlements
of Poles in the Zamosc region, stating that the deportations appeared
to ‘proceed as with the Jews, that is, to kill them.’”
(p. 205)
The source adduced by Terry is “Stadtarzt Warschau an Hitler,
7.12.1942, BA NS19/1210, also AIPN NTN 412, p.3l cf. Aly/Heim,
Vordenker der Vernichtung, p.217. Hagen was, of course, sacked for
daring to make such a protest to Hitler himself” (footnote 302), but the
first reference is taken from the book by Aly and Heim and the page indicated
by him: “Brief Hagens an Hitler vom 7.12.1942; BA, NS
19/1210.”
Hilberg quotes this letter, dated 7 December, in a more ample context:
1144

“During a cabinet conference on the fight against tuberculosis, we were
told by the head of the Department of Population and Social Welfare,
Oberverwaltungsrat Weirauch, as a secret Reich matter, that it was
planned or considered during the resettlement of 200,000 Poles into the
east of the General Government for the purpose of the settlement [in their
place] of German defense farmers, to proceed with one third of the Poles –
70,000 old people and children under 10 years of age – as with the Jews,
that is, to kill them.”


Therefore in this letter the “terrible secret” which was supposed to
be covered by “euphemisms” is said to have been divulged in a ridicu-
lous context, as an example of killings which sounds like a forced introduction
of the issue. Even if the sentence were authentic, it does not
prove an extermination using “gas chambers” in “extermination
camps,” which is exactly what Terry has to demonstrate. After having
spent a considerable portion of the chapter rebutted here by listing reported
numerous local shootings of Jews in the General Government, it
would be hypocritical of Terry to imply that the mention of the killing
of Jews in the quote necessarily relate to the alleged mass murders in
the “extermination camps,” moreover so considering the large number
of Jews reportedly shot by the Einsatzgruppen until that time, including
Jews in eastern Galicia and former eastern Poland. Accordingly, any
generic reference to killings of Jews does not prove anything regarding
the “extermination camps.”

End point 131 from Mattogno. So Mattogno's only response is to say this does not prove these people died in gas chambers. That is correct, but what the HC writers are focusing on are the malicious, homicidal intent directed at one third of the Poles and therefore the issue about gas chambers or not as brought up by Mattogno should be classified as a red herring. It could very well be since they also have an argument of holocaust by bullets in their arsenal as well. Mattogno does appear to attempt to side step this issue I must say. However, he is right to bring up the Einsatzgruppen, because we all know the problems associated with the claims regarding what those units allegedly were able to accomplish. And secondly, some partisans were very vicious and didn't just wreck machinery or rail lines. Some of them captured, tortured and mutilated the genitals of German soldiers in Poland and in Russia. Mattogno is right that references to killings of Jews does not prove a mass extermination plan because there is no real context as to what kind of Jews these were, where they were killed and why they were killed by the Einsatzgruppen.

What I would like to know is how the possiblity or even likelihood of this document being authentic, can possibly mean that ALL USES of special treatment necessarily mean deliberate homicide. That to me is quite the non sequitor argument. Not every document with the phrase "special treatment" means deliberate homicide because Mattogno has proven that not only in his book SPECIAL TREATMENT, but he has also proven this to be the case in their new huge book.


Harrison then replies,

Jonathan Harrison said...

Thanks, indeed that's a hugely important document that Mattogno dismisses. Tellingly, Hagen says that the races of the southeast would need to undergo population reduction or limitation:

http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp ... G&b=395113

Saturday, March 29, 2014 10:31:00 am

Mattogno does not dismiss the document outright. He even admits many Jews were shot but he says they were in relation to partisan activities. To quote from Mattogno once again..."After having spent a considerable portion of the chapter rebutted here by listing reported numerous local shootings of Jews in the General Government, it would be hypocritical of Terry to imply that the mention of the killing of Jews in the quote necessarily relate to the alleged mass murders in the “extermination camps".

As was seen in recent posts in this older topic,
Legitimate Nazi Atrocities
the issue of the Einsatzgruppen and the alleged authenticity and reliability of all documents relating to how many they alleged killed and buried are at best questionable, and at worst, outright scientific fabrications given the time needed to kill as many and bury as many as claimed at times. Apparently, this still sticks on the craw of the HC writing team.

http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp ... G&b=395113
In December 1942, the public health officer (Amtsarzt) in Warsaw, Dr. Wilhelm Hagen, wrote a worried letter to Hitler. At a meeting on tuberculosis, he had learned from Weirauch that while resettling 200,000 Poles "so that German military peasants (Wehrbauern) could be settled," it was intended "to proceed against a third of the Poles70,000 old people and children under ten years old-in the same manner as against the Jews, that is, to kill them." Hagen suspected that "the idea probably arose because at the moment there seems to be no space for the Poles that are to be resettled, insofar as they cannot be utilized directly for labor work in the armaments industry.52

Hagen's scruples, however, involved only the fact that it was intended to proceed against the Poles "in the same manner. " He objected because, on the one hand, this would supply new grounds for agitation to the Reich's opponents in the General Government as well as in foreign countries and, on the other hand, in terms of the population policy, he thought such a procedure unreasonable:

From the perspective of population policy, thorough considerations have convinced me that we have no interest in the reduction of the size of the Polish population or the impairment of the upward population trend. Of all foreign laborers, the Pole should be regarded, in the racial sense, as an element that is close to us and very much less of a danger than the races of the southeast, whose population pressures we will not be able to withstand permanently with just our own strength.53

If one follows Hagen's line of argument, then genocide based on population policy was indeed something worth discussing, something already practiced; and Hitler and Hagen obviously agreed that, insofar as the Jews were concerned, population policy required that they be killed.

52. BA, NS 19/1210: Dr. Wilhelm Hagen, Stacltmedizinalrat von Warschau, to "Fuhrer des GroBdeutschen Reiches, Adolf Hitler," 7 Dec. 1942.

53. Ibid.

Although it does say to treat one third of the poles like they treat the Jews, we are not told which Jews and why. As already summarized, some Jews were shot as vicious partisans. This has been documented at most. But the lack of evidence for homicidal gas chambers, or the authenticity of the stroop report, or the accuracy of many Einsatzgruppen reports, or what was and wasn't discussed at Wansee still provide problems for the HC writers.

As I have said before, they are flipping the script when it suits them. They use documents to prove gas chambers and then they use gas chambers to prove documents. Here is one more example of HC nonsense.

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Ag

Postby Werd » 4 years 6 months ago (Mon Mar 31, 2014 1:57 am)

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... -2010.html
The year after Treblinka was published, Mattogno confronted Shermer and Grobman's Denying History. Part of his review first appeared here at the Adelaide Institute site in 2003, with translation and editing credited to Russ Granata, before a more formal release of the full work in The Revisionist in 2005 (see here). In this article, Mattogno introduces his systematic waving away of euphemisms. For example, in his discussion of Wannsee, Mattogno states that “in case of release” literally means released from custody, but if this meaning were correct, we would have to assume that the Nazis planned to keep surviving Jews in captivity for their full lifespan after working the others to death, a rather pointless and expensive exercise given that they could just kill the unfit and exhausted Jews in one procedure. This in turn exposes another insurmountable problem, namely Mattogno's inability to provide plausible motive.

Still pimping Wansee, I see. That gets you nowhere. Not even honest Jewish scholars believe that extermination of the entire Jewish population was decided upon there. What's next? the fraudulent stroop report? Oh wait. That's right. You guys are still trying that in your second round of arguments against MGK even though it still remains refuted from years back.

Mattogno then discussed Hitler's speeches and asked rhetorically, "Does this mean that Hitler literally believed the “Aryan peoples” would be physically annihilated in case the war was lost?" Mattogno simply forgets that this was indeed the message of Nazi propaganda from August 1941 onwards, starting with Goebbels' exploitation of Kaufmann's Germany Must Perish. I will return to this problem below.

Is this an admission that Kaufman's book contained homicidal tendancies? Some of which were played out in scenarios illustrated in the facts of Eisenhower's death camps and in books like John Sack's EYE FOR AN EYE or James Bacque's OTHER LOSSES. Regarding the latter, insults about Bacque being mainly a fiction writer aside (ad hominems therefore) do not disprove the facts that many military men came and talked to him and some under the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal.

Mattogno showed even greater blindness in passing over the meaning of Goebbels' entry of February 14, 1942, which he translated as “together with the annihilation of our enemies they shall experience their own annihilation.” Mattogno simply denied that Vernichtung in this context means physical destruction when applied to human beings. Mattogno then made his first attempt to wave away the diary entry of March 27, 1942, by making the ludicrous claim that Goebbels used the term "barbaric procedure" to refer purely to evacuations.

Really? Are we still doing this same old dance?
Drew J @ The Goebbels diary: a forgery?
Drew J @ The Goebbels diary: a forgery?

Finally, Mattogno dealt with Himmler's Posen speech by stating that “most of you will know what it means when 100 corpses are lying together, when 500 are lying there or when 1000 are lying there” refers to actions such as the repression of the Warsaw ghetto uprising. He also bizarrely argued that in the statement, “I am now talking of the evacuation of the Jews, of the extermination of the Jewish people,” Himmler had intended that “Ausrottung” was a synonym for “Evakuierung” rather than the latter being a pseudonym for the former. Mattogno repeats this idiocy on page 573 of the riposte.

Yawn.
"Ausrottung"/"ausrotten" explained

Mattogno was deeply unhappy that many historians no longer rely upon a single Hitler order, so he pretended that all such historiography “borders on parapsychology.” This pretence in turn relied upon the false assumption that, if the "orthodox historiography" were true, there would have had to be a single moment when “the policy of emigration/evacuation was abandoned in favour of extermination.” This is a fallacy of the excluded middle because it ignores the fact that radicalization from deportation plans that were already decimatory to a policy that included homicidal gas chambers could be achieved by evolution, not a sudden moral leap.

See what I mean? Once again, they either use chambers to prove documents like the ones at Wansee, or they will use documents to prove gas chambers. How about proving the gas chambers PERIOD?

Furthermore, Mattogno himself gives importance to consensual decision-making below Führer level when it suits his purposes to do so. Nearly all the policies proposed by Mattogno in Chapter 7 of Sobibór are driven by Hitler's underlings, who seem to be ‘working towards the Führer’ rather than in response to his orders; for example, Mattogno’s discussion of the Madagascar Plan never goes higher than Ribbentrop and Heydrich. Mattogno also in that chapter gives importance to actors on the periphery such as Zeitschel, to the extent that he argues that “Zeitschel's proposal was thus accepted some months later by Hitler himself.” This contradicts Mattogno's assumption elsewhere that policy has to be viewed top down, with the peripheral actors merely as implementers.

The plan eventually got Hitler's approval, you moron. Mattogno never denied this in his book Sobibor. HE MENTIONED IT ON PAGE 199. It is his right to state what is accepted by both sides of the debate, that Franz Rademacher originated the idea. So in other words, Harrison's claim that "Mattogno’s discussion of the Madagascar Plan never goes higher than Ribbentrop and Heydrich" is an outright lie. Here is the passage from page 199.

According to statements by Moritz von Schirmeister, a former official in the ministry of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels himself spoke about the Madagascar plan on several occasions, and Ribbentrop recalled the Fuhrer's decision to deport European jews to North Africa or Madagascar.

Hey folks, have a gander at this insanity below as another example out of many. Keep in mind this is from the original cut and paste manifesto that inspired the 1500 page response from MGK. See how the date is 2011.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... _2083.html
Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard. Chapter 2: Nazi Policy (3). Evolution of Europe-Wide Final Solution, September - December 1941.
_______________________________________________________________

Mattogno’s distortions begin by softening the reality of the plans that preceded the Final Solution. On page 198 of Sobibór, Mattogno claims that the Madagascar Plan formulated by Franz Rademacher[88] proposed for the Jews an “autonomous state under German supervision.” He then translates one of Rademacher’s lines as, “Within this territory, the Jews will be given autonomy in other respects: their own mayors, their own police, their own postal and railroad services, etc.” However, he omits the key sentence preceding that line, which transforms the passage in a way that Mattogno has intentionally concealed:

That part of the island not required for military purposes will be placed under the administration of a German Police Governor, who will be under the administration of the Reichsführer-SS. Apart from this, the Jews will have their own administration in this territory: their own mayors, police, postal and railroad administration, etc.[89]

Rademacher’s wording, omitted by Mattogno, clearly shows that the Madagascar reservation would have been an SS enclosure. Mattogno also omits Rademacher’s insistence that the Jews would be hostages:

Moreover, the Jews will remain in German hands as a pledge for the future good behaviour of the members of their race in America.

Mattogno’s “an autonomous state” is directly contradicted by Rademacher’s insistence that “our German sense of responsibility towards the world forbids us to make the gift of a sovereign state to a race which has had no independent state for thousands of years.” Mattogno also omits Rademacher’s rejection, in an earlier document[90], of the idea of sending Jews to Palestine, because of the “danger of a second Rome!”, even though this phrase was quoted by fellow denier David Irving in Hitler’s War.[91]

If one checks out the book Sobibor on archive.org and selects "read online" in the left sidebar
https://archive.org/details/Sobibr-Holo ... AndReality
They will find that this is correct. Carlo Mattogno did omit this passage. And one does indeed have to wonder why. This is not the first time Mattogno has done things that seem strange in his books. But this still has nothing to do with proving that gas chambers existed or that Wansee was where intentional homicide was decided upon. And furthermore, this is an old argument which mattogno answered on pages 234-235 in the new big 1500+ page book.

This objection is clearly a pretext. It would be valid if I had written
that the Jews on Madagascar would have enjoyed full independence and
autonomy; instead I specified that they would have constituted an “autonomous
state under German supervision.” The expression “under
German supervision” summarized in fact the passage which I would
have omitted: if this state was “under the administration of a German
Police Governor, who will be under the administration of the Reichsführer-
SS,” it is obvious that it was “under German supervision.” Stupidity
or bad faith? Probably both.
In any case, I am in good company. Just to make an example, the orthodox
holocaust historian Eberhard Jäckel speaks about the Madagascar
project explaining that it foresaw “the deportation of the European
Jews to that island, which shall be placed under German mandate [la
déportation des Juifs europées sur cette île, qui devait être placée sous
mandat allemand].”446

In another text available on the web, I specified that the Madagascar
project “was approved by Ribbentrop and transmitted to the RSHA,
which had to implement the technical requirements for the Jewish evacuation
to the island of Madagascar and to keep the evacuated Jews under
surveillance [fu approvato da Ribbentrop e trasmesso al RSHA, che
doveva eseguire i preparativi tecnici per l’evacuazione ebraica
nell’isola di Madagascar e sorvegliare gli Ebrei evacuati].”447 It is
therefore clear from my writings that the control was entrusted to the
SS.

As I said before folks...old wine in new bottles.

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1532
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Ag

Postby Moderator » 4 years 6 months ago (Tue Apr 01, 2014 4:06 pm)

Werd:
Please, only post information which addresses specific points related to this thread's title. We do not need to get into the personality issues (as bizarre as they are) of those that oppose free speech & truth regarding the "holocaust" narrative. Stay on topic.
Thanks.
M1
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

User avatar
PotPie
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:04 am
Location: Here

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Ag

Postby PotPie » 4 years 6 months ago (Tue Apr 01, 2014 8:11 pm)

HC are fraudsters as clearly seen by their reliance on using proven false witnesses to spackle their story together.

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Ag

Postby Werd » 4 years 6 months ago (Fri Apr 04, 2014 2:10 pm)

The Wansee thread has been resurrected at rodoh again and they are still making excuses for the torture of Hoess and are still claiming gas chambers. Here is an interesting post.

http://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... &start=840
been-there Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2014 11:38 pm

I don't like being lied to and the presentation of the meeting at Wannsee as proof of part of a widely known, top-down Nazi heirarchical planned policy of mass genocide I now regard as a MONSTER of a lie. A six decades old lie. And that is obvious when ALL the context is taken in consideration.
Whether Heydrich and Himmler had their own secret policy to kill some trainloads of Jews, I don't know. No-one does.
But the killings on the Eastern front were occurring long before Wannsee.
The creation and implementation of Aktion Reinhard alleged extermination camps was also allegedly ALREADY in operation according to the Holocaust narrative BEFORE Wannsee.
Yet who allegedly had the authority to instigate all that BEFORE Wannsee?
And how was all that implemented?
On whose order?
And how were those orders conveyed down the chain of command.
And where is any evidence of ANY of these planned systematic genocide orders?

People don't seem to understand how military command is structured and organised and controlled. Orders need to be issued with appropriate recognised official authorisation. Orders need to be duplicated and forwarded to numerous appropriate involved participants. The idea that ALL that necessary documentation could be destroyed is hard to accept. And then we had the Bletchley intercepts, which recorded NOTHING. Just one intercept of a train deportations record?
The idea that all this organisation, and building and transporting and alleged mass murder could be arranged and operated in secret, with euphemisms used even in private, secret conferences and with euphemisms used even in private secret encrypted communications, while previously it had supposedly been openly discussed, and recorded and reported in Russia is illogical. The narrative is that Hitler even stated his intention for this planned policy in the internationally broadcast speech on January 31st 1939. And yet it could be conducted openly during operation Barbarossa in Russia but had to be in secret in Poland? And in secret code in the Wannsee protocol? It just doesn't add up.

BOTTOM LINE: Wannsee doesn't fit the Shoah timeline. Informed historians know this.
No amount of trolling and unintelligble nonsense obfuscation tactics from the tag-team troll-duo can deflect from that axiomatic salient fact.

Now this is sort of what I am trying to get at. As already seen, new submissions by harrison claim that there was apparently a decision to kill all Jews even before Wansee. And he bases it on the same document Mattogno dealt with in point 31 as quoted by me below. Of course that letter as I said has no context. Were they Jews killed by Einsatzgruppen? Why were they killed? This document alone can not be used to prove gas chambers just because certain people are irritated at the refutation of Van Pelt's work in Mattogno's book AUSCHWITZ THE CASE FOR SANITY. So what are the gas chamber mongers to do besides use their circular logic when convenient (gas chambers prove Wansee and Wansee proves gas chambers)? Let us read a quote from an HC supporter named Bernard.

Bernard Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 3:08 am

The idea that Wannsee is Act I of the Holocaust is another slobbering strawman from our resident master of moral outrage, who doesn't like to be lied to :lol:

All of the popular and superficial websites for casual dabblers in Holocaust basics acknowledge that systematic mass murder of the Jews predated Wannsee by almost half a year. This includes USSHM, Yad Vashem, Jewish Virtual Library, Danish Center for Holocaust Studies etc. Nor is there much doubt among scholars as to the chain of command, or the origins of genocide in Hitler's megalamaniacal vision.

So been-there's inane drool about Wannsee not fitting the Shoah timeline is simply a superflouous confirmation that been-there knows nothing about the Holocaust. Wannsee fits into the Holocaust timeline exactly as it always has - as a mtg of mostly middle level bureaucrats to refine and coordinate aspects of policies that were already put into practice. Recall the impossible time that Stat Mack had in his efforts to hammer the concept of "practical experience" into the concrete highway buffer known as been-there's skull.

Perhaps a way to help been-there conceptualize Wannssee is for him to think of an analagous episode in the evolution of a football season. Wannsee would not be represented by the preseason draft, nor by preseason conditioning, nor early practices. Wannsee would not be the metaphor for early scrimmages against lower ranked divisions, nor even for the opening game in the Premier League. Manchester United vs Chelsea in the opener would not be Wannsee.

Think of Wannsee as an important tactical practice a quarter of the way into the season. Fullham has just lost 4 straight and the coach is going to lecture about what relegation means to the level of team salaries. Then they repair to the pitch to work on set plays and defensive shape. That was Wannsee, a midseason practice focused on basic strategy meant to reinforce the authority of the coach and help each player to understand his own role.

My fear is that been-there will know nothing about football, or no more than he knows about the Holocaust. Will he be capable of following metaphor?

I am not impressed.

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Aktion Reinhardt Camps / Holo. Controversies Debunked Ag

Postby Werd » 4 years 4 months ago (Sun Jun 15, 2014 9:21 pm)

Flashback from Jonathan Harrison.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Mattogno's Deceptions on Nazi Policy: An Updated Analysis

We are currently preparing the 2nd edition of our White Paper, which will update our analysis of the lies, distortions, evasions and pro-Nazi rhetoric in the work of MGK on the policy and camps of Aktion Reinhard.


So that would be the English version I guess. But what about the Italian version? The following is a google translation from the Italian blog at olodogma. From the March archives.

0633 - News editorial: print "The" extermination camps "of '" Action Reinhardt "" Carlo Mattogno, Thomas Kues and Jürgen Graf!

Image

Finally, in print, in Italian, the monumental 1,100-page 17 × 24, Endlösung revisionist "I" extermination camps "of '" Action Reinhardt "," operates in six hands of Carlo Mattogno, Thomas Kues and Jürgen Graf!
The Italian version, revised and corrected, in 2 volumes, "in addition to the original texts of the most important documents, which are absent in the English edition, contains numerous additions, argumentation and bibliography, which have increased the text and brought the number of notes in over 3,800 ".

A text that is an invitation to ... "professional historians and also all Pisanty and all the Foa and related caudatari to find one, and I mean a single" bestiality "...

(It will look good, like "threw out" from that vercelli claudio ...!

"If it is purely abstract look that the deniers are likely to win the game, I can guarantee you that if I, but still ... better than me Capes (Brunello) ... who knows millimeter every aspect of the concentration camp system, there confrontassimo with certain Holocaust deniers as Carlo Mattogno and you were an audience, as it were, not weaned on certain things, I would go out with the impression that perhaps a Holocaust denier has its reasons "...


Image

A text indispensbile conclusive arguments for those looking to slam in the face of "Caronti" of the various journeys of memory, ventriloquists-drivers of hallucinated "witnesses", propagandists employees and vendors of the lie of Au $ chwitz, lecturers against the "denial" that there know, they admitted it and is registered in voice, or a David Cole Norman Finkelstein ... but pontificating, as prescribed by the "elected" masters "French" and "American" on the "purposes" of Holocaust denial / deniers ... they do not know!

A text is a tool of "death", a point by point refutation of the invective and accusations made ​​by a group of "mavericks" exterminationists the three authors. (... "Loose" so to speak, of course! ... Returning, they mavericks, the failed policies of exploitation / sacrifice of "independent" various nell'inane, catastrophic, attempt to combat revisionism by Exterminationists the "delicate flower university "and israel-lobby)

Please note that the print edition is a revised version, corrected and expanded text published as pdf on this site, click HERE


So not only is it an improvement on the English pdf that was rush published, but also the English hard copy as well. Darn. I wish I read Italian. :D


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests