Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 23:32:52 GMT Message-Id: <199602292313.SAA27950@vixa.voyager.net> Originator: email@example.com Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org From: Jamie McCarthy
Subject: Mattogno Mike Curtis wrote me regarding Mattogno: > Do you have examples? I originally wrote the below with just Mike in mind, then I figured I might as well share it with the rest of the nizkor list, then it occurred to me that it might be worthwhile posting on CIS (since the deniers are the ones who brought up Pressac). So feel free to post the below, if you like: My best example so far of Mattogno's stupidity is his explanation of the Vergasungskeller. You'll recall that a letter in 1943 (?) referred to Leichenkeller 1 of Krema II, what we now know to be the gas chamber, as the "Vergasungskeller." It sounds exactly like what it means: "gassing cellar." That captured letter has given deniers no end of fits, of course. Butz's explanation circa 1976 was that "Vergasung" could only mean "carburetion," i.e. converting a solid or liquid into a gas. Specious. "Vergasung" can certainly mean "gassing" with everything that English word implies: exposing people to gas. Butz even admits trouble with this theory in his 1976 book, saying that he did realize that "Vergasung" was used to describe battlefield gassings in W.W. I! But -- get ready for this -- his explanation is that perhaps the battlefield gassings involved explosion of a very fine powder, so that what was really happening was not "gassing" but "carburetion"!! A splendid example of the ridiculous lengths to which deniers will go to avoid the truth, by the way. So Butz's explanation was that the "Vergasungskeller" was the "carburetion cellar" where solid coke was converted into a gas by some process involving steam and high temperature, I think. There's a small problem with this -- the Auschwitz crematoria used _solid_ coke, not any coke gas. No carburetion required, you just shovel the stuff in. Somehow Butz did not realize this. Oops! Anyway, in the late 80s Pressac pointed out to Butz that there was no chamber in the Krema II complex that the word "Vergasungskeller" could possibly refer to -- every room in the complex was accounted for. Butz acknowledged this, but then made the bold suggestion that the mysterious "Vergasungskeller" was actually a room in _another_ complex, presumably located _near_ Krema II. Well, anyone who knows anything about the camp realizes that there is no such building, there's nothing much near Krema II (except Krema III) and there is no room that was used to "gasify" coke even if coke _needed_ to be gasified for the Auschwitz furnaces in the first place which it didn't! Butz has not progressed any further with his "revisionist scholarship," to my knowledge -- he still thinks people should be out there looking for some mysterious "Vergasungskeller" when of course the damn thing is the Krema II gas chamber, as every Holocaust historian knows and has known for fifty years or so. Splendid, splendid example of rationalization and cognitive dissonance (I think -- I'm not a psychologist). Anyway, all that is just lead-up to Mattogno's explanation of the Vergasungskeller, which is, p. 64: The term _Vergasungskeller_ designates a disinfestation basement. In the explanatory report on the construction of KGL Birkenau dated 30 October 1941, the two Zyklon B _Entlausungsbaracken_ (disinfestation installations) subsequently built, BW5a and 5b are equipped with a _Vergasungsraum_. ^77 In other words, he jettisons Butz's explanation, admits that "Vergasung" _does_ mean gassing, and simply claims that it means gassing of _lice_ instead of human beings. He also jettisons the tradition denier explanation that the Leichenkeller (1 and 2) were morgues (Leuchter et al.). I _love_ it when they can't agree, it so clearly demonstrates that "revisionism" is not a theory but an attack on truth. Just as any stick will serve to beat a Jew, any lie will serve to contradict a historian. They don't really know what the Vergasungskeller was -- they just "know" what it wasn't. Anyway, consider what Mattogno is saying here: that Leichenkeller 1 was used to disinfect clothes, mattresses, and other possibly lice-infested sundries. Presumably that applies to Leichenkeller 1 in Krema III as well as in Krema II. Does he have any idea what this means? I seem to recall a certain Fred Leuchter saying that both Leichenkeller was totally unsuitable for gassings. Not gas-tight, no way to introduce the gas, etc. "These facilities would be very dangerous if used as gas chamber and this use would probably result in the death of the users and an explosion when the gas reached the crematory," says Leuchter. I also seem to recall a certain Fred Leuchter saying that his forensic analysis demonstrated that Leichenkeller 1 was not used for gassing, finding over 1000 mg/kg of cyanide compounds in the control sample taken from the real delousing chamber, and approximately zero in Leichenkeller 1. If one were to believe Leuchter, one might suggest that maybe this puts a crimp in Mattogno's theory about Leichenkeller 1 being used for _exactly_ the same purpose as the real delousing chamber. I would _love_ to confront revisionists with that contradiction, and watch them start offering explanations that unravel all the myths they've spun around the Leuchter Report: that the acid rain didn't leach away the Leichenkeller's cyanide compounds, that the explosion didn't disturb them, and so on. I just _love_ it when they can't agree. Mattogno goes on to contradict himself. He claims, p. 68: Pressac must therefore explain why, given that hydrocyanic acid (as he says) is corrosive, the engineers of the Bauleitung replaced a wooden blower with a metal one.... Why would they have done this -- so that they could have been "corroded" by hydrocyanic acid? Of course, this is the blower in the same Leichenkeller 1 that he says would be exposed to delousing hydrocyanic acid (much higher concentration, much longer duration). I think Mattogno is the one who has the explaining to do. Also, Mattogno goes on to run down the list of "criminal traces" that Pressac gives for Leichenkeller 1: the showerheads, the gas-tight door, the gas-testers, etc., and all of it is nonsense. For example, we know that there were 14 showerheads in Leichenkeller 1 when it was invoiced in 1943, because they're clearly indicated on the invoice. Witness Mattogno's explanation of this, p. 67: Regarding the presence of 14 showers in Leichenkeller 1: According to Pressac, this is a _bavure_ because these showers were false (p. 80), and were used therefore to deceive victims of alleged homicidal gas chambers; that these showers were _false_ is a simple arbitrary statement by Pressac. That's it! That's his explanation! I'd sure like to hear what showerheads, real or otherwise, were doing in a _disinfestation_ room, a room for delousing. Mattogno doesn't seem to want to go into that, though. And I'd also like to hear what happened to the piping, if they were real showers, since there is no piping visible today. "Revisionists" have been only too happy to point out that witness testimonies of gas coming through showerheads are false, because no extant piping has ever been found in any Nazi gas chamber. But they'll let the point slide a little bit when they're in a tight spot, like Mattogno is. There's more, but this is long enough already. My main point is that deniers claim the homicidal gas chambers were morgues sometimes, and they claim they were delousing gas chambers other times, and their arguments for each claim nullify the other.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor