The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/m/mattogno.carlo/1999/usenet.9912


Path: hub.org!hub.org!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.telusplanet.net!news0.telusplanet.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: John Morris 
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Yes "The End ..."
Organization: University of Alberta
Reply-To: John.Morris@UAlberta.CA
Message-ID: <0i2r4scfl98mqmd6jicsn11tuvpphfudoa@4ax.com>
References: <38717ef9.934376359@newsproxy.pacificnet.net>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 135
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 23:45:34 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 161.184.155.17
X-Trace: news0.telusplanet.net 944610334 161.184.155.17 (Tue, 07 Dec 1999 16:45:34 MST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 16:45:34 MST
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:698465

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In <38717ef9.934376359@newsproxy.pacificnet.net> in alt.revisionism,
on Tue, 07 Dec 1999 21:49:25 GMT, trm@pacificnet.net (tom moran)
wrote:

>John C. Zimmerman is an Associate Professor [of History] at the
>University of Nevada, Las Vegas. His appearance into the Holocaust
>arena comes by
>way of a lengthy treatment on the site of the Holocaust History
>Project titled, "Body Disposal at Auschwitz",
>>http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/body-disposal/< with the
>grandiose subtitle "The End Of Holocaust Denial".

Carlos Mattogno, an Italian literature professor, purports to rebut
Zimmerman's article at:

  http://www.codoh.com/granata/jcz.html

It is truly a bizarre rebuttal.  While Mattogno insists at every turn
that Zimmerman is a liar and an incompetent, it is rather easy to
catch Mattogno telling incompetent lies.

For instance, Ivan LagacÚ testified at Ernst Zuendel's false news
trial that continuous operation of crematorium was not possible
because it had to be cooled *between* cremations:

  The time to cremate a human being (the cremation cycle) took
  an average of two hours. After the first cremation of the day
  was completed, the operator must let the retort cool-down for
  a minimum of one hour before beginning the second case. After
  the second cremation, a cool- down period of at least two hours
  was required. Even with cool-down times, LagacÚ testified that
  cremations could not be done "24 hours a day, round the clock,
  day after day...the refractory will not tolerate it." Factory
  recommendation for normal operation was a maximum of three cases
  per day in a normal eight hour work day. No more than 50 - 60
  cases should be processed in any month so that the refractory
  life was prolonged. That was an average of 2 cases a day.
  (27-7412 to 7415; 7427, 7428)
http://www.lebensraum.org/english/dsmrd/dsmrd26lagace.html

As Zimmerman points out, the manufacturer Topf's operating
instructions for the Auschwitz crematoria indicate quite clearly that
no such cooling times *between* cremations are necessary.  Indeed,
Topf's instructions for the Gusen furnaces are quite clear that
maintaining an even temperature in the furnace prolongs its life.

So how does Mattogno answer this?  By answering an entirely different
argument:

  This is supposed to have been demonstrated by the Topf letter
  of 14 July 1941 mentioned above. However this actually refers
  to a forced functioning of an oven, which certainly could
  have continuously functioned for even more than 24 hours, but
  which, in this manner, would have progressively lost its
  efficiency until finally it would have stopped functioning
  altogether if slag had not been removed from the oven grills
  which restrict required combustion air. Even the expert Pole,
  Roman Dawidowski, at the H÷ss trial, in the calculation of
  a technically absurd cremation capacity, admits:

  "A continuous functioning in two shifts of 12 hours per day,
  considering 3 hours pause per day for the extraction of slag
  from the gasogenes and for various minor work, with the
  inevitable interruptions of continuous activity." [34]

  Also Pressac admits a 3 hour pause in continuous activity.
  This affirmation also appears in the article "The Machinery of
  Mass Murder at Auschwitz," [35] but naturally Zimmerman prefers
  to ignore this.

  Therefore LagacÚ, Leuchter and those who write are in
  excellent company!

But Zimmerman has said *nothing* to this point about downtime for
deslagging.  He is rebutting the Revisionist claim that cremations
were limited by the necessity to cool the oven *between* cremations. 

But, Zimmerman *does* discuss maintenance downtime IN HIS VERY NEXT
PARAGRAPH:

   It is interesting to note that the instructions for both the
   Gusen and Auschwitz ovens suggest that continued use at an
   even temperature will actually prolong the useful life of the
   ovens.  On the same day that the Gusen instructions were
   issued, two Topf engineers stated that the Topf double muffle
   furnace could incinerate 60 to 72 bodies [30 to 36 per muffle]
   in a 20 hour period with three hours of maintenance required.
[133] 

Why does Mattogno flat-out lie when he says Zimmerman ignores
downtime for deslagging?  For that matter why does Mattogno pretend
that LagacÚ was talking about downtime for daily maintenance when he
was clearly talking about downtime between cremations?

But that is not the end of Mattogno's falsehoods in this brief
passage.  Mattogno's rebuttal evidence, the expert opinion of Roman
Dawidowski at Hoess's trial, while completely irrelevant to
Zimmerman's point, is very relevant to the Revisionist claim that the
limits of cremation capacity are evidence that there was no
deliberate mass murder at Auschwitz.

While Dawidowski did indeed testify that the furnaces would go down
for three hours a day for deslagging, he also testified that the
downtime limited cremations to 5000 per day for the 30 ovens of
Kremas II and III and an additional 3000 per day for Kremas IV and V.
 Obviously, this capacity could not be maintained indefinitely. 
After all, Kremas IV and V were ruined fairly early on.  But the
point of the Revisionist argument is that mass murder was limited by
cremation capacity.  Why, then, cite only part of an expert opinion
to make an irrelevant point and then ignore the part that destroys
your main thesis?

Why?  Mattogno's so-called rebuttal demonstrates the dishonesty to
which Revisionists will descend in order to promote their lies. 
Mattogno is the man: he is *the* Revisionist expert cremation, and he
is quite prepared to tell the most transparent lies.  What does that
tell you about Revisionism?

[snip]


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use 

iQA/AwUBOE2cBZQgvG272fn9EQKFmwCdGhoPN4B8a8vdCIXRI1I+9TSKs/EAoKn1
QvwTTiTSYdVNiGZr5atLH9Wh
=on7W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
 John Morris                                
 at University of Alberta  


Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.