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
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
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
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.