Another mention of six million Jews from 1942

I recently pointed out that a December 1942 entry of Abraham Lewin’s Warsaw ghetto diary mentions the figure of six million Jews killed by Hitler. It turns out that Lewin was not the first Warsaw diarist to mention this figure. Earlier that month (December 14), Emmanuel Ringelblum recorded the following in his diary:

They have liquidated 5-6 million European Jews and it doesn’t seem that the German war machine suffers because of this.

Source: E. Ringelblum, Notatki z getta, Biuletyn Żydowskiego Instytutu Historycznego, No. 13-14, 1955, p. 266.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Memo for the controversial bloggers, part VI: Conclusions

As I stated above, the bloggers’ manifesto is undoubtedly the most substantial piece of anti-revisionism since van Pelt’s Case for Auschwitz. Despite the work’s immense flaws, the exercise of engaging with its arguments and sources has proved salutary for revisionism. Yet, like van Pelt’s work, it is ultimately indefensible, written for tendentious purposes, lawyerly, systematically unfair to its opponents, and full of superficiality and error. Van Pelt has proven unable to defend his work against the withering critique which it has received from revisionists, most notably in Carlo Mattogno’s Auschwitz: the Case for Sanity, and his more recent work has declined severely in quality. Believing as I do that healthy criticism is good for a movement or school of thought, I hope that the bloggers will be able to avoid a similar decline, although I am forced to admit that the indications do not look good. One may hope that engaging with the criticisms voiced in this paper, and above all with the utter impossibility of their imagined cremation scenario, will help them to stave off such enfeeblement.

Although they have announced that they will not be offering a direct response to Mattogno, Graf, and Kues, I hope that the bloggers manage to find the courage to acknowledge the very serious corrections found in this memo. Naturally, just as they requested – and received – explicit acknowledgement of errors from Mattogno, Graf, and Kues (p. 527), I expect that the bloggers will not only correct the errors which I have pointed out, but also explicitly and transparently acknowledge these mistakes in their future work. Should the bloggers manage to work up the courage to reply, their response cannot be taken seriously unless they acknowledge the total failure of Roberto Muehlenkamp’s attempted apologia and come up with something more connected to reality. A response featuring Muehlenkamp’s predictable attempts to obfuscate his errors and defend the indefensible, above all on the matter of cremation, may have some humor value but will be, in scholarly terms, an automatic failure.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Memo for the controversial bloggers, part Vd: Dresden pyres, gasoline as a fuel for cremation, and High Bishopton farm

We now move on to the Dresden pyres, the second plank in Muehlenkamp’s platform. For his claims on Dresden, Muehlenkamp relies on the books by David Irving and Frederick Taylor. Irving gives no source for the statements concerning cremation, while Taylor cites a book by Götz Bergander, who refers us further to a document collection where we find that the only source for Muehlenkamp’s description of the cremations is a testimony from Theodor Ellgering dated December 20, 1955.[125] This is far too weak a source to have any value for the discussion of a technical problem concerning the practicality of mass cremation.[126] The pictures of the Dresden pyres offer little help, as they do not show the conduct of a cremation from beginning to end. In any large-scale pyre cremation (as seen for example in the extensive photographic record from the 2001 UK foot-and-mouth disease epidemic), there will be an initial period of rapid burning in which the pyre is engulfed with large flames, followed by a longer period of slower burning (possibly with periodic refueling) as the pyre burns down. The photos of the Dresden pyres show at most rather weak flames, consistent with the burning-off of a modest quantity of liquid fuels – nothing like the initial period of burning in a genuine pyre mass cremation – yet they also show largely intact bodies, too intact to be consistent with the latter phase of a successful pyre cremation, after the initial period of rapid burning. Given that the available photos clearly do not show the full conduct of a successful pyre mass cremation, what do they represent? The sources do not allow a definite answer to this question, which in any case is irrelevant to the technical analysis of the problem of mass cremation, but they do raise the question of whether the photos were composed with an eye to propaganda exploitation. Certainly Joseph Goebbels does appear to have desired to use the Dresden attacks for propaganda to strengthen German morale by demonstrating the wickedness of the enemy and the necessity of total resistance. Incidentally, Ellgering’s Interministeriellen Luftkriegsschädenausschuss was subject to the Minister of Propaganda, and Ellgering clearly desired to make the Dresden pyres (“a spot of shame in the history of our century”) a symbol of allied atrocity.

In any event, one conclusion is clear: the available sources are inadequate for a technical analysis of the Dresden pyres. We simply do not know the full course of events involved in carrying them out. We do not know what fuels were used, nor in what quantities. The interaction between propaganda concerns and the representation of the attacks complicates the problem of interpretation still further. What can be said is that such pyres – however they were arranged – will have obeyed the same laws of nature as prevailed in better-documented mass cremations, such as those during the 2001 UK foot-and-mouth disease epidemic. Any analysis claiming that cremations in Dresden proceeded in a fashion enormously superior to the comparatively well-documented cremations during that epidemic, or to other documented cases of mass cremation, can be safely disregarded.

Muehlenkamp’s other claim vis a vis Dresden is that “the possible presence of Treblinka ‘experts’ at Dresden […] suggests that cremation at Treblinka may also have chiefly relied on gasoline as external combustion agent” (p. 488). His source for this is Frederick Taylor’s book on the bombing of Dresden, which in turn cites a book by Olaf Groehler, who in turn refers us to an article by Ino Arndt and Wolfgang Scheffler. In this article, the matter is mentioned only in a footnote, the relevant portion of which reads:

As the disposal of the victims after the devastating air raid on Dresden in February 1945 caused difficulties, iron roasts were set up in the city’s Altmarkt and the dead burned by the thousands. This work was carried out by “Ukraininan volunteers”. These were a newly formed team from the former SS-Ausbildungslager Trawniki, and it is fairly certain that among them were also former guards of the extermination camp [Treblinka is meant. –FJ] who had at their disposal relevant experience.[127]

Arndt and Scheffler cite no source for this whatsoever. Given that Scheffler was closely involved in trials related to the Reinhardt camps, it seems reasonable to assume that he had some source in mind, perhaps a witness statement from one of the Trawnikis, but supposing it is true that Trawnikis were used in the clean-up work in Dresden, what source precisely points to their use in cremations? (Ellgering mentions kommandos of Russians and Ostarbeiter – although not Trawniki specifically – only for burial work, not for work on cremations.) Which Trawniki witness, precisely, testified to his participation in Dresden cremations, and what did he say? As for the possible presence of Treblinka guards with cremation experience in Dresden, the authors admit that this is merely speculation.

In support of his gasoline argument, Muehlenkamp cites the Eichmann trial testimony of Kalman Taigman concerning the existence of a tank of petrol in Treblinka. He does not acknowledge that Taigman is a lower camp witness, and fails to explain why testimony indicating the existence of a gas tank in the lower camp should be viewed as offering support for the notion that large quantities of gasoline were used for cremations in the upper camp. Had he bothered to examine the testimonies concerning the Treblinka cremations, he would have seen a very different picture, in which the liquid fuels are either dispensed with entirely or used in very moderate quantities. Consider, for instance, Eliahu Rosenberg, who reported that the cremations were initially fueled by “a few dry branches” ignited by a match, but that due to difficulties during the winter, permission was granted to pour one bucket of fuel over the corpses.[128] Another account is that of Jerzy Rajgrodzki,[129] who declared that at first the bodies were sprinkled with gasoline, but later, as they proved to burn well on their own, the practice of adding gasoline was stopped.[130] (He would appear to be the source for Yitzhak Arad’s unsourced claim to this effect.[131]) Rajgrodzki makes a point of mentioning the fuelwood used when describing his work in the kitchens,[132] so the fact that he does not mention wood in connection with cremations is significant: he really is saying that the bodies burned on their own, without the help of any additional fuel.

John DeHaan has pointed out that because of how quickly it burns off, gasoline is a poor fuel for body incineration and generally causes minimal damage.[133] Of course, this observation was made with regard to the burning of individual bodies. Could gasoline be more suited as a fuel for mass cremation? An official report on the 1967/1968 UK foot-and-mouth disease epidemic, during which many animals were cremated on open-air pyres, explains why the answer is no:

We asked the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment of the Ministry of Defence about other methods of burning which might be more satisfactory than the use of coal and wood, but none was available. Napalm for instance would not be successful because of the high water content of carcases; the water must be evaporated before combustion takes place and since the rate of heat transfer from outside to inside the carcase is slow the process of evaporation is also slow. It has not yet been possible to improve on the method of burning other than by using “Isocal 1” (an exothermic product used in the iron smelting industry) to enhance the heat and burning qualities of coal and wood. This material was used extensively during the 1967/1968 foot-and-mouth disease epidemic to replace tyres which leave an inconvenient residue of wire.[134]

This analysis of the problems with the use of napalm applies a fortiori to gasoline. What evidence does Muehlenkamp have to offer for his belief that the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment of the Ministry of Defence was so massively incompetent as to completely fail to see that carrying out mass cremations is actually extremely easy?

We now move on to the third and last plank in Muehlenkamp’s empirical platform. This source is a third-party report on the cremations which took place at High Bishopton farm during the 2001 UK foot-and-mouth disease epidemic (pp. 494-495), and is easily disposed of. The report in question[135] was written in October, 2001, and describes a cremation which took place in April of that same year. Muehlenkamp uses this source to determine the rate at which cremation can take place per unit of pyre area. The topic of the report, however, is the monitoring of air quality during the cremation, and the numbers it contains contradict those found in the literature written for the sake of the the people actually responsible for carrying out mass cremations.[136] Clearly works written for the sake of those who actually carried out cremations cannot be ignored in favor of a report written some six months after the fact by a company whose duties were limited to monitoring air quality. To make things even worse for Muehlenkamp, not only was the report written long after the fact by a company that played no role in the actual process of the cremation, but the report also contains a demonstrable error in its numbers. Muehlenkamp accepts without question the report’s claim that the width of the pyres was 1.5 meters, not knowing that this is evidently an error for 2.5 meters. The narrowest width of pyres used during the 2001 UK FMD outbreak was determined by the length of a railroad tie (as railroad ties were placed crosswise along the pyres), which is approximately 2.5 meters. Given that the source made this one demonstrable numerical error, it is all the more certain that the other figures are erroneous as well.

Figure 1: The crosswise positioning of railroad ties dictates a minimum pyre width of about 2.5 meters.

Figure 1: The crosswise positioning of railroad ties dictates a minimum pyre width of about 2.5 meters.

Thus, all in all, Muehlenkamp’s real-world sources for his fantastic picture of cremation are (1) a set of experiments dealing with the cremation of a single large carcass which took place over a century ago and have remained unreplicated by any other author in the literature on cremation, which was characterized as impractical by contemporaneous commentators, whose authors referred to the results of their experiments as being complete carbonization, and which took place within the context of the sanitization of anthrax carcasses by thermal means, which the authors understood could be achieved without complete cremation; (2) a witness statement concerning Dresden cremations from ten years after the fact, used together with an unsubstantiated and unfounded interpretation of some photographs; (3) a report dealing with air quality in connection with a pyre from the 2001 UK foot-and-mouth disease epidemic, written some six months after the incineration took place, whose figures are demonstrably erroneous. One can only laugh at Muehlenkamp’s pretensions to overturn all experience concerning the reality of mass cremation on the basis of such flimsy sources, particularly given his colleagues’ pretensions to get close to the first-hand sources and dismiss second-hand and hearsay material.

Given the complete failure of Muehlenkamp’s cremation evidence, we are back to the conclusions reached by Mattogno, Graf, and Kues: the alleged Reinhardt cremations cannot have taken place as claimed, and therefore the alleged Reinhardt extermination also cannot have taken place as claimed. The pillars of his previous argument having collapsed, Muehlenkamp – and his blogging colleagues – will have to come up something entirely new if he hopes to evade this conclusion. Given his fondness for fantasy, will he perhaps explain that Herbert Floss struck a rail with his staff and cried Loge! Loge! Hieher! to summon magic fire? At this point, he had might as well rely on Konrad Morgan’s account of fuel-free cremation, which is just as good a source as the rest of his analysis:

By means of a special procedure which Wirth had invented, [the bodies] were burned in the open air without the use of fuel.[137]


[125] Theodor Ellgering, Bericht über die Erfahrungen des Interministeriellen Luftkriegsschädenausschusses – Berlin 1943-1945, 20.12.55.
[126] The same applies to Muehlenkamp’s use of this source to support the claim that gasoline’s volatility would not cause practical problems with explosions (p. 490).
[127] Ino Arndt & Wolfgang Scheffler, Organisierten Massenmord an Juden in nationalsozialistischen Vernichtungslagern, in: Karl Dietrich Bracher, Manfred Funke, and Hans-Adolf Jacobsen (eds), Nationalsocialistische Diktatur 1933-1945: eine bilanz, 1983, pp. 539-571, here p. 562.
[128] Demjanjuk trial, 25.2.87, pp. 1012-1014. According to Rosenberg’s testimony, the bucket was small enough to be carried by a single individual.
[129] A witness seemingly unknown to the bloggers: he is mentioned only once, in a footnote, where his name is misspelled.
[130] Jerzy Rajgrodzki, Jedenaście Miesięcy w Obozie Zagłady w Treblince, Biuletyn Żydowskiego Instytutu Historycznego, No. 27, 1958, pp. 101-118, here p. 107.
[131] Yitzhak Arad, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka: The Operation Reinhard Death Camps, 1987, p. 175.
[132] Jerzy Rajgrodzki, Jedenaście Miesięcy w Obozie Zagłady w Treblince, Biuletyn Żydowskiego Instytutu Historycznego, No. 27, 1958, pp. 101-118, here p. 104.
[133] John DeHaan, “Fires and Bodies,” in: Christopher Schmidt & Steven Symes (eds), The Analysis of Burned Human Remains, p. 12.
[134] Report of the Committee of Inquiry on Foot-and-Mouth Disease, 1969-1970, §128.
[135] available at
[136] e.g. National Animal Health Emergency Management System Guidelines. U.S. Department of Agriculture. April 2005. Operational Guidelines: Disposal. Online:
[137] IMT Vol. XX, p. 494.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Memo for the controversial bloggers, part Vc: Herbert Floss, Treblinka, and pyre systems based on pits

Before moving on to Muehlenkamp’s second plank, we will take a quick detour to address another factor which allegedly contributed to the unequaled performance of the Reinhardt cremations. Discussing Treblinka, Muehlenkamp argues (p. 446f) that the cremations took place in a pit, which he believes helped in attaining especially favorable results. Muehlenkamp also requires the pit in order to increase the space available for fuel under the ‘roasts’ in order to make his numbers work. This depiction contradicts the version which has been accepted in standard histories, and contradicts the witness statements. To the extent that the Treblinka witnesses tell a coherent story of the cremations at all, they claim that there were initial attempts at cremation in a pit, which enjoyed only limited success, but that later a different method was adopted which led to much better results. The new method is generally attributed to Herbert Floss. In September 1944, Abraham Goldfarb stated that initial attempts at cremation made in February 1943 using a system involving a pit and forced air had very limited success, but that when the cremations were moved out of pits onto ground level (an innovation he attributed to a certain Scharführer who arrived from another camp, presumably identifiable with Herbert Floss), they proceeded much more successfully.[121] Thus according to Goldfarb, Floss’ innovation was not to bring the grid into the right position (as Muehlenkamp would have it) in a cremation system based on a pit, but to remove the cremations from pits altogether. Pinchas Epstein also gave testimony to the failure of an initial cremation system based on a grid in a pit, and the ultimate replacement of this system with a new one devised by Herbert Floss.[122] Yankiel Wiernik and Chil Rajchman also gave accounts of the failure of an initial cremation system.[123] At the Fedorenko trial, Epstein even testified that the cremation was carried out with a mobile apparatus:

This burning structure was a movable affair and could move to wherever it was needed. For example, to burn the bodies from pit number three, they moved it and set it up close to number three and burned the bodies from there.[124]

Evidently a “movable affair” like the one Epstein described cannot have been based on a system involving a pit. Muehlenkamp’s fantasy that it was Herbert Floss’ expertise concerning the efficiencies of cremation in a pit that allowed the Germans to achieve such unexampled results in mass cremation must be rejected even on the basis of the Jewish Treblinka testimonies.


[121] Goldfarb statement, 21.9.44, USSR-380.
[122] Demjanjuk trial, 23.2.87, pp. 650-651.
[123] Chil Rajchman, Treblinka: A Survivor’s Memory, pp. 71-72; Yankiel Wiernik, Rok w Treblince, Nakładem Komisji Koordynacyjnej Warszawa, 1944, p. 13.
[124] Fedorenko trial, 8.6.78, p. 1064.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Memo for the controversial bloggers, part Vb: Lothes and Profé’s carbonization experiments with anthrax carcasses

We turn now to Muehlenkamp’s treatment of cremation, which is even more absurd than his discussion of mass graves. We will not rehearse the facts about mass cremation here, but suffice it to say that, for example, the United States Department of Agriculture “recognizes that incineration [of carcasses] is both difficult and expensive,”[102] and that accounts of real-life mass cremations of animals confirm this and offer specific figures for the quantities of space, time, and fuel required for mass cremation that prove the impossibility of the Reinhardt cremations taking place in the manner alleged, and dramatically and uniformly contradict the portrait of cremation given in witness statements regarding the Reinhardt camps. As in his analysis of mass graves, Muehlenkamp generally ignores reality in favor of long lines of speculative extrapolations, which can be massaged until they give the answer desired. I will not go into the details of the flaws of his analysis, but suffice it to say that his methodology implies that a pyre containing thousands of pig carcasses needs only be set on fire and will then self-cremate, a conclusion that would astonish all of the organizations ever involved in the difficult and expensive process of carrying out such cremations.[103]

Despite his focus on elaborate and inventive extrapolation, Muehlenkamp does bring a few real-world events into his discussion of cremation. The remainder of this section will focus on those few real-world events that Muehlenkamp thinks support his position, and will show that he is wrong about every single one of them. The planks in Muehlenkamp’s empirical platform are three: first and foremost, his interpretation of the experiments of the veterinarians Lothes and Profé in the disposal of anthrax carcasses; second, claims concerning pyre cremations in the aftermath of the bombing of Dresden; third, a cremation that took place at High Bishopton farm during the 2001 UK foot-and-mouth disease epidemic.

A set of experiments[104] by the veterinarians Lothes and Profé, performed over a century ago, are the basis of Muehlenkamp’s calculations of fuel requirements. Even at first glance, they are a rather doubtful foundation, given that they dealt not with mass cremation but with the disposal of single large carcasses and that Muehlenkamp ignores a great deal of specific evidence concerning fuel requirements of mass cremation (which give figures much less favorable to his argument). One might recall that contemporaneous observers referred to Lothes and Profé’s methods as being impractical (umständlich)[105] and as suffering from the disadvantage of requiring constant expert supervision.[106] One might point out that the study’s specific mention of abundant fat supply from the cremated beast[107] contrasts sharply with the situation which prevailed at the Reinhardt camps. One might also ask why, despite over a century having passed, the results have never been replicated, why on the contrary other sources (including another study published in the same journal in the same year[108]) consistently report higher fuel requirements. Above all, one might ask why anyone is entitled to assume that the unreplicated results of these impractical procedures could be scaled up to a project that aimed to incinerate thousands of carcasses on a single pyre. While all of the above considerations are more than sufficient to show that Muehlenkamp’s reasoning is poorly justified, they will inevitably be met by Muehlenkamp’s trademark practice of ignoring all the evidence telling against his thesis while insisting that the burden of proof is on his opponents to prove that his speculations are impossible. A closer examination of Lothes and Profé’s experiments is therefore in order. The vital question is whether Muehlenkamp is correct in asserting that Lothes and Profé achieved complete cremation, or whether Carlo Mattogno was correct in assuming[109] that their experiments aimed only at more or less complete carbonization.

The term unschädliche Beseitigung in the paper’s title strongly suggests that the latter is the case. What are Muehlenkamp’s arguments to the contrary? Muehlenkamp claims that Lothes and Profé achieved complete rather than merely sanitary cremation for three reasons: first, because of their use of the term complete burning (vollständige Verbrennung); second, because of their reference to an experiment leaving only a heap of ashes behind; third, because of their concern over the dangers of anthrax (pp. 466-467). We will address these three arguments in turn.

First, consider the use of the words complete burning (vollständige Verbrennung). This term is indeed used in the paper by Lothes and Profé which Muehlenkamp cites. How should it be interpreted? This question can be answered by examining a subsequent paper by the same authors on the same topic, which Muehlenkamp ignores. Here the authors refer to complete carbonization (vollständige Verkohlung) three times, as well as vollständige Verbrennung.[110] They do not differentiate between the two terms – on the contrary, they treat them as equivalent. Vollständige Verbrennung is therefore not a reference to complete cremation, but only to carbonization.

Muehlenkamp’s second argument that Lothes and Profé achieved complete cremation is their reference to only a pile of ashes being left behind. This might seem to suggest complete cremation, but the term “ashes” – in both English and German – is rather flexible. One might say that a house had burned to ashes, or even a city burned to ashes, without literally meaning that there remained nothing but ashes, but rather that one considered the burning to have been complete in some sense of the term. As corpses never – not even in crematory ovens – burn to ashes in the strict sense of the term, we know that Lothes and Profé are not making strict use of language. Consequently this passage does not establish in precisely what sense Lothes and Profé’s combustion was ‘complete’. A contemporaneous study by Fabricius, published in the same journal and also dealing with the burning of anthrax carcasses, refers to an anthrax carcass being, though still very much intact, covered with glowing ash towards the end of a burning, and thereby shows in what direction we should look when interpreting this particular statement of Lothes and Profé.[111]

Muehlenkamp’s final argument concerns the dangers of anthrax. Here he reasons that Lothes and Profé would not have been satisfied with anything less than complete cremation because they were concerned with these hazards. He states quite correctly that Lothes and Profé were concerned about the risks involved in burying anthrax carcasses, and concludes from this that they must have demanded a very complete degree of combustion (p. 467). This inference is unfounded. Lothes and Profé’s concern over the danger of anthrax in a burial environment implies nothing about their beliefs concerning the destruction of anthrax by thermal means. As we have seen, they referred to the results of their experiments as vollständige Verkohlung, a phrase also used by Volmer, another author publishing on the burning of anthrax carcasses at the time,[112] and were satisfied with this result. The above cited passage from the work of Fabricius indicates an even lower standard of what degree of thermal destruction was seen as necessary for dealing with an anthrax carcass. The same conclusion – that complete cremation is not required for the sake of disposing of an anthrax carcass – was laid out in some detail by E. Zschokke.[113] In fact, Lothes and Profé were so sanguine about the thermal destruction of anthrax that they considered cooking (or boiling) to be a practical method of rendering a carcass unharmful through thermal means.[114] Their opinion in this regard was quite standard, and was backed up by other authors dealing with the anthrax problem.[115] Indications are that all of these experts were on-target in their assessment of the situation. Modern results suggest that heating anthrax to a little beyond 100 degrees centigrade will render it safe in a relatively short period of time.[116] While this is not quite as simple as it sounds, given the time it takes for heat to diffuse through to the center of a large carcass,[117] it is still far, far short of what is involved in complete cremation. As Lothes and Profé were well aware that anthrax could be destroyed by quite modest degrees of heat, their concern over the risks of burying anthrax carcasses has a significance precisely opposite that which Muehlenkamp assumes. Rather than suggesting that they would have insisted on complete incineration, it illustrates their incentive to settle for a quite limited degree of cremation, as cost was a major reason why carcasses were not burned.[118] Lothes and Profé were therefore at pains to establish that carcass burning could be performed inexpensively, because if it could not be performed inexpensively it likely would not be performed at all. Their incentives did not favor ensuring complete cremation of the carcass, but rather being able to advertise a procedure inexpensive enough for frugal farmers to be willing to adopt it.

In summary, by examining the literature on the disposal of anthrax carcasses contemporary to their work, we have shown that the result of Lothes and Profé’s experiments was a form of sanitary cremation and not complete cremation, and that therefore their experiments do not offer, as Muehlenkamp believes, proof that the governments of Great Britain, the United States, France, Australia, and other countries have been wasting large amounts of money by using wildly excessive amounts of fuel for mass cremations of livestock. Carlo Mattogno’s initial suspicion[119] that the experiments dealt only with more-or-less complete carbonization was entirely correct. Muehlenkamp’s appeal to Lothes and Profé can now join John C. Zimmerman’s failed appeal to the body-disposal activities of Créteur[120] on the garbage heap of failed anti-revisionist arguments: both are attempts to demonstrate the feasibility of the alleged German open air cremations by appealing to activities from the early history of modern cremation, whose results upon closer examination fall far short of what the anti-revisionists require.


[102] United States General Accounting Office, Report to the Honorable Tom Daschle, U.S. Senate: Foot and Mouth Disease: To Protect U.S. Livestock, USDA Must Remain Vigilant and Resolve Outstanding Issues, July 2002, p. 64.
[103] See the details at
[104] Lothes & Profé, Zur unschädlichen Beseitigung von Thiercadavern auf dem Wege der Verbrennung, Berliner Thierärztliche Wochenschrift, No. 37, 1902, p. 557-560.
[105] Zwick, Die unschädliche Beseitigung der Tierkadaver und die Fleischkonfiskate, p. 7, in: Transactions of the IXth International Veterinary Congress at The Hague, 13-19 September 1909.
[106] W. Heepke, Die Kadaver-Vernichtungsanlagen, quoted in Carlo Mattogno, Thomas Kues, and Jürgen Graf, The “Extermination Camps” of “Aktion Reinhardt”: An Analysis and Refutation of Factitious “Evidence,” Deceptions and Flawed Argumentation of the “Holocaust Controversies” Bloggers, 2013, p. 1240.
[107] Lothes & Profé, Zur unschädlichen Beseitigung von Thiercadavern auf dem Wege der Verbrennung, Berliner Thierärztliche Wochenschrift, No. 37, 1902, p. 558.
[108] Volmer, Ueber das Verbrennen der Milzbrandkadaver auf freiem Felde, Berliner Thierärztliche Wochenschrift, No. 42, 1902, pp. 617-618.
[109] “Verbrennungsexperimente mit Tierfleisch und Tierfett,” Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2003, pp. 185-194, here p. 189.
[110] Lothes & Profé, Die unschädliche Beseitigung von Thiercadavern auf dem Wege der Verbrennung, Fortschritte der Veterinär-Hygiene, No. 12, March 1904, pp. 325-328; cf. review in Berliner Thierärztliche Wochenschrift, No. 22, 1904, p. 401.
[111] L. Fabritius, Nochmals über das Verbrennen der Milzbrandkadaver, Berliner Thierärztliche Wochenschrift, No. 4, 1903, p. 50. Here is the relevant passage: Allmählich senkt sich die Feuerstätte immer tiefer, bis im Laufe einiger Stunden die glühende Asche nur noch spärliche verkohlte Reste des Cadavers birgt.
[112] Volmer, Ueber das Verbrennen der Milzbrandkadaver auf freiem Felde, Berliner Thierärztliche Wochenschrift, No. 42, 1902, pp. 617-618
[113] E. Zschokke, Über die Vernichtung von Milzbrandkadavern, Schweizer Archiv für Tierheilkunde, No. 6, 1902, pp. 283-292, here p. 291. For the reader’s convenience, we reproduce the pertinent passage in full: Ohne Kenntnis von ähnlichen Verfahren, wurde doch in gleicher Weise, wie oben beschrieben, vorgegangen, d.h. der Kadaver wurde in einer mit Holz gefüllten Erdgrube, von den üblichen Dimensionen dieser Verscharrungsgruben, verbrannt, unter Benutzung einer bedeutenden Menge von Petroleum. Dabei bestand allerdings nicht die Absicht, den Kadaver komplett zu veraschen, sondern nur soweit zu verkohlen, dass man sicher sein konnte, dass die Pilze durch die Hitze abgetötet, und namentlich alle, etwa mit der Luft in Berührung stehenden Körperpartien, wo die Bildung von Sporen zu befürchten gewesen wäre, verkohlt wurden. Das dürfte im allgemeinen doch wohl genügen. Der Rest des Kadavers sinkt in die Grube und wird mit Erde bedeckt.
[114] Lothes & Profé, Die unschädliche Beseitigung von Thiercadavern auf dem Wege der Verbrennung, Fortschritte der Veterinär-Hygiene, No. 12, March 1904, pp. 325-328, here p. 328.
[115] Zwick, Die unschädliche Beseitigung der Tierkadaver und die Fleischkonfiskate, pp. 1-2, in: Transactions of the IXth International Veterinary Congress at The Hague, 13-19 September 1909.
[116] E.A.S. Whitney, M.E. Beatty, T.H. Taylor, et al. Inactivation of Bacillus anthracis Spores. Emerging Infectious Diseases. Vol. 9, No. 6, 2003, pp. 623-627; S. Xu, T.P. Labuza, F. Diez-Gonzalez. Thermal Inactivation of Bacillus anthracis Spores in Cow’s Milk. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. Vol. 72, No. 6, 2006, pp. 4479-4483.
[117] Jacqueline McKinley, In the Heat of the Pyre: Efficiency of Oxidation in Romano-British Cremations – Did it Really Matter?, in: Christopher Schmidt & Steven Symes (eds), The Analysis of Burned Human Remains, 2008, p. 165.
[118] Zwick, Die unschädliche Beseitigung der Tierkadaver und die Fleischkonfiskate, p. 2, in: Transactions of the IXth International Veterinary Congress at The Hague, 13-19 September 1909.
[119] “Verbrennungsexperimente mit Tierfleisch und Tierfett,” Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2003, pp. 185-194, here p. 189.
[120] John C. Zimmerman, Body Disposal at Auschwitz: the end of holocaust denial, online: ; cf. Carlo Mattogno, An Accountant Poses as Cremation Expert, in: Germar Rudolf & Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz Lies, 2011, p. 91f.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ausrottung yet again

Jonathan Harrison and Roberto Muehlenkamp have made some short blogs attempting to rebut particular elements of my memo post on ausrotten. This post consists of replies to several such points.

Ausrottung in Hitler’s speech of 30.1.42

As I had pointed to Hitler’s speech of 30.1.42, in which he referred to the potential Ausrottung of all European peoples, as an example of a National Socialist using Ausrottung in a sense not implying killing, Harrison writes

German propaganda truly did claim that the allies were embarked on the physical extermination of the German people. Hitler’s speech repeated that claim, and thus did use “ausrottung” in the sense of physical extermination.

Unfortunately for Harrison’s attempted interpretation, in the speech in question Hitler referred not to the Ausrottung of the German people, but to the Ausrottung of all European peoples. Repeat: all European peoples, including those of the allied nations. Perhaps Harrison will explain how Hitler was claiming that every single English man, women, and child would be killed if Germany lost the war? And the same for the Irish, the French, the Swedes, the Dutch, etc.? Was this also a part of ‘German propaganda’? Of course not.

Thus, my argument stands: in this and other speeches, Hitler was using Ausrottung in a sense not implying that the people in question would be killed off. (In reality, his line of thought was probably something along the lines of “an allied victory will lead to the Bolshevization of Europe,” which he considered to be an Ausrottung.)

Harrison’s treatment of this speech answers a question I had asked: evidently he does not bother to read the writings to which he responds or the sources he interprets. However, Harrison refused to answer my question regarding whether (or to what extent) he can read German. To admit that he cannot read German to any reasonable extent, in light of how many German-language sources he cited in his contribution to the HC manifesto, would be rather embarrassing for him, as it means he has not and can not properly read most of his sources. Nevertheless, this appears to be the case: Harrison seems to have a rather limited (at best) ability to read German, which means that when he wrote his chapter in the manifesto he understood even less German. How, then, does he justify citing so many German sources – sources he could not read? The same question applies to Nick Terry, who can’t read Polish but still cites lots of Polish-language sources.

Muehlenkamp runs away

Roberto Muehlenkamp had, before the release of my “Memo for the controversial bloggers”, repeatedly argued with me concerning whether Ausrottung can be applied to a human population in a non-lethal sense – he claimed it could not. He has now made an awkward retreat from that position, likely because his blogging colleague Harrison quoted a statement from Peter Longerich that contradicted Muehlenkamp’s former position. Muehlenkamp’s attempt to shift his ground confirms the suspicion I earlier expressed regarding how Muehlenkamp and Harrison will treat my most explicit example. As I wrote:

I gave a number of examples of the word’s non-homicidal use, including a particularly explicit one from “Fürchtegott Leberecht Christlieb”. That particular passage is so explicit in stating that an expulsion counts as an Ausrottung that we can expect Muehlenkamp and Harrison to continue to ignore it, as it is so clear in its meaning that they will not be able to creatively misinterpret it.

Muehlenkamp now states that the various 19th century examples I’ve given of the application of ausrotten to groups of people in a sense not indicating killing are “of little if any relevance to Nazi uses of the term in connection with what they meant to do, were doing or had done to Jews”. This is rather odd, as Muehlenkamp had included 19th century examples on his list of uses of ausrotten which he thought to be homicidal. Apparently evidence only becomes irrelevant when it disproves Muehlenkamp’s (former?) thesis that ausrotten applied to groups of people always means killing.

Ausrottung in the Luther bible

Despite the fact that he has declared the subject irrelevant, Roberto Muehlenkamp has made another rash attempt (updating a previous post) to defend his thesis that the Luther’s use of ausrotten with respect to people always means killing. With respect to some additional examples which I cited in which Luther uses “ausrotten” to render what is generally given as “cut off” in English, a penalty which is explicitly contrasted with being put to death, Muehlenkamp (engaging in characteristically uninformed speculation) argues that Luther probably thought the offences in question so atrocious that they must have also been punishable with death. This argument, based as it is on Muehlenkamp’s ideas of what Luther thought was atrocious, fails because ausrotten was also used with respect to offences of an entirely different nature. For instance being ausgerottet from your people is the penalty for eating blood, for visiting fortune tellers, and eating leavened bread at the wrong time.

It’s easy to find more examples of Luther’s use of ausrotten showing that the word has a meaning much broader than just “killing”. For instance, those who collect money have been ausgerottet (Zeph 1:11), and Yahweh refers to “alle Völker, die ich ausgerottet habe” (Jos 23:4), which might suggest extermination if not for the fact that the next verse states that “der HERR, euer Gott, wird sie ausstoßen vor euch und von euch vertreiben, daß ihr ihr Land einnehmt”. Here being ausgerottet meant being driven from your land – brutally, certainly, but not always via extermination in the holocaust sense of the word. For a Volk to be ausgerottet meant that it was deprived of Lebensraum. Again, words have broader meanings than the controversial bloggers believe.

Or take something from Proverbs:

Denn die Gerechten werden im Lande wohnen, und die Frommen werden darin bleiben; aber die Gottlosen werden aus dem Lande ausgerottet, und die Verächter werden daraus vertilgt.

or in English

For the upright shall dwell in the land, and the perfect shall remain in it.
But the wicked shall be cut off from the earth, and the transgressors shall be rooted out of it.

When killing is meant there is sometimes even clarification regarding those who are ausgerottet durch Morden (Ob 1:9) – if being ausgerottet already implied killing, as Muehlenkamp thinks, such statements would be superfluous.


We turn now to some more general considerations relevant to ausrotten in the Luther bible and beyond. The Deutsches Wörterbuch confirms an argument that I had made earlier regarding the “literal” meaning of Ausrotten. While Muehlenkamp argued that the literal meaning when applied to a group of people is to kill while other meanings are merely figurative, I pointed out that the actual literal meaning is to uproot or root out, and that all other meanings, while perfectly normal, are still figurative, so that the meaning of “to kill” is not privileged over others. The DWB entry for ausrotten emphasizes the literal sense of uprooting, and terms the biblical applications to humans “bildlich” (figurative) – regardless of whether they are lethal or not.

The DWB gives ausreuten as an equivalent, which it describes in terms also emphasizing the literal sense of uprooting, and also gives the Latin exstirpare, which has a literal meaning of uprooting, as an equivalent. This latter word has a direct English version, extirpate. English also has another Latin-derived word indicating uprooting, eradicate. While both of these words certainly can be used to indicate killing, they do not necessarily have this meaning – just as with ausrotten. Consider the case of extirpate. Just as with ausrotten, it can be used in a territorial sense. Consider talk of Indians planning to extirpate the English nation out of the continent of America, or a desire to “extirpate the white man” which could be expressed by making “one great effort to drive them from the land“, or their desire to “extirpate the whites out of Kentucky,” or Indians who “determined to extirpate, or drive all the English from New-England.” Or one could mention a reference to the cost of expelling and extirpating the formerly resident Indians as reason not to allow them to settle in an area again. Or a Quaker activist who, complaining of the expulsions of the Indians (in the context of the debate over the Indian Removal Act), spoke of the Indians being extirpated from their country.

On Vernichtung durch Arbeit and Harrison’s new interpretation of a Rosenberg diary entry

Jonathan Harrison has made another blog post rejecting his previous interpretation of a particular entry in the Rosenberg diary to which I had pointed, and suggesting a different one. In this connection I should first point out that Harrison has focused exclusively on this single issue, and has ignored the main line of my argument regarding Rosenberg’s diary, namely that it confirms Rosenberg’s postwar statements to the effect that he was unfamiliar with any extermination of the Jews in the sense in which Harrison believes it to have taken place, and in particular offers further evidence in support of Rosenberg’s explanations of what his use of Ausrottung meant. In any event, Harrison now interprets the entry to refer to policy in the Reich, which is a possible reading but not a necessary one – the entry speaks of an intention in the Reich, which may or may not have been associated with a policy implementation in the Reich. In fact, Harrison undermines his own interpretation somewhat by quoting Thierack’s reference to opening up Eastern territories for German settlement.

The context Harrison gives for the entry is that of Vernichtung durch Arbeit, a phrase used with reference to an enhanced sentencing program for asocial elements. Harrison does not address the considerable range of meanings which Vernichtung can take, although I gave a number of examples of this in one of my memo posts, but reads Vernichtung durch Arbeit as meaning “worked to death”. Harrison completely ignores the relevant passage from Goebbels’ diary, which shows that death was not necessarily the intended goal, but simply an accepted possible consequence of the harsh conditions in which convicts were to work. Indeed, the intended Vernichtung of asocial elements is already to an extent achieved in that they are separated from the German people – ausschaltet, nach dem Osten verfrachtet. Their death, while not viewed as regrettable, is also not prescribed.

Goebbels wrote:

Der neue Reichsjustizminister Thierack hält mir Vortrag über seine Maßnahmen. Er vertritt einen durchaus nationalsozialistischen Standpunkt. Sein Weg führt dahin, die Juristen wieder mit neuem Selbstbewußtsein zu erfüllen, dem Richter ein neues Selbstbewußtsein zu geben, einerseits die unbrauchbaren Elemente auszuschalten, andererseits aber den brauchbaren wieder den Rücken zu stärken. Ich verspreche ihm in dieser Arbeit weitestgehende Unterstützung der deutschen Publizistik. Vor allem halte ich es für notwendig, daß im Gegensatz zu früher, wo vielfach psychologisch schlechte Urteile veröffentlicht wurden, jetzt psychologisch gute Urteile veröffentlicht werden. Die Frage der asozialen Elemente will Thierack dadurch lösen, daß er die mit hohen Zuchthausstrafen belegten Gewohnheitsverbrecher zu Strafkompanien zusammensetzt und sie nach dem Osten verfrachtet. Dort sollen sie unter den härtesten Bedingungen Arbeiten verrichten. Wer an dieser Arbeit zugrunde geht, um den ist es nicht schade. Allerdings rate ich ihm dringend, das nicht einfach mechanisch und schematisch nach der Höhe der Zuchthausstrafen zu beurteilen, sondern hier eine individuelle Beurteilung Platz greifen zu lassen. Es gibt eine Re[i]he von Fällen, in denen zwar harte Strafen ausgesprochen werden müssen, in denen es sich aber nicht um Elemente handelt, die gänzlich unbrauchbar für das Staatsleben geworden sind. Thierack vertritt hier einen sehr großzügigen, aber auch nationalsozialistischen Standpunkt. Ich glaube, man wird mit ihm gut arbeiten können. Jedenfalls verspreche ich ihm, jede Kritik an der deutschen Justiz in der deutschen Presse zu unterbinden. Man muß Thierack und seinen Hilfsorganen zuerst einmal eine Anlauffrist geben. Jedenfalls hat er den besten Willen, den ihm vom Führer erteilten Auftrag baldmöglichst und in der großzügigsten Weise durchzuführen. Im übrigen hat der Führer ihm bei seinem Besuch im Führer-Hauptquartier genau die Gedankengänge entwickelt, die ich letzthin bei meiner Rede vor dem Volksgerichtshof dargelegt habe.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Memo for the controversial bloggers, part Va: The sum of all errors: Roberto Muehlenkamp – burial space and decomposition

In the above sections, we have seen Nick Terry’s struggles with the Polish language, Jonathan Harrison’s difficulties with German words, and Jason Myers’ troubles with technical issues and witness statements. The contribution of Roberto Muehlenkamp, however, is the apotheosis of erroneous argumentation. This said, Muehlenkamp is the only one of the bloggers who goes much beyond ripping off the published literature. While Terry, Harrison, and Myers have rightly been dubbed the ‘plagiarist bloggers’, Muehlenkamp’s work is for the most part original. After all, whom could he plagiarize? No-one else in the world has ever come up with such nonsense. It’s no surprise to see that Muehlenkamp’s analysis is so poor, given that he proves unable even to understand how to calculate the volume of a truncated pyramid (p. 428) – a topic routinely mastered by twelve-year-olds.[91] Likewise, one can hardly expect a man who genuinely believes (p. 428) that loose sand excavated from pits will form piles whose walls have slopes of 173% (60 degrees)[92] to have much connection with reality. Muehlenkamp does not even manage to be consistent with his colleagues, who made a great fuss about distinguishing upper camp (extermination area) witnesses from lower camp witnesses, as he cites lower camp witness Oscar Strawczynski in support of the claim that the Treblinka mass graves could not be completely emptied (p. 387). In making this argument, Muehlenkamp ignores the statements of upper camp witnesses such as Pinchas Epstein, who claimed to have been personally involved in the cleaning out of the last, small, remains (bone fragments and the like) from the bottom of the Treblinka pits.[93]

The core elements of Muehlenkamp’s presentation concern the burial capacity of mass graves, and the resources in time, space, and fuel required for mass cremation. We will first examine some aspects of his treatment of mass graves. Speaking in general terms, the first feature which should jump out at the reader is Muehlenkamp’s unrelenting hostility to empiricism. One would expect an author examining the burial capacities would begin from the literature on mass burials. Muehlenkamp, however, keeps a respectful distance from empirical results, favoring long chains of extrapolations absent adequate empirical confirmation. There is good reason for this: an examination of actual mass graves would refute Muehlenkamp’s claims, while data-free speculation allows him to tweak the numbers as he sees fit. With his long chains of extrapolation, Muehlenkamp can lop off 5% here and 35% there, continuing the process until he obtains his desired figures. This creative accounting would break down in the presence of hard data.

This memo does not aspire to examine all the manipulations which Muehlenkamp employs in order to make the numbers work for burial capacity at the Reinhardt camps,[94] but will focus on one of these factors, namely his treatment of decomposition. Supposing that each mass grave was kept open for some months, and that over this time period the decomposing bodies would have lost much of their volume, Muehlenkamp deduces that there was a substantial increase in burial capacity. He bases his discussion of decomposition (p. 420) not on the academic literature, but on an online museum exhibit describing the decomposition of a 1.5 kg piglet on the earth’s surface in Australia. From this source he obtains a set of stages of decomposition which he employs throughout his contribution (e.g. pp. 469, 475). The first thing that should be observed is that this particular set of stages of decomposition is nothing more than the descriptive terminology of one museum exhibit. There are various ways in which the stages of decomposition for a body on the surface can be described. In examining several dozen scholarly books treating human decomposition, I have not found any source that gives the phases which Muehlenkamp uses so confidently.

In keeping with his preference for long chains of speculative extrapolation rather than direct data, Muehlenkamp examines decomposition on the basis of an inference from the behavior of bodies on the surface to the behavior of bodies in mass graves. While there do exist rules of thumb for such inference, they are rough instruments, and depend on many factors which Muehlenkamp ignores, such as depth of burial. The differences between decomposition on the surface and underground go beyond simply rescaling the time axis. Decomposition underground is a complex phenomenon that must be studied directly. While Muehlenkamp simply transfers his idiosyncratic list of stages of decomposition from the surface to underground, actual scientists studying underground decomposition have not devised any comparable standardized list of stages for decomposition underground – and certainly not the list which Muehlenkamp uses.[95] Likewise, decomposition in mass graves demands its own special study, as large mass graves have a tendency to preserve bodies better than individual burials.[96] If one is seeking to study decomposition in mass graves, one examines cases of decomposition in mass graves, rather than attempting some kind of extrapolation based on bodies on the surface.

Setting aside the methodological inadequacy of Muehlenkamp’s discussion of decomposition, let us examine the details of how he carries out his analysis. As usual, he errs fundamentally in carrying out his calculations. On the basis of accumulated degree day methods, and the work of Arpad Vass in particular, he states that he will analyze “time to skeletonization at Belzec in the late spring, summer and autumn of 1942” under the assumption that temperatures at this place and time were 20 to 30 degrees Celsius (p. 420). These assumed temperatures would be excessive even if daily highs were the relevant figures. Given that accumulated degree day methods actually rely on average temperatures,[97] Muehlenkamp’s temperature suppositions are wildly incorrect. In nearby Zamość, the average temperatures for the months of April through November are 7, 12, 15, 17, 16, 13, 8, and 2 degrees centigrade, well shy of Muehlenkamp’s 20-30 degree range.[98]

In truth, however, Muehlenkamp’s use of results on time to skeletonization in terms of accumulated degree days is more apparent than actual, and serves mainly to give the analysis a veneer of scientific rigor. Muehlenkamp does not even seem to be aware that Vass is using the term “skeletonization” in a very specific sense, in which a body is said to be skeletonized if it has ceased to release volatile fatty acids. Though this is not made absolutely explicit in the manifesto, the details being hidden behind his citation of one of his blog posts, the output that Muehlenkamp takes from his analysis of decomposition is that the bodies older than 50 days will have lost 50% of their mass – a figure which is nothing more than Muehlenkamp’s guesstimate, unsupported by any data. There is no direct link between Vass’ work and Muehlenkamp’s assumption’s regarding mass loss. How could one infer how much mass a carcass has lost from the fact that it has ceased to release volatile fatty acids? In fact, the figure found in the literature is that a total of one third of the carcass mass is ultimately lost in leachate.[99] Although we will not elaborate on this point, this particular piece of distortion on Muehlenkamp’s part has consequences not only for his treatment of burial capacity, but also for his treatment of cremation, as he feeds this false data into his cremation analysis.

In addressing the alleged contribution of decomposition to the burial capacity of mass graves, we need to obtain figures for the volume loss of the carcass mass. Thus far we have seen how Muehlenkamp, on the basis of his own invented (and false) numbers, estimates the mass loss of individual carcasses in mass graves. How does he make the transition from mass loss of the individual carcasses to volume loss of the carcass mass? In the most mindless of possible ways: he assumes that the proportion of mass lost by the individual carcasses is equal to the proportion of volume lost by the carcass mass. This assumption is unfounded for two complementary reasons. First, organic substances which dry out generally decrease in density, a fact precisely equivalent to the statement that they lose proportionally less volume than they lose mass. Second, a pile of carcasses each of which is shrinking due to loss of fluids will generally increase in porosity, i.e. it will contain proportionally more free space. This is tantamount to saying that the proportion of volume loss for the carcass mass is less than the proportion of volume loss of the individual carcasses. The increase in porosity arises for a number of reasons. Surfaces which were once convex and pressed up against one another in a space-filling fashion now become more concave as the objects dessicate, but due to the discrete nature of the carcasses and the semi-rigid structure given by the human skeleton, the gaps introduced by dessication are not filled in. The configuration of the carcasses is largely fixed on their initial burial, and they cannot rearrange themselves of their own accord; thus, for example, shrinkage in one of the horizontal axes does not translate into a proportional reduction in the height of the carcass mass.

All of these factors are difficult to quantify, but it is clear that the volume loss of the carcass mass will be significantly less than the mass loss of the carcasses. Given the difficulties involved in estimating this volume loss theoretically, it should be assessed on the basis on real life experience with mass graves. Ultimately, however, one can spare oneself the trouble, because as Carlo Mattogno has pointed out,[100] the filling rates for the graves would have been far too rapid for decomposition losses to have made any significant contribution to grave capacity.

There is one final topic concerning the role of decomposition that should be mentioned, although it lies off the main road of Muehlenkamp’s analysis, namely Kurt Gerstein’s tale of collapsing pits at Belzec (p. 419). Gerstein describes this as a rapid phenomenon, quite unlike the slow settling that may accompany decomposition, and his story clearly belongs to the realm of fantasy. As Gerstein’s testimony was widely publicized, this story influenced other accounts, and the theme was taken up by later authors, such as Gitta Sereny in her rendition of Franz Stangl’s alleged prison statements. In these later accounts, the tale continues to reveal its nature as fiction. This can be seen, for instance, in Eliahu Rosenberg’s version, given in his testimony at the Demjanjuk trial:

The pits somehow rose up and this – as we had covered it – the whole thing would suddenly rise up and it served as a kind of volcano from which a thick, viscous sort of material rose-colored and it was bubbling. It was a sort of vulcanized type of matter and the pit and the earth on top of the pit would rise up and then would suddenly drop, would subside. I don’t understand anything about the chemistry of this, but this is how it happened. And in these pits, to the extent that it had subsided, it had sunk, well we would top it up again.[101]

What Rosenberg and Gerstein describe is plainly not something with a real foundation in terms of the settlement due to decomposition. It is a tall tale, nothing more.


[91] Muehlenkamp erroneously assumes that the volume of a truncated pyramid whose sides slope at a given angle can be given in the form V=c*height*(AreaOfBase), where c is a fixed constant. In fact, the value of c in such a formula depends not only on the slope of the sides but also on other aspects of the shape of the truncated pyramid. No matter what the sides’ angle of slope might be, it can take any value in the open interval (1/3, 1). In the case Muehlenkamp considers, it will not take the value he supposes.
[92] Muehlenkamp assumes that deep burial pits will be dug with walls of this slope, and infers that the removed sand can be piled up at the same angle. In reality, it is common knowledge that soil will support a steeper slope when still in the ground (with years’ worth of compression having given it strength) than it will when it has been removed, loosened, and thereby deprived of its strength.
[93] Demjanjuk trial, 23.2.87, p. 651; Fedorenko trial, 9.6.78, pp. 1141-1144, 1154-1155.
[94] A few of these have been analyzed separately at
[95] For an overview of decomposition underground, see William C. Rodriguez, Decomposition of Buried and Submerged Bodies, in: William D. Haglund and Marcella H. Sorg (eds). Forensic Taphonomy: The Postmortem Fate of Human Remains, CRC Press, 1997.
[96] See William D. Haglund, Recent Mass Graves: An Introduction, in: William D. Haglund and Marcella Sorg (eds), Advances in Forensic Taphonomy: Method, Theory, and Archaeological Perspectives, CRC Press, 2002.
[97] It should be self evident to any thinking person that it is the average, and not the high, temperature which should be used; indeed, this is implied by the (not strictly accurate) assumption of linearity which underlines accumulated degree day (or hour) methods. For the benefit of those who, like Muehlenkamp, prefer to eschew rational mental processes, we will cite a paper that confirms this fact: see e.g. Mary Megyesi, Stephen Nawrocki, and Neal Haskell, Using Accumulated Degree-Days to Estimate the Postmortem Interval from Decomposed Human Remains, J. Forensic Sci., Vol. 50, No. 3, 2005, pp. 618-626.
[99] Carcass Disposal: A Comprehensive Review, Chapter 1: Burial, p. 6; Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Construction Specifications for Carcass Burial Facilities, Wellington, 2005, pp. 3-5; C.P. Young, P.A. Marsland, & J.W.N. Smith, Foot & Mouth Disease Epidemic. Disposal of culled stock by burial: Guidance and Reference Data for the protection of controlled waters. Draft R&D Technical Report: Version 7: 20 June 2001, pp. 17-18.
[100] Carlo Mattogno, Thomas Kues, and Jürgen Graf, The “Extermination Camps” of “Aktion Reinhardt”: An Analysis and Refutation of Factitious “Evidence,” Deceptions and Flawed Argumentation of the “Holocaust Controversies” Bloggers, 2013, pp. 1118-1120.
[101] Demjanjuk trial, 25.2.87, pp. 1008-1009.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment