Not long after my (tongue in cheek) comments on an argument which Jonathan Harrison had put forward with respect to the Tesch trial, he made a blog post on a tangentially related subject. As his post had nothing to do with my arguments and he did not mention me, I saw no reason to respond. More recently, however, Harrison has indicated that he thought his blog post was an attack on my Tesch trial paper
Apparently Harrison did envision his blog post as a reply to me, and the poor man has been feeling neglected at not receiving a reply. In the future, if Mr. Harrison wants a response, he should take enough time out of his busy
teaching curating-youtube-videos schedule to respond to what I write and mention that his arguments are directed at me. For now, though, I will explain a few simple things. First, Harrison complains that I did not mention the testimony of Wilhelm Bahr. Had he read the introduction to my paper, he would know that I explained the reason for this:
This paper will not address the witnesses concerning homicidal gassings who appeared at the trial (notably C.S. Bendel and Pery Broad), first, because they are better considered in a broader context, and second, because their statements have already been discussed in the revisionist literature.
The paper focused on the evidence against Tesch, meaning the evidence claiming that he had knowledge of homicidal gassings. Bahr’s testimony was not part of that evidence, and therefore it did not fit into the paper. Naturally, it fits into the context of the alleged Neuengamme gassings, and I’ll be happy to tell Mr. Harrison more about it in that proper context – but not just yet.
Next, Harrison states that I did not mention Zyklon deliveries to Neuengamme. This is rather odd, as I could have sworn that my paper contained the following passage:
Van Pelt uses Zyklon delivery quantities from Tesch trial documents, but these numbers are not complete and hence not suitable for comparisons of the sort van Pelt wants to draw.113 The quantities van Pelt quotes do not include the gassings that TESTA carried out themselves in the camps,114 notably in Sachsenhausen and Neuengamme, where these quantities are large enough to dramatically alter the results of van Pelt’s calculations for 1942.115 TESTA’s books record that in that year it gassed a total of 334,720 cubic meters at Sachsenhausen and 112,260 cubic meters at Neuengamme. At 15 grams per cubic meter, the standard concentration for gassing barracks,116 this means the use of 5,020.8 and 1,683.9 kg of Zyklon, respectively. These quantities dwarf van Pelt’s annual totals of 1,438 and 180 kg for these two camps. When the two sets of figures are added together, it appears that the quantities of Zyklon going to Sachsenhausen and Neuengamme in 1942 were, if anything, excessive in comparison with the quantity going to Auschwitz, perhaps as a result of German fear that epidemics in these camps might spread and affect the nearby urban areas.
Further, van Pelt assumes that the Zyklon supply to camps other than Auschwitz, Neuengamme for example, was adequate on a per-prisoner basis, while in reality Neuengamme prisoners complained that delousing was scarcely ever done, and blamed the camp administration for this omission, which was the result of a shortage of Zyklon.117
Thus, I did mention the Zyklon supply to Neuengamme, although the issue is entirely tangential to my paper. Evidently not only did Harrison not read my paper, he also failed even to run a quick ctrl+F to see what I had said about Neuengamme. I must say that I am surprised to see Mr. Harrison suggesting that the Zyklon deliveries to Neuengamme offer evidence of homicidal gassing. Have we really regressed to the point where anti-revisionists don’t know that Zyklon served a basic sanitary function? Does Mr. Harrison even know the basic facts about the sanitary situation in Neuengamme in early 1942 and the hygienic measures taken in response?
In sum, Harrison has made a fool of himself yet again. Of course, if he would like to elaborate on my tiresome and pointless gambits based on personal incredulity, perhaps with a few specifics this time, I’m all ears. I can always use a few laughs.