Memo for the controversial bloggers, part I: Introduction

In December 2011, the bloggers of holocaust controversies (the “controversial bloggers”) released a “white paper,” or, as it became popularly known, a “manifesto,” attacking the books written by Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf, and Thomas Kues about the camps Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka. The work was certainly the most substantial piece of anti-revisionism to appear since Robert Jan van Pelt’s The Case for Auschwitz. In a previous review of this manifesto alongside with the rebuttal which it provoked,[1] being constrained by a suggested word count, I restricted myself to a few critical comments. At the time, the controversial bloggers had announced[2] that contrary to Nick Terry’s previous statement that they would “respond in a similar fashion,”[3] they would not be answering Mattogno, Graf, and Kues’ rebuttal, but would produce only an updated version of their original work. It seemed that having decided to forego a full response, they would likely be able to produce an updated edition relatively soon. Therefore, I planned to defer my further comments until that version appeared.

A year and a half having passed since the release of the rebuttal of Mattogno, Graf, and Kues[4] without any further response from the controversial bloggers, and without any indication that they would be releasing their updated manifesto anytime soon, I decided to write up the thoughts that I had omitted from the earlier review, together with some additional information that had come to light more recently. The present paper, the fruit of that decision, is divided into sections focusing on the contributions of each of the four main authors; the fifth author, Sergey Romanov, appears to have played a relatively minor role in the preparation of the manifesto, and is therefore omitted. With the partial exception of the section dealing with the arguments of Roberto Muehlenkamp, it is not intended to be a comprehensive rebuttal to the bloggers’ writings, but simply a focused illumination of some of their more interesting errors.

In writing this critique, I have generally sought to avoid repeating the arguments already made in the lengthy rebuttal of Mattogno, Graf, and Kues, even when this meant ignoring some very juicy targets. That said, I have not hesitated to allow for such overlap if I could offer new information or a different perspective on a particular issue.


[1] Friedrich Jansson, The Extermination Camps of Aktion Reinhardt, Inconvenient History, Vol. 6 No. 1, 2014. Online: http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2014/volume_6/number_1/the_extermination_camps_of_aktion_reinhardt.php
[2] http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2012/12/our-demolition-of-mgk-one-year-on.html
[3] https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7218#p53331
[4] 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.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s