Jew World Order

HOLOCAUST HANDBOOKS, Volume 40: 

Carlo Mattogno: Deliveries of Coke, Wood and Zyklon B to Auschwitz: Neither Proof nor Trace for the Holocaust 

Translated by Germar Rudolf 

Uckfield, East Sussex: CASTLE HILL PUBLISHERS 

PO Box 243, Uckfield, TN22 9AW, UK 

May 2021

holocausthandbooks.com

The latest publication of scholarly research by the worlds foremost holocaust revisionist, Carlo Mattogno.

Introduction

In 2011, an important article was published by Piotr Setkiewicz, director of the Research Center at the Auschwitz Museum, which is titled “The Supply of Materials to the Crematoria and Gas Chambers at Auschwitz: Coke, Wood, Zyklon.” His exposition far surpasses all previous discussions on the topic by orthodox Holocaust historians (especially the rather slapdash one by van Pelt 2002), and also raises what appear to be certain significant issues. It therefore deserves to be examined more carefully.

Setkiewicz highlights the lack of documentary evidence in relation to the alleged mass extermination at Auschwitz, noting: 

“The extensive research carried out in recent years on this important documentation has contributed to the sum of knowledge on the subject of the gas chambers and crematoria at Auschwitz, but it has not helped to resolve all contentious issues,” 

so that, regardless of the testimonies, the confessions and the few documents, 

“our direct knowledge of the full extent of the extermination is derived mainly from the obvious conclusion that, if on any given day many more prisoners were brought into the camp than were registered, then the remaining number were undoubtedly killed.” (Setkiewicz 2011a, p. 48) 

This is, however, the very same dubious method used by Danuta Czech in the preparation of her Auschwitz Chronicle. Yet Setkiewicz wants to go beyond this by analyzing documents previously ignored by the Auschwitz Museum which should provide new evidence. 

In fact, his article is an indirect response to revisionist arguments, especially with regard to supplies of coke to the crematoria of Auschwitz-Birkenau; it is an indirect response in that the revisionist arguments are never explicitly mentioned. 

My present study is a direct response to Setkiewicz’s arguments, objections and explanations, each of which I will analyze individually and then as a whole. 

Conclusion

Setkiewicz’s summary at the end of his article is not exactly flattering to orthodox Holocaust historiography: 

“Although many years have passed since the war ended, the researchers [of the Auschwitz Museum] have failed to find any major body of documents in the archives on the basis of which the entire extermination process at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp can be described accurately. In view of the many gaps in the archival materials that are crucial to our understanding of this issue, we are left with hundreds and thousands of witness reports, first of all by former inmates, or the testimonies by members of the SS, who were either in marginal or in permanent contact with the crematoria and the gas chambers. These reports, however, although most are credible and complement each other, contain – by their very nature – a number of inaccuracies and errors (especially with regard to the chronology), so in the end they cannot be considered as absolutely sufficient historiographical sources.”

As a small consolation, the author says that 

“the testimonies referred to above, however, can be supported – as demonstrated above – by references [wzmiankami] contained in the documents of the various groups of the camp’s files which, although certainly rare, are at once immensely important. Only together, when analyzed in conjunction, these documents and the testimonies of the former detainees permit to reconstruct the course of events and to understand the magnitude of the crimes committed at Auschwitz.” (pp. 73f.)

Thus, everything is reduced to testimonies and to rare “references” in documents (Pressac‘s “criminal traces”).

With his silences and false explanations about the many absurdities contained in the witness testimonies, Setkiewicz demonstrates that the “inaccuracies and errors,” and moreover the contradictions of these statements are much-more-pronounced than what he would have us believe, and they do not even primarily concern chronological issues. This is all the more reason to conclude that testimonies alone cannot be considered sufficiently reliable historical sources.

And since documents for the existence of homicidal gas chambers do not exist, what remains of the “history” of the gas chambers of Auschwitz? 

The end of Setkiewicz’s article clearly shows his actual intent: to respond to revisionism without mentioning it:

“To those who still doubt, the following question can be asked: if Auschwitz was merely a simple ‘labor camp,’ then what were those ‘field furnaces,’ the ‘gassing rooms,’ the ‘mortuary chambers’ and the ‘bathing installations’; what purposes did the ‘material for special treatment’ or ‘material for the resettlement of the jews’ really serve, which was ordered from the Cyklon factory at Dessau in thousands of kilograms; why were considerable quantities of firewood transported by truck to the Sonderkommando, while at the same time thousands of tons of coke were delivered to the cremation furnaces?”

If the SS had nothing to hide at Auschwitz, Setkiewicz concludes, they would not have invented “complicated euphemisms,” but since they invented them, they tried to “hide the traces of unprecedented crimes” (p. 74), which means that the “proof” par excellence for the alleged gassings at Auschwitz is reduced to those alleged “euphemisms”! Curiously, Setkiewicz only reports the respective Polish translation:

– “obozem pracy” = “Arbeitslager” 

– “piece polowe” = “Feldöfen” 

– “pokoje do gazowania” = “Vergasungsräume” 

– “kostnice” = “Leichenhallen, Leichenkeller” 

– “zakłady kąpielowe” = “Badeanstalten (für Sonderaktionen)” 

– “materiał do specjalnego traktowania” = “ Material für Sonderbehandlung” 

– “materiał do przesiedlania Żydów” = “Material[ien] für Judenumsiedlung”

If Setkiewicz, in addition to asking questions, were also willing to listen to the answers, he would know that all the issues he raised were dealt with and explained in depth in their historical and documentary context by those same unnamed revisionists.

The best mainstream treatment of the issue of coke, firewood and ZyklonB deliveries to Auschwitz is thus totally inconclusive and utterly unable even to scratch the surface of revisionist critiques.

Carlo Mattogno, May 2015, revised in March 2021

Website Description

In order to prove that mass exterminations in gas chambers occurred at the infamous Auschwitz Camp, mainstream historians must rely almost exclusively on eyewitness accounts. They also adduce a few documents with ambiguous contents which they take out of their historical and documental context in order to impute a homicidal meaning to them which they don’t have.

After revisionist scholars pointed out this fact, and also established the highly dubious nature of these witness accounts in numerous studies, a researcher from the Polish Auschwitz Museum, Piotr Setkiewicz, tried a different approach to prove the raison d’être of his employer: In a lengthy paper, he points to documents about deliveries of firewood and coke as well as the pesticide Zyklon B to the Auschwitz Camp. The deliveries and consumption of wood and coke allegedly can be explained only by massive cremation figures compatible only with a large-scale killing program. But to come to this conclusion, ridiculously low average amounts of coke required for the cremation of a corpse in a cremation furnace have to be assumed, and even lower average amounts of wood for the burning of corpses on outdoor pyres. Neither of these amounts is even remotely physically possible. Furthermore, one has to ignore the fact that the wood and coke supplied to the camp also was used to heat hundreds of inmate housing units, in addition to camp administration buildings and SS accommodations, and also to fire the many kitchen stoves and the boiler units in various disinfestation and shower facilities.

The supplies of the pest-control agent Zyklon B presumably point to homicidal activities as well, if we are to believe Setkiewicz. But when considering the total amount of inmate barracks in frequent need of pest control, and the various disinfestation facilities constantly consuming this product to fight lice and fleas in garments and bedclothes, nothing is left for the claim that there is anything sinister about the quantities of Zyklon B the Auschwitz Camp received.

As the present study shows, if realistic amounts of coke and wood needed for recorded (non-homicidal) cremation purposes are assumed, and considering the camp’s need for pest-control agents to fight the various epidemics which ravaged the camp throughout its history, the documented supplies of coke, wood and Zyklon B actually prove the opposite of what Setkiewicz claims: Not only is there neither trace nor proof for mass murder contained in them, but they actually prove that the mass-extermination and mass-cremation claims cannot be true.

200 pages.
Format: pb, 6″×9″, bibliography, index.
Published by Castle Hill Publishers (Uckfield, UK) in May 2021. ISBN13: 9781591481478 (ISBN10: 1591481473)
For prices please see retail outlets.

Purchase Options

Note: Books published by Castle Hill Publishers should be available anywhere books are sold – except for those companies boycotting us, like Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Search other online stores using the book-price search-engine links provided below, or when searching other stores use the ISBN number provided above. Also ask your local book store to order it for you. They should be able to get it for you.

Source