Do we know what is the latest sit-rep of the MGK vs Holocaust Controversies debate, and whether there have been attempts to collate the various whitepapers / publications, rebuttals and responses, together for ease accessibility?
I am also aware there have been accusations of plagiarism against the HC bloggers and that Dr Terry (Sanity Check) appears here sometimes to post which is appreciated, so I'm wondering has any of this been addressed? I cannot find anything later than 2013 from the HC side on this debate, but perhaps I have missed it (hence the question, within the debate section too, so he can comment freely if he wishes)
And also yes I am aware that Jurgen Graf has sadly passed away earlier in this year.
MGK vs HC Debate
-
Callafangers
- Administrator
- Posts: 830
- Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2024 6:25 am
Re: MGK vs HC Debate
It's not completely clear, I would say, and remains incomplete on the HC side of things. MGK produced a comprehensive tome of a response, following HC's own book. There has been no similar response from HC. Their prior book remains the only one they have produced on this matter. SanityCheck/Terry has addressed the plagiarism allegations in the past, I do not recall what he said although I do not think there is much to say about the fact that your citations are clearly copy-paste from what you have read in other literature (same typos, same discrepancies), demonstrating a lack of professionalism (plagiarism) as an historian at least and a sign of broader incompetence at worst. Mattogno personally held in his hand the primary source documents he used and referenced; Terry et al repeatedly copy-pasted (plagiarized) what they found in the 'Notes' or 'References' sections of other authors. The former is the practice of a legitimate historian; the latter, something else.
As for the responses by the HC bloggers to individual pieces and nuggets of the MGK tome of the early 2010s (TECOAR), some of these had weight to them (e.g. rebuttals involving discussion of the Einsatzgruppen, which Mattogno responded to with the namesake work later in the same decade). The 'gas vans' are also now warranting further discussion given the Munro work recently published there as well, which some at HC have referenced. I think Mattogno eventually recognized that HC bloggers were not going to respond professionally to the previous work in book format (and it is explained in TECOAR why they do not take blogs seriously, since these can change or vanish from the web at any moment, whereas a book is a commitment to the claims and arguments therein). But, a decade later, no such book has come. With his own age and the declining health of Graf at that time, Mattogno's latest major treatment on the AR camps has become what now stands in place of the tome (TECOAR) in the Holocaust Handbooks series: that is, "The Operation Reinhard Camps" (TORC), where Mattogno here boils down the most authoritative evidence on these camps which sets the bar for HC bloggers and anyone else in their position to overcome.
MGK previously admitted in TECOAR that this book/tome had been a "steamrolling" approach to responding to the earlier book by HC bloggers. MGK intended to go through every single item provided in the HC book, one-by-one, just to "squash" it all for good. In hindsight, this might not have been the best approach, since it opened up a lot of micro-debates in documents and claims which were of less importance, lesser known, etc., allowing the HC bloggers to take 'easy wins' whenever they could show that MGK had misunderstood any particular detail. But of course, 'proving the Holocaust' was never about "sticking it to the deniers". It was always about eliminating any other possible explanation other than gassing and mass cremations. I think Mattogno recognized this later on, which is why he wrote TORC as a way to reassert the superiority of the revisionist narrative and avoid the "can of worms" in endless nitpicking of documents and arguments that really only belong on the periphery.
This becomes clear while reading through TORC; Mattogno is surgical, here, demonstrating the fact of a black propaganda narrative in development, then discussing physical evidence with precision at length, also addressing evident falsehoods of key 'Holocaust' witnesses (e.g. Gerstein, Reder). These are precisely the areas that exterminationists have not (and presumably cannot) effectively challenge. These alone are sufficient to invalidate the 'Holocaust' narrative of these camps. Any other arguments sustained in MGK's earlier work are a bonus for robustness, but they are not strictly necessary. These peripheral areas would be left up to the rest of us to "clear the air" (plenty of work to do), but MGK have solidified the foundation/core in ways that HC bloggers have had to circumvent entirely. Hence the emphasis on "where did they go?" as opposed to "they are underneath Treblinka [or Belzec, etc.]".
As for the responses by the HC bloggers to individual pieces and nuggets of the MGK tome of the early 2010s (TECOAR), some of these had weight to them (e.g. rebuttals involving discussion of the Einsatzgruppen, which Mattogno responded to with the namesake work later in the same decade). The 'gas vans' are also now warranting further discussion given the Munro work recently published there as well, which some at HC have referenced. I think Mattogno eventually recognized that HC bloggers were not going to respond professionally to the previous work in book format (and it is explained in TECOAR why they do not take blogs seriously, since these can change or vanish from the web at any moment, whereas a book is a commitment to the claims and arguments therein). But, a decade later, no such book has come. With his own age and the declining health of Graf at that time, Mattogno's latest major treatment on the AR camps has become what now stands in place of the tome (TECOAR) in the Holocaust Handbooks series: that is, "The Operation Reinhard Camps" (TORC), where Mattogno here boils down the most authoritative evidence on these camps which sets the bar for HC bloggers and anyone else in their position to overcome.
MGK previously admitted in TECOAR that this book/tome had been a "steamrolling" approach to responding to the earlier book by HC bloggers. MGK intended to go through every single item provided in the HC book, one-by-one, just to "squash" it all for good. In hindsight, this might not have been the best approach, since it opened up a lot of micro-debates in documents and claims which were of less importance, lesser known, etc., allowing the HC bloggers to take 'easy wins' whenever they could show that MGK had misunderstood any particular detail. But of course, 'proving the Holocaust' was never about "sticking it to the deniers". It was always about eliminating any other possible explanation other than gassing and mass cremations. I think Mattogno recognized this later on, which is why he wrote TORC as a way to reassert the superiority of the revisionist narrative and avoid the "can of worms" in endless nitpicking of documents and arguments that really only belong on the periphery.
This becomes clear while reading through TORC; Mattogno is surgical, here, demonstrating the fact of a black propaganda narrative in development, then discussing physical evidence with precision at length, also addressing evident falsehoods of key 'Holocaust' witnesses (e.g. Gerstein, Reder). These are precisely the areas that exterminationists have not (and presumably cannot) effectively challenge. These alone are sufficient to invalidate the 'Holocaust' narrative of these camps. Any other arguments sustained in MGK's earlier work are a bonus for robustness, but they are not strictly necessary. These peripheral areas would be left up to the rest of us to "clear the air" (plenty of work to do), but MGK have solidified the foundation/core in ways that HC bloggers have had to circumvent entirely. Hence the emphasis on "where did they go?" as opposed to "they are underneath Treblinka [or Belzec, etc.]".
...he cries out in pain and proceeds to AI-slop-spam and 'pilpul' you...
Re: MGK vs HC Debate
As far as I know, this was the exchage:
-AR Camp Texts: HH #8, 9, 19 (Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor)
-HC "White Paper" (2011)
-MGK Response (formerly HH #28) (2013)
-New HH #28 (2021), a more concise book on the AR camps (Rudolf felt the MGK response at 1,400 pages was overly long and difficult to read).
I'm not aware of any major HC response to MGK 2013, but there are presumably scattered posts all over on the blog.
At this point, on the revisionist side, only M of the MGK team is active, and M's time is surely better spent doing his thing. The HC blog has also slowed down quite a bit. It had nearly died completely in 2023 with only 8 posts for that whole year. By now it seems that only Hans has any steam left.
A long-standing complaint I have had with HC is that I simply refuse to sift through years of blog posts. It is only useful if you have a link or if you can search for a specific thing. They could have tried to boil it all down better, but I don't think they will ever do this since their whole approach is to drag readers into an interminable mess of weeds. To present concise, well-organized arguments would therefore be self-defeating.
If there are to be any follow-ups, I think it would be best to have focused articles dealing with specific points. Detailed back and forth on countless points would probably work better on a forum rather than trying to do it in book form.
-AR Camp Texts: HH #8, 9, 19 (Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor)
-HC "White Paper" (2011)
-MGK Response (formerly HH #28) (2013)
-New HH #28 (2021), a more concise book on the AR camps (Rudolf felt the MGK response at 1,400 pages was overly long and difficult to read).
I'm not aware of any major HC response to MGK 2013, but there are presumably scattered posts all over on the blog.
At this point, on the revisionist side, only M of the MGK team is active, and M's time is surely better spent doing his thing. The HC blog has also slowed down quite a bit. It had nearly died completely in 2023 with only 8 posts for that whole year. By now it seems that only Hans has any steam left.
A long-standing complaint I have had with HC is that I simply refuse to sift through years of blog posts. It is only useful if you have a link or if you can search for a specific thing. They could have tried to boil it all down better, but I don't think they will ever do this since their whole approach is to drag readers into an interminable mess of weeds. To present concise, well-organized arguments would therefore be self-defeating.
If there are to be any follow-ups, I think it would be best to have focused articles dealing with specific points. Detailed back and forth on countless points would probably work better on a forum rather than trying to do it in book form.
Incredulity Enthusiast
Re: MGK vs HC Debate
Thanks gentlemen, yes that has been my impression too when trying to piece this together.
I find it useful to have discussions like this collated and sequential - perhaps Dr Terry might see this and signpost us to any previous responses he feels are representative of his "side", and if we're lucky perhaps a fresh sit-rep from his side!
I find it useful to have discussions like this collated and sequential - perhaps Dr Terry might see this and signpost us to any previous responses he feels are representative of his "side", and if we're lucky perhaps a fresh sit-rep from his side!