Key Witness

Sometimes, I am not happy with the choices authors make when writing articles or books. One recent case is Carlo Mattogno’s book Sonderkommando Auschwitz I, which was just released in its first English edition. The book contains detailed critiques of the accounts of nine former Auschwitz inmate who all claimed to have worked as members of the so-called Sonderkommando in emptying homicidal gas chambers and incinerating the victims of the claimed correlated mass murder.

So what’s wrong with that, you may ask? After all, years of prodding Carlo finally made him give in to my wishes and compile detailed witness critiques. But there’s always a fly in the ointment, isn’t there? In this case, more than half of the text forming the main part of this book is filled with an extremely detailed and revealing critique of the various writings and witness statements by Filip Müller. And that’s the problem.

Filip Müller is an extremely important and influential witness. He testified during the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial, but more importantly, he wrote a book (or rather had it ghostwritten, as is par for the Holocaust witness course – in this case by a certain Helmut Freitag). His 1979 book was so “impressive” to orthodox scholars that it propelled him to the first rank of Auschwitz, nah, Holocaust witnesses par excellence. Today, he probably is even more influential than Miklós Nyiszli, who can claim original fame to the way the Auschwitz narrative developed.

Helmut Freitag plagiarized important themes and events from the German version of Nyiszli’s book, serialized in 1961 in a German magazine.

Together with Rudolf Höss and Miklós Nyiszli, Filip Müller ranks today among the most-important witnesses on Auschwitz. Raul Hilberg, during his lifetime wrongfully considered the leading Holocaust expert, was very impressed by Müller’s book, considering the author an “accurate, reliable person.”[1] Carlo’s detailed exposure demonstrates just how superficial and credulous mainstream historians are.

Unfortunately, Carlo’s analysis of Müller’s various texts and statements is now only part of a book addressing several other witnesses who I would categorize as only secondary or tertiary in importance and influence. Müller would have deserved a monograph. The material for it is there. It would set an important counter-point to Müller’s/Freitag’s literary fraud.

As a remedy, I have decided to reproduce in this and the next two issues, in three sequels, the entire part of Sonderkommando Auschwitz I that scrutinizes Müller’s mental diarrhea. This way, we have at least a solid online monograph, so to speak. It’s so important, it simply has to be included in CODOH’s online library, via Inconvenient History.

Oh, and I added the Roman numeral I to the end of the book’s title, because I’ve managed to get Carlo to keep going and produce more such detailed witness critiques of self-proclaimed former members of the mislabeled Sonderkommando. They will bear the titles Sonderkommando Auschwitz II, … III, and maybe even more. So stay tuned.

[1] See G. Rudolf (ed)., The First Zündel Trial: The Court Transcript of the Canadian “False News” Trial of Ernst Zündel, 1985, Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, 2020, p. 203.