The CODOH Revisionist Forum

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.

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 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.

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!

Cross-posting, to keep this topic together.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Jan 27, 2026 2:11 pm My impression was there was a supposed to be a debate, MGK backed out, so they published their research materials. No back and forth intended since MGK backed out initially. This is explained in the white paper.

Posting this reply to BA's derail of the other thread here in this thread.

bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Jan 27, 2026 3:58 am

Archie wrote: ↑Tue Jan 27, 2026 2:29 am

bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Jan 27, 2026 12:42 am Yes, and TECOAR is nowhere to be found on the HH website, therefore my statement of them withdrawing the critique is fair.

You think your totally dishonest statement is "fair." Because of course you do. The book was not withdrawn, and there was no reason to withdraw or retract it since it was never rebutted. If anyone should have retracted it should have been HC.

Here is the book you claim was "withdrawn" available at the ARMREG.
https://armreg.co.uk/product/the-exterm ... -part-1-2/

Germar wanted it removed from the Holocaust Handbooks series and had it replaced with a more concise work on the AR camps. Germar thought it was too long and that it was basically unreadable/not a proper stand-alone book because it's a bunch of point-by-point responses to another book. And it was a pain to print. They had to split it into two volumes.

Nah you can think that, but it's also plausible to say they withdrew it because they could see it made them look bad.

I think it's because they chose to do a point by point critique, missing very little, and in effect that forced them to cite hundreds of pieces of Holocaust evidence. The HC Blog book , from a narrative perspective, the first 200 pages especially (leading from 1941 to when the killing machinery was fully in place), is really impressive to me. It's just document after document of Nazis talking about killing Jews in various ways. When you read it this way, and then you get to the section on resettlement, where they're forced to defend the Herman Kruk diary entry as evidence, you really see the sorry state of affairs. There's more evidence in one page of that HC blog section than there is for the whole of resettlement. The response to HC blog on resettlement is missing entirely from the "updated" version. I think this was embarrassing too, with Mattogno speculating (completely, no evidence) about massive top secret camps exclusively for resettled Jews within the gulag system or parallel to it.

It's funny how differently people's experiences will be with the same text.

When I first encountered the HC text I went straight to the discussion of the burial and cremation of ~1.5M bodies and I was amazed at the brazen absurdity of the arguments. Claiming you can cremate a human body in open air with 15 kg of wood. I was shocked they would insult their readers with this. I can only assume that they merely intended to put out a thick book that could be pointed to as debunking revisionism but didn't actually expect anyone to read it. (Probably true).

At some point I went back to the beginning. One major annoyance I had with it is that there was way too much reaction to MGK. Why? If they could prove everything, they would have just done it and maybe critique MGK as an afterthought. Instead we just gets all this snark running through the whole thing.

I was also annoyed by the citations, many of which are totally inscrutable to the non-specialist and not easily available (certainly not in 2011). And I found this even funnier when I found out that a lot of quotes are merely taken from common books like Arad but with citations changed to pretentious archival sources.

The section BA is jerking off to above I did not find so spectacular. It starts discussing Mattogno at length (why?) and then leads into Einsatzgruppen. It's quite long-winded and would be very dull to most people. This could all be presented much so much more clearly and concisely, and that was what I tried to do with the essay I posted recently. I made everything to the point and I made sure all the sources were things that people could actually check.

Yeah I see from pg 90 to 210 is the brunt of the historical narrative making, and 210 - 270 is about revisionist failure to provide a corresponding narrative.

" One major annoyance I had with it is that there was way too much reaction to MGK. Why? If they could prove everything, they would have just done it and maybe critique MGK as an afterthought"

Every Holocaust history book that relies on evidence "proves" the Holocaust, in the same way that books on WW2 "prove" it happened. To most people, the Holocaust is as proven as the battle of Stalingrad, or whatever. There's no reason for authors to engage with the question of whether it happened or not, unless they're dealing with revisionist ridiculousness, which they consider to be the historical equivalent of flat earth belief (and here I would concur it is, or very close to it). The HC Blog book is about that ridiculousness.

Moreover, refuting Revisionism was an opportunity for us to expand our historical
work on the Holocaust into a larger text than the blog format allows, while synthesizing and
developing some ideas already present in those articles. It was also a chance to enjoy the
satisfaction of exposing shoddy and deceitful history. We feel that, despite the claims of some
commentators that refuting Holocaust denial is a waste of effort, the opportunity to debunk
the output of pseudoscholars is one that should be taken for its own sake. It does not mean
that we regard deniers as equal debating partners on an intellectual or ethical level; instead,
we proceed in the knowledge that deniers operate in ignorance and bad faith.

The "proof" the Holocaust happened is the evidence for it, so pg 90 - 210 does this admirably. It's just primary source after primary source evincing the development of mass killing program. That's why I liked it. Most history books aren't going to lay the evidence out like that, they'll gloss over the details.