Challenge to Supporters of the Revisionist Transit Camp Theory

[Updated on 16.03.2014 and 19.03.2014 to accommodate a change request by Eric Hunt expressed on the Skeptics Society Forum thread Reissue Muehlenkamp's Challenge so I can win.]

[Updated on 14.08.2017 to expand the choice of potential arbiters.]

This challenge was born out of an amenable conversation between my old friend Greg Gerdes and me on the threads $1,000.00 REWARD FOR THE NAME OF JUST ONE GASSED JEW and Transit Camp Challenge in the Revisionist Projects section of the Revisionist Workshop forum.



Challenge to Supporters of the Revisionist Transit Camp Theory
By Roberto Muehlenkamp

According to Revisionist scripture, the places known by history to have been extermination camps were mere transit camps, places where arriving deportees were bathed, had themselves and/or their clothing deloused, were perhaps given a hot meal or drink and then sent onwards to final destinations in the Nazi-occupied territories of the USSR, where they were resettled in camps or ghettos. The numbers that Revisionists claim to have been transited through these camps is enormous. The Korherr Report alone, which Revisionists claim must be understood literally in this respect, mentions 1,274,166 Jews transited to the "Russian East" through "the camps in the General Government" (mainly Bełżec, Sobibór and Treblinka, as we know now from the Höfle telegram) and 145,301 Jews transited to the "Russian East" through "the camps in the Warthegau" (obviously Chełmno/Kulmhof), until the end of 1942. So a total of 1,419,467 persons are supposed to have been transited to the "Russian East" in this period through these camps alone, instead of being gassed at these camps as all known evidence shows them to have been. Some of them would have succumbed to hardship on the journey or at the place of destination, but most would have survived the war and returned to their places of origin or emigrated after the war. Their names would have been carefully recorded (also in order to control them), and there would have been no reason for the Nazis to destroy these records or any other part of the huge paper trail that this gigantic resettlement operation would have created (on the contrary, all this documentation would have been their best safeguard against accusations that they had murdered these people). The deportees would have been seen along the route and at the place of final destination by a great many people, including but not limited to those in charge of transporting and accommodating them and the local population. From such witnesses, but especially from the surviving deportees themselves, there should be thousands upon thousands of accounts narrating their experiences. Having been subject to persecution by the Nazi government, the many surviving deportees, or at least a substantial part of them, would have filed compensation claims with the German Federal Republic after the war. There would be records about their return home or their emigration, and there would be records about their later whereabouts. From all these accounts and documentation, names of deportees transited through Chełmno, Bełżec, Sobibór and Treblinka to the "Russian East" should be all over the place, and it should be a piece of cake to find such names and proof that their bearers were transited through these places.

My challenge is the following:

I, Roberto Muehlenkamp, have at this moment a certain sum on a savings account, the existence of which I can prove and of which I am prepared to pay up to $ 4,000, $ 1,000 for each name, to the first Revisionist(s) who can provide, along with corresponding conclusive evidence, the names of up to 4 Jews who were transited through Chełmno, Bełżec, Sobibór or Treblinka (not necessarily one per camp, can be all four through one camp, two here and two there or any other combination) to the Nazi-occupied territories of the Soviet Union, i.e. the areas of what was then known as the Reichskommissariat Ostland, the Reichskommissariat Ukraine or the Soviet territories under German military administration, in the years 1942 or 1943. By transited I mean that the person in question must have been taken to the respective camp, then shipped from that camp to a certain destination in the Nazi-occupied territories of the Soviet Union as defined above, e.g. to Minsk, Riga, Kovno or Kiev.

This challenge is open to all Revisionists. However, as the available budget is limited to $ 4,000 in total, only the first Revisionist(s) to submit successful applications will be entitled to the reward of $ 1,000 per name. The budget may be enlarged at any time. Any opponent of Revisionism who wishes to contribute to the budget is welcome to contact me. Said person shall, if accepted, become a named co-promoter of this challenge and be individually liable for the amount contributed to the budget, which will be made public along with the co-promoter’s name and used after the initial $ 4,000 budget provided by me has been spent, if it should be spent. Joint and several liability among co-promoters shall be excluded.

Each Revisionist who accepts this challenge (hereinafter the "Applicant") will have 365 days from the date of his/her express acceptance in writing of the challenge to provide at least one name with corresponding evidence. Evidence accepted will be documentary records, whose authenticity must be proven upon request, or eyewitness testimonies by the transited person himself/herself and/or one or more persons who saw the transited person undergo the procedure described above and mention the transited person's name in a manner allowing for the transited person's identification. If such testimony is in an archive, a verifiable reference to its precise location in that archive must be provided for checking. If such testimony is not in an archive (if, for instance, some geriatric Nazi telling about how he saw an acquaintance of his undergo the procedure described above should be presented), assessment of that witness’s credibility will be accordingly more rigorous. The credibility and conclusiveness of the evidence provided will be assessed by either of the following persons (hereinafter referred as "Arbiter(s)"), at the Applicant’s choice:

1. Mr. Michael Shermer
2. Mr. James Randi
3. A board consisting of a professional "exterminationist" historian, a Revisionist "historian" or researcher, and a practicing judge or juror at a court of law in Europe or the US.

The Arbiter(s) must within 60 (sixty) days after proof submittal issue a categorical statement regarding each transited person presented by the Applicant, which in case of alternative 3 must be signed by all Arbiters, stating whether or not they consider the proof submitted as proving beyond a reasonable doubt, according to their standards of evidence, that the named person a) exists or existed and b) was transited through Chełmno, Bełżec, Sobibór or Treblinka to the Nazi-occupied Soviet territories as described above. The statement must read as follows:

«I/we [name(s) of Arbiter(s)], hereby state that the evidence submitted to me (us) by [name of Applicant] does (does not), in our opinion and according to the standards of evidence we have applied, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [name of transited person] was transited to the Nazi-occupied Soviet territories in 1942 or 1943 through the camp [name of camp]. This means that we do (do not) consider it proven beyond a reasonable doubt that [name of transited person] underwent the procedure that Jews are supposed to have undergone according to Revisionist claims: taken to the respective camp, then shipped from that camp to a certain destination in the Nazi-occupied territories of the Soviet Union, i.e. the areas of what was then known as the Reichskommissariat Ostland, the Reichskommissariat Ukraine or the Soviet territories under German military administration.»

Endorsing statements issued within the aforementioned 60 days deadline will be immediately accepted by me, bar evidence known to me at the time that they were based on falsified documents and/or false or falsified testimonies. The amount of $1,000 corresponding to each proof accepted by the Arbiter(s) will then be transferred to the Applicant’s account. If the evidence submitted should subsequently turn out to consist of forged documents and/or false or falsified testimonies, criminal charges will be placed against the Applicant.

Given the utter impossibility of no names of transited persons having become known within more than six (almost seven) decades after the events in question, failure to submit at least one name with proof within the aforementioned period (365 days) will be taken as implying the Applicant’s admission that the Revisionist transit camp theory does not hold water. The same applies if all proofs submitted should be expressly rejected by the Arbiter(s) according to the above form, or if the Arbiter(s) should fail to pronounce themselves according to the above form about the proof submitted until the aforementioned deadline. In either of these cases, the Applicant will be required to, within five days after rejection has been notified, submit to me a signed written statement whereby he acknowledges that the Revisionist transit camp theory is baseless and unsustainable. This statement will be published on the present blog site. If the Applicant should run or post on a Revisionist website or blog, the Applicant will further be required to, at his choice, permanently remove that website or blog or permanently place or have placed that statement in a clearly visible manner on the front page of such website or blog. By accepting the challenge, the Applicant expressly undertakes to sign, submit and publicize and allow the publication of this statement in the manner described before, and to refrain from any subsequent claims that may put in question his conviction about the accuracy of this statement, in case he should fail to meet the challenge's requirements as described before. The statement that the failing Applicant will be required to sign has the following wording (the second sentence applies only to owners or contributors of Revisionist websites or blogs):

«I, [full name of Applicant], having failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that even one Jewish deportee was transited to the Nazi-occupied Soviet territories via any of the camps Chełmno, Bełżec, Sobibór and Treblinka, hereby acknowledge that I consider the Revisionist theory whereby these camps were not extermination camps but transit camps to be wholly baseless and unsustainable. I hereby undertake to immediately and permanently remove my website/blog [name and URL of website/blog], or to place on that website/blog’s front page a clearly visible copy or transcription of the present statement, and to refrain from any future claims that might call in question my conviction about the accuracy of this statement. »

Revisionists wishing to accept the challenge must send an e-mail to Roberto Muehlenkamp (cortagravatas@yahoo.com), stating the following (the text in round brackets is to be deleted if not applicable):

«I, [name of Applicant], (owner/contributor of the Revisionist website/blog [name and URL of the website blog]), hereby accept your Challenge to Supporters of the Revisionist Transit Camp Theory as stated on the Holocaust Controversies blog site under [url of Challenge blog], and undertake to, within 365 days after this date, provide proof of at least one person identified by name who was transited through either of the camps Chełmno, Bełżec, Sobibór or Treblinka to the Nazi-occupied Soviet territories in 1942/43, in the manner more precisely described in the Challenge, to the Arbiter(s) chosen by me from among those mentioned in the Challenge. You will be immediately notified of the Arbiter(s) identity and the proof submitted to such Arbiter(s).»


This challenge is not meant to be written in stone. It will be changed from time to time as deemed necessary for its improvement. Every change will be clearly identified. The terms of the challenge that will apply for each individual Applicant are those in force on the date that Applicant accepts the challenge, the Applicant receiving a PDF of the current version on that day by return mail. However, the Applicant will benefit from any changes favorable to Applicants that should be made after the Applicant’s acceptance, such as a co-promoter’s contribution to the budget or an additional Arbiter choice.

Reasonable change suggestions are welcome. One change suggestion has already been made by Greg Gerdes, though it can hardly be called reasonable. Gerdes demanded that CODOH’s founder Mr. Bradley R. Smith be appointed the challenge’s sole arbiter. I replied that this would be like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank. However, and although I have the strongest misgivings about Mr. Smith’s capacity to make a critical, impartial and objective assessment of what evidence should eventually be submitted, and considering that Mr. Smith might rather want to become an Applicant to the challenge, I have agreed to grant Mr. Smith the opportunity to arbiter the challenge if he should wish to do so. In such case he should contact me under my aforementioned e-mail address and apply for the arbiter position, whereupon he will be added to the list of possible arbiters provided that he expressly undertakes in writing:
a) To make a critical, impartial and objective assessment of the evidence that should be submitted to him, according to accepted rules and standards of evidence,
b) To be sufficiently critical as concerns the evidence he accepts, namely to demand that the authenticity of documents submitted be proven (there being no knowledge after almost seven decades about the existence of documents whereby deportees were actually transited through the AR camps or Chełmno, one should be highly suspicious of any such document that is submitted),
c) To check that the archival references of recorded testimonies submitted are accurate, and to apply the most rigorous skepticism regarding any non-archived and hitherto unknown testimony that should be submitted,
d) To provide a verifiable justification of the assessment made and conclusion reached.
The requirement of such undertaking is not expressed regarding the other arbiters, as it is assumed that they will comply with these requirements anyway. If Mr. Smith should so require, however, it will be stated that all arbiters accepting the nomination will be required to sign the same undertaking.
Needless to say, adding Mr. Smith to the list of Arbiters will in practice make him the sole Arbiter, as I can’t think of a Revisionist who will choose any other Arbiter.

I assume that Greg Gerdes will inform Mr. Smith about this challenge.


Update, 03.07.2011, 16:10 hours GMT: the precision "by train" was removed from my explanation of what I mean by "transited", given that Jews are known to have also been taken to these camps (though in compatively smaller numbers) by truck, by horse carriage and even on foot. I have also allowed for the possibility that the hypothetical transport to the "Russian East" was made by means other than rail. The explanation therefore now reads as follows:

By transited I mean that the person in question must have undergone the procedure that Jews are supposed to have undergone according to Revisionist claims: taken to the respective camp, bathed and deloused and perhaps (but not necessarily) given a hot meal or drink there, then shipped to a certain destination in the Nazi-occupied territories of the Soviet Union as defined above, e.g. to Minsk, Riga, Kovno or Kiev.

The form of the Arbiter statement endorsing or not endorsing the proof submitted was changed accordingly and now reads as follows:

«I/we [name(s) of Arbiter(s)], hereby state that the evidence submitted to me (us) by [name of Applicant] does (does not), in our opinion and according to the standards of evidence we have applied, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [name of transited person] was transited to the Nazi-occupied Soviet territories in 1942 or 1943 through the camp [name of camp]. This means that we do (do not) consider it proven beyond a reasonable doubt that [name of transited person] underwent the procedure that Jews are supposed to have undergone according to Revisionist claims: taken to the respective camp, bathed and deloused and perhaps (but not necessarily) given a hot meal or drink there, then shipped to a certain destination in the Nazi-occupied territories of the Soviet Union, i.e. the areas of what was then known as the Reichskommissariat Ostland, the Reichskommissariat Ukraine or the Soviet territories under German military administration.»

Update, 16.03.2014:
Pursuant to a request by "Revisionist" Eric Hunt on the Skeptics Society Forum thread Reissue Muehlenkamp's Challenge so I can win, the definition of "transited" now reads as follows:

By transited I mean that the person in question must have been taken to the respective camp, then shipped from that camp to a certain destination in the Nazi-occupied territories of the Soviet Union as defined above, e.g. to Minsk, Riga, Kovno or Kiev.

Update, 19.03.2014: The template of the statement to be issued by the arbiter has been changed to the following:

«I/we [name(s) of Arbiter(s)], hereby state that the evidence submitted to me (us) by [name of Applicant] does (does not), in our opinion and according to the standards of evidence we have applied, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [name of transited person] was transited to the Nazi-occupied Soviet territories in 1942 or 1943 through the camp [name of camp]. This means that we do (do not) consider it proven beyond a reasonable doubt that [name of transited person] underwent the procedure that Jews are supposed to have undergone according to Revisionist claims: taken to the respective camp, then shipped from that camp to a certain destination in the Nazi-occupied territories of the Soviet Union, i.e. the areas of what was then known as the Reichskommissariat Ostland, the Reichskommissariat Ukraine or the Soviet territories under German military administration.»



Update, 14.08.2017:

More than six years have gone by since my challenge was first published, more than three years since it was last updated. In that time "Revisionists" have not been able to provide one single name with proof that would meet the requirements of my challenge. Their best shot was one Siegmund Rothstein, who is supposed to have been deported to Treblinka and later ended up in Minsk. However, as Sergey Romanov ably demonstrated in his article The Rothstein canard, there are no sources according to which Rothstein was transported via Treblinka to Minsk. There is one set of sources according to which Transport Br leaving Theresienstadt on 26.9.1942, which carried 2,004 German and Austrian Jews including Rothstein, was bound for Treblinka extermination camp. There is another set of sources whereby that same transport was bound for the Maly Trostinec extermination camp near Minsk. So one of these two sets of sources (probably the latter) must be wrong as to the transport's final destination, and neither states that the transport went via Treblinka to Maly Trostinec (which would also have made no sense as both were extermination centers). So the "transit camp" theory regarding Chełmno, Bełżec, Sobibór or Treblinka remains as mere fantasy.

The flagrant failure of "Revisionists" to provide any evidence that would give substance to the "transit camp" theory was one of the stated reasons why one of the most important "Revisionist" activists, Eric Hunt, turned his back on "Revisionism", as expressed in his essay The End of the Line. Hunt considered this challenge to be "proof of how strong the accepted history is and how phenomenally weak and untenable the Revisionist / denier “transit camp” theory is".
Consciousness by "Revisionists" of the weakness of their position is suggested by the heavy-handed and blatantly dishonest, almost total censorship applied to posts submitted on the "CODOH Revisionist Forum" by who seems to currently be the only opposition poster on that forum (myself). Said censorship makes a mockery of the open debate that the "Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust" is supposed to pursue and provide, while at the same showing to what extent the CODOH moderator's slogan ("Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.") applies to the desperate need to shield "Revisionist" falsehoods from debate. CODOH posts censored on laughably mendacious pretexts are being reproduced on the thread Yet another CODOH Memory Hole Festival of the RODOH forum (on which the boringly repetitive, hysterical and vulgar spam posts of Greg Gerdes are currently further suggesting that "Revisionist" discussion culture has sunk to truly abysmal levels).

While "Revisionism" sinks ever deeper into its own morass, there have also been some developments as concerns the potential arbiters of my challenge. CODOH founder Bradley Smith has died. James Randi has retired. Michael Shermer is likely to have no interest in assuming the arbiter role, judging by several e-mails I exchanged with him in connection with one of Gerdes' "challenges". All of this means that the list of potential arbiters has to be expanded to improve the chances of whoever might want to take my challenge to find an arbiter willing to judge the merits of their proof submission and issue a corresponding statement. I therefore include in the list of potential arbiters the following persons, all of them current or former/partial "Revisionists", in alphabetical order:

David Cole

Eric Hunt

David Irving

Carlo Mattogno

Germar Rudolf

Each of these individuals will be nominated as an arbiter of my challenge upon having sent to my e-mail address (cortagravatas@yahoo.com) a message containing the following:

1. A statement that he, [name], wishes to be an arbiter of my challenge.

2. Proof of identity (color copy of passport or identity card).

3. Color copy of a signed statement reading as follows:
«I, [name], hereby expressly declare that, if nominated an arbiter of Roberto Muehlenkamp’s "Challenge to Supporters of the Revisionist Transit Camp Theory" (http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.pt/2011/07/challenge-to-supporters-of-revisionist.html), I undertake to 
a) make a critical, impartial and objective assessment of evidence that should be submitted to me in response to said challenge, according to accepted rules and standards of evidence,
b) be critical and skeptical as concerns evidence that should be submitted to my assessment, especially demand that the existence and authenticity of claimed documents be proven,
c) make sure that archival references of claimed recorded testimonies are accurate, and apply the most rigorous skepticism regarding any non-archived and hitherto unknown testimony that should be submitted, and
d) provide a verifiable written justification of the assessment made and conclusion reached.»

For the sake of fairness, and although I have no doubts about their integrity and objectivity, the requirements stated under items 1 to 3 above shall also apply to Michael Shermer and James Randi, should they be interested in assuming the arbiter role.

In addition to the above, any other person wishing to be an arbiter of my challenge may apply for the arbiter role by sending me an e-mail with the elements mentioned under items 1 to 3 above. However, unlike in the case of the persons named above, I reserve the decision, independently of compliance with the formal requirements stated above, on whether or not to accept such application and nominate the applicant as an arbiter of the challenge, without having to state the reasons for accepting or rejecting such application. Persons known to me as sufficiently reasonable and objective will have a good chance of being nominated as arbiters. Persons known to me as compulsive liars and/or sociopaths, "Revisionist" or not, need not bother to apply, as their applications will of course be rejected.

All personal data submitted will be kept confidential in accordance with the Portuguese law regarding protection of personal data (Lei n.º 67/98, de 26 de Outubro, which transposes to Portuguese legislation Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data). A signed statement in this sense will be provided at the applicant’s request, before or after submission of the required application elements.