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 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.
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, 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.»
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.»
10 comments:
I'm fully prepared to show proof of four Jews taken off the trains at these transit camps and transferred elsewhere.
Your challenge is far too restrictive - Imagine if Greg Gerdes asked for the name of one Jew gassed specifically in crematorium 3.
His challenge is for the name of one gassed Jew.
Your intent is a parody of his, so why so restrictive?
Not all revisionists believe those who went through the transit camps were "transited" to the "Russian East" , myself included. I believe the Russian East "final solution" was a plan that never materialized due to the Germans losing the war on the Russian front.
However I have the names and evidence of four Jews who "survived" these transit camps and were transferred elsewhere.
I have proof of far more than four Jews who were taken off the trains at these "pure extermination camps" and transferred elsewhere.
Like you say "it should be a piece of cake" and it is.
Selections of a small minority of deportees for labor elsewhere in the Lublin district have been acknowledged in the literature for a long time. Schelvis is an obvious example.
You have to prove 'Russian East' because that's the euphemism the Nazis used in their documents well into 1943.
Eric,
You didn't read the challenge properly. What you have to prove is that a named person underwent the procedure that Jews are supposed to have undergone according to Revisionist claims: taken by train to the respective camp, bathed and deloused and perhaps (but not necessarily) given a hot meal or drink there, then put back on the train and shipped to a certain destination in the Nazi-occupied territories of the Soviet Union as defined in the challenge, e.g. to Minsk, Riga, Kovno or Kiev. We know that some Jews were sent from B, S or T to other places in the Lublin district, e.g. Majdanek or Dorohucza. But that's not what the challenge is about. The challenge is about Jews bathed and deloused at B, S or T or at Chełmno and then sent onward to final destinations in the Nazi-occupied Soviet territories, which is what explains the deportations of so many people to these places according to the Revisionist transit camp theory. If you think you can provide such names, just send me an e-mail identifying yourself and accepting the challenge terms as per the required form.
Your "restrictive" argument I didn't understand. What more do you think should be in there for the challenge to be less "restrictive", and why so?
And no, the purpose of this challenge is not to "parody" Gerdes' challenge, though of course Gerdes' bluster about his challenge gave me the idea for this one. Gerdes' challenge parodies itself without any assistance, and Gerdes is a small fish in Revisionist waters despite his big mouth (and a highly counterproductive one at that due to his hysterical spamming, his transparent mendacity and his obnoxious behavior – if you’re interested in building support for Revisionism, Gerdes is a royal shot in the foot). Showing how Gerdes runs away from a challenge that unlike his dumb challenges is pertinent to the issue at hand (for as I said in the introduction, names should be all over the place if so large a number of people, 1.4 million in 1942 alone, had indeed been transported to the "Russian East" from these places and been resettled there and mostly survived the war there) is just a side benefit. The point of the challenge is another demonstration of the worthlessness of the Revisionist theory whereby Bełżec, Sobibór, Treblinka and Chełmno were not extermination camps but transit camps en route to the occupied Soviet territories. To the extent that Gerdes matters here, doesn't his NAFH challenge also focus on these four camps, by the way?
I'm aware that not all Revisionists have this transit camp thesis about B, S, T and C. But the movement’s brains (Mattogno, Graf and Kues) claim this thesis, and among the many absurd attempts to explain away the evidence to large-scale homicidal gassing at these places it is indeed the least far-fetched, for it would be even more absurd to claim that these places were labor camps or that they didn't even exist and that the well-documented deportations to these places never happened. The transit camp theory gone, Revisionism would be left only with even feebler attempted alternative explanations, which MGK look down upon.
Here's some advice to "Revisionists" intending to answer the challenge.
IIRC, Saul Friedlander mentioned that there were 100,000 Jews in the Red army. That's 100,000 potential witnesses to any such "Transit" of their coreligionists to the "Russian east". 100,000 people who could have easily assured their fellows- once the Red army entered German territory- that their families, whom they thought were exterminated, were safe or at least alive in the "Russian East"
Christopher Browning also mentioned the following:
- The Dreksler family, who crossed into the Soviet Zone at the outbreak of the War and got sent by the Soviets to a forest work camp near Arcangel.
- Pinchas Nudman and other Jewish youths who, upon reaching Lvov also got sent to what was very likely the same work camp near Arcangel.
These people were part of a community of survivors after the war. It's not a stretch to assume that people they know or other fellow Jews may have been sent to Arcangel during the period of 1942 onwards. They were in the perfect position to reassure their friends that their family members or at least their fellow Jews were not killed and were instead sent to the Russian east.
I assume that Roberto Muehlenkamp would also consider sworn testimony from these people as evidence, even though they did not witness the "deportation process" as a whole and may have simply witnessed the final stages.
good luck. People have been willing to wait for an answer for 65 years. One more year should be nothing at all...
-I have proof of far more than four Jews who were taken off the trains at these "pure extermination camps" and transferred elsewhere.-
Is this about the 90 Jews selected at Trawniki by WVHA head Pohl from a transport of about 1,000 to Sobibor, mentioned in Fischmann's report? Do you have evidence about the other 910?
51 not 90. Lublin not Trawniki. But the crucial fact is surely that they were removed before Sobibor, not after, so could not have been deloused at Sobibor.
Once again, what the Applicant has to prove in regard to each Jew whose name he or she provides is that said Jew was, during the years 1942 or 1943,
a) taken to either of the camps Bełżec, Sobibór, Treblinka or Chełmno, which are considered by historiography to have been extermination camps,
b) bathed and deloused there, and then
c) shipped from there to a place in the Nazi-occupied Soviet territories, i.e. to the Soviet areas under German military administration or the areas under Nazi civilian administration then known as the Reichskommissariat Ostland and the Reichskommissariat Ukraine.
- 51 not 90. Lublin not Trawniki. But the crucial fact is surely that they were removed before Sobibor, not after, so could not have been deloused at Sobibor.-
You're right. I just reread the report now and found out that it was to Trawniki that the "laborers'" luggage was sent. Sorry about that.
-
Once again, what the Applicant has to prove in regard to each Jew whose name he or she provides is that said Jew was, during the years 1942 or 1943,
a) taken to either of the camps Bełżec, Sobibór, Treblinka or Chełmno, which are considered by historiography to have been extermination camps,
b) bathed and deloused there, and then -
But that's too HAAAAAAARD! T_T
No worries. It's also worth noting that Fischmann is clearly unaware of Sobibor being a transit camp. He was told it was a labor camp. He was also misled about the destination: he was told it was to terminate at Izbica. Why were the Nazis deceiving their own people about the purpose of Sobibor?
your wrong again
revisionists don't believe all supposed "extermination" camps were death camps
some were labor camps and some were transit stations
according to the holocaust official nuremburg story before the holocaust supporters revised their story over and over again
the germans buried
why do we have to prove to you that the holocaust never happened?
why can't you prove that it did?
«why do we have to prove to you that the holocaust never happened?
why can't you prove that it did?»
Outside "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land, that proof has long been provided.
Now it's up to "Revisionists" to demonstrate that there's something wrong with the proof, the way defense attorneys challenge the prosecution's evidence.
The best way to do so would be to provide evidence that the Nazi extermination camps were actually transit camps.
However, while historians and remembrance authorities have already established the names of a significant part of the persons murdered at these camps (the Dutch authorities alone have established the names of over 34,000 Jews murdered at Sobibór), "Revisionist" scum is not able, after almost seventy years, to provide a single name of a single person that entered Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibór or Treblinka and then was taken from there to somewhere in the Nazi-occupied Soviet territories.
And that although, if these places had indeed been transit camps, names of people transited through them would be all over the place, for the reasons explained.
This in turn is one of the reasons why, in order to cling to "Revisionism", one has to be either a Hitler-kisser or a Jew-hater or both. And to switch one's brains off.
Post a Comment