Blobel's Flamethrower and the Hoess Chelmno visit

[bombsaway]

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... man15.html

you can see the Blobel documents, including the flamethrower one, here. He wasn't on the frontlines, he was working at a "special facility" near Litzmanstadt ghetto in central Poland.


Hoess's testimony at Nuremberg:

I only know Chelmno, Treblinka and Auschwitz. I saw the crema¬
tion. By order of the Reichsfiihrer, Globe! [Blobel] had been assigned the task
of locating mass graves and totally eliminating their traces. In this context, he
ordered me to visit Chelmno in order to observe the experiments that were
carried out right there to eliminate these mass graves. There they worked with
flamethrowers, chemicals and explosives, even with various types of furnaces
used for cremation. For example, there were furnaces utilized as field furnac¬
es, or they cremated with the aid of wood soaked with gasoline. At Tremblinka
[sic], the corpses I saw and which came from the gas chamber, as well as
those which had been left for months in large pits [and that] were pulled out by
excavators, [were put] on pyres [made] of railroad tracks; the burning fire was
mixed with wood, and oil was again poured over it, and it was soaked with
gasoline. Initialy, only a few pyres and crematories were used in Auschwitz,
and cremations were carried out in this way in pits.


So the idea Hoess said some totally made up shit at Nuremberg, then later the pesky allies went in fabricated more than a handful of documents concerning the visit and Blobel's activities around Kulmhoff? Or was this Hoess's idea? Why would he insert details like this into his testimony?

One can claim that Hoess is a flawed witness in many respects but it should also be conceded there seem to be many truthful elements (precise details that are corroborated by other sources) to the testimony. Revisionists - who will RUN when confronted about explaining their conspiracy - can only view witness testimonies as a binary, a simplistic notion rejected by historians.

[Wahrheitssucher]

…
The blunders in the statements are simply plot holes. Plot holes are common in made up stories…

Yes but… [snip] …

…we see things like his report of a visit to Blobel, where he sees Blobel destroying bodies with a flamethrower…

[Blobel] had been assigned the task of locating mass graves and totally eliminating their traces…

Ha ha ha!

Ok, I think I made an incorrect assessment in my previous post.
I think Bombsaway is a category a.) holyH defender.

As he appears to genuinely believe that multiple human corpses can be “destroyed” with a flamethrower and it can “totally eliminate their traces” in “mass graves”.

[Archie]

Bombs, can you lay out an argument for why you think the flamethrower is so significant?

[bombsaway]

Because I don't think you can explain it without seeming silly. You now have to talk about your conspiracy. You don't like to, thus you RUN

It's not about whether flamethrowers could destroy bodies or not (I was using the word destroy loosely here - this is just a nitpick and derail since Hoess doesn't mention 'destroy') it is about why Hoess would include such details in his testimony. There are more examples of aligned highly specific details in his testimony, this is just an example.

The myopia of revisionists is you only see one side of it. You don't ask or even entertain the same kinds of questions about your narrative that you do with the orthodox one. I do. See the last thread I was involved with here, Kula columns, where I answered a ton of revisionist questions dutifully while the ones I asked were ignored. This is also why I have been spending less time here, a trend which I expect to continue because you will probably avoid any substantive discussion of your conspiracy here.

[Archie]

Because I don't think you can explain it without seeming silly. You now have to talk about your conspiracy. You don't like to, thus you RUN

You claim we avoid the issues yet you clearly dodged the issues of the anachronisms I raised in the OP in the other thread. If you want a serious dialogue, it has to go both ways. You would have to get serious and stop trying to bluff your way through everything.

It's not about whether flamethrowers could destroy bodies or not (I was using the word destroy loosely here - this is just a nitpick and derail since Hoess doesn't mention 'destroy') it is about why Hoess would include such details in his testimony. There are more examples of aligned highly specific details in his testimony, this is just an example.

Let's take a look at this radio message in your link.

OMW de OMX 1100 7 Tle
To SS Cavalry Brigade
From the PI devices assigned by the head of the Army Armaments Office and...on 11.7.42 are to be provided to SS Sonderkommando BLOBEL.
1 set...parts for small flamethrower...
1 flamethrower refill wagon...
3 safety suits for flamethrower...
3 safety gloves...
3 safety masks...
....
3 nitrogen bottles 10 liters...
1 hydrogen bottle 40 liters...
...
2 barrels flamethrower oil 200 liters...
...
by order
FICK, SS Obersturmbannführer

On the surface, this doesn't say much of anything. And I do think it matters whether your interpretation makes sense. How many bodies can you cremate with a flamethrower? Zero?

The question we are interested in is whether Hoess is telling the truth about murdering millions of Jews at Auschwitz. He was the commandant of Auschwitz. We should expect his statements to have a lot of real info. This statement about the crematoria construction, for example, is correct and even has the correct dates.

The two large crematoria I and II were built in the winter of 1942-3 and brought into use in the spring of 1943.

But getting this correct does not confirm the thing we are ultimately interested. What you are missing is that the fact that he was undeniably in a position to know exactly what happened just makes his enormous blunders all the more inexcusable.

You claim you have more examples of compelling details but curiously in a prior thread when Hoess came up you derailed that as well with this flamethrower thing. How odd that you always choose the same example given that you claim there are many. And it's odd that when you are given the stage here to flesh out your flamethrower argument in detail you don't seem very interested.
viewtopic.php?t=372

The myopia of revisionists is you only see one side of it. You don't ask or even entertain the same kinds of questions about your narrative that you do with the orthodox one. I do. See the last thread I was involved with here, Kula columns, where I answered a ton of revisionist questions dutifully while the ones I asked were ignored. This is also why I have been spending less time here, a trend which I expect to continue because you will probably avoid any substantive discussion of your conspiracy here.

I would not blame you if you quit the forum after the Kula columns thread since you did so badly in that thread. I thought you had.

I can't take your complaints very seriously when you have never shown any willingness to admit when your arguments are weak/when our arguments are strong. When you are losing on a point you generally pretend not to understand the argument, or you change the topic, or you try to make the discussion so abstract and vague that it becomes meaningless.

[Archie]

Hoess's testimony at Nuremberg:

I only know Chelmno, Treblinka and Auschwitz. I saw the crema¬
tion. By order of the Reichsfiihrer, Globe! [Blobel] had been assigned the task
of locating mass graves and totally eliminating their traces.

Is this from Nuremberg?

HH35 pg. 254 - Mattogno indicates this is from trial in Warsaw.

[bombsaway]

Why would he introduce these details? What happened when he visited Blobel near Litzmandstadt, on the same day documents show a permit was granted "for driving a car from Au[schwitz] to Litzmannstadt and back to inspect the experimental site of field ovens Aktion Reinhard" ?

[Archie]

Why would he introduce these details? What happened when he visited Blobel near Litzmandstadt, on the same day documents show a permit was granted "for driving a car from Au[schwitz] to Litzmannstadt and back to inspect the experimental site of field ovens Aktion Reinhard" ?

Let's first establish when he introduced these details. You said at Nuremberg, but I can't find any mention of Blobel or Chelmno in his Nuremberg affidavits or in his IMT testimony. Maybe I missed it, but it seems that this bit was not incorporated into his story until after he was transferred to the Poles. Please correct me if I am mistaken about that.

Here is an interesting bit from Goldensohn (which would have been at Nuremberg) where he comments on what gas chambers he's aware of at other camps.

How many concentration camps in Germany or outside of it had gas chambers? Mauthausen, Dachau, Auschwitz, and in the east, Treblinka; in Russia, they used gas wagons." What about Majdanek? "They had temporary gas chambers but that camp came under the Security Police -- the Einsatzkommando and Security Police. In Lublin there was a concentration camp which came under our inspection and supervision but it was not an extermination camp. Majdanek was near the city of Lublin and was an extermination camp under the direction of Lieutenant General Globocnik, who was the SS and political leader of Lublin." (Goldensohn, Nuremberg Interviews, pg. 309)

Notice that he "knows" about the (fake) Dachau gas chambers, and he knows about gas vans in the east, but he doesn't seem to know (at this point) about the Chelmno gas vans.

Travel permit for passenger car from Au. to Litzmannstadt [Łódź] and
back for inspecting the experimental station for field ovens Aktion Reinhard
is granted herewith for 16 Sept. [19]42.

Chelmno is 50 km from Lodz/Litzmannstadt and it is traditionally not considered part of AR.

From Blobel's interrogation
viewtopic.php?t=438

11. Q.: When were you in Kulmhof?
A.: Near Litzmannstadt. In mid-July 1942, I was ordered to report to Müller. When I was introduced to Heydrich—in June 1946, an incident occurred during operations, about which a file had been written—he did not receive me favorably and ordered me to report to Müller. I reported, but the appointment was postponed. In the meantime, the assassination attempt on Heydrich had taken place, and Heydrich had died. It must have been mid-June or late June 1942.

13. Q.: You know Hoess?
A.: I met him once in Litzmannstadt.
14. Q.: Twice, you came to him in Auschwitz. Then he came to you in Litzmannstadt.
A.: It may be possible.

A.: The commanders personally, along with their commanders, were responsible for the implementation. At that time, I was told in the anteroom, "You have to wait, something has changed." I waited 2 to 3 weeks. Then Müller told me, "You are going to Litzmannstadt, where an attempt at cremation [Abäscherung] is to be carried out."
24. Q.: Was that an attempt at cremation [Abäscherung] or destruction [Zerstörung]?
A.: An attempt was to be made there to burn old corpses from the graves. For this purpose, an earth pit was dug, which was lined with metal sheets. Then, 10 to 12 corpses were pulled out of the graves, wood was layered in it, fuel was poured over them, and they were burned.
25. Q.: Did you have the ovens built?
A.: There was already a pit there. This pit was covered in the evening because of the firelight. Then changes were made to the pit, and then the fire proceeded better. The experiments were carried out there two or three times. A similar device was then to be built for the Ukrainians as well.
26. Q.: Who actually built these things?
A.: B.d.S.
27. Q.: Weren't these things built by the W.V.H.A.?
A.: No.
28. Q.: Mr. Blobel, perhaps you can put a few things in writing. I would like to tell you that I know about the Kulmhof incident, as well as the experiments in Litzmannstadt. When Hoess was down there, the facility in Litzmannstadt was inspected. Hoess also said that the bodies could be blown up, but the experiments never worked, and then they got hold of this ball mill.
28. Q.: I know that the material was obtained from the East German company.
A.: The material was requested by the W.H.W.
29. Q.: This report states that the material was obtained from the East German company.
A.: I informed Müller about all the experiments. We ordered the material from the W.H.W.

[bombsaway]

Do you agree with Mattogno here? Important for these questions of conspiracy or non-conspiracy which you're now getting into.

The fact is, however, that the claim about Himmler’s decision is merely an utterly unsubstantiated conjecture, and Blobel’s alleged visit to Auschwitz is pure fantasy. There does indeed exist a “Report on the Mission to Litzmannstadt” written by SS Untersturmführer Walter Dejaco on September 17, 1942, about his visit to a “special facility” made the day before by him, Höss and SS Untersturmführer Franz Hössler. It is also true that its “travel permit” issued for that trip indicates as the purpose of travel the “Inspection of the experimental station for field furnaces Operation Reinhard,” but Chełmno (or Kulmhof) is not mentioned anywhere and, as I have explained elsewhere, the visit in question had no relation to the cremation of corpses.

In other words I'm wondering what you think happened, or if you don't have a good idea, what might be plausible?

the connection between Chelmno in Reinhardt is pretty obvious, see Korherr

4. Transportation of Jews from the eastern Provinces to the

Russian East: . . . . . . .

1,449,692 Jews

the following numbers transited through the camps in the

General Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1,274,166 Jews

through the camps in the Warthegau . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

145,301 Jews

Whatever was happening to the Jews moved into the Reinhardt camps was in some fashion happening at Chelmno . Your side agrees with Korherr that they were processed through these camps and sent East.

[Archie]

Do you agree with Mattogno here? Important for these questions of conspiracy or non-conspiracy which you're now getting into.

The fact is, however, that the claim about Himmler’s decision is merely an utterly unsubstantiated conjecture, and Blobel’s alleged visit to Auschwitz is pure fantasy. There does indeed exist a “Report on the Mission to Litzmannstadt” written by SS Untersturmführer Walter Dejaco on September 17, 1942, about his visit to a “special facility” made the day before by him, Höss and SS Untersturmführer Franz Hössler. It is also true that its “travel permit” issued for that trip indicates as the purpose of travel the “Inspection of the experimental station for field furnaces Operation Reinhard,” but Chełmno (or Kulmhof) is not mentioned anywhere and, as I have explained elsewhere, the visit in question had no relation to the cremation of corpses.

In other words I'm wondering what you think happened, or if you don't have a good idea, what might be plausible?

the connection between Chelmno in Reinhardt is pretty obvious, see Korherr

This reply is not responsive to my post.

Re: the part you highlighted, IIRC Mattogno's position (he discusses related material over several books) is that there were bodies disinterred and burned for hygienic reasons, not for Aktion 1005/covering up their crimes reasons. And that this began prior to Blobel's visit. You can even find things along these lines in the mainstream literature, e.g., Jens Hoffman.

Due to the summer heat, the bodies of victims buried in mass graves had
become a hygiene problem. The murderers were concerned about
the quality of groundwater, some of them considered aesthetically
unacceptable odors and liquids that escaped from the graves. (quoted in HH23, pg 74)

I have seen no evidence of Blobel's alleged visit to Auschwitz.

Re: Chelmno and AR,

The techniques used to deceive victims and the camps' overall layout were based on a pilot project of mobile killing conducted at the Chełmno extermination camp (Kulmhof), which entered operation in late 1941 and used gas vans. Chełmno was not a part of Reinhard.[31] It came under the direct control of SS-Standartenführer Ernst Damzog, commander of the SD in Reichsgau Wartheland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Reinhard

[bombsaway]

You have not provided any sort of answer to my question,

if the topic of the thread is Blobel's flamethrower, the question would be why or how did Hoess come to include this detail in his testimony. I was mistaken that it was at Nuremberg but that's not the point, the question is still the same, though might be easier for you to answer?

Re Chelmno, I know it wasn't formally part of Reinhardt. Here's what the Reinhardt wikipedia page has to say about Blobel's activities: "It was a testing ground for the establishment of faster methods of murdering and incinerating people"

Blobel's job was not to dispose of the bodies at Chelmno, but to pioneer techniques that would be used at Chelmno, but also the other camps, and in the Occupied USSR.

Mattogno says " the visit in question had no relation to the cremation of corpses," so Hoess never would have seen him with the flamethrower.


You always just ask questions or nitpick instead of answering my question, which ever since I came to this forum fundamentally has been - what happened, actually or plausibly?

This is my "bluff", that your movement (as a whole) cannot answer the above question. This applies to flamethrowers but also the resettlement of 1.5 million Polish Jews in Occupied USSR or the conspiracy you allege in which hundreds of formerly patriotic Germans were compelled to give false and ridiculous testimony about atrocities they and their country had committed.

Btw, do you remember my essay? This is what it's going to be about - the failure of revisionists to answer the fundamental question. I'm going to do this for a few more topics, you can see my other ones here, which went unanswered

viewtopic.php?t=736

viewtopic.php?p=22312#p22312

I'll use the Kula thread as well

And this will be the evidence I show in that essay, and this sentence shall be noted as a provocation which is either going to be ignored in some way or insufficiently answered. I guess it's a pick your poison situation for revisionists.

[Archie]

You have not provided any sort of answer to my question,

if the topic of the thread is Blobel's flamethrower, the question would be why or how did Hoess come to include this detail in his testimony. I was mistaken that it was at Nuremberg but that's not the point, the question is still the same, though might be easier for you to answer?

The timeline is potentially very relevant.

-IMT (Mar-Apr 1946) - affidavits and testimony - I see no mention of Chelmno or Blobel and the passage from Goldensohn I quoted suggests he wasn't aware of Chelmno gassings at that point.

Hoess was extradited to Poland in May 1946. He was interrogated from Sep 1946-Mar 1947 and was executed in Apr 1947.

Blobel was in American custody. There two affidavits from Jun 1947. He was tried at NMT Einsatzgruppen trial (Sep 1947-Apr 1948) and was executed in 1951. From what I can tell, Blobel does not mention using flamethrowers or explosives to destroy bodies. He seems to just say they burned them.

I have not done a deep dive on flamethrowers and have not tracked such references. Since are so obsessed with this point, I assume you have done this. Perhaps you could share your research so we don't have to reinvent the wheel here? It would be good to establish the earliest suggestion that flamethrowers (and explosives) were used for corpse disposal. It would also be good to establish what uses there were for flamethrowers other than cremation of bodies (and indeed whether the latter is even believable to begin with). You seem to be quite certain that the document mentioning a flamethrower in connection with Blobel must refer to cremating bodies and that no other interpretation is possible. But if flamethrowers had broader usage, then that document becomes much less persuasive. As example of what I mean, if I say Bill Clinton raped me with a cigar and you find a receipt (document) showing that Bill purchased some cigars, this would not establish the usage.

Hoess indicates not just flamethrowers (plural) but also chemicals and explosives.

There they worked with flamethrowers, chemicals and explosives, even with various types of furnaces used for cremation.

Arad says this same thing though it is unclear from his notes what precise sources he's relying on.

You always just ask questions or nitpick instead of answering my question, which ever since I came to this forum fundamentally has been - what happened, actually or plausibly?

Pointing out the Hoess's story is fundamentally impossible is not a nitpick. Pointing out that Kula and Tauber's descriptions of the Kula columns are contradictory is not a nitpick. Pointing out that Kola's grave areas could not possibly have ever contained anything close to 600,000 bodies is not a nitpick. These are valid points. They aren't trick questions. You are just getting pissy about it because these are difficulties you can't resolve.

Incidentally, your "questions" tend to be of the form of vague or expansive demand that give you a detailed mythology of every little thing. You act like they are trivial requests but usually they would involve original research. And even though it's your argument, you don't lift a finger but rather demand that we do all your work for you. Like here, I don't see you actually trying to develop this flamethrower thesis in any way. It's just a talking point/derail.

Btw, do you remember my essay? This is what it's going to be about - the failure of revisionists to answer the fundamental question. I'm going to do this for a few more topics, you can see my other ones here, which went unanswered

Glad to hear it. I look forward to reading it. I had assumed you had given it up.

[Archie]

A flamethrower is not a good tool for cremating a body.

This is how the AI explains it and it matches my own thinking.

Q: Is it possible to cremate a body with a flamethrower?

Excerpts of the response

• A flamethrower produces brief, uneven surface flames. It’s designed for projection, not deep, consistent heat penetration. That kind of flame cannot achieve the uniform thermal conditions required for complete cremation.
• Fuel limitations. Portable flame devices run out quickly and cannot sustain output long enough to do what a crematory furnace is engineered to do.
• Incomplete and traumatic results. Instead of cremation, you’d get partial burning, charring, and tissue damage—causing extreme fire risk, smoke, and biohazard concerns.

Q: Is it possible to destroy bodies with dynamite?

Spoiler

A: Explosives do not make things disappear. An explosion redistributes matter; it doesn’t annihilate it.
1. Conservation of matter
From a physics standpoint, matter isn’t destroyed by an explosion—it’s fragmented and dispersed. Human tissue, bone, teeth, metal fragments, clothing fibers, and cellular material are scattered outward at high velocity rather than eliminated.
2. Fragmentation increases evidence
Explosive forces:

Increase surface area of biological material
Embed fragments into soil, structures, vegetation, and surrounding objects
Generate secondary contamination (blood mist, tissue aerosols)

From a forensic perspective, that tends to create more recoverable evidence, not less.
3. Bone and teeth persist
Skeletal material—especially teeth and dense bone—is extremely resistant to destruction. Even severe thermal or mechanical stress often leaves:

Tooth enamel fragments
Cortical bone shards
These are among the most identifiable forensic materials.

4. Explosives leave distinctive signatures
Explosions introduce their own trace evidence, including:

Chemical residues
Blast pattern damage
Crater morphology
Shrapnel distribution
These signatures are often conspicuous and draw focused forensic attention.

5. Biological traces survive extreme events
Modern forensic methods can recover analyzable material from:

Microscopic tissue fragments
Soil contaminated with biological matter
Burned or degraded samples
Even when DNA is damaged, partial profiles or other biological markers can remain informative.

The unavoidable scientific conclusion
From a purely academic and scientific standpoint:

Explosives cannot “eliminate” human remains
They multiply traceability instead of reducing it
They leave additional, highly suspicious evidence fields

This is why explosions are treated in forensic science as evidence-generating events, not evidence-erasing ones.

[bombsaway]

The nitpicks were about Chelmno not being part of Reinhardt or Hoess giving the testimony at Polish tribunal as opposed to at Nuremberg. The fact that flamethrowers are not great at destroying bodies is another nitpick and diversion, so you don't have to narrative build. The point of what Blobel was doing was experimentation of burning methods (in pits, on grates, in furnaces, etc) , and to do that he had to have a way of setting bodies on fire.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... -near.html

Fritz Ismer testified in 1961

“I got to know the name Blobel for the first time when Blobel visited the
Kulmhof camp, it was in late summer 1942. At this time we were set to work
to eliminate the mass graves. […] Blobel brought a burning device which
consisted of a pot with a longer tube. One can compare this device to an
enlarged soldering lamp. […] I was able to observe that the emanating
flame was not very strong. From a closer look at the trial site I came to the
conclusion that the experiment had to be a failure. […] I did not hear of
further experiments by Blobel. As time passed by, however, we developed a
certain technique for the corpse cremation on the grates.”

It's not my job to come up with a revisionist narrative of how these details made it into the testimonies. The explanation from the orthodox perspective is obvious, the witnesses saw Blobel burning corpses with a flamethrower as part of his experiments.

There is no obsession with flamethrowers, it's just a detail (because it is corroborated by other sources) that doesn't accord with your view of Hoess as a mere teller of stories. Unless you can explain why he would introduce such a detail. You haven't done this. As I expected, instead of narrative building, you just turned the questions back onto me.

[Stubble]

The fact that there is a document indicating that Blobel had a flame thrower, and later Hoess claimed to have seen one does not undo the many other impossibilities and errors that rolled out of the man's mouth.

Blobel himself is a poor witness to use to build an idea of what transpired during 'the war years'. Having tried 'the Blobel method' with rat carcasses, I can tell you that it plays out exactly as you would expect. Had he actually done at Babi Yar what he claims, the top layer of bodies would have been partially destroyed and the lower tiers of the mass grave would have been untouched, because of the lack of airflow.

Just because Mary claimed to have ridden a broomstick and had intercourse with the devil, and later someone else claimed to have seen it, and a receipt surfaced for a broomstick doesn't mean the devil is real and she could fly on one.

For fuck's sake.