List of "direct" eyewitnesses to gassings.

[Callafangers]

Well what would be the actual events here?

That Blobel really was doing corpse destruction experiments at Kulmhof which Hoess came to witness? We also have here a document related to his visit, https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... tml#_doc62

"Permit for driving a car from Au[schwitz] to Litzmannstadt and back to inspect the experimental site of field ovens Aktion Reinhard is herebey granted for 16.9.42."

Therefore Blobel's experiments are implicated in whatever happened at Chelmno and also the larger Reinhardt (Reinhard? lol) action. This is clearly not an irrelevant detail.

A travel permit for a car trip to Litzmannstadt (not even Chelmno, mind you) with no mention of Hoess nor Blobel doesn’t prove a thing about Hoess witnessing "corpse destruction experiments". Even if it did: cremation techniques are not reflective of 'gassing', and potential truths about cremation experiments would in no case substantiate claims about homicidal operations (I note that your document doesn't mention 'gas vans' at all). Hoess' contradictory, uncorroborated tales -- cooked up under duress -- are not evidenced to align with this vague "field ovens" reference, let alone genocide, from a document cherry-picked out of thousands by vindictive curators.

[bombsaway]

Well what would be the actual events here?

That Blobel really was doing corpse destruction experiments at Kulmhof which Hoess came to witness? We also have here a document related to his visit, https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... tml#_doc62

"Permit for driving a car from Au[schwitz] to Litzmannstadt and back to inspect the experimental site of field ovens Aktion Reinhard is herebey granted for 16.9.42."

Therefore Blobel's experiments are implicated in whatever happened at Chelmno and also the larger Reinhardt (Reinhard? lol) action. This is clearly not an irrelevant detail.

A travel permit for a car trip to Litzmannstadt (not even Chelmno, mind you) with no mention of Hoess nor Blobel

The travel permit was for Hoess and adjutant, just like he says in his testimony. From the permit: "SS-Hauptsturmführer und Adjudant"

Would it make any difference to you if they were listed by name and their meeting with Blobel was specified? Probably not, I imagine, which is why this is a silly point.

The relevance is that Hoess in his testimony refers to precise and corroborated details. The implication here, within your frame, would be a more active collaboration with his captors and torturers, which doesn't make sense.

From the perspective of the "torturers":

Introducing specific, potentially contestable ancillary details (like the precise nature of a trip for Blobel's experiments) risks discrediting the entire confession if those details are later disproven. A simpler admission of gassings at Auschwitz is less vulnerable.

Such details divert focus and effort from the primary objective: securing a confession about Hoess's direct responsibility for gassings at Auschwitz. Blobel's experiments elsewhere are secondary.

From Hoess's perspective:

Volunteering specific, verifiable details beyond the core demand (gassings at Auschwitz) could prolong the interrogation, invite deeper unwanted investigation into those specifics, and complicate any attempt to offer minimal compliance.

No Logical Incentive: If simply trying to end coercion by confessing to what he believes is demanded (gassings at Auschwitz), there's no clear incentive to actively offer or embellish the confession with complex, specific details about related but distinct operations, potentially increasing his own exposure or the difficulty of satisfying his captors.

The corroborated details about Blobel doesn't prove Hoess was telling the truth about gassing, which would also prove "the Holocaust", it just strengthens him as a witness. You can't even concede this basic point, instead making your conspiracy even more convoluted and less logical.

[Callafangers]

The travel permit was for Hoess and adjutant, just like he says in his testimony. From the permit: "SS-Hauptsturmführer und Adjudant"

Would it make any difference to you if they were listed by name and their meeting with Blobel was specified? Probably not, I imagine, which is why this is a silly point.

The relevance is that Hoess in his testimony refers to precise and corroborated details. The implication here, within your frame, would be a more active collaboration with his captors and torturers, which doesn't make sense.

bombsaway, please stand up and tell the class what Hoess' rank was in September 1942. Was it SS-Hauptsturmführer (mid-rank)? Or was it SS-Obersturmbannführer?

Hoess had been promoted twice since his time as a SS-Hauptsturmführer, by September 1942 -- he had not been at the rank of SS-Hauptsturmführer since 30 January 1941 when he was promoted to SS-Sturmbannführer (and then to SS-Obersturmbannführer on 18 July 1942):

Höss's SS-ranks Date Rank
20 September 1933 SS-Anwärter (candidate)
1 April 1934 SS-Mann (Private)
20 April 1934 SS-Sturmmann (Lance corporal)
28 November 1934 SS-Unterscharführer (Corporal)
1 April 1935 SS-Scharführer (Sergeant)
1 July 1935 SS-Oberscharführer (Staff Sergeant)
1 March 1936 SS-Hauptscharführer (First Sergeant)
13 September 1937 SS-Untersturmführer (Second Lieutenant)
11 September 1938 SS-Obersturmführer (First Lieutenant)
9 November 1938 SS-Hauptsturmführer (Captain)
30 January 1941 SS-Sturmbannführer (Major)
18 July 1942 SS-Obersturmbannführer (Lieutenant colonel)

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudol ... and_awards
Also: https://ww2db.com/person_bio.php?person_id=608/1000

All signs seem to suggest the person mentioned in your document do not refer to Hoess at all. Isn't that interesting? To think, you were feeling so confident. Is this the way you "normal people" do research, bombsaway?

From the perspective of the "torturers":

Introducing specific, potentially contestable ancillary details (like the precise nature of a trip for Blobel's experiments) risks discrediting the entire confession if those details are later disproven. A simpler admission of gassings at Auschwitz is less vulnerable.

Such details divert focus and effort from the primary objective: securing a confession about Hoess's direct responsibility for gassings at Auschwitz. Blobel's experiments elsewhere are secondary.

From Hoess's perspective:

Volunteering specific, verifiable details beyond the core demand (gassings at Auschwitz) could prolong the interrogation, invite deeper unwanted investigation into those specifics, and complicate any attempt to offer minimal compliance.

No Logical Incentive: If simply trying to end coercion by confessing to what he believes is demanded (gassings at Auschwitz), there's no clear incentive to actively offer or embellish the confession with complex, specific details about related but distinct operations, potentially increasing his own exposure or the difficulty of satisfying his captors.

The corroborated details about Blobel doesn't prove Hoess was telling the truth about gassing, which would also prove "the Holocaust", it just strengthens him as a witness. You can't even concede this basic point, instead making your conspiracy even more convoluted and less logical.

Very nice AI slop, well done. As we have seen, your 'corroboration' doesn't exist, nor have you conceded the blatant contradictions in Hoess' testimony, nor the obviously-problematic context of him being under extreme duress with his family severely threatened.

As for this nonsense: "there's no clear incentive to actively offer or embellish the confession with complex, specific details about related but distinct operations, potentially increasing his own exposure or the difficulty of satisfying his captors"

...it absolutely makes perfect logical sense for someone to embellish their false narrative with nuggets of truth in order to increase its perceived credibility, if that's what his captors demanded of him. You seem to think that my contention (or anyone's) is that Hoess was focused on exonerating himself -- I have not claimed this. I think there came a point at which Hoess resigned to his fate -- that he was to be executed -- and simply did what he could to protect his family thereafter, by giving his enemies what they wanted.

This isn't rocket science.

Your 'corroboration' is now dead and you're back at square zero.

[bombsaway]

I'll ask you again, would it make any difference to you if they were listed by name and their meeting with Blobel was specified?

[Callafangers]

I'll ask you again, would it make any difference to you if they were listed by name and their meeting with Blobel was specified?

Nice deflection from your embarrassing defeat, bombsaway. But sure, I'll play ball: if they were listed by name and their meeting with Blobel was specified, this would mean I would take this evidence into consideration within the broader context of events and circumstances. I would ask: "what does this most likely suggest?" The answer would be, without further research: cremation experiments of some kind could have been taking place.

And as already mentioned, this has nothing necessarily to do with 'gassing'.

But let's be clear: this is now entirely hypothetical. Your only document supporting this situation has just been eviscerated. *poof*, gone. Aren't you going to acknowledge this, bombsaway? This is very embarrassing for you.

[bombsaway]

So you can look over this and then we will proceed with my assertion that all of this strengthens Hoess overall as a genuine witness.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... m=1#_doc63

Auschwitz, 17 September 1942

Travel report
on the business trip to Litzmannstadt.

Purpose of the trip: Inspection of a special facility

Departure from Auschwitz was on 16.9.1942 at 5 AM with a car from the commandant's office of concentration camp Auschwitz

Participants: SS-Obersturmbannführer Höß, SS-Untersturmführer Hößler and SS-Untersturmführer Dejaco.

Arrival in Litzmanstadt at 9 AM. A tour through the ghetto took place, followed by a trip to the special facility. Inspection of the special facility and meeting with SS-Standartenführer Blobel on the execution of such a facility. The construction material ordered specially by Standartenführer Blobel from the Ostdeutsche Baustoffwerke Company of Posen, Wilhelm Gustloffstrasse, is to be delivered immediately for the Auschwitz concentration camp. The order is shown in the enclosed document, and the materials in question are to be ordered and redirected, in agreement with Obersturmführer Weber of Office C V/3 of our Central Construction Office. The relevant number of consignment notes are to be sent to the above mentioned firm. With reference to the discussion of SS-Standartenführer Blobel with the firm of Schriever & Co., Hannover, Bürgermeister Fink-Strasse, delivery should be made of the ball mill already reserved there for grinding substances for the Auschwitz concentration camp.

Return journey was on 17.9.42, arrival in Auschwitz at 12 AM.

[signature]

SS-Ustuf. (F)

Attachments:
1 carbon copy
1 sketch

[Callafangers]

So you can look over this and then we will proceed with my assertion that all of this strengthens Hoess overall as a genuine witness.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... m=1#_doc63

Auschwitz, 17 September 1942

Travel report
on the business trip to Litzmannstadt.

Purpose of the trip: Inspection of a special facility

Departure from Auschwitz was on 16.9.1942 at 5 AM with a car from the commandant's office of concentration camp Auschwitz

Participants: SS-Obersturmbannführer Höß, SS-Untersturmführer Hößler and SS-Untersturmführer Dejaco.

Arrival in Litzmanstadt at 9 AM. A tour through the ghetto took place, followed by a trip to the special facility. Inspection of the special facility and meeting with SS-Standartenführer Blobel on the execution of such a facility. The construction material ordered specially by Standartenführer Blobel from the Ostdeutsche Baustoffwerke Company of Posen, Wilhelm Gustloffstrasse, is to be delivered immediately for the Auschwitz concentration camp. The order is shown in the enclosed document, and the materials in question are to be ordered and redirected, in agreement with Obersturmführer Weber of Office C V/3 of our Central Construction Office. The relevant number of consignment notes are to be sent to the above mentioned firm. With reference to the discussion of SS-Standartenführer Blobel with the firm of Schriever & Co., Hannover, Bürgermeister Fink-Strasse, delivery should be made of the ball mill already reserved there for grinding substances for the Auschwitz concentration camp.

Return journey was on 17.9.42, arrival in Auschwitz at 12 AM.

[signature]

SS-Ustuf. (F)

Attachments:
1 carbon copy
1 sketch

Got it! So, we are crystal clear that the "SS-Hauptsturmführer und Adjudant" (those granted a permit to travel to the "field oven") did not include Hoess, who was definitely not a SS-Hauptsturmführer at that time, correct? Do you concede this, bombsaway?

Because if so, then your document above is in no way linked to cremations. You're now reduced to a mention that Hoess did have some field trip to meet with Blobel, and that's it. There is nothing of any specified activities of any kind, and even the "ball mill" reference (note: not a 'bone mill', as Mattogno has explored in-detail) has to do with Chelmno -- this refers to Auschwitz, where no one claims Jews were being ground-up.

You remain perpetually at "square zero".

[Nessie]

.... Auschwitz, where no one claims Jews were being ground-up.

David Olere, in one of his drawings, showed bones being ground down.

https://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/R ... lere20.jpg

https://www.auschwitz.org/en/history/au ... s-chambers

"Bones that did not burn completely were ground to powder with pestles and then dumped..."

You should do some simple checking before you make claims.

[bombsaway]

So you can look over this and then we will proceed with my assertion that all of this strengthens Hoess overall as a genuine witness.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... m=1#_doc63

Auschwitz, 17 September 1942

Travel report
on the business trip to Litzmannstadt.

Purpose of the trip: Inspection of a special facility

Departure from Auschwitz was on 16.9.1942 at 5 AM with a car from the commandant's office of concentration camp Auschwitz

Participants: SS-Obersturmbannführer Höß, SS-Untersturmführer Hößler and SS-Untersturmführer Dejaco.

Arrival in Litzmanstadt at 9 AM. A tour through the ghetto took place, followed by a trip to the special facility. Inspection of the special facility and meeting with SS-Standartenführer Blobel on the execution of such a facility. The construction material ordered specially by Standartenführer Blobel from the Ostdeutsche Baustoffwerke Company of Posen, Wilhelm Gustloffstrasse, is to be delivered immediately for the Auschwitz concentration camp. The order is shown in the enclosed document, and the materials in question are to be ordered and redirected, in agreement with Obersturmführer Weber of Office C V/3 of our Central Construction Office. The relevant number of consignment notes are to be sent to the above mentioned firm. With reference to the discussion of SS-Standartenführer Blobel with the firm of Schriever & Co., Hannover, Bürgermeister Fink-Strasse, delivery should be made of the ball mill already reserved there for grinding substances for the Auschwitz concentration camp.

Return journey was on 17.9.42, arrival in Auschwitz at 12 AM.

[signature]

SS-Ustuf. (F)

Attachments:
1 carbon copy
1 sketch

Got it! So, we are crystal clear that the "SS-Hauptsturmführer und Adjudant" (those granted a permit to travel to the "field oven") did not include Hoess, who was definitely not a SS-Hauptsturmführer at that time, correct? Do you concede this, bombsaway?

Because if so, then your document above is in no way linked to cremations. You're now reduced to a mention that Hoess did have some field trip to meet with Blobel, and that's it. There is nothing of any specified activities of any kind, and even the "ball mill" reference (note: not a 'bone mill', as Mattogno has explored in-detail) has to do with Chelmno -- this refers to Auschwitz, where no one claims Jews were being ground-up.

You remain perpetually at "square zero".

I think the analysis here is sound

Looking at the full documents you've provided offers a clearer picture that can reconcile them as pertaining to a single, coordinated event:

Document 62 (The Travel Permit from WVHA Amt D, signed by Glücks):

This document is the authorization from a higher SS authority (Richard Glücks, Head of WVHA Amt D) for a car from Auschwitz to be used for a trip to Litzmannstadt on 16.9.42.
The stated purpose is "to inspect the experimental site of field ovens Aktion Reinhard."
Crucially, the line "Die Fahrgen. ist dem Kraftfahrer mitzugeben" ("The permit for driving is to be carried by the driver") indicates this is the official paperwork authorizing the vehicle's journey.
The signature block "F.d.R.d.A.: [Unterschrift] SS-Hauptsturmführer und Adjudant" means "Für die Richtigkeit der Abschrift" (For correctness of the copy). This signature is not designating the Hauptsturmführer as the one conducting the inspection. Instead, it's an administrative signature, likely from an adjutant at Auschwitz (K.L. Au. is the recipient) or at the WVHA, certifying the copy of Glücks's order. This was the source of the rank "discrepancy" – this Hauptsturmführer was an administrative officer, not the main inspector authorized by Glücks.
The permit itself, as issued by Glücks, does not name the specific individuals who will conduct the inspection, only that the trip for this purpose is authorized.
Document 63 (Walther Dejaco's Travel Report):

This document is the after-action report for the trip that took place on 16-17.9.1942.
It explicitly names the participants who undertook the inspection: "SS-Obersturmbannführer Höß, SS-Untersturmführer Hößler und SS-Untersturmführer Dejaco." Hoess's rank is correct here.
The stated purpose ("Inspection of a special facility") and the activities (meeting "SS-Standartenführer Blobel über die Ausführung einer derartigen Anlage," discussing materials, and ordering a "ball mill...for grinding substances" for KL Auschwitz) align very well with inspecting an "experimental site of field ovens Aktion Reinhard." Blobel was central to corpse disposal methods, including burning.
The car used was "from the commandant's office of concentration camp Auschwitz," consistent with the permit (Doc 62) authorizing a car from Auschwitz for such a trip.

Therefore, there weren't two unrelated trips. There was one authorized mission, and Hoess (along with Hössler and Dejaco) was the one who undertook it, as detailed in Dejaco's report, to inspect a "special facility" (likely the "experimental site of field ovens Aktion Reinhard") and meet with Blobel. This interpretation aligns the dates, locations, general purpose, and the ranks of the key individuals involved.

[bombsaway]

More AI analysis, based on presenting the actual document

The visual layout and specific notations on the document strongly confirm the previous interpretation regarding the "SS-Hauptsturmführer und Adjudant":

"Abschrift" (Copy): The document is clearly marked as an "Abschrift," meaning it's a copy of an original order.
"F.d.R.d.A.:": Below the main authorization by Glücks, and associated with a handwritten signature (which appears to be "Möller" or something similar) and an official stamp, is the clear abbreviation "F.d.R.d.A.:". This stands for "Für die Richtigkeit der Abschrift," which translates to "For the correctness of the copy."
Placement of "SS-Hauptsturmführer und Adjudant": The typed text "SS-Hauptsturmführer und Adjudant" appears directly below this "F.d.R.d.A.:" notation and the handwritten signature. This is the standard bureaucratic placement for the details of the officer who is certifying that the document is a true and correct copy of the original.
Authorizing Signature vs. Certifying Signature:
The main authorization for the travel permit is clearly from "Der Chef der Amtsgr. D gez. Glücks" (The Head of Office Group D, signed Glücks).
The signature of the "SS-Hauptsturmführer und Adjudant" is a separate, secondary administrative act certifying the copy of Glücks's order.

Callafangers would seem to suggest there were two totally unrelated trips (on the same day!) from Auschwitz to two places near Litzmanstadt - one an "experimental site" and the other a "special facility".

It's sort of tangential, but what's some reasonable speculation about what they were doing here?

Keep in mind Dejaco (who accompanied Hoess and his adjutant on the trip) was an architect and had a major role constructing around the Krema complex in A-B

And relate all this to Blobel, his role as an Einsatz commander and clear links to mass killing Jews in the East, as well as the witness statements and document attesting to his use of flamethrowers around this time (mid-1942)

[Callafangers]

.... Auschwitz, where no one claims Jews were being ground-up.

David Olere, in one of his drawings, showed bones being ground down.

https://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y94/R ... lere20.jpg

https://www.auschwitz.org/en/history/au ... s-chambers

"Bones that did not burn completely were ground to powder with pestles and then dumped..."

You should do some simple checking before you make claims.

So, was that with a bone mill, Nessie? Or was it with Olere's drawn method (smashing on cement)? Has this 'mill' ever been confirmed for its alleged use, either via credible documentation or physical evidence of any kind? Or has your 'simple checking' failed you yet again?

[Callafangers]

I think the analysis here is sound

The signature block "F.d.R.d.A.: [Unterschrift] SS-Hauptsturmführer und Adjudant" means "Für die Richtigkeit der Abschrift" (For correctness of the copy). This signature is not designating the Hauptsturmführer as the one conducting the inspection. Instead, it's an administrative signature, likely from an adjutant at Auschwitz (K.L. Au. is the recipient) or at the WVHA, certifying the copy of Glücks's order. This was the source of the rank "discrepancy" – this Hauptsturmführer was an administrative officer, not the main inspector authorized by Glücks.

Mr. bombsaway, if the Hauptsturmführer was not Hoess then, once again, you are at square zero, as you have no documentation supporting your claim that even this 'field oven' had to do with Hoess. There were thousands at the SS-Hauptsturmführer level at this time, and it is quite bizarre to not have the names of anyone traveling on the permit for travel, so I can't say I buy your (Hans') 'sound analysis' above.

[Callafangers]

Callafangers would seem to suggest there were two totally unrelated trips (on the same day!) from Auschwitz to two places near Litzmanstadt - one an "experimental site" and the other a "special facility".

It's sort of tangential, but what's some reasonable speculation about what they were doing here?

Keep in mind Dejaco (who accompanied Hoess and his adjutant on the trip) was an architect and had a major role constructing around the Krema complex in A-B

And relate all this to Blobel, his role as an Einsatz commander and clear links to mass killing Jews in the East, as well as the witness statements and document attesting to his use of flamethrowers around this time (mid-1942)

I would say that you are dealing with camps and networks with numerous complex tasks involving many thousands (or millions) of people across large distances, and that it is easy to cherry-pick documentation and then build a narrative around it, with 'dots connected' by postwar fabrications and so-called 'testimony'.

This "isn't it interesting..." style of argumentation is exactly what we see from flat-earthers. You have no evidence nor confirmation of what you are claiming more broadly, so you cherry-pick snapshots of various vague or purportedly 'suspicious' documents or allegations as though these somehow converge to fit your bigger, quite extraordinary picture. But no, they don't.

"Field ovens" doesn't mean 'Gassed Jew Cremation Devices', nor does 'special facility' mean 'Jew Gassing Operation', no matter how much you or anyone hates 'Nazis'. Any vagueness in description would of course be added to the pile of 'useful documentation' by the Allies and their Jews post-war. Given you consistently lack any form of verifiable (e.g. physical or explicit, contemporary) evidence of any kind, you fight an uphill battle.

Appealing to the confirmation bias of your audience is a common strategy but one rapidly wearing out in efficacy. Even to "normies", you're going to need to present a more legitimate case going forward, or else the 'Holocaust' lie will continue to crumble.

Give me any institution of vast scale, give me ALL of their detailed documentation after an intense and controversial war, and allow me to heavily coerce (or incentivize) all of their participants and witnesses, and I can guarantee you I am able to come up with a narrative quite like the 'Holocaust', and to provide the same quality and proportion of 'evidence' you and your camp have done thus far with this 'extermination' hoax.

Again, this isn't rocket science. It's liars at work, with all of the world's resources at their disposal. Case closed.

[curioussoul]

Well what would be the actual events here?

That Blobel really was doing corpse destruction experiments at Kulmhof which Hoess came to witness? We also have here a document related to his visit, https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... tml#_doc62

"Permit for driving a car from Au[schwitz] to Litzmannstadt and back to inspect the experimental site of field ovens Aktion Reinhard is herebey granted for 16.9.42."

Therefore Blobel's experiments are implicated in whatever happened at Chelmno and also the larger Reinhardt (Reinhard? lol) action. This is clearly not an irrelevant detail.

A travel permit for a car trip to Litzmannstadt (not even Chelmno, mind you) with no mention of Hoess nor Blobel doesn’t prove a thing about Hoess witnessing "corpse destruction experiments". Even if it did: cremation techniques are not reflective of 'gassing', and potential truths about cremation experiments would in no case substantiate claims about homicidal operations (I note that your document doesn't mention 'gas vans' at all). Hoess' contradictory, uncorroborated tales -- cooked up under duress -- are not evidenced to align with this vague "field ovens" reference, let alone genocide, from a document cherry-picked out of thousands by vindictive curators.

What the 'field furnaces Aktion Reinhard' was actually referring to, was garbage incinerators, and the reason personnel from Auschwitz were interested in these 'field furnaces' was to incinerate trash from the Kanada effects storage facility in Birkenau. A report relating to the same trip also mentions a "ball mill for materials", and it's pretty easy to see that the 'field furnaces' related to the incineration of flammable garbage whereas the ball mill was used to grind down non-flammable materials, which probably included garbage brought by inmates to Auschwitz and to the Reinhard camps. The relationship between Chelmno and the Reinhard camps isn't clearly understood, and it's also not understood why the supposed field "cremation" devices at Chelmno weren't tested at one of the AR camps rather than at Chelmno, and why it was never implemented at neither the Reinhard camps nor at Auschwitz, if they did actually relate to cremation. Instead, the AR camps carried on with their primitive outdoor cremation pits whereas Auschwitz built civilian-style crematoria.

As is well-known, and recognized even by mainstream historians, one of the key components of Aktion Reinhard was the seizure/confiscation of Jewish property in relation to their resettlement in the East. This was one of the major reasons that Operation Reinhard was kept under wraps. Obviously, field incineration furnaces and ball mills would have been useful since the Germans seized astronomical quantities of goods from Jewish deportees, much of which was probably just "garbage" and needed to be destroyed efficiently.

In relation to the dating of this travel permit, Mattogno was able to document a case of a fire damaging a building in Auschwitz only days before the permit was issued, indicating that the permit could have been issued in relation to a need for a safe way of incinerating garbage materials in the camp. All of this is so obvious that even exterminationists have a hard time denying it. There's even a Sobibor witness, Thomas Blatt, who testified to having been in charge of a "paper and clothing incineration furnace" at Sobibor!

Regarding the participants, Hoess wrote about the trip in one of his texts, and there is also a report written up by Walter Dejaco immediately after the trip, wherein the participants are named as Hoess, Hoessler and Dejaco, and they also supposedly met with Blobel. But what is actually borne out by Dejaco's report is the fact that a ball mill was to be delivered to Auschwitz, further strengthening the case that all this trip was about was to inspect field garbage incineration devices and ball mills at Litzmannstadt, for later use at Auschwitz, and that these devices were being utilized to incinerate waste and grind down useless garbage left behind by Jews at the Reinhard camps.

[bombsaway]

I think the analysis here is sound

The signature block "F.d.R.d.A.: [Unterschrift] SS-Hauptsturmführer und Adjudant" means "Für die Richtigkeit der Abschrift" (For correctness of the copy). This signature is not designating the Hauptsturmführer as the one conducting the inspection. Instead, it's an administrative signature, likely from an adjutant at Auschwitz (K.L. Au. is the recipient) or at the WVHA, certifying the copy of Glücks's order. This was the source of the rank "discrepancy" – this Hauptsturmführer was an administrative officer, not the main inspector authorized by Glücks.

Mr. bombsaway, if the Hauptsturmführer was not Hoess then, once again, you are at square zero, as you have no documentation supporting your claim that even this 'field oven' had to do with Hoess. There were thousands at the SS-Hauptsturmführer level at this time, and it is quite bizarre to not have the names of anyone traveling on the permit for travel, so I can't say I buy your (Hans') 'sound analysis' above.

Your assertion that it's "bizarre" for the permit not to name the specific individuals traveling overlooks its likely bureaucratic function, which is for driving a car issued by a higher authority (Glücks) to a subordinate command (KL Auschwitz), and primarily authorizes the activity and the use of the vehicle. It states, "The permit for driving is to be carried by the driver." This ensures the vehicle has proper authorization for its journey and purpose. The Hauptsturmführer is not named anyway in the body of the letter (which just see their signature?), so this document doesn't help you with this argument. I'm not sure if it's common practice for all people with travel permits to be listed, esp with a high ranking official in there like Hoess. Maybe you have to show this if you're questioning the documents authenticity.

Moving on, when looking at the actual document, which I didn't do the first time, it's clear that the Hauptsturmführer is authorizing the authenticity of the letter, based on placement in the document.

Let's look at the structure of Document 62 again, based on the image and transcription provided earlier:

Primary Authorization: The actual travel permit ("Fahrgenehmigung") is granted and signed by "Der Chef der Amtsgr. D gez. Glücks, SS-Brigadef. u. Generalmajor der Waffen-SS..." (The Head of Office Group D, signed Glücks...). This is clearly the official who is issuing the authorization for travel.

Certification Signatures: Below Glücks's authorization block, there are other signatures for administrative purposes:

"F.d.R. gez. Selle Funkstellenleiter" (For correctness, signed Selle, Head of Radio Station) – likely certifying the correctness of the message if it was transmitted.
Crucially, the section with the handwritten signature (that might be "Möller" or similar) and the typed rank "SS-Hauptsturmführer und Adjudant" is explicitly under the notation "F.d.R.d.A.:".
Meaning of "F.d.R.d.A.": This standard German bureaucratic abbreviation stands for "Für die Richtigkeit der Abschrift," which translates to "For the correctness of the copy." The document itself is titled "Abschrift" (Copy).

Conclusion based on the document's structure:

The "SS-Hauptsturmführer und Adjudant" is not authorizing the travel permit itself. That authority clearly comes from Glücks.

Instead, the SS-Hauptsturmführer (whose signature appears above their typed rank) is performing an administrative function: they are certifying that this document is a true and correct copy ("Abschrift") of the original order/permit issued by Glücks.

So, while the Hauptsturmführer is "authorizing" something, it's the authenticity of the copy, not the permission for travel. Their role is to affirm that this piece of paper accurately reflects the directive given by Glücks. This is a standard bureaucratic procedure for copies of official documents.

Therefore, the person authorizing the travel remains Glücks. The SS-Hauptsturmführer is acting in a subordinate administrative capacity related to the paperwork of that authorization.

So this is the argument you have to refute now. We can also look at the document. There's zero indication that's it's authorizing the Hauptsturmführer (at the bottom). There's only one signature anyway, and that's the Hauptsturmführer who is also the Adjudant. Maybe there's two, that's the Adjudant? AI doesn't seem to think that's likely but I'm no expert.







You also have to define what you believe really happened, that there were two separate trips on the same day out of Auschwitz to "special" and "experimental" sites around Litzmandstadt, what Blobel's role is, why he had a flame thrower, what Hoess and co were really doing there ... I'm curious if you have an elegant explanation for all of this.

---

And once this is done we can get back to central question of Hoess's testimony. Though it's interesting to me and you're kind of showing your hand by spending so much time on this. If Hoess's visit to Blobel/the Reinhard field furnaces doesn't help the Holocaust case one iota, why not just concede it and we can move on. But you know it does, deep down probably.