Blobel's Flamethrower and the Hoess Chelmno visit
Posted: Fri May 01, 2026 1:39 am
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.
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.
