Sobibor / Roberto Muehlenkamp's duplicity exposed

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9709
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Sobibor / Roberto Muehlenkamp's duplicity exposed

Postby Hannover » 7 years 10 months ago (Wed May 25, 2011 3:18 pm)

Here 's a recent debunking of the lies put forth by the profit seeking 'Holocaust Industry', and more specifically, Roberto Muehlenkamp.
Piece by piece it all comes unglued.
A must read here.

Read here and learn about the transit camp, Sobibor.
http://www.revblog.codoh.com/2011/05/li ... directive/

excerpt:
To conclude: The presence of 600-700 Jewish inmates in Sobibór fits perfectly well with the transit camp hypothesis, as there was certainly enough work for them all of them to carry out. Roberto Muehlenkamp’s “argument” regarding the letters of NO-482 is therefore devoid of any value: the number of inmates at Sobibór throws no doubt on Himmler’s, Pohl’s and Brandt’s designation of Sobibór as a “transit camp” (Durchgangslager). Their use of that designation is fully congruent with the state of evidence, which allows for only one conclusion: that Sobibór indeed was a transit camp. There is a good reason why Black, Arad, Hilberg and Hilberg have felt compelled to meet the contents of NO-482 with lies and obfuscations.

Before he bothered to write this helplessly flawed criticism Mr. Muehlenkamp should moreover have recalled a truism well-known to all those knowledgable about the socio-economics and technologies of Ancient Rome and Egypt: When slave labor is available in (virtually) unlimited amounts, efficient utilization of said manpower is not a pressing issue.


This is too easy.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Blogbuster
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:35 pm

Re: Sobibor / Roberto Muehlenkamp's duplicity exposed

Postby Blogbuster » 7 years 10 months ago (Sat May 28, 2011 9:31 am)

Hannover wrote:Here 's a recent debunking of the lies put forth by the profit seeking 'Holocaust Industry', and more specifically, Roberto Muehlenkamp.


This is too easy.

- Hannover



Hello,
In case your insterested they are also dicussing this thread here:
http://hateblogwatch.yuku.com/topic/288 ... gets--piss

BB
Blog Buster!

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Sobibor / Roberto Muehlenkamp's duplicity exposed

Postby Werd » 7 years 10 months ago (Sun May 29, 2011 3:16 pm)

So what you are saying is that one group of exterminationist theorists is fighting against another? And that the hateblogwatch team thinks Kues is RIGHT? Should I be expected to believe the hateblogwatch side really believes that Kues is correct? Or are they merely pretending to be just to get under the other guy's skin for whatever reason? From what I have read on that site, the group at holocaustcontroversies has been accused of trying to take over a website a few years ago and allegedly plant fake evidence on that site to discredit them, so that THEY could become the new voice for anti revisionism. So could this little spat be why the hbw side is saying Kues is right? Even if they don't think Kues is correct? Or do they really think Kues is right in his reply and that the holocaust controversies site failed in its reply to Kues? I have seen HBW say that holocaust controversies has made so many mistakes that they are probably nazi sleeper agents used to make revisionism look better. Should we even care what HBW thinks and instead just focus on the articles from Kues and his opponent on holocaust controversies?

I'm not sure what I'm allowed to say. I'm new here so I don't want to irritate the mods by posting too much or flooding or straying off topic.

User avatar
Cloud
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 7:27 pm
Location: The Land of Political Correctness

Re: Sobibor / Roberto Muehlenkamp's duplicity exposed

Postby Cloud » 7 years 10 months ago (Sun May 29, 2011 9:19 pm)

Should we even care what HBW thinks

No.
and instead just focus on the articles from Kues and his opponent on holocaust controversies?

Yes.

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Sobibor / Roberto Muehlenkamp's duplicity exposed

Postby Werd » 7 years 10 months ago (Mon May 30, 2011 4:19 pm)

Since the topic is duplicity of Muehlenkamp, I will take this as an invite to attack his tactics. Muehlenkamp has made some errors.

Since I wanted to comment on two things Roberto Muehlenkamp talked about in his second round with Kues, I will have to pick one. I choose the Sonder issue (over the Kola issue which can be easily summarised as Kola has never having used labs or videos to show or prove he found human remains at Belsec or Sobibor and that revisionists who bicker about his pencil drawings are making unnecessary concessions) and his two faced statements surrounding that battle of his with Kues.

In Kues' second round, he says Muehlenkamp makes an error in assuming Sonder (special) always meant code for extermination camp. Roberto then comes along and says this was not his main argument. Roberto even does us a favour and says,
Let’s say that neither of these terms shows Sobibór or other camps to have been extermination camps all by itself and regardless of context. That would be an accurate statement.
So in other words, Roberto says that Sonder probably is code for extermination, but only when we have other outside evidence of extermination of a certain camp in a certain context at a certain time; not all the time and not in and of itself. Which would explain why Roberto said Kues' accumulation of sources showing Sonder to mean nothing sinister is irrelevant. Well maybe so, but what Kues did there does benefit the reader. It gets us to see that we can't claim to see code everywhere. Kues wants to get us back on a steady road regarding the use of certain words. That is commendable. But here comes Roberto's trick. He then says in his second round, which came after Thomas' second round that MGK withheld information to avoid explaining why a transit camp, converted into a labour camp, should then be called a sonder camp.

My argument was not that the term Sonderlager or the prefix "Sonder-" necessarily has a sinister meaning, but that "Revisionists" should explain why this particular camp, which they claim to have been a transit camp later also used as a labor camp for processing captured ammunition, was referred to as a Sonderlager.

Thomas already gave three reasons for why it could be called that. Those came at the end of his second round. How does Roberto respond? He says all three are conjecture because of how Benda used the Sonder word. Roberto says we must take the sonder word in context (which seems to be what Thomas Kues says).

In view of the nature of the Sonderlager and its inmates, it was decided that the Wehrmacht should take immediate responsibility for pursuing the fugitives, and the Schutzpolizei for securing the camp from the outside.

However, Roberto's conspiracy theory that this quote indicates that there was a motive to recapture the inmates to keep an assembly line killing machine under wraps is also conjecture. Did we not show earlier how it was converted to a labour camp? Do you really think the Nazis wanted to lose that free labour? Roberto's plan is to meet conjecture with conjecture and declare his the better one simply because of his already preconceived beliefs. In other words, Roberto reads his exterminationist point of view into Benda's statement. But this is what Thomas Kues has accused him of doing. Using code language and seeing code language there. Need me to quote Kues again.

According to the Tarnsprache exegesis, adopted by Muehlenkamp and his likes when it suits them, this means that Sobibór was a death camp, since the prefix Sonder- (special), it seems, always denoted killings in Nazi jargon!

See the tricks? Simply saying, "What else could it mean?" and then not even answering your own question with more evidence, is not an argument to prove that Sonder IN THAT CONTEXT meant an extermination camp. And when you have to ask that rhetorical quesion, it means you have no evidence. And when you have no evidence, you have no choice but to adopt a code language conspiracy theory. That is what Kues said Roberto did and that is what Roberto did, although he denied it. Don't be fooled, readers.

Finally, look at how Kues responded. He said, we didn't leave anything out that hurt our case regarding the Benda document. Check the German edition Kues pleads. What does Roberto say? An apology? No He makes an excuse saying,
Indeed I don't bother to read any more "Revisionist" filth than I consider absolutely necessary for refutation purposes, and of Die Akte Sobibór I read little more than the parts commented in my blog Mass Graves at Nazi Extermination Camps.

If Roberto admits to not doing his homework on Kues' work on German, then we have no need to expose him for it if he already exposed himself. Kues wins the debate on the Sonder term and Roberto has been exposed for being lazy and making excuses for his laziness. How does he do it? He makes an underhanded admission to cover for his excuse for not reading what Kues told him to read to see that Kues left nothing out of Benda. Roberto moves on to another topic. Kola grave descriptions.

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Sobibor / Roberto Muehlenkamp's duplicity exposed

Postby Werd » 7 years 10 months ago (Mon May 30, 2011 11:05 pm)

it must stay on the one topic, Kues vs. Muehlenkamp's Sobibor.

And aren't I staying to that by exposing Robert's mistakes with his code language conspiracy theory and his arguments/questions from ignorance? I am confused because I don't know how else I could have tackeld Roberto's problems.

User avatar
Blogbuster
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:35 pm

Re: Sobibor / Roberto Muehlenkamp's duplicity exposed

Postby Blogbuster » 7 years 10 months ago (Tue May 31, 2011 12:20 pm)

Hello Moderator 3,

I understand your comments and will adhere. However, kindly be advised that I posted a link to the HBW website to show that the specific topic, one of duplicity in the character of Roberto Muehlenkamp was also being discussed elsewhere, hence making it a common theme and one generally recognized wherever Holocaust debates are to be found on the Internet.

Certainly I could have added some additional commentary as well as my views on why the link was relevant, but I thought it best for people to be informed and then decide on their own.

There is another thread on the HBW forum: http://hateblogwatch.yuku.com/topic/290 ... es-CODOH-m

That also refers to the chicanery of Muehlenkamp, and it does reference his challenge to Kues, yet it also points out Muehlenkamps own unwillingness to accept a challenge put forth to him.

Keep in mind, those links I posted are threads from Holocaust memorializer's, not revisionists, and if they also find Muehlenkamp to be two-sided, then that opinion does lend discredit his argument to some extent.

I thought, and still think its relevant to this thread.

However, I defer to your judgment,

BB
Blog Buster!

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9709
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Sobibor / Roberto Muehlenkamp's duplicity exposed

Postby Hannover » 7 years 10 months ago (Tue May 31, 2011 1:49 pm)

In a follow-up by Thomas Kues, see how Muehlenkamp's desperate attempts at rebuttal are demolished, here:

'On the terms Sonderlager and SS-Sonderkommando'
http://www.revblog.codoh.com/2011/05/on ... ndo/print/

excerpt:
What may be safely excluded is the possibility that Sobibór was called a Sonderlager because it functioned as an extermination center where hundreds of thousands of Jews were murdered in homicidal gas chambers. There exists not the slightest documentary or technical evidence supporting this notion, and in addition to the letters of NO-482 calling Sobibór a transit camp, the available hard evidence, as unearthed by archeologists, contradict the exterminationist version of events.[47]

To conclude: The appearance of the terms Sonderlager or SS-Sonderkommando in documents relating to Sobibór (or any of the other alleged death camps) cannot be used as evidence in support of the notion that said camp functioned as an extermination center for Jews.[48]

Laughable assertions bite the dust, again.

For more on shyster Roberto Muehlenkamp, aka 'Cortavagatas', see these:

follow this mercifully short thread from the former CODOH bbs:
http://forum.codoh.com/codoh/493.html

'gas chambers' were hosed down, so no cyanide'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=3706

'Those Prussian Blues Just Won't Wash'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4600

'Roberto Muehlenkamp: no fuel required for Auschwitz ovens'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=3703

'Roberto Muehlenkamp shredded on 'gassings' & cyanide'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=224

'Roberto Muehlenkamp debunked on 3.5kg of coke cremations'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=420

'Cremation patent & 3.5 kg of coke per corpse debunked'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=88

Debunking the 'holocaust' is just too easy.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Sobibor / Roberto Muehlenkamp's duplicity exposed

Postby Werd » 7 years 10 months ago (Tue May 31, 2011 4:11 pm)

The first highlighted term (Sonderlager) means "special camp", and it may well be the reason, or one of the reasons, why MGK thought it wise to withhold the document’s wording from their readers. Otherwise they would have had to explain why a transit camp, or a transit camp partially converted into a labor camp, would be called a "special camp".

Back on the language code conspiracy? Sonder could not really "mean" but rather "signify" a death camp due to other evidences. Sonder doesn't mean death camp in and of itself. Roberto gives the reason WHY he thinks it was called sonder.

They would also have had to explain what it was about "the nature of the Sonderlager and its inmates" (which Benda was obviously aware of) that required involving the Wehrmacht in the fugitives’ pursuit, obviously because it was considered most urgent that all escapees be recovered and the Wehrmacht had more personnel available for this task than the Security Police, the SD or the Schutzpolizei.

Good question. Now can Roberto provide more than his conjecture? Can he provide actual evidence that it was a death camp because I didn't see it in his response.
http://rodohforum.yuku.com/reply/266996 ... ply-266996

So since it's not about the use of Sonder, as Roberto admits, but more about the other evidence that could prove the camp was a murder camp, then he can't complain and say, "Why did you with-hold that use of Sonder from the document from your readers?" I thought we already established that sonder itself was moot, Roberto? But as can be seen, they omitted nothing in their German version. Something you admitted to not reading. Watch this brief clip of Roberto seemingly contradicting himself about Sonder. In terms of me saying he asks questions/makes arguments from ignorance, he denies it.

they are not rhetorical at all but demand an answer

I also don’t leave my questions unanswered.

I challenge Kues to try coming up with a better explanation:

Roberto claims he provieds answers, but then he passes the buck to someone else and demands they give an answer. I'm sorry but Roberto giving an answer is very different from Thomas having to give an answer. Especially since they are two different people. Oh wait. Roberto says he already gave an answer.

The best explanation (i.e. the one that takes all known evidence into account and requires the fewest additional assumptions) is that it was considered most urgent that all fugitives be recovered lest they reveal that Sobibór had been an extermination camp, and that the Wehrmacht was charged with the task because it had more personnel available for this purpose than the SD and the Security Police, including units that were trained and experienced in hunting partisans and therefore most suited for the task.

Nice explanation and theory. Now where is the evidence? Again, all he has is asking, "what else could it be for?" But Roberto did make me nod my head in agreement with him here.

And what follows must have hurt even more:

Now, does MGK's having mentioned Benda's use of the Sonderlager term in Die Akte Sobibór exclude their having deliberately omitted this mention in their later Sobibór book? Hardly so, and it is also difficult to understand how this passage (on page 10 of the VHO version of Die Akte Sobibór):

Fünf Monate nach diesen Ereignissen, am 17. März 1944, verfasste der SS-Untersturmführer Benda einen Bericht über den (von ihm fälschlicherweise auf den 15. 10.43 datierten) Aufstand in Sobibor sowie die anschliessende Verfolgung der Flüchtigen, in dem es hiess:

„In den Nachmittagstunden des 15. 10. 43 unternahmen etwa 300 Häftlinge des Sonderlagers Sobibor, nachdem sie einen Teil der Wachmannschaften entwaffnet und einen SS-Führer sowie 10 SS-Unterführer ermordet hatten, einen Ausbruchsversuch, der zum Teil gelang […]“32.

In diesem Bericht wurde Sobibor also als „Sonderlager“ bezeichnet. Was dieses Wort bedeutete, lässt sich dem Dokument selbst nicht entnehmen.



could have been reduced to this passage on page 22 of a much larger publication:

Five months after these events, on 17 March 1944, SS-Untersturmführer Benda wrote an account of the Sobibór uprising – which he wrongly dated 15 October 1943 – and of the ensuing search for the fugitives, stating that the rebels had “shot an SS officer as well as 10 SS NCOs.”17
through a mere "editorial error". Sloppy and incompetent though MGK admittedly are, this smacks of a deliberate omission. And as we shall see below, even in Die Akte Sobibór the "Revisionist" coryphées didn’t quote the most inconvenient part of Benda’s report.


I could see why Robert would accuse these guys of omitting something uncomfortable for the revisionist side. However Roberto refuses to provide the German translation of what was left out even though he speaks German and he knows most readers don't. So does anyone else know German on this board who can translate the allegedly damning passages that Kues and company left out? Roberto seems reluctant to as well. But Roberto also has me nodding my head here.

MGK’s Sobibór English Sobibór book is their highly advertised latest production for a large audience, much larger than the one reached by their previous German-language pamphlet. An omission in this highly advertised latest production, withholding information from an audience that cannot read or didn’t even hear of Die Akte Sobibór, can therefore not been excused by claiming that the missing information was included in the earlier pamphlet. On the contrary, that makes the supposed "editorial error" look all the fishier.

He makes a good point I think. His curiosity about why something was left out sits alongside mine that also has me wondering what that left out German says. Roberto and Thomas refuse to translate it.

This was also a shocker.
Second, how do you know he didn’t use "labs" to ascertain that the remains he found are human remains? This is from page 21 of Kola’s book about Bełżec:

Microchemical analysis confirms in the sample taken from the drill 218/XXII - 25-75 (depth 150-180 cm from the ground surface) the existence of molecules of burnt human bodies and charcoal (from crematory grave No 2/97 in ha XXII) appearance of compounds typical for bone structures (calcium carbonate, calcium phosphate); compare A. S. Skibińscy Badania materiałoznawcze próbek z byłego hitlerowskiego obozu zagłady w Bełżcu, The Archive of the ROPWiM.

Anyone? Hannover?

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Sobibor / Roberto Muehlenkamp's duplicity exposed

Postby Werd » 7 years 10 months ago (Wed Jun 01, 2011 9:58 pm)

Remember how Roberto was saying how he found it odd that MGK took three paragraphs in German and reduced it to one paragraph in English? He says, it must be incriminating to their revisionist cause. But if that is the case, then why the hell would they bother to put something incriminating into German?
If they find something that incriminates their view they wouldn't publish it in any language. HELLO!!!??? :lol:

Sounds like Roberto is concocting another ridiculous conspiracy theory just to score rhetorical points. Since he was not forthcoming with the German (a language he speaks), I had to use a lousy internet translation. Again, this is about the Benda report translation.
http://www.deathcamps.org/sobibor/pic/sdreport.jpg

Five months after these events, on the 17th of March 1944, composed of the SS lower storm leaders Benda a report on that (of it falsely on the 15th 10.43 of dated) uprising in Sobibor as well as the subsequent pursuit of the fleeting in which it was named:

"In the afternoon hours of the 15th 10th 43 undertook about 300 prisoners of the special warehouse Sobibor, after it a part of the awake teams disarms and a SS leader as well as 10 SS lower leaders murders had, an outbreak attempt, that in part succeeded […]" 32.

In this report, Sobibor was designated therefore as warehouse" "special. What meant this word, not even can be taken from the document.


Now imagine this back in German in the MGk book. Roberto says they took this and turned it to this for the English edition of their Sobibor book.

Five months after these events, on 17 March 1944, SS-Untersturmführer Benda wrote an account of the Sobibór uprising – which he wrongly dated 15 October 1943 – and of the ensuing search for the fugitives, stating that the rebels had “shot an SS officer as well as 10 SS NCOs.”17


So in other words Roberto is getting pissy that for the English edition, MGK left out a part where they again stated that Sonder in and of itself can't be shown as definite proof of extermination. But Roberto agreed to this in and of itself rule already. If they are trying to cover things up to make revisionism look good, it makes no sense to leave it in the German and take it out in English. A true cover up artist would leave something out in BOTH languages) that in the end Roberto is getting mad that they left out in the English edition something in the German which stated that Sonder in and of itself proves nothing. Sounds like Roberto himself is chasing mythical dragons on this issue. To repeat Roberto's words.

The first highlighted term (Sonderlager) means "special camp", and it may well be the reason, or one of the reasons, why MGK thought it wise to withhold the document’s wording from their readers.

Nice try but they already proved sonder was harmless to the revisionist cause. They used a blog entry to prove it. Then when that backfired Roberto, you called it a paper dragon spinning things saying you never argued that Sonder in and of itself meant extermination. You just admitted that your argument about Kues leaving out Sonder because it was daming falls to the ground since Kues had no problem showing you other harmless examples of Sonder. Thus your complaints about their allegedly sneaky and questionable paragraph reducation falls to the ground.

Otherwise they would have had to explain why a transit camp, or a transit camp partially converted into a labor camp, would be called a "special camp". They would also have had to explain what it was about "the nature of the Sonderlager and its inmates" (which Benda was obviously aware of) that required involving the Wehrmacht in the fugitives’ pursuit, obviously because it was considered most urgent that all escapees be recovered and the Wehrmacht had more personnel available for this task than the Security Police, the SD or the Schutzpolizei.

To which I prodded you for evidence instead of just questions/arguments from ignorance since this document alone did not prove mass extermination but instead is supposed to cause one to look deeper for actual scientific evidence. You then told me to take the tomato slices off my eyes and read your four part series called Mattogno, Graf & Kues on the Aktion Reinhard(t) Mass Graves (1). So I will.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9709
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Sobibor / Roberto Muehlenkamp's duplicity exposed

Postby Hannover » 7 years 10 months ago (Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:39 pm)

Jewish supremacist Muehlenkamp shoots himself again in referring to Andrzej Kola and Kola's so called 'excavations'. You couldn't get Muehlenkamp to damage his reputation anymore (if there's anything left of it) if he tried. Of course that is a problem for Jewish supremacists in general, they're desperately trying to defend allegations which are so easily shot down. They must continue to lie in order to support their previous lies; Muehlenkamp is a prime example.

Read these about Kola and his fraudulent digs and notice the desperate lengths that Jewish supremacists go to.

'Mass graves found at Nazi camp [?]'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=1194
excerpt:
absurd statements about Sobibor:

According to alleged eyewitness, Alexander Pechersky, gassings at Sobibor took place via a black heavy substance which exited in spirals from holes in the roof. Then the floor of the gas chamber opened
up, and the bodies fell directly into wagons placed in the basement.

From Entertainment Weekly:
"At the concentration camp in Sobibor, Poland, the Nazis assembled squawking schools of geese to cover the shrieks of inmates who were being gassed."

Another alleged eyewitness, Zelda Metz, talks of death via chlorine, and added... “then the floor opened automatically. The bodies fell into wagons on a railroad track which passed through the gas chambers and took the corpses to the ovens.”

I notice that in an alleged excavation there is no mention of gas chambers with opening floors, in fact they give no evidence for gas chambers at all. What happened to the chlorine according to the alleged eyewitness? They give no evidence for the alleged 250,000. They give no evidence as to who, how, & how many were in the alleged mass graves. There is no verifiable study to consult, only an assertion of one.

and you gotta love this:
The detainees were told they were going to be deloused and were led to the "showers." These were in fact gas chambers linked up to the exhaust systems of large ***diesel engines*** of the sort used in U-boats ...
Oops.

and:
'Sobibor camp debunked'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=57

plus
'New “Memorial Center” Planned for the Sobibór “Death Camp”'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6152&p=43218

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9709
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Sobibor / Roberto Muehlenkamp's duplicity exposed

Postby Hannover » 7 years 10 months ago (Thu Jun 02, 2011 6:40 pm)

Roberto Muehlenkamp stated:
The best explanation (i.e. the one that takes all known evidence into account and requires the fewest additional assumptions) is that it was considered most urgent that all fugitives be recovered lest they reveal that Sobibór had been an extermination camp, and that the Wehrmacht was charged with the task because it had more personnel available for this purpose than the SD and the Security Police, including units that were trained and experienced in hunting partisans and therefore most suited for the task.

Two obvious points here:

Muehlenkamp's first point blows up in his face when he says:
... it was considered most urgent that all fugitives be recovered lest they reveal that Sobibór had been an extermination camp ...

He appears to be in denial of the fact that multitudes were released from the big enchilada of the 'holocaust' lore, Auschwitz. Which, if the storyline was true, would not have happened since those released would have been free to tell the world what they saw ... if the tall tales were true.

Second, he cluelessly provides the explanation for why the Germans vigorously pursued the fugitives:
... the Wehrmacht was charged with the task because it had more personnel available for this purpose than the SD and the Security Police, including units that were trained and experienced in hunting partisans and therefore most suited for the task.

Certainly the Germans didn't want 'partisans' or potential partisans, aka 'terrorists / guerillas' roaming about. Good one, Roberto.

Revisionist are just the messengers, the utter absurdity of the 'holocaust' tales is the message.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Sobibor / Roberto Muehlenkamp's duplicity exposed

Postby Werd » 7 years 10 months ago (Fri Jun 03, 2011 3:36 am)

For the Benda quote our in the middle of the MGK blah-blah our silly bugger could have obtained a better translation in my "first round" blog:

If I missed it, fine. But Roberto also 'missed' quoting and responding to the part of my post where I explicitly talked about what the hateblogwatch crew has on the holocaustcontroversies crew in terms of their attempted takeover and attacks on the HEART website. Hypocrit extraordinaire as the HBW crew says. Roberto is splitting hairs because at the end of the day, the translation I got from the internet is roughly the same and the main spirit and intent is still conveyed.

In the afternoon of 15.10.1943 [should be 14.10] some 300 prisoners of Sonderlager Sobibór attempted a breakout, having disarmed a number of guard units and killed one SS-Führer as well as 10 SS Unterführers. The attempt was partially successful.


Roberto
"Lager" can mean camp or warehouse in German, depending on the context. As one doesn’t talk so much about camps in day-to-day communication nowadays, the automatic translator gave the term "warehouse" for lager.

So Sonder still means special. Okay, fine. Lager can mean camp or warehouse. I was never not fine with that. Moving on, remember how I used that rough internet translation to get those three German paragraphs that showed up in the German book by MGK into English for the benefit of the reader and of myself? Now...


Werd wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now imagine this back in German in the MGk book. Roberto says they took this and turned it to this for the English edition of their Sobibor book. Five months after these events, on 17 March 1944, SS-Untersturmführer Benda wrote an account of the Sobibór uprising – which he wrongly dated 15 October 1943 – and of the ensuing search for the fugitives, stating that the rebels had “shot an SS officer as well as 10 SS NCOs.”17

That’s not what I’m saying, but what they all too obviously did.

Um, yes it is Roberto. I said you said they reduced three paragraphs to one paragraph. Now you deny you accused them of doing so? Let's check your words again.

it is also difficult to understand how this passage (on page 10 of the VHO version of Die Akte Sobibór):

Fünf Monate nach diesen Ereignissen, am 17. März 1944, verfasste der SS-Untersturmführer Benda einen Bericht über den (von ihm fälschlicherweise auf den 15. 10.43 datierten) Aufstand in Sobibor sowie die anschliessende Verfolgung der Flüchtigen, in dem es hiess:

„In den Nachmittagstunden des 15. 10. 43 unternahmen etwa 300 Häftlinge des Sonderlagers Sobibor, nachdem sie einen Teil der Wachmannschaften entwaffnet und einen SS-Führer sowie 10 SS-Unterführer ermordet hatten, einen Ausbruchsversuch, der zum Teil gelang […]“32.

In diesem Bericht wurde Sobibor also als „Sonderlager“ bezeichnet. Was dieses Wort bedeutete, lässt sich dem Dokument selbst nicht entnehmen.



could have been reduced to this passage on page 22 of a much larger publication:

Five months after these events, on 17 March 1944, SS-Untersturmführer Benda wrote an account of the Sobibór uprising – which he wrongly dated 15 October 1943 – and of the ensuing search for the fugitives, stating that the rebels had “shot an SS officer as well as 10 SS NCOs.”17


through a mere "editorial error".

Sounds like you did accuse them of a conspiratorial, sneaky paragraph reduction. Something you said you never said about them.

"Roberto says they took this and turned it to this for the English edition of their Sobibor book."

"That’s not what I’m saying"

Who's really telling the truth here, readers? Maybe it's because Roberto thinks were stupid (since we're revisionists) that he can slip one like this past us.

Werd wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If they are trying to cover things up to make revisionism look good, it makes no sense to leave it in the German and take it out in English. A true cover up artist would leave something out in BOTH languages) that in the end Roberto is getting mad that they left out in the English edition something in the German which stated that Sonder in and of itself proves nothing.


RobertoBlah, blah, blah.

Not an unexpected response. But there's more. He continues...

What happened here was that MGK thought they could safely mention the Sonderlager quote in their Akte Sobibór pamphlet for German-speaking nutzis, but when they wrote their Sobibór book in English addressing a larger audience (including readers they hope to win over for "Revisionism"), they changed their mind about the safety of that quote from a "Revisionist" point of view and decided to leave it out. As simple as that.

Hmmm. Sounds to me like you're again accusing them of paragraph reduction. Yet when I say you said they engaged in paragraph reduction you denied it and said, "That's not what I'm saying."

Summary.

MGK thought they could safely mention the Sonderlager quote in their Akte Sobibór pamphlet for German-speaking nutzis, but when they wrote their Sobibór book in English addressing a larger audience, they changed their mind about the safety of that quote.

In other words, Roberto is repeating the conspiracy theory I have accused him of perpetuating (meaning I was correct). That MGK put in something incriminating in German and leave it out in English. In Roberto's world, winning converts to revisionism in Germany isn't as important as winning them over in English speaking countries, and there are no non revisionists to tackle them and expose them who can speak German. In other words, Roberto Muehlenkamp and other guys like him who can speak German apparently don't exist. :lol:

He merely repeats his argument and thus never actually refutes my claim that it is ridiculous for an alleged cover up artist to cover up something in one place and then reveal it in another. Essentially, since he repeated himself and showed he argued what I said he did, the only different thing in his response was a blah blah blah typefest. Not really a refutation of my claim that this conspiracy theory about German readers versus English readers makes little sense. For there are German non revisionists who could bust the German book if this conspiracy theory of Roberto's was to hold. Clearly, this conspiracy theory makes no sense and Roberto never bothered to argue why it makes sense. Let's continue.

The Wehrmacht and the Schutzpolizei were also summoned. In view of the nature of the Sonderlager and its inmates, it was decided that the Wehrmacht should take immediate responsibility for pursuing the fugitives, and the Schutzpolizei for securing the camp from the outside.

is missing from the quote. Kues seems to be so uncomfortable with it that he doesn’t even mention it in the blog commented in my "second round" blog, and Werd seems to have also decide that it’s safer not to talk about it.

Not missing from the German one apparently. Secondly how can he be uncomfortable with it if he already showed how Sonderlager isn't necessarily signifying something harmful? And that's another thing Roberto. You are doing something that I accuse you of and then you deny out of one side of your mouth yet again. You say you are not making an issue of Sonderlager, and yet here you are again. You are saying, "If sonderlager isn't meaning anything harmful, then why leave it out Kues?" To which I say, "Since you admit Sonderlager in and of itself is harmless, you can't then complain about it being left out since it's already moot." To which I add a modification. "What it boils down to is the pursuit by the wermacht of these men due to the nature of the camp." This COULD mean extermination assembly line but doesn't PROVE it. Hannover's explanation for the wermacht pursuits also COULD be the case. And how does Roberto respond to that? HE IGNORES IT. He also has nothing to say about the eyewitnesses who were clearly making things up that didn't happen. Peopld do tend to ingore embarrassing things. Kind of like how Roberto ignored the parts of my post where I let him know what HBW apparently knows and has on him and his crew that is so daming that they don't want to be confronted with such evidence.

Roberto flip flops on arguments he makes, ignores Hannover's alternative explanation, and ignores inconvenient so called eyewitnesses.

Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Sobibor / Roberto Muehlenkamp's duplicity exposed

Postby Werd » 7 years 10 months ago (Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:43 pm)

Roberto is essentially saying in this case Sonderlager is daming, because the Benda document is daming because of the phrase 'the nature of the camp'. However, let me explain. Roberto admits that the document itself isn't daming. So it goes like this. Sonder isn't daming itself which is why he thinks Kues wasted time talking about other examples of Sonder. Sonder is problematic only because of the Benda document which says something about 'the nature of the camp' being the cause for rounding up escapees.

No document proves mass extermination all by itself. But what this one does is show that there was something unusual about the nature of the Sonderlager and its inmates, something that called for all fugitives to be discovered, which in turn corroborates and is corroborated by other conclusive evidence to what happened at Sobibór.


If Roberto wants to claim due to Sobibor being an extermination camp, he is entitled to make such an inductive argument. He then says, we have to look deeper at the mountain of other pieces of evidence to indicate Sobibor was an extermination camp (HIS WORDS, NOT MINE). However this brings us back to what Hannover quoted in the FIRST POST from the Kues blog entry, first round. Labour. However Roberto doesn't buy it. He buys the extermination theory.

My argument was not that the term Sonderlager or the prefix "Sonder-" necessarily has a sinister meaning, but that "Revisionists" should explain why this particular camp, which they claim to have been a transit camp later also used as a labor camp for processing captured ammunition, was referred to as a Sonderlager.

And,
You see, losing free labor may not be desirable, but weren’t the resources employed in recovering a few hundred escaped laborers a little, err, disproportionate to the expectable benefit?

To which one could ask didn't Kues have a reply to this? namely what Hannover quoted in the OP? But Roberto could say since they had an abundance of labour as Kues admits, then why bother to round them up if they camp wasn't an extermination camp, if it didn't have a certain 'nature' as is mentioned in the Benda document. Why violate Occam's Razor he may say? That is what Roberto seems to be getting at and something that as I said Hannover, your partisan comment overlooks. Perhaps that is why Roberto is in a fuss over the paragraph reduction thing. However, read those three paragraphs again that were in German that I used an internet translation to get.

Five months after these events, on the 17th of March 1944, composed of the SS lower storm leaders Benda a report on that (of it falsely on the 15th 10.43 of dated) uprising in Sobibor as well as the subsequent pursuit of the fleeting in which it was named:

"In the afternoon hours of the 15th 10th 43 undertook about 300 prisoners of the special warehouse Sobibor, after it a part of the awake teams disarms and a SS leader as well as 10 SS lower leaders murders had, an outbreak attempt, that in part succeeded […]" 32.

In this report, Sobibor was designated therefore as warehouse" "special. What meant this word, not even can be taken from the document.

Nothing in there about the "nature of the camp" as stated in the Benda document. Roberto said, "does MGK's having mentioned Benda's use of the Sonderlager term in Die Akte Sobibór exclude their having deliberately omitted this mention in their later Sobibór book?" But we already established Sonderlager means nothing by itself. It has to be connected to the Benda document with the strange phrase "the nature of the camp" which Roberto THEN connects to other pieces of evidence he says proves Sobibor was an extermination camp. This is all fine and good, but THAT IS NOT what he argued here. As you can see he was putting up a fuss about the omission of one word. If Roberto really wanted to bust Kues on those three paragraphs, he should have looked for something like Kues leaving in "nature of the camp" in German but leaving it out in English. But that isn't the case. Roberto focused on their omission of one word Sonderlager. THAT is why Kues dedicated a blog entry to the other uses of Sonderlager and therefore was in his right to do so. This surprised Roberto so he had to fill out what he meant even more. He had to then say, "Okay Kues you can claim credit here. But what about the rest of the Benda document? How do you explain the phrase 'nature of the camp?'" If he admits that the phrase 'nature of the camp' needs to be tied in with other pieces of evidence for it to mean something, that it needs to be buttressed so to speak, then he shouldn't get mad at Kues for sole act of leaving out Sonderlager in English. Rather he should use other blog entries to say, "See all this evidence of extermination? This helps shed light on what was meant by 'nature of the camp.' That is how he should argue and has argued. And he has put up other blog entries to say, "This other evidence of mine helps us understand what is meant by 'nature of the camp' in the Benda document."

As I said, Roberto could say since they had an abundance of labour as Kues admits, then why bother to round them up if they camp wasn't an extermination camp and if they couldn't use all of them as labourers due to an abundance? If their presence as labour was superfluous, why go after them? What is this 'certain nature' of the camp that was directly tied to them pursuing the escapees? That is what Roberto seems to be getting at and something that as I said Hannover, your partisan comment seems to overlook. It's not about the prisoners so much as the camp itself. If don't think I'm mistaken here, but if I am, please correct me.

User avatar
Blogbuster
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 5:35 pm

Re: Sobibor / Roberto Muehlenkamp's duplicity exposed

Postby Blogbuster » 7 years 10 months ago (Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:21 am)

Sounds like Roberto is concocting another ridiculous conspiracy theory just to score rhetorical points. Since he was not forthcoming with the German (a language he speaks), I had to use a lousy internet translation. Again, this is about the Benda report translation.
http://www.deathcamps.org/sobibor/pic/sdreport.jpg


Hello,

I've just read on the HBW forum that the link you've posted above http://www.deathcamps.org/sobibor/pic/sdreport.jpg has been changed by the owners of the deatchamps.org website to reflect a disclaimer warning the public to avoid controversial and false postings from Roberto Muehlenkamp and his associates.

Muehlenkamp himself posts this very same link on his own blog (as early as today), and it seems that deathcamps.org learned of the linkage, and immediately updated their pages with the anti-Muehlenkamp warning.

So how does someone like Muehlenkamp openly debate, or dispute discussion in the way he has yet even Holocaust websites discredit him and warn people against him?

How is it even possible to consider that he has any credibility at whatsoever?

For those that are interested there is additional discussion about this to be found on HBW
http://hateblogwatch.yuku.com/topic/294 ... ov?page=-1
BB
Blog Buster!


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests