attempted switch from alleged diesel 'gassings' to gasoline

[Hannover]

What's to compromise for? There is no evidence to warrant compromise. It's like saying it's possible that some of the planets revolve around the earth instead of all of them. Why? Makes no sense either way, is not based on sound science and rational thought.

Alleged gassings for example....why say it's 'possible' there were some when there is zero evidence for even one, just like there's zero evidence for millions.

I realize some Revs like to throw the believers a bone to appear 'reasonable & moderate', but why appease fraud? There's no evidence that warrants a middle ground. It's not a matter of being reasonable or unreasonable, it's going where the evidence (or lack of in this case) takes you.

People have died, suffered, and will continue to do so because of this hate crime against Europeans and those of European ancestry.

- Hannover

[Moderator]

Okay, everybody got their 2 cents worth; but stay on topic to the original post in the thread.

Thanks, Moderator.

[Sailor]

Max: And so?

Revisionists consider these trials, including the Düsseldorf trial about the Reinhard camps, as political show trials. Their mainpurpose was to anchor legalistically the various events of the socalled Jewish Holocaust story.

I would not put much weight on the testimony of Fuchs. Who can remember after over 20 years so many details of a specific event?

By the way,I always thought that the Soviets used diesel engines in their tanks. I read that somewhere.

fge

[Scott]

Revisionists consider these trials, including the Düsseldorf trial about the Reinhard camps, as political show trials. Their mainpurpose was to anchor legalistically the various events of the socalled Jewish Holocaust story.

This may be true.

The diesel aspect was first claimed in the Soviet Kransnodar and Kharkov trials in 1943 of German POWs and Soviet collaborators, where Saurer diesel gas-vans were claimed. Secondly, there is the Gerstein affidavit which says a diesel motor at Belzec (and Gerstein was a mining engineer so presumably he would have known the difference), and which could then have easily contaminated the eyewitness testimony so long after the events themselves. Third, it is extremely likely that the Germans DID have a diesel electric plant (and probably a backup) at their camps.

Since the courts in the Soviet trials (diesel) and Nuremberg war-crimes trials (steam, etc.) have never displayed too much interest in the murder-weapon itself, it is very easy for a layman to assume that all you need to do is pipe diesel exhaust from an electric plant into a room for the perfect murder-weapon. Wrong!

I would not put much weight on the testimony of Fuchs. Who can remember after over 20 years so many details of a specific event?

True, but so far he is the only smoking-gun regarding gasoline-engine execution which is at least technically possible and relatively easy. Fuchs describes repairing the ignition. It is unlikely that he could have gotten it wrong and meant a diesel, which uses compression-ignition instead of spark-plugs.

No doubt the courts did not see any problem with the types of motor at the various camps. It appears that the other details on the motors in the West German trials are too vague to be very helpful. (I only have Arad at my disposal.)

By the way, I always thought that the Soviets used diesel engines in their tanks. I read that somewhere.

In the earlier part of the war the Soviets had a lot of lighter tanks like the T-24, so we could have eight-cylinder engines of either gasoline or diesel motors (more-usually gasoline) of about 200 or 300 horsepower.

The Soviet heavy tanks like the KV-1, T-34, and IS-2 all had a standard 500 brake-horsepower W-2 diesel powerplant. All Soviet tank production switched to heavier tanks and diesel engines, and they could have been salvaged to make camp powerplants if an electrical generator of about 1500 rpm were also available. (That is a lot of power, 373 mechanical kilowatts.)

However, the Germans could have salvaged anything, including truck motors of either gasoline or diesel types from either Soviet or German equipment. No German tanks switched to diesels because their tanks tended to be heavier and they needed more than the 500 horsepower of the Soviet diesel. I don't know of a better diesel that the Germans might have contemplated mass-producing (which would then have entailed disrupting existing production).

This all breaks down as follows and may help identify an engine by its description:

SOVIET

1) We can assume that any Soviet LIGHT tank or truck has a 4, or 6-cylinder gasoline engine (about 30-90 bhp).

Except:

a) Some specialty light tanks like flamethrowers had the W-2 model 12-cylinder, 500 bhp diesel engine because that was standard for the production-lines during the war.

b) The T-24 (17.8 tonnes) is the only tank with an 8-cylinder gasoline engine (200 bhp).

c) The T-50 (14 tonnes) is the only tank with a 6-cylinder diesel engine (300 bhp).

d) Some Soviet Lend-Lease trucks were probably V-8 engines.

2) All Soviet medium or heavy tanks built during the war had the standard 12-cylinder, 500 bhp model W-2 diesel engine.

(Source: http://www.battlefield.ru/specific.html )

GERMAN

1) German trucks might have either gasoline or diesel engines with varying numbers of cylinders. The Einheits Diesel, of which was about 12% of the Wehrmacht truck establishment in 1937, had a 6-cylinder diesel of about 90 bhp.

2) All German tanks had gasoline engines of up to 700 bhp for the heavies like the Panthers and Tigers.

[max]

Max: And so?

Revisionists consider these trials, including the Düsseldorf trial about the Reinhard camps, as political show trials. Their mainpurpose was to anchor legalistically the various events of the socalled Jewish Holocaust story.

I challenge Sailor to show that these trials were "political show trials".

I would not put much weight on the testimony of Fuchs.

But there is no reason, except sheer faith, not to put much weight on Fuchs' testimony. His testimony is detailed, accurate, plausible and the murder weapon, gasoline engine, makes sense even according to Revisionists. I read here that something like there would be no proof or evidence for "alleged gassings".

Fuchs' testimony about the gasoline engine in Sobibor is the evidence, however. And it's very good evidence unfortunately.

[Scott]

Fuchs' testimony about the gasoline engine in Sobibor is the evidence, however. And it's very good evidence unfortunately.

Fuchs gives exactly the details we need without having benefit of asking our own questions or cross-examining.

[max]

Fuchs gives exactly the details we need without having benefit of asking our own questions or cross-examining.

And that should relativate your opinion about these 'evil' German public prosecuters and police officers, and the pre-trial investigations in general.

By the way, have you noticed that the Fuchs testimony stems from AZ ZLS: 208 AR-Z 251/59, Volume 9, page 1784 and 1785? You would gladly like to read the other 1783 and more pages of this investigation, wouldn't you?

[max]

No doubt the courts did not see any problem with the types of motor at the various camps.

Why should they? There were interested in the individual responsability of the accused, and the evidence, the confessions of the accused (e.g. Fuchs, Stangl, Oberhauser etc.), for the crime was overwhelming.

It appears that the other details on the motors in the West German trials are too vague to be very helpful.

We don't know that. We have only the extracts compiled by Rückerl. We know, however, according to Kogon et al., that a 250 HP engine of a Panzerkampfwagen is mentioned as "gassing-motor" for Belzec. Diesel? Gasoline? We also know that the Die Welt has mentioned a 200-250 HP GASOLINE engine in Belzec.
These details don't appear in Rückerl's extracts, so there are apparently more details in the accounts than we, you and me, do know.

Cheers!

[TMoran]

Max had said:
"Fuchs' testimony about the gasoline engine in Sobibor is the evidence, however. And it's very good evidence unfortunately."

Seems like that would indicate that Fuch's testimony is very good evidence on the grounds that he said a gasoline engine which would inversely mean that all those more prevalant testimonies about Diesel would make them very bad evidence.

What is the ratio of testimonies, confessions whatever for those that said gasoline engines as opposed to Diesel engines? As it stands I don't know how many Diesel tales there were but it seems there is only one (1)gasoline tale?

[max]

Seems like that would indicate that Fuch's testimony is very good evidence on the grounds that he said a gasoline engine which would inversely mean that all those more prevalant testimonies about Diesel would make them very bad evidence.

No. A witness, who says it was Diesel but who adds that he never saw this engine, can be wrong on the engine type, but nevertheless entirely correct and reliable on other things concerning homicidal gassing and extermination.

What is the ratio of testimonies, confessions whatever for those that said gasoline engines as opposed to Diesel engines?

The ratio of testimonies and confessions by people who actually saw and operated the engine in Sobibor is 1:0 so far. 1 for gasoline and 0 for Diesel.

[Scott]

Fuchs gives exactly the details we need without having benefit of asking our own questions or cross-examining.

And that should relativate your opinion about these 'evil' German public prosecuters and police officers, and the pre-trial investigations in general.

I don't understand what you mean. They weren't concerned with the murder-weapon details because they didn't doubt the crime. I just don't think they morphed the story from diesel to gasoline as was suggested had been done in the original post.

By the way, have you noticed that the Fuchs testimony stems from AZ ZLS: 208 AR-Z 251/59, Volume 9, page 1784 and 1785? You would gladly like to read the other 1783 and more pages of this investigation, wouldn't you?

Yes I would, and to check Rückerl's account of the details, as well as the ones of interest to me regarding the engines. I understand that these records are not available to the public.

[max]

I don't understand what you mean. They weren't concerned with the murder-weapon details because they didn't doubt the crime.

But Rückerl does describe the killing facilities in detail, and Fuchs describes the Sobibor engine in detail and how it was operated. Despite that you have no idea what is written in the pre-trial transcripts except some extracts, you claim that they weren't concerned. Isn't that just wishful thinking to feed your own faith?

[Scott]

I don't understand what you mean. They weren't concerned with the murder-weapon details because they didn't doubt the crime.

But Rückerl does describe the killing facilities in detail, and Fuchs describes the Sobibor engine in detail and how it was operated. Despite that you have no idea what is written in the pre-trial transcripts except some extracts, you claim that they weren't concerned. Isn't that just wishful thinking to feed your own faith?

No, because they obviously didn't bother to ask an engineer to see if diesel exhaust would kill!

Why should they assume anything about the murder-weapon when industrialized mass-murder was a novel idea? And besides, the two types of engines would make most investigators curious. Strychnine and cyanide are both poisons but they are not equivalent and no forensic investigator would neglect such details.

[Hannover]

Ofcourse there is no reason to accept the description given by Fuchs as there is no forensic/ physical evidence to support him. UFO/alien abductees give some pretty detailed descriptions too, as did those who confessed to sorcery and witchcraft at Salem....so what?
'Testimony' in regards to the so called 'holocaust' is notoriously fraudulent, Fuchs seems to be no different...just saying so doesn't make it so.
I notice the you have ignored the original posted statement of Poliakov, who was quite clear that diesel was supposed to be the weapon, not gasoline.
However, back to Sobibor and Fuchs; where's the forensic/physical evidence? There is none, and that fact alone renders the spin job put on by believers futile. See my post as I start a new thread on Sobibor.

- Hannover

[Sailor]

But Rückerl does describe the killing facilities in detail[...]

I have the man's book. Where does he describe the murder tools? Did this information come from defendants, other than Fuchs? Or is this one of those "Offensichtlich" (self-evident) events? Or did Ruckerl come to this conclusion on his own? If you could point out the page number it would safe me a little time.

Thanks, fge