Poison Gas: Another Fuel for Motor Transport

[Drew J]

Roberto Muehlenkamp failing miserably at Sobibor.
viewtopic.php?p=38167&#p38167

Me going over Sergy's blog entry has just reminded me of the typical exterminationist tactic I have illustrated in THINGS HAVE CHANGED FOR ME [MAYBE NOT]. As my red text in BELZEC A FRAUDULENT EXCAVATION shows, Muehlenkamp and co can claim victory on minor logical or interpretaive points, but overall, that doesn't win the war. It's like with the diesel issue. Let's grant them their small victory that diesel engines couldn't have been used and that petrol may have been due to what the witnesses said and what they were in a position to see. Even if we do, does that mean they win? No. They still have one more stop. Actually show the bodies and evidence of human remains to back up their newly revised, non diesel position.

[Drew J]

from
Sobibor. A History of a Nazi Death Camp, by Jules Schelvis (Berg Publishers/USHMM, Oxford 2006).
Reviewed by Thomas Kues
http://www.codoh.com/review/revschelvis.html

"The perhaps best way to find out the weaknesses of this volume is not by scrutinizing what is written, but pointing out that what is not written – or more precisely, what is passed over in (conspicuous) silence by the author. Jules Schelvis’ Sobibor is (as admitted by its subtitle) far from the definitive history of the camp. It is in places more thorough than Arad’s twenty years older book, but it is a curious “thoroughness” which lack in weight. The allegation of a mass murder and subsequent burial and cremation of 170,000 people is never backed up with physical evidence, and the few war-time documents shown do not prove any homicidal activity. There is also no mention of the (still unpublished) excavations and drillings reportedly carried out at the former camp site by Polish archaeologist Andrzej Kola in 2001, despite Schelvis’ text being revised well after that date."

This is a good point. The final sentences of the introductory paragraph shows us these dates.

The work which will be reviewed here, Sobibor. A History of a Nazi Death Camp by Jules Schelvis, was originally published in Dutch in 1993 by De Bataafsche Leeuw, Amsterdam, as Vernietigingskamp Sobibor. A German edition, entitled Vernichtungslager Sobibor, was published by Metropol Verlag in 1998. The reviewed 2006 English translation is based on the revised Dutch edition from 2004.

Wow. That's a lot of years to hold back on the excavations, and drilled core samples. No video evidence of them taking actual core samples from the ground in Sobibor. No analysis of ash heaps to show if they are of human origin. Because apparently you can figure that out in the appropriate scientific lab. Lots of excuses, and absolutely no evidence.

[Drew J]

The following is taken from "The 'Nazi Extermination Camp' of Sobibor in the Context of the Demjanjuk Case" by Paul Grubach. It is printed in full in my Demjanjuk Chronicles topic. I am only quoting relevant portions here.

How Were the Jews Allegedly Murdered at Sobibor?

Judge Matia and the mainstream historians claim that Jews were murdered in gas chambers at Sobibor, and carbon monoxide was the death-gas. Yet, there are former prisoners who have claimed that chlorine was the death-gas.

Sobibor witness Hella Fellenbaum-Weiss told the story of how Jews on their way to Sobibor were gassed with chlorine: “The arrival of another convoy distressed me in the same way. It was thought to come from Lvov, but nobody knows for sure. Prisoners were sobbing and told us a dreadful tale: they had been gassed on the way with chlorine, but some survived. The bodies of the dead were green and their skin peeled off.”13

The allegation that Jews were gassed on their way to Sobibor with chlorine has been quietly discarded by the Holocaust promoters—an implicit admittance that it must be false.

In his thorough study of Belzec concentration camp, Belzec in Propaganda, Testimonies, Archeological Research, and History, Revisionist historian Carlo Mattogno cited Sobibor inmates who specifically stated that chlorine was a gas used to asphyxiate Jews at Sobibor. Inmate Zelda Metz recounted: “They [the alleged ‘gas chamber’ victims] entered the wooden building where the woman’s hair was cut, and then the ‘Bath’, i.e., the gas chamber. They were asphyxiated with chlorine. After 15 minutes, they had all suffocated. Through a window it was checked whether they were all dead. Then the floor opened automatically. The corpses fell into the cars of a train passing through the gas chamber and taking the corpses to the oven.”14

The mainstream historians of Sobibor have abandoned the “chlorine death gas” and “trap-door-in-the-gas-chamber” stories—once again, an implicit admittance that they are both false.

Leon Feldhendler also declared chlorine was a “death-gas,” although he also claimed the Germans experimented with other gases. Alexander Pechersky alleged that some type of “heavy, black substance” was the death-gas.15 However, chlorine is a greenish-yellow gas.

Stanislaw Szmajzner believed the Germans used exhaust fumes, but also Zyklon B gas.16 Dr. Joseph Tenenbaum, a well known author and renowned Jewish civic leader, went on a fact-finding tour of Poland in April to June 1946. He too “discovered” the “fact” that Jews were murdered with Zyklon B gas at Sobibor. In his own words: “The Germans used Cyclon [sic] as the lethal medium.”17

Alterations in the story abound. In 1943, one Sobibor witness even claimed the Jews were killed with electricity and gas.18

The chlorine gas, Zyklon B gas, “other un-named” gas, and electrocution stories have clearly been discreetly dumped by the “official history” of the Holocaust—an implicit admittance that they are all false. At this point Judge Matia should ask himself this question: since the stories of Jews being murdered with electricity, chlorine, Zyklon B and other un-named gases at Sobibor are false, isn’t it also possible that the “official truth” that Jews were murdered with carbon monoxide is also false?

I again call the reader’s attention to Matia’s precise wording about the alleged method of murder at Sobibor. He claims the guards “drove them [the Jews] into gas chambers where they were murdered by asphyxiation with carbon monoxide.” Notice that Matia did not mention the specifics of the murder weapon, because he does not know what the alleged murder weapon really was. Did the Germans use a diesel engine or a benzene engine to generate the carbon monoxide?

The pre-eminent historian of the Holocaust, the late Raul Hilberg, claimed that a diesel engine supplied the deadly gas to “gas chambers.”19

This is supported by Israeli historian Arad, as he published a large portion of the post-war testimony of Kurt Gerstein, a German officer who was allegedly deeply involved with the extermination of Jews in the Operation Reinhardt camps. In the Gerstein testimonial, it is stated that a diesel engine was used at Sobibor, and also at Majdanek, Treblinka, and Belzec. More specifically, Gerstein quotes SS and Police Leader Odilo Globocnik, who gives Gerstein his alleged instructions: “Your other duty will be to improve the service of our gas chambers, which function on diesel engine exhaust.”20 According to the traditional Holocaust story, Globocnik was a major supervisor of the alleged mass exterminations at Sobibor, and he should have most certainly known the exact nature of the “gas chamber” weapon.

Arad then undermines this “evidence” by quoting the testimony of SS soldier Erich Fuchs, a German official who supposedly operated the engine that supplied the death gas to the “gas chamber,” and was subsequently put on trial for alleged war crimes committed at Sobibor. He “identified” the engine that supplied the deadly gas as a “heavy Russian benzene engine (presumably a tank or tractor motor) at least 200 horsepower (V-motor, 8 cylinder, water cooled).”21 A diesel engine is not a benzene engine.

The exact identity of the engine is further complicated by the testimony of SS man Erich Bauer, an alleged “operator of the gas chambers” who was nicknamed “the Gasmeister.” He identified the engine in question as follows: “In my opinion it was a petrol engine, a big engine. I think a Renault.” Renault is a French built engine, and not Russian as claimed by Fuchs.22

Another German who allegedly operated the “gassing engine” at Sobibor, Franz Hödl, offers us another problematic “identification” of the murder weapon. Here is his description of the “gassing engines” that serviced the “gas chambers”: “In the engine room there were indeed two engines. There was a petrol engine, probably from a Russian tank, and a diesel engine. The latter was never used, however.”23

The instructions from an alleged supervisor of the gassing operations at Sobibor and the other Operation Reinhardt camps, SS leader Odilo Globocnik, described the engine that supplied the deadly gas as a diesel engine. Yet, Franz Hödl, who allegedly operated the engine, says that the diesel engine was never used.

Even mainstream Sobibor expert Christopher Browning admits that the type of engine used to generate the death gas cannot be determined, for he wrote: “Gerstein, citing Globocnik, claimed the camps used diesel motors, but witnesses who actually serviced the engines in Belzec and Sobibor (Reder and Fuchs) spoke of gasoline engines.”24

We repeat the statement of Judge Matia. He claims that the Sobibor guards “drove [the Jews] into gas chambers where they were murdered by asphyxiation with carbon monoxide.” Notice that Matia’s wording is vague and imprecise; he failed to mention the exact identity of the murder weapon. Matia did not mention the exact nature of the “murder engine” that generated the carbon monoxide, because if he did, he would have involved himself in another dilemma that casts serious doubt on the traditional Sobibor extermination story. The reader is reminded that this is no “trivial inconsistency” in the testimony. In any murder investigation, the exact nature of the murder weapon is very important.

By the mere fact that the men who allegedly directed this “gas chamber” process and operated the engines that generated the carbon monoxide contradict each other on the important issue of what type of engine was used, is consistent with the Revisionist hypothesis that these testimonies are unreliable. By the mere fact that these “eyewitnesses” produced such divergent testimony on a murder weapon that they should have known about, witnessed, observed and examined very closely for an extended period of time, lends further credence to the Revisionist view that their testimonies on this matter are false, and these “gas chambers” never existed.

At the very least, this divergent testimony should give a true believer in the Holocaust, such as Judge Matia, a reason to be skeptical of the traditional Sobibor extermination story.

The Number, Dimensions and Capacities of the Sobibor “Gas Chambers”

Holocaust historian Leon Poliakov claimed there were five gas chambers, fifty square meters each, and built to hold approximately 2,000 people. Each chamber was packed with 400 victims.25 He may have taken this from the Central Commission for Investigation of German Crimes in Poland inquiry, where they allege that there were probably five chambers that could hold 500 victims each.26

Holocaust historian Miriam Novitch gives a different story on the number, dimensions and capacities of the “gas chambers.” She claims that each “original” gas chamber (three of them) were ten square meters and could hold 50 people.27 Later, she says that new gas chambers were built: there were now five gas chambers, each 4 x 12 meters (48 square meters), with a capacity of 70 to 80 people. Thus, 400 victims could be put to death at the same time, if children were included.28

This is all contradicted by another “expert” on the Sobibor camp, Yitzhak Arad. He insisted there were originally three gas chambers, each 4 x 4 meters and able to hold about 200 people.29 In the autumn of 1942, Arad claims the Germans added three new gas chambers, to make a total of six gas chambers. They were of the same dimensions as the old gas chambers, 4 x 4 meters (sixteen square meters). This information was published in 1987.30 In a 1990 article in The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Arad changed the capacity of the gas chambers. He said that each chamber could hold 160 to 180 victims, not 200.31

Franz Hödl, an alleged operator of the Sobibor “gas chambers,” put forth another problematic testimony. He stated: “In Lager 3 [the area of the camp that had the ‘gas chambers’] a concrete building, 18 to 20 meters long with about 6 to 8 gas chambers, had been erected. The gas chamber had either 4 or 6 chambers on either side of the central corridor, three on the left, three on the right.”32 So, were there 3 chambers on each side of the central corridor as Arad claimed, or were there 4 on each side? Were there a total of 6 chambers as Arad claimed, or were there 8 chambers?

These discrepancies on the number, dimensions and capacities of the “gas chambers” are not trivial. As stated earlier, in any murder investigation the nature of the murder weapon is of prime importance. Indeed, even the official mainstream historian of Sobibor, Jules Shelvis, finally admitted that the capacities of the chambers cannot be determined: “It is virtually impossible to deduce from the various witness examinations and documents how many people were actually killed at any one time in the gas chambers; the numbers given by the SS men and one Ukrainian are too divergent.”33

The mere fact that the dimensions, capacities and the number of the Sobibor “gas chambers” cannot be resolved is consistent with the Holocaust revisionist hypothesis that these “murder devices” never existed, and what these “eyewitnesses” are claiming is false. Once again, at the very least this is one more reason for the hardcore Holocaust believer to doubt the traditional Sobibor extermination story.

What Were the “Gas Chambers” Made Of?

Serious contradictions in the traditional Sobibor extermination story are seemingly endless. Operation Reinhardt expert Arad says this: “The first gas chambers erected in Sobibor were in a solid brick building with a concrete foundation.”34 This is challenged by Sobibor historian Schelvis, who writes that “[T]he first gas chambers of Sobibor had been constructed of wood.”35 Let us delve into this very important issue in more detail.

In the aftermath of the war, the inquiry of the Central Commission for Investigation of German Crimes in Poland found that the alleged gas chambers “were situated in a building with stone-inside walls and wooden outside-walls.” They did admit, however, that their data is imprecise because none of their witnesses were actually employed in the “gas chamber” area.36

Franz Stangl, who oversaw the last phase of the camp’s construction and served as commandant from March to September 1942, described the first installation as a “brick building” in his interview with British journalist Gitta Sereny.37 On the other hand, he told a German court a different story. Arriving at Sobibor early April 1942, he said “I noticed a stone construction on a partially wooded site which had not yet been fenced off. This building had not been included in the plans. After some days I began to suspect that gas chambers were being built.”38 Were the first “gas chambers” made of brick or stone? Stangl apparently changed his story.

Erich Fuchs, who supposedly installed the gassing engine and also participated in the first trial gassings, implied in 1963 that the chambers were housed in “a concrete structure.”39 Historian Schelvis “corrected” Fuchs, for he wrote: “Because he [Fuchs] had put into place so many installations over the course of time, he did not remember that the first gas chambers at Sobibor had been constructed of wood.”40

Erich Bauer was supposedly nicknamed “The Gasmeister of Sobibor”. In 1950 he was sentenced to death (later commuted to life imprisonment) by a West German court for operating the “Sobibor gas chambers.” According to a “confession” penned by Bauer while in prison, the first gas chambers were in a “wooden building on a concrete base.”41

Revisionist historian Thomas Kues sums up the dilemma: “While, on the one hand, Sobibor’s first commandant, Franz Stangl, testified that the first gas chambers were housed in a brick building, ‘Gasmeister’ Erich Bauer on the other hand penned a ‘confession’ which described the same building as made of wood. To confuse things further, former SS-Unterscharführer Erich Fuchs stated in his 1963 testimony that the first Sobibor gas chambers were in a ‘concrete structure.’”42

Kues rightly asks a most important question: “How is it that Stangl and Bauer, two men who both should have been familiar with this building, produced such divergent testimony?”43

Kues then makes a very important point. Stangl and Bauer are two men that would have been intimately familiar with the “gas chambers,” as they were in charge of supervising and carrying out the alleged gassings. By the mere fact that these two important “eyewitnesses” produce such divergent testimony on a structure that they should have witnessed, observed and examined very closely for an extended period of time, lends further credence to the Revisionist view that their testimonies on this matter are unreliable. Their testimonies on this matter undermine each other and tend to cancel each other out.44

How long did it take to asphyxiate the Victims in the “Gas Chambers?”

The Israeli and Polish archeologists who excavated Sobibor made this claim about the Sobibor “gas chambers.”: “When the gas chambers were filled with victims, the gas was vented into the rooms asphyxiated the victims in about 20-30 minutes.”45 They provide no source for this claim.

Nevertheless, this is contradicted by The Central Commission for Investigation of German Crimes in Poland, where they “found” something different in 1946-7, about the operation of the Sobibor “gas chambers.” They wrote: “According to the statements of witnesses it did not take more than some 15 minutes to kill a group of about 500 persons.” They admit that their data is imprecise because none of their witnesses were actually employed in the “gas chamber” area.46

Once again, here we have a major discrepancy about the alleged murder weapon. The archeologists say it took 20-30 minutes to asphyxiate the victims. Yet, the Central Commission for Investigation of German Crimes in Poland claimed it did not take more than about 15 minutes to do the same. And might I add, Erich Fuchs, an alleged gas chamber operator, declared he witnessed a “trial gassing” in which 30 to 40 women were killed in about ten minutes.47

Once again, this is no trivial inconsistency. How the murder weapon operated is a very important issue in any murder investigation.

[nathan]

If FP Berg caries the day on diesel it will be out of the picture. The question will be, how far is Producer Gas (PG} more effective/cheaper etc than gasoline?

FP Berg wrote:

"Diesel exhaust contains hardly any carbon monoxide (far less than 1/2%), but producer gas contains between 18% and 35% carbon monoxide. The vast majority of civilian motor vehicles in wartime German-occupied Europe were, in fact, driven with extremely lethal concentrations of carbon monoxide"

What is the gasoline exhaust CO content, (equivalent of the ½ percent for diesel)? Roughly, what were the relative costs?

Jamie MacCarthy made a stout defence of diesel about ten years ago. He was against gasoline in those days (too expensive). That of course cannot be said of PG. Against PG his main point was:

“The fact is that pumping producer gas into a room would turn it into a giant Bic lighter. Carbon monoxide has an extremely large flammability range: anywhere from 12 to 75%”

I have not seen this answered. My picture is that in mobile road vehicles the PG would be burned before it could build up to an explosive mass.

[Friedrich Paul Berg]

As I have explained again and again, gasoline engine exhaust, in the good old days before catatytic converters, contained about 7% carbon monoxide. That percentage could be easily increased to 12% by misadjusting the carburetor.

Producer gas contained from 18% to as much as 35% carbon monoxide. If all one wanted to do was kill people, one need never actually fill a chamber completely with 35% CO--just let enough of the CO-rich producer gas blow into the chamber to achieve a level of about 10% average CO and then shutoff the flow from the generator. So long as the level of CO is below 12% (which is still extremely lethal) there will be NO danger of explosion.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!

[ps]

The killing time with 1% CO is approximately 5 minutes. No explosion limits are thus reached. The costs of the gas producer fuel are nearly 0. Two trees are sufficient, in order to gas 6 million Jew loudless. A usual gas producer for a 60 HP engine could have carried this work out in one week, if the gas chamber filling had been optimized

[PotPie]

The most ridiculous aspect of this is that the Germans are going to waste fuel during an ongoing fuel shortage. Imagine how much wasteful idling/driving would have to be done to gas this many people.

[ps]

The suitable procedure would have been perhaps a torture chamber on a fair beside the concentration camp. Free trip only for Jew, Gojims pay $25. One could have made the same also with CO2 instead CO. A similar procedure is by the way applied to slaughterhouses, in order to anaesthetize the pigs. There one has 90% CO2 an atmosphere and the pigs to dip with a paternoster lift elevator into the CO2 atmosphere in the cellar. That must be steered very exactly temporally, since with a time of for instance 90s an excess of 5 seconds is deadly and 5 seconds too few they are not well anaesthetized. The formula for CO2, which I indicated in another posting, results in a something similar killing time
(-30.5* LN ( 1 - 5% / 90% ) = 1.74 minutes = 105 seconds)!

[Drew J]

http://www.holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/

Saturday, September 26, 2009
Austrian Gas Vans Trial
In October 1970, former gas van driver Josef W was tried in Austria, and gave this testimony regarding the gassing of Viennese Jews at Maly Trostinets on 14th September 1942:

I heard also that Jews from the Reich were coming and would be gassed...Resistance would have been useless, so I didn't offer any. I loaded these people in and drove to the pit. I had seen that the van was nearly full, that about fifty people were inside...The van ran on idle while gassing. It really should have been run with the choke, so that the gas mixture would be richer, and the people inside would die more quickly. But the choke didn't work in my van. I then drove back...[and] received orders to bring all the luggage to Trostinets. On the day I was on assignment there, 600 people were gassed. [Patricia Heberer, 'Justice in Austrian Courts?' in Heberer and Matthaeus (eds), Atrocities On Trial, University of Nebraska Press, 2008, p.237, citing Strafsache gegen Josef W., Band IX, ON 117, testimony of Josef W., p.16.]

Were Austrians in on the hoax too, in 1970?

I have looked and no one mentions diesel. Only 'gas vans.'
http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org ... trost.html

Here's a better question to ask Roberto. What was this guy offered, and/or who leaned on him with what threat in exchange for his testimony? I don't know why but I'm getting an image of Rudolf Hoess and those two Ukranian guards I have talked about previously who were obviously lying when they talked about diesel engines. Their names were Malakon and Leleko.

Let's not also forget the lie of Eli Rosenburg.
viewtopic.php?p=38296#p38296
viewtopic.php?p=38331#p38331

Remember also how I have talked about motives to lie? Fame and revenge.

The holocaust industry has been filled with proven liars from day one. One case out of many was the fact that after no one believed the kabbalistic six million figure in world war one, Ilya Ehrenburg a Soviet propagandist promoted the six million figure after the second world war. This was the same man who admitted to atheist Jew Joseph Burg in the forties that he saw no evidence of gas chambers at Auschwitz. Yet, Ehrenburg didn't know at the time, that years later Joseph Burg would support the revisionist cause and testify under oath in a Canadian court in the Zundel 1985 trial that Ehrenburg privately confessed to him that he saw no evidence of gas chambers. Now we can understand why Burg, who apparently betrayed his own Jewish people was denied burial in a Jewish cemetary.

viewtopic.php?p=38294#p38294

As to Roberto's obviously deceptive question asked in a sarcastic/rhetorical manner, "Were Austrians in on the hoax too" he might as well ask, "Were the Germans in on the hoax too when Germans confessed?" To ask this though would ignore the things I have just talked about. The torture of Hoess and others to get what they want to hear. But this alone proves Germany wasn't in control. Secondly, the year in question is testimony given in 1970 of October about something in 1942. To think that Austria couldn't be under the thumb of the holocaust exaggeraters like Germany obviously would have been at this time, is absurd.

[Drew J]

http://www.holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/

Saturday, September 26, 2009
Austrian Gas Vans Trial
In October 1970, former gas van driver Josef W was tried in Austria, and gave this testimony regarding the gassing of Viennese Jews at Maly Trostinets on 14th September 1942:

I heard also that Jews from the Reich were coming and would be gassed...Resistance would have been useless, so I didn't offer any. I loaded these people in and drove to the pit. I had seen that the van was nearly full, that about fifty people were inside...The van ran on idle while gassing. It really should have been run with the choke, so that the gas mixture would be richer, and the people inside would die more quickly. But the choke didn't work in my van. I then drove back...[and] received orders to bring all the luggage to Trostinets. On the day I was on assignment there, 600 people were gassed. [Patricia Heberer, 'Justice in Austrian Courts?' in Heberer and Matthaeus (eds), Atrocities On Trial, University of Nebraska Press, 2008, p.237, citing Strafsache gegen Josef W., Band IX, ON 117, testimony of Josef W., p.16.]

Were Austrians in on the hoax too, in 1970?

I have looked and no one mentions diesel. Only 'gas vans.'
http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org ... trost.html

Here's a better question to ask Roberto. What was this guy offered, and/or who leaned on him with what threat in exchange for his testimony? I don't know why but I'm getting an image of Rudolf Hoess and those two Ukranian guards I have talked about previously who were obviously lying when they talked about diesel engines. Their names were Malakon and Leleko.

Let's not also forget the lie of Eli Rosenburg.
viewtopic.php?p=38296#p38296
viewtopic.php?p=38331#p38331

Remember also how I have talked about motives to lie? Fame and revenge.

The holocaust industry has been filled with proven liars from day one. One case out of many was the fact that after no one believed the kabbalistic six million figure in world war one, Ilya Ehrenburg a Soviet propagandist promoted the six million figure after the second world war. This was the same man who admitted to atheist Jew Joseph Burg in the forties that he saw no evidence of gas chambers at Auschwitz. Yet, Ehrenburg didn't know at the time, that years later Joseph Burg would support the revisionist cause and testify under oath in a Canadian court in the Zundel 1985 trial that Ehrenburg privately confessed to him that he saw no evidence of gas chambers. Now we can understand why Burg, who apparently betrayed his own Jewish people was denied burial in a Jewish cemetary.

viewtopic.php?p=38294#p38294

As to Roberto's obviously deceptive question asked in a sarcastic/rhetorical manner, "Were Austrians in on the hoax too" he might as well ask, "Were the Germans in on the hoax too when Germans confessed?" To ask this though would ignore the things I have just talked about. The torture of Hoess and others to get what they want to hear. But this alone proves Germany wasn't in control. Secondly, the year in question is testimony given in 1970 of October about something in 1942. To think that Austria couldn't be under the thumb of the holocaust exaggeraters like Germany obviously would have been at this time, is absurd.

R O D O H commented on this post of mine and I quote them and respond starting here.
viewtopic.php?p=38526#p38526

[Werd]

I am bumping this for a couple reasons.

I used a search engine to find some of Berg's older posts on the diesel issue and this came up. I figure this is relevant because, if the HC guys claimed that diesel is irrelevant because no one actually saw them, and those who did see engines claimed petrol or regular gasoline engines, then perhaps they have won the debate. Well I would disagree for a few reasons.

1. It shows that any statements claiming that a diesel engine was used are either mistaken or outright fabricated. Need I remind people of the contradictory confessions of Gurstein who claimed diesel was used? We already know what kind of pressure nazis were under to conform to the already decided atrocity stories that had been decided on.

2. The attacks on diesel engines forced the gas chamber mongers to go back and assess their sources and find out that the people who did claim to have seen the engines never mentioned diesel once. Here we have the gas chamber mongers taking credit for a victory that belongs to revisionism. As shown here, nuts like Andrew E. Mathis love to try and get away with that stuff.
Prof. Mc Nally dissects HHP's Andrew Mathis' bogus article

The challenges that the deniers apply to the generally accepted history vary widely in size and scope. For instance, they dispute the death toll at
Auschwitz-Birkenau, resurrect early allegations about the Holocaust and Nazi atrocities that are now known to be untrue, e.g., soap production from human fat, and they claim that the Nuremberg trials were a sham and a perversion of justice.

[Mathis` paragraph shows the sad and ironic fate of revisionists who first
expose the holocaustomaniacs` lies and then watch as those exposed claim to be the exposers and take the credit for the work of the revisionists.]

3. When the gas chamber mongers then try to claim victory by shifting the debate away from the laughable diesel engine claims by acting like the revisionists have a new thing to contend with, they ignore what Friedrich Paul Berg wrote.

As I have explained again and again, gasoline engine exhaust, in the good old days before catatytic converters, contained about 7% carbon monoxide. That percentage could be easily increased to 12% by misadjusting the carburetor.

Producer gas contained from 18% to as much as 35% carbon monoxide. If all one wanted to do was kill people, one need never actually fill a chamber completely with 35% CO--just let enough of the CO-rich producer gas blow into the chamber to achieve a level of about 10% average CO and then shutoff the flow from the generator. So long as the level of CO is below 12% (which is still extremely lethal) there will be NO danger of explosion.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at http://www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!

Seems to me like if one tried to go from diesel to gasoline engine exhaust, they would not have accomplished much if they were seriously trying to get rid of as many Jews as possible. Hermod made the point in a very funny manner too.

Homer Simpson's gas chambers...

Assuming the Nazi homicidal gas chambers were real, the way they supposedly evolved through the war makes them look as if they had been designed by Homer Simpson.

First the Nazis allegedly used bottles of pure carbon monoxide in their Euthanasia institutes. From there they decided to use engine exhaust to gas Jews in their Reinhardt camps. Some say diesel exhaust, others say gasoline exhaust. As diesel exhaust can't kill in sensible periods of time, let's say they used gasoline exhaust. So when fuel was scarce because of WW2 shortages, the Nazis decided not to use gas with 100% CO (carbon monoxide) as in their Euthanasia 'gas chambers' or gas with 18-35% CO as with the wood gas generators used by Europe's civilians because of oïl shortage, but gas with 1-2% CO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_ex ... on_engines), far less lethal.

Safety Poster No. 684 from November 1943 as shown in Der gewerbliche Kraftverkehr, Heft 11/12 1943, page 147. The text reads: “Attention–Danger of Poisoning!” In the background, it reads: “Carbon monoxide.” At the bottom, the text reads: “Start generator fire only in the open or—vent only to the open outdoors! Never refill inside a closed room!”
http://www.nazigassings.com/SafetyGuidelines.htm

The part I bolded is basically one of the main foundations of the arguments from Berg. It is absurd to claim that the nazis wanted to kill Jews by choosing other methods that would not have fared much better. It is akin to the absurdity of the Belzec gas chamber story that Mattogno has had to elucidate once again in his new 1500 page book done with Graf and Kues. According to the propaganda, the sizes of the second gas chambers made afterwards, had LESS square feet. At least I think that's what Mattogno wrote. Even if I am wrong on that, it does not take away from how changing from diesel to gasoline does absolutely nothing.

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

It is akin to the absurdity of the Belzec gas chamber story that Mattogno has had to elucidate once again in his new 1500 page book done with Graf and Kues. According to the propaganda, the sizes of the second gas chambers made afterwards, had LESS square feet. At least I think that's what Mattogno wrote. Even if I am wrong on that, it does not take away from how changing from diesel to gasoline does absolutely nothing.

Here's what Mattogno wrote (you're right Werd, it's a devastatingly good point):

The daunting efforts of current orthodox holocaust historians as well as those of Terry have to be lauded, albeit marginally. They try to somehow explain the obvious absurdities inherent to the “historic reconstruction” of the Reinhardt camps’ origin established by the preceding holocaust historiography.

According to this new account of events, Bełżec was established as the result of a local initiative as an extermination center for the Lublin district, but then became a full-fledged European-wide extermination center. Even if examined from an organizational point of view, however, this thesis is revealed to be futile.

According to the witness Stanisław Kozak, the first extermination installation of Bełżec, the one assigned to the local extermination initiative for the Jews of the Lublin district, measured 12 × 8 meters and contained three gas chambers of 4 × 8 meters, in total 96 m². The second extermination installation, allegedly built between late May and late June 1942 to systematically implement the claimed Europe-wide extermination process, had at its disposal six gas chambers measuring 4 × 5 meters each, in total 120 m²! Therefore the SS would have planned for a full-fledged European-wide extermination a gas chamber capacity only slightly larger than that which they had employed for a small-scale local extermination until then. They are even said to have demolished the first existing installation, and by so doing they actually avoided a doubling of the killing capacity. I leave it to the reader’s judgment whether such stupidity is more likely that of the SS or of those who believe in such a story.

MATTOGNO, KUES,GRAF ·THE “EXTERMINATION CAMPS” OF “AKTION REINHARDT” (pp.481-482)

[Werd]

Not quite what I thought it was, but still an absurd reconstruction no doubt, as Mattogno put it. In other words the Nazis said, "Hey let's use diesel gas." Then they realized it didn't work well enough and said, "hey let's use petrol even though it is not much better." Then they said, "Now when we build another gas chamber, we will only build the second gas chambers with 24 extra square feet and then demolish the first gas chamber. Surely you all see the logic in demolishing a gas chamber in order to be able to kill more Jews efficiently." As Hermod put it so eloquently, only Homer Simpson could think such a design was a good idea.

Maybe somebody should write an article and call it

Why The 'why the diesel issue is irrelevant' Issue, is Irrelevantt

[Werd]

Well it seems that the gas chamber mongers can not seem to let it go. They keep rehashing the same old "diesel is irrelevant" arguments which can be summarized as, "Okay even though you pointed out scientifically diesel can not kill, we are going to go back over our sources and then find out what was actually testified to by people who claimed to have seen the engines. When we find no significant (alleged) eyewitness said diesel, we are going to claim victory instead of acknowledging you revisionists."

http://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... &start=110

Bernard Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:20 am

More Diesel giggles from the clueless ones. Here's some testimony from a man, who had observed Sobibor's new, enlarged and improved facilities that had just been remodeled after Treblinka's cutting edge extermination technology

Franz Hödl also described the new gas chambers at Sobibor:

There was a gas chamber with an attached room for an engine. The exhaust gases

were directed into the chambers to gas the Jews. In the engine room there were

two engines. There was a gasoline engine, probably from a Russian tank, and a

diesel engine. The latter was not used. The gas chamber building contained 4 or 6

chambers on both sides of a corridor, 3 on the left and 3 on the right

This is not the same facility described by Fuchs, but a new, updated, Sobibor complex. Two eyewitness SS observers viewing two seperate instalations both testified Gasoline/petrol, while no one said Diesel. Sucks for the revs

Hey, Bob, Hey, BRoi, Hey been-there. Whats up with no SS testifying about Diesel.

Hey Bernard, What's up with you gas chamber mongers refusing to deal with what mattogno raised on 481-482, and which I just summaried in my last post? And then I decided to perform a codoh search with "Hödl" in the engine. And look what came up.

The Warden @ How was cyanide gas supposedly ventilated & how long?

Roberto Muehlenkamp

The point by Mattogno is bogus, as many Aktion Reinhard witnesses (whom Mattogno also quotes in his work) mention the ventilation of the gas chambers. Few, if any, witnesses mention gas masks, but what would be the purpose if, as those same witnesses maintain, the exhaust gas in the chambers was ventilated out naturally before workers entered?
For Treblinka, as previously pointed out,[306] several survivors attest to the instalment of vents atop the gas chambers in order to remove the exhaust gas after a gassing. For Sobibor, Gasmeister Erich Bauer stated quite clearly:
After the gassing, after about 20 to 30 minutes, the engine was stopped. After the opening of the doors there was still a wait until the exhaust fumes were removed. Then the corpses were loaded onto trucks and driven to the pits.[307]
Franz Hödl, who was also present at Sobibor, similarly spoke of the doors as the agents of ventilation:
The outside walls along the building’s entire length were trap doors, which would be raised after a gassing. This was also the method of ventilating the chambers.[308]
_______________________________________________________________________

306] See the section The Treblinka Camp in this chapter.
[307] Erich Bauer, 10.12.1962, BAL 162/208 AR-Z 251/59, Bd. 8, p.1669.
[308] Statement by Frans Hödl, StA Dortmund, Verfahren gegen Gomerski, Bd. III, p.1270.
[309] Karl Alfred Schluch, 11.11.1961, BAL 162/208 AR-Z 252/59, Bd. 8, p.1513.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... _9407.html

"The walls were trap doors"!

Now it's bad enough that witness accounts give times of 15-30 minutes and 20-30 minutes since that amount of +/- in such a small time frame is a blatant disregard for accuracy, but this was also before the issue of red corpses arose. Since we know the red would show up long before the bodies would've been cremated, one can only find it unbelievable at best when witnesses failed to mention the color of the corpses even though they seem to remember details of the ventilation system, the hair and teeth of the victims, and other details such as excrement and menstrual fluids on the bodies. Of course, there's only one witness to red corpses, Tauber, while the rest all claim blue. The newest Mr. Magoo-lenkamp theory is they were blue due to suffocation because the oxygen was used up by the time the Zyklon was dropped in and had time to take effect.

So the question arises: Why even bother with the Zyklon if the Germans could just pile the Jews into a room and wait for them to suffocate? At the same time avoiding any exposure to themselves or the supposed Sonderkommando who were dragging bodies out of the room. Suffocation would eliminate any need for ventilation and avoid any exposure to the disgusting byproducts such as bodily fluids, which in turn would avoid any of the so called "washing of the walls in between gassings."

But you can forget about Bobo making up his mind and committing to one story. He has an answer for everything, even though they contradict each other. There isn't one inventory or supply order to show more use of gas masks or filters, so the question remains "Were the Sonderkommandos immune to cyanide?" Because the time frames just don't work for the filling of the room, the suffocating, the poisoning, the ventilating, the removal of the bodies, the removal of hair and teeth, the transport of bodies to the crematoria, and the cremation of the corpses. All supposedly done all day, every day without anyone noticing within whatever time frame you want to claim. Unless it was a full day (which the amounts of dead claimed wouldn't work then).

Hannover @ latest big deal effort to combat “denial” is demolished

Trunk later tells us — after having tried to make a case for the toxicity of diesel exhaust — that it is most likely (naheliegend) that gasoline engines were used because of greater availability of them, and that they produced deadly gasses even when idling. He refers to Reder again who testified that the motor had been located in a small room next to the gas chamber and that it used 80 to 100 litres of gasoline daily.[10] For Sobibor we have precise testimony for gasoline engines, the only issue unclear whether they were of French or Russian origin. For Treblinka however, the last camp to be erected, research is assuming (geht davon aus) that diesel engines were used, raising the question why a changeover from a successful, uncomplicated method was made to one more complicated. It appears that a mix up could be possible: in every camp a diesel engine was used for generating electricity and that the gasoline engine, used for the killings, was installed right beside it. Trunk refers us to the testimony of SS Franz Hödl, who for a while operated the Sobibor death engine (Todesmotor) and stated: “That two engines were installed in the engine room, one a gasoline engine, possibly from a Russian tank, the other a diesel engine. The latter was never used”.[11] According to Kogon [12] a diesel engine was installed in a room adjacent to the gas chamber which produced poisonous gasses and next to it a generator for producing electricity.

Comments: More confused postulations. In the opinion of Trunk it was most likely that gasoline engines were used, he tries to support this supposition by claiming that they were more easily available and that they produce deadly gasses even when idling, a fact. That in contrast to diesel exhaust which is harmless when the engine is at idle and only toxic when the engine is under load and the injectors somehow manipulated, he refers to a test by Holtz/Elliot (p.33). Whenever machinery for digging, etc., is needed underground, for instance in the construction of underground parking facilities, equipment with diesel engines is used, those engines nearly always working at full throttle, i.e., under load, with the workers nearby complaining about the soot but showing no ill effects. This is why it is claimed that the engines were manipulated to produce deadly exhaust. More nonsense, for surely the Germans were aware of that and would not have even considered using diesel engines. And Trunk admits this in a roundabout way, he is however unable to explain away the diesel engines mentioned by others. Thus, he is forced to talk out of both sides of his mouth, not making any sense at all doing it. He also admits that changing from gasoline engines to diesel engines, as was supposedly the case for Treblinka, would have been remedial, a technical disadvantage, a fact. He tries to get around it by having us believe that in Sobibor, two engines were used, one a gasoline engine for killing – the other a diesel which was not used (testimony by Hödl, see above). And Kogon et al have it that one diesel engine produced the deadly gas, the other not, also for Sobibor. One has to be mentally unstable to even consider this nonsense, but Trunk, unable to settle the issue, is forced to resort to those mental gymnastics. Demonstrating again that what is told is just not true, and portraying Germans as babbling idiots who would resort to these kinds of shenanigans will just not cut it. Thus, the diesel/gasoline matter still needs to be settled, if we are to accept that Jews were murdered en masse with engine exhaust, and Trunk only confused the issue.

I would say Hödl is not credible. I personally suspect he, like many other Germans, were under pressure to conform to some sort of lie.

RELATED:
carbon monoxide

[Hektor]

The basis of all the diesel claims is the statement of Kurt Gerstein who supposedly witnessed at least one diesel gassing with a stopwatch in hand. All such gassings according Gerstein always took about 32 minutes. The Gerstein statement is still used again and again, even in recent books like Murderous Medicine (2005) by Naomi Baumslag (page 62), Epidemics and Genocide (2000) by Paul Weindling (pages 293-303), Legacies of Dachau (2001) by Harold Marcuse (page 219). The Gerstein Statement is ridiculous and unbelievable for many good reasons but it is still a cornerstone of the holocaust hoax.....

Used as "bare fact" I presume. Because I can imagine using it in a book, just not as bare fact. Quite to the contrary.

As for this Weindling character, I came across a book of his dealing with epidemics. Didn't see him dealing with hardcore Holocaust claims. The extermination story seems just to perpetuate as a subtext in those books dealing with the era or concentration camps.