attempted switch from alleged diesel 'gassings' to gasoline

[Hannover]

Attempted switch from diesel to gasoline is too late; they can't keep their stories straight.

http://www.yad-vashem.org.il/about_holo ... caust.html

- select 'FAQS' from frame at right, cancel the pop-up asking about Hebrew text
=============================================
Who built the gas chambers? What kind of gas was used to kill Jews there, and who provided it?

In the extermination camp built under Operation Reinhard, Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka-the gas first used to murder people was carbon monoxide, generated by gasoline engines or released from carbon monoxide cylinders......
============================================
However:

In discussing the Gerstein 'statements'; Leon Poliakov, who is a French speaking, Jewish 'historian', said: "there is little to add to this description [the Gerstein statement] which holds good for Treblinka, Sobibor as well as for the Belzec camp. The latter installations were constructed in almost the same way and also used the exhaust carbon monoxide gases from Diesel motors as death agents." According to Poliakov, more than a million and a half people were killed with Diesel exhaust. (fn. 10) - for more on the alleged 'diesel gassings' and see why Yad Vashem would attempt to switch: http://codoh.com/library/document/982
=========================================
court document from Lipstadt's defense vs. Irving:

"Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka were established as part of Aktion Reinhard (headed by Globocnik), the murder operation principally aimed at the Jews of the General Government in Poland, and used carbon monoxide gas generated by a diesel or gas engine. About 600,000 Jews were murdered at Belzec, whilst it operated between March and December 1942; between about 250,000 and 500,000 Jews were murdered at Sobibor during its operation between April 1942 and October 1943; and between about 870,000 and 1.1 million Jews were murdered at Treblinka between July 1942 and August 1943."

>>> notice the spin...'diesel ***OR*** gas engine', completely ignoring previous assertions and 'testimonies' of diesel only

- Hannover

[Scott]

Yitzhak Arad cites Adalbert Rückerl's research on the Treblinka trials and presents this information about the GASOLINE engine of Sobibor. This is the same SS-Scharführer Erich Fuchs who installed generators for electric lighting, presumed to be diesel, at Treblinka:

As ordered by Wirth, I drove an LKW [truck] to Lvov, fetched a gas motor [English translation: gassing motor?, or gasoline motor?] and transported it to Sobibor. When I arrived at Sobibor, close to the railway station I saw a tract of land with a concrete construction and some other solid buildings. The Sonderkommando there were commanded by Thomalla. Other members of the SS who attended were F. B. Stangl, F. Schwartz, Kurt Bolender, and others. We unloaded the motor. It was a heavy Russian benzine engine (presumably a tank or tractor motor) at least 200 horsepower (V-motor, 8 cylinders, water cooled). We installed the engine on a concrete foundation and set up the connection between the exhaust and the tube.

I then tested the motor. It did not work. I was able to repair the ignition and the valves, and the motor finally started running. The chemist, whom I knew from Belzec, entered the gas chamber with measuring instruments to test the concentration of gas.

[Emphases mine.]

Yitzhak Arad, Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka, 1987; p. 32.

Adalbert Rückerl, NS-Vernichtungslager in Spiegel deutscher Strafprozesse, DTV Dokumente; München, 1977; p. 163.

It would be necessary to compare the testimony of Fuchs here given in English by Arad with Rückerl's version in German or get the original trial transcript--if possible--of what Fuchs said about the engine and its important details. Fuchs got a light sentence for turning State's evidence, IIRC.

[max]

It would be necessary to compare the testimony of Fuchs here given in English by Arad with Rückerl's version in German or get the original trial transcript--if possible--of what Fuchs said about the engine and its important details.

Accused F. described in March 1963 the following incident:

"Ich fuhr auf Anweisung Wirths mit einem LKW nach Lemberg und holte dort einen Vergasungsmotor ab, den ich nach Sobibor transportierte.
Bei Ankunft in Sobibor fand ich in der Nähe des Bahnhofs ein Gelände vor, auf dem sich Betonbau und mehrere feste Häuser befanden. Das dortige Sonderkommando wurde von Thomalla geleitet. Als weitere SS-Angehörige waren F., B. Stangl, F., Schwarz, B. u.a anwesend. Wir luden den Motor ab. Es handelt sich um einen schweren russischen Benzinmotor (vermutl. Panzermotor oder Motor einer Zugmaschine) mit mindestens 200 PS (V-Motor , 8 Zyl., wassergekühlt). Wir stellten den Motor auf einen Betonsockel und errichteten die Verbindung zwischen Auspuff und Rohrleitung. Alsdann probierte ich den Motor aus. Er funktionierte zunächst nicht. Ich reparierte die Zündung und die Ventile mit dem Erfolg, daß der Motor schließlich ansprang"

NS-Vernichtungslager edited by Adalbert Rückerl, page 166.

F. further describes how 30-40 women were taken into the gas-chamber for the test gassing and also how he and B. operated the engine. He also states that he tuned the engine at the suggestion of the chemist who made this chemical test in the gas-chamber.

Source of the transcript is StA Dortmund AZ 45 Js 27/61 (AZ ZLS: 208 AR-Z 251/59, Volume 9, page 1784 and 1785)

Fuchs got a light sentence for turning State's evidence, IIRC.

And so?

[TMoran]

SS-Untersturmfuehrer Oberhauser from the 'Good Old Days' on Belzec:
"During the first experiments .... bottled gas was still used ... or
the second series of experiments the Jews were killed with the exhaust
from gases from a tank or lorry engine."

From the 'Old Frogs Alamanac' - on Reder/Belzec. Wirth preferred to
set up a self-contained extermination system ... based on an ordinary
car engine ..."

From the same source - on Schluch/Belzec:
"Hackenholt switched on the engine .... The corpses were .... I could see some the lips and tips of noses were a bluish color."

Holocaust Almanac: Kurt Gerstein - "... Gerstein was assigned to Belzec ... where he gave a favorable report on what was called Zyklon
B, a gas produced when prussic acid crystals ...."

Holocaust Almanac: Killing Centers
"First came Chelmno -- the pilot extermination project ... Then came
Belzec with its diesel-run gas chambers."

The Goof Old Days - on Sobibor/Fuchs "...We unloaded the motor. It was a heavy Russian benzine engine, ..."

Holocaust Almanac: I.T. Danil'chenko at Sobibor:
"I served as an SS guard at Sobibor .... the arriving Jews were killed in six gas chambers by exhaust gasses from diesel engines ..."

Then we would have that one from Eichmann - "Submarine engines"

Then there was one in an article in the Los Angeles Times on what was used at Belzec - Airplane engine.

Those would be just some of the tales about where the gas came from.

[max]

TMoran,

and what is your point?

That they had possibly various engines in Belzec over the time or that some witnesses simply didn't know where the engine came from?

And that they had a different engine in Belzec than in Sobibor?

Is that what you are trying to tell us?

[TMoran]

As to my list of various tales about where the gas was supposed to have come from at various places Max inquires:

"TMoran, and what is your point?

That they had possibly various engines in Belzec over the time or that some witnesses simply didn't know where the engine came from?

And that they had a different engine in Belzec than in Sobibor?

Is that what you are trying to tell us?"


Max, I'm not 'trying' to tell anyone about anything. I am telling the world that there are so many disjointed gas tales that they are all the product of individual fabrications and that they quite often, if not always conflict with each other.

I have some more around also. I'll put them together for sometime in the future. One of them even has Zyklon B being used at Chelmno. Not to mention the crystalized Zyklon B tales.

[max]

So they had either various engines in Belzec over the time or some witnesses did not know where the engine came from.

And they had a different engine for the gas-chamber in Sobibor (as described by Fuchs) than in Belzec.

This is interesting to know, but how does that supports revisionism?

[Dan]

And they had a different engine for the gas-chamber in Sobibor (as described by Fuchs) than in Belzec.

This is interesting to know, but how does that supports revisionism?

I would say not much on it's own, but in a certain type of "convergence of evidence" theory it might. You yourself are German, and you are a systematic people. I find it hard to believe that they used Zyklon at Auschwitz, and unnamed chemical mixed by the commandant in France, underground death swimming pools in Austria and a Russian diesel submarine in Treblinka and a gas engine (or steam) in Sorbibor. This is not the mark of the military mind, especially not of the German!

But you're right, by itself, without context, it's not much proof, but needful to know.

Regards
Dan

[Scott]

It would be necessary to compare the testimony of Fuchs here given in English by Arad with Rückerl's version in German or get the original trial transcript--if possible--of what Fuchs said about the engine and its important details.

Accused F. described in March 1963 the following incident:

"Ich fuhr auf Anweisung Wirths mit einem LKW nach Lemberg und holte dort einen Vergasungsmotor
And so?

Thanks, Max! That shows that the original German translation has it as a "gassing-motor" and not necessarily a gasoline motor; but the other details consistently and clearly show it as a gasoline (Benzine) motor.

If we can assume that Rückerl's citation is accurate, then it is clear that the courts did not "morph" anything with Fuchs' testimony or account in response to contemporary Revisionist complaints or other earlier revelations about the absurdity of a diesel gaschamber.

So, it doesn't look like the story was changed from diesel to gasoline for Sobibor.

But I will say that the possibility, with supporting evidence, that the Germans used gasoline engines at Sobibor does make the possibility more likely at Belzec and Treblinka and that some witnesses just got it wrong, or popularly confabulated this detail in that way from an original and erroneous source (e.g., Gerstein).

Now, I would like to get something SOLID (i.e., with convincing details from a witness who knows what he is talking about) from the Reinhardt trials about the type of gassing-motor for Belzec and Treblinka. Perhaps you could check other Arad-Rückerl citations for me later?


If we can't prove it was diesel because the testimony is too vague, then we must assume for the sake of simplicity and probabability (based on Fuchs above) that it was gasoline.

Nevertheless, it is troubling that there are so many "diesel" accounts. We have to find the common source for the (mis)information or it casts doubt on the credibility of the whole story. If it was Gerstein then the story is really in trouble.

TMoran is right that if we cannot conclusively determine the method of execution, the story remains apocryphal from an investigative standpoint, a rumor, an as-yet-unproved theory about the gas-execution and possible disappearance of hundreds of thousands. Rather like UFO abductions, it is neither proved nor disproved.

I think the camps did have diesel electric plants, but these could not have worked for execution without reliable and heavy loading. But that doesn't disprove the gasoline-execution method either.

[Dan]

Great dialogue!!

[Hannover]

Scott saod:

But that doesn't disprove the gasoline-execution method either.

One cannot "disprove" something that has never been proven in the 1st place. That's simply illogical.
Remember we are talking about an alleged crime, the accusers must prove their accusations. They have not and any fair court would throw the case out...end of story. Apply the same standards of jurisprudence for the so called 'holocaust' crimes as you would for any other alleged crime.


- Hannover

[Scott]

But that doesn't disprove the gasoline-execution method either.

One cannot "disprove" something that has never been proven in the 1st place. That's simply illogical.

Yes, but even if we don't believe it ourselves we still have to rule it out convincingly anyway. When a theory or a proposition is logically demonstrated and follows the evidence it is proved (or disproved if it was wrong).

Remember we are talking about an alleged crime, the accusers must prove their accusations. They have not and any fair court would throw the case out...end of story. Apply the same standards of jurisprudence for the so called 'holocaust' crimes as you would for any other alleged crime.

No, it is not a court case. They don't have to do anything at this point. It is a war of Greuelpropaganda and individual viewpoints. If their story is compelling and convincing then they have won. Period.

If we don't think it is true it is up to us to "disprove" it convincingly. We also have to be respective of other viewpoints and open to some compromise or our skeptical position becomes dogmatic in its own right.

[TMoran]

As to Hannover mustering up court standards Scott says:
"No, it is not a court case. They don't have to do anything at this point. It is a war of Greuelpropaganda and individual viewpoints. If their story is compelling and convincing then they have won. Period."

'Period'. That sounds pretty authoritative. Personally I think a good case is made against the case for a Holocaust story by comparing it to court standards. Witnesses not subjected to cross examination, conflicting testimonies, physically impossible claims and, and, and the biggest and of them all - no forensic proof. Any case like that presented to an American jury would get a Not Guilty. It would probably be thrown out after the opening statement of the prosecution.

Scott also said:
"If we don't think it is true it is up to us to "disprove" it convincingly. We also have to be respective of other viewpoints and open to some compromise or our skeptical position becomes dogmatic in its own right."

Personally, and I say 'personally' I don't think one has to 'compromise' at all when dealing with something you know to be totally false. What would an example of 'compromise' be? To admit to say 500,000 gassed at Auschwitz in stead of none? Or, say, shoes only piled 30 feet high in stead of the Holocaust tale that says 70 feet? Of how about compromising on the claim that a Holocaust body would burn on its own without the need of external fuel.

No one has to compromise on anything if there's no room for it.

[Scott]

Personally I think a good case is made against the case for a Holocaust story by comparing it to court standards.

For particular facts, yes, but historiography doesn't necessarily work that way. You are dealing with public opinions and points-of-view as much as truth. And the truth is not a monolith.

No one has to compromise on anything if there's no room for it.

It just means that you have to accept the possibility that you could be wrong and try to understand the other guy's viewpoint in any case. It doesn't mean you have to lie or compromise your principles. Little information is learned or shared if each side distrusts the other.

If any dogma is to win at all, let it be an honest search for truth.

[Hyman]

Personally, and I say 'personally' I don't think one has to 'compromise' at all when dealing with something you know to be totally false. What would an example of 'compromise' be? To admit to say 500,000 gassed at Auschwitz in stead of none? Or, say, shoes only piled 30 feet high in stead of the Holocaust tale that says 70 feet? Of how about compromising on the claim that a Holocaust body would burn on its own without the need of external fuel.

No one has to compromise on anything if there's no room for it.

Firstly, I find Mr. Moran's take on the Holocaust story enlightening and appreciate the humor and patience he shows in his battle with his opponents. One reason I don't see the court case analogy as being that great is because the single goal of historical writing, including historical revisionism, is to paint an accurate account of what happened - in other words to get at the truth. In a court case, even if we assume the process is not corrupted, the guilty can go free simply because the state has not been able to accrue the evidence to convict. IOW, if a murderer is pronounced not guilty for lack of evidence, the truth still has not been arrived at if he indeed committed the crime. So it is possible that 6 million Jews were killed even if the evidence forwarded would not be enough to convict in a court of law. Of course, the Holocaust standard-bearers believe there would be plenty of evidence to convict, even if they didn't have the advantage of political intimidation and laws against revisionism, but that's another story. Revisionists would like to have some of the tools of a court case, such as a cross-examination of witnesses applied to the Holocaust principles but in many cases it is too late for that.

Regarding compromise, it might be possible for the revisionists to prove the impossibilty of 500,000 gassed in Krema II, or that eyewitness accounts do not allow for sufficient fuel to cremate the purported dead. Revisionism might be able to prove that the figures have been exaggerated but it is not possible to prove that much of what was purported done could not have been done on a smaller scale. So it's possible there was a pile of shoes, just not one 70 ft. high. It's possible that there were piles of bodies, just not 25 feet high. It's possible that some gassing was attempted, just not on the scale purported. It's also possible - and very likely in my opinion - that certain of the stories were made up out of whole cloth. Each individual will have his own conception of how much or how little is true but if revisionists aren't more open-minded and careful in their assessments than the Holocaust promoters, then they are no better than them. Not to say that there should be compromise just for the sake of compromise, but as Scott stated, dogmatism can infect both sides and part of that dogmatism is in extrapolating broad conclusions from insufficient evidence. The Holocaustians will hang on to beliefs about the Holocaust with a religous fervor, which should be the opposite of what revisionism is about.