Limitations of Producer Gas?

[fireofice]

One revisionist argument is that the Nazis would have used producer gas instead of gasoline or diesel. Here's an article arguing against that:

https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/d ... s-engines/

The argument seems to be that there are certain limitations on producer gas that would make them not use it. That being, they are more explosive and harder to start up. I have seen a response to the first point from Fredrich Berg here:

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.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5693&p=38442#p38442

I haven't seen a response to the second point though. From my limited understanding of this stuff, it seems like the greater efficiently otherwise might make up for it being harder to start up. Although I don't have experience with starting up producer gas, so if anyone knows about how hard it is to start up producer gas, I would be very interested in what you have to say.

On top of all that, it seems like whatever limitations producer gas might have, it seems pretty absurd that they would use gasoline or diesel for mass murder when they need to conserve it for a war they are fighting. Although part of the narrative surrounding the holocaust is that the Nazis were so intent on mass murdering Jews that they were willing to jeopardize the whole war to carry it out. That's just how crazy they were. I find all that very hard to believe.

[HeiligeSturm]

The German word for this is holzgas. If you do a picture search, you'll find similar pictures like below:

holzgas.jpg (10.77 KiB) Viewed 809 times

Some these pictures have been used to prove the existence of the gas vans.

You are right about the absurdity of gasoline and diesel use.
But Bill Basch explains in The Last Days (1998) how the Germans dedicated all their manpower etc.
to achieve the Holocaust.

[Merlin300]

One revisionist argument is that the Nazis would have used producer gas instead of gasoline or diesel. Here's an article arguing against that:

Fritz Berg merely pointed out that it was impossible to kill people with an unloaded diesel (which is true) and that the holzgas system
produces vastly higher levels of CO than either a diesel or a petroleum fueled engine.
Berg also noted that Holzgas engines were widely available. Berg did not spend more time on the issue such as showing how holzgas could
be made safe to kill people. After all, thousands of vehicles were powered by the system.


The people at Debunking are creating a strawman argument to "debunk".
Did the Nazis employ producer gas engines to create the poisonous exhaust.
No Revisionist claims that Holzgas was used to kill people.


In fact, it was Believer propaganda that claimed that holzgas powered killing vans" were used to kill people.
The Soviets or Poles produced a photograph of an alleged "Soul Killing" van equipped with the producer gas system, see tank on the side.
it turns out that even that was a lie, as the US prosecution was forced to admit. It was the regular furniture moving van but powered
by the sinister looking producer gas system.

See. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_van.

[Hektor]

One revisionist argument is that the Nazis would have used producer gas instead of gasoline or diesel. Here's an article arguing against that:

Fritz Berg merely pointed out that it was impossible to kill people with an unloaded diesel (which is true) and that the holzgas system
produces vastly higher levels of CO than either a diesel or a petroleum fueled engine.
Berg also noted that Holzgas engines were widely available. Berg did not spend more time on the issue such as showing how holzgas could
be made safe to kill people. After all, thousands of vehicles were powered by the system.
...
See. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_van.

Also, for any execution method there would be execution manuals and those involved would be trained, before being tasked.... But if it is about inducing belief in Holocaust Tales, all such consideration go out of the window. The gullible rather believe in auxiliary arguments and co-outs like "The Nazis destroyed all the evidence" .... Which is where the debates than turn polemical, something the Holocaust lobby prefers over rational debates based on reason and evidence.

[fireofice]

I was just thinking, whatever "limitations" producer gas had, it clearly did not deter them from using it on many of their vehicles. The risk of explosion and the supposed slowness of it would still have to be delt with in a war that they are fighting. So any appeal to these supposed limitations are moot.

Also, the effectiveness of producer gas in killing would probably override whatever slowness existed in starting up.

One other thing I found amusing from the site:

Second, a producer gas engine cannot be started or run in an enclosed space, like a garage. The users of the engine would themselves be risking death from carbon monoxide poisoning. In Treblinka, Belzec, and Sobibor, eyewitness testimony confirms that the engines were housed in nearby sheds or in rooms attached to the back of the gas chambers. If producer gas engines had been housed in a small room or shed, the “Gasmeisters” (“Gas Masters”) would have run the very real risk of dying along with their victims.

https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/d ... s-engines/

Well yes, that wouldn't be a very good way to run a producer gas engine. However, they can easily do it in a not confined space, in a way that is safe. They are essentially arguing that what the witnesses describe wouldn't be a good way to use a producer gas engine, therefore using a producer gas engines would be ineffective. Yes, the whole point of the revisionist argument is that witnesses describe a method that is not effective.

[hermod]

Der Gasgenerator (1943), by Werner Kroll
https://archive.org/details/werner-krol ... n/mode/2up

[Hektor]

As for an execution method:
If the aim is to kill a large number of people in a room, using producer gas or CO2 would be far more practical than using Zyklon B. Simply because there isn't an issue with 'ventilating the gas out first'. One could for example let the air flow through a chamber in which something is burning letting the O2 turn into CO or CO2. After that it would be released into the room again. It would decrease the O2 content and increase the CO/CO2 content of the air. This should be able to kill within one hour. When done it will be easy to blow out the CO/CO2 saturated air. Making it easy to remove the corpses from the room. It's far cheaper to use this method than using Zyklon B, which has to be transported from far away and is expensive to produce as well as difficult to handle.

In Holocaustlore CO does play a role, but they come up that a Diesel Engine was used, which is rather impractical.
The method for making producer gas would be more practical. Unless there are some limitations I did overlook of course.

Producer gas is the substance that is produced by burning biomass with an air deficit and a regulated amount of humidity. Producer gas is a mixture of gases such as hydrogen carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen. The nitrogen in the air remains unchanged and dilutes the gas to a LHV of 5800 KJ/m3.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/en ... oducer-gas

The issue I see there is that producer gas is still flammable. But even that can be resolved by letting it burn. Sure the SS would have had access to the necessary resources to solve the problem. The Zyklon B method can be dismissed as fairy tale for empirical and rational reasons. But Holocaustians aren't even willing to admit that there are problems with it. Rather keep the audience in the dark and feed them more sh!t to breed little Holocaust mushrooms.