Hans (only) v FP Berg (only). The (informal) gas van debate.

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
Hans
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Hans (only) v FP Berg (only). The (informal) gas van debate.

Post by Hans » Sun Oct 30, 2016 8:35 am

Reply to Fritz here:
Friedrich Paul Berg wrote:An argument from Hans that I have not answered fully is that a producer gas "gaschamber" might explode during an actual gassing. The gas can indeed contain explosive concentrations of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. However, it can ONLY contain "explosive" concentrations if the operators or "murderers" are NOT paying attention--as happened to that house in California from LIFE magazine in 1947.

If the would-be murderers simply listen to what is going on inside the murder van, they will hear the screams and banging from the trapped victims--until they are all either dead or unconscious. At that point, there is no need to continue blowing more producer gas into the van compartment. Cut the gas supply after another minute or two! Let the gas from the generator go into the "open" instead and then cut the fresh air supply to the generator. The producer gas that is already in the murderous van will kill off any unconscious survivors.

The van compartment can then be opened--and after a brief airing, the corpses may all be removed. It is almost childishly easy. Any licensed producer gas vehicle driver--of which there were hundreds of thousands--would have understood all that was needed. Hans' argument has no merit at all.
It is not disputed that it is possible to kill people with producer gas without blowing up the vehicle, but the simple fact is that it poses an additional risk which is drastically reduced by using the readily available gasoline engine doing the job as well. You claim there were no risk if one is "paying attention", but that's precisely the issue with producer gas gassings. Most things are safe if one is just "paying attention", but many accidents occur precisely because somebody is not "paying attention". You entirely ignore the factor "human being" in your naive and grossly negligent "risk assessment".

You further ignore that hazards are usually best controlled by eliminating or substituting the hazard, whereas training people how to cope with it is at the bottom of the hazard control hierarchy:

Image

So anyone trained and familiar with safety issues would prefer the gasoline engine over producer gas generator for homicidal gassing if it was available and doing the job.

Hans
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Hans (only) v FP Berg (only). The (informal) gas van debate.

Post by Hans » Sun Oct 30, 2016 9:54 am

Reply to Fritz here:
Friedrich Paul Berg wrote: The really BIG LIE that Hans and his kind must "defend to the end" is that the hundreds of thousands of producer gas vehicles were somehow totally unsuitable for mass murder. That is an essential BIG LIE for Hans and his ilk--and it is also such a "stupid" LIE! They have no problem with the claim that pressurized tanks of CO were used at Hadamar and other places--even though such tanks would have been far more hazardous and likely to explode than any producer gas arrangement. Merely to transport such tanks countless miles to the site of some supposed gassing would have been hazardous. Any air attack or artillery bombardment could have made everything go BOOM--with pressurized steel tank fragments going everywhere! Producer gas, by contrast, could have been made, safely and cheaply, on site as needed--no pressure at all.
The comparison is between gasoline engine and producer gas generator for the gas vans deployed to Chelmno, Serbia and Russia. The earlier Euthanasia gassings in Germany are a different issue, which took place in a different context and under diffierent circumstances and where other factors were dominating.

For the Euthanasia gassings in the Reich, the most important factor was the use of a clean, reliable, easily controlled killing method making the victims sleeping to death without any irritation whatsoever, which was only considered practically by means of pure technical grade pressurized carbon monoxide gas (see also Contemporary German Documents on Carbon Monoxide Gas and Bottles Employed for the Nazi Euthanasia). The use of combustion gases was probably not even considered, but it were no option anyway under these circumstances. Hence, any hazards that come along with pressurized gas had to be necessarily addressed with the second line of defense, engineering and administrative controls according to the above chart.

However, for the killing of Jews and Slavs in the East, the use of carbon monoxide bottles was no longer considered suitable, whether for safety or logistic reasons, which forced the Germans to accept combustion gases as killing agent, for which the gasoline engine was the most convenient and safe source for mobile gas chambers.

User avatar
Friedrich Paul Berg
Posts: 3111
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:21 am
Contact:

Re: Hans (only) v FP Berg (only). The (informal) gas van debate.

Post by Friedrich Paul Berg » Sun Oct 30, 2016 4:39 pm

Obviously, I hit a sensitive nerve when I attacked Hans' bizarre notion of "concrete evidence." Concrete evidence, for me at least, simply means "evidence" which one can see and feel and touch and examine chemically. An actual homicidal "gas van" would have been an example of such evidence--which neither the Soviets nor anyone else has ever found or produced. Why? Were ALL of those amazing "homicidal gas vans" simply vaporized by the fiendish Nazis?

Any supposed "gas van" could have been tested forensically with substances like "LUMINOL" (a German invention from before WW2), even for "invisible traces of blood" or blood spatter. No doubt, many other tests could have been performed as well. However, for the Soviets, why bother? They had more than enough suitably programmed "eyewitnesses" just as the West German courts had twenty years later.

Similarly, there are no real corpses except for the ones described ONLY "verbally" by the Soviets--and NO credible western witnesses. There are no autopsies either--not even for Hadamar to support the claims that anyone was ever gassed, even in Hadamar. A Jewish-American forensic pathologist Dr. Hermann Bolker performed at least six autopsies at Hadamar--see image below--on likely gassing victims and found NOTHING!
Image
The reason such "concrete evidence" has never been produced, even to this day, is because the entire story is "GARBAGE." It really is a HOAX!

In his post of Sat Oct 29, 2016 2:53 am, Hans included the following:
there is no reason why the Einsatzgruppen should have employed inferior performing producer gas vehicles in 1942 at all. According to Eckermann, Fahren mit Holz, p. 126, the conversion to producer gas meant "reduced perfomance, poorer effeciency, cumbersome handling, higher maintenance and new supply provisions". The decree of Reich Minister for Weapons, Munitions, and Armaments Albert Speer on the conversion of trucks on non-liquid fuels of 24 September 1942 excluded the fire fighters and authorities receiving special contigents of fuel, and so were therefore also certainly the police forces (Kroll, Der Gasgenerator, 1943, p. 131). The Einsatzgruppe B received their gasoline largely from the army and even had their own tank trucks to supply its commandos. In January 1943, the group complained they received "only amounts of 200-400 Liters" of gasoline since several tank wagons failed to appear (operation and situation report of Einsatzgruppe B on the period 16 to 31 January 1943, Angrick et al., Dokumente der Einsatzgruppen in der Sowjetunion II, p. 508). The report did not mention any producer gas vehicles to be used instead but remarked that "the use of vehicles is only possible in the most urgent cases". In the report for March 1943, the group discussed the supply and reserve of gasoline/Diesel, but did not mention any producer gas vehicles or its fuel supply either (operation and situation report of Einsatzgruppe B on the period 1 to 31 March 1943, Angrick et al., Dokumente der Einsatzgruppen in der Sowjetunion II, p. 553). This also supports that there had been no producer gas vehicles in the group.
{Some emphasis added above by FPB]

Hans' claims in the first sentence I quoted above are totally false and absurd. The major reason producer gas vehicles should have been employed is that the Germans were desperately short of gasoline--even within Einsatzgruppe B. Hans' own source above clearly says they had received "only amounts of 200-400 Liters." That is ONLY about 100 gallons of gasoline for all of Einsatzgruppe B! How many Jews and/or Soviet citizens could they have possibly murdered with that, assuming their vehicles had nothing else to do for that entire month? But, with producer gas vehicles they certainly could have murdered millions since the essential fuel, woodchips, was almost everywhere and almost as cheap as dirt.

The following from Hans reveals, I think, where Hans is really coming from:
... Now, if the Soviets had presented some old furniture truck line with sheet metal, a wooden grating, some pipes inside and a hose connected to the exhaust pipe, it is fair to say that nobody, who does not already acknowledge the reality of the German homicidal gas vans anyway, - least of all Berg or any denier at RODOH - would be convinced that the Germans had homicidal gas vans because the Soviets presented some some old furniture truck line with sheet metal, a wooden grating, some pipes inside and a hose connected to the exhaust pipe. Instead, what would happen Holocaust deniers would claim a) that the vehicle is a complete Soviet forgery, then b) that the vehicle was altered by the Soviets and then c) that the vehicle was used for desfinfecting clothes. Indeed, the vehicle could easily provide no evidence whatsoever on its own that it was a homicidal gas van. And it were no persuasive evidence at all for most "Revisionists".
No doubt, even if a "REAL" homicidal gas van were found and presented, many revisionists would still dispute that "reality"--but that is entirely normal and acceptable in any free society. However, instead of recognizing and accepting that, Hans uses that as a reason to rely entirely on "paper evidence" instead. What a strange twisted mind we have in Hans. Putin will be so proud of him--and Stalin would also be proud of Hans.

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

There were NO “limited gassings!” There were NO homicidal Nazi Gassings at all!

http://www.nazigassings.com/Railroad.html
The REAL Mass Murderers were the Anglo-Americans and the Jews themselves!
Last edited by Friedrich Paul Berg on Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:22 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Friedrich Paul Berg
Posts: 3111
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:21 am
Contact:

Re: Hans (only) v FP Berg (only). The (informal) gas van debate.

Post by Friedrich Paul Berg » Wed Nov 02, 2016 2:48 pm

When holocaut hoaxers like Hans get into trouble, as in this "debate," they sometimes speak of a "convergence of evidence." All they really have is a "convergence of extremely shoddy evidence"--which falls apart as soon as one understands what was really going on, generally--at the same time.

During the German show trials in the 1960's from where Hans took much of his "evidence," did the existence of producer gas vehicles come up anywhere? I doubt it--in large part because few people even knew or remembered that special wartime technology. Did any defense attorney even think of mentioning it as a possible alternative explanation for what prosecutors were claiming? I doubt it. Those proceedings were a terrible sham. Judge Wilhelm Staeglich wrote a superb book--Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence--about just how the defendants were framed--but anyone familiar with criminal proceedings, even in the nearly perfect USA, knows full well how easily plea deals are made ALL THE TIME, every day, to get useful but false testimony from people--even against their will, even without any overt physical torture.

Not that long ago, people were prosecuted for "conspiring with the Devil." Just imagine a case being made for flying from Boston to Salem on the coattails of the Devil himself--in just minutes based, of course, on "credible eyewitness testimony." The case might be convincing to a host of ordinary jurors--until one learns that a commuter airline was available to carry everyone w-i-t-h-o-u-t any supernatural help. That would in itself be NO PROOF that the Devil was not involved--but it would, I dare say, have blown the prosecution's case out the window. To insist as Holocaust hoaxers do that during WW2 the Germans burned precious gasoline--a strategic commodity of enormous importance, especially to resource-starved Germany--just to make carbon monoxide for mass murder--is one of those incredibly stupid ideas that fails when one learns that the same resource-starved Germans made vast quantities of carbon monoxide directly from woodchips--that were almost as cheap as dirt, and available almost anywhere and everywhere.

The trials of alleged Nazi war criminals are NO BETTER than the Witch Trials of only three centuries ago. Shame on so many people for being so vile and stupid!

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

There were NO “limited gassings!” There were NO homicidal Nazi Gassings at all!

http://www.nazigassings.com/Railroad.html
The REAL Mass Murderers were the Anglo-Americans and the Jews themselves!
Last edited by Friedrich Paul Berg on Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:23 am, edited 7 times in total.

User avatar
Friedrich Paul Berg
Posts: 3111
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:21 am
Contact:

Re: Hans (only) v FP Berg (only). The (informal) gas van debate.

Post by Friedrich Paul Berg » Sun Nov 06, 2016 4:10 pm

I began this debate by asking Hans what gas was used to kill the gas van victims. His answer was: "Gasoline engine exhaust."

My followup questions to that are: What fuel was used in the gasoline engine? Was it gasoline? Why? Why not producer gas? How can Hans, or anyone, be certain that the fuel was not producer gas since that was rather common--especially for Saurer vehicles?

Of course, that would immediately raise the follow-up question, at least for technically informed people, of why the Germans would be so stupid! Why wouldn't they have simply used the producer gas directly (up to 35% CO) from inexpensive woodchips to kill rather than make a far less deadly gas (only about 12% CO) by a bizarre round-about method (skip the engine completely) using an expensive, strategic commodity, essential to Germany's war effort and "survival?" It was a life or death issue for Germany as a whole. Were the Germans really that stupid? I don't think so. Why would they use gasoline which was so precious instead of wood chips which were so cheap--and readily available?

And so, for me and I think for most other technically knowledgeable people, the homicidal gas van story falls apart. It is NOT credible. It is just another discredited part of the Holocaust HOAX--w-i-t-h-o-u-t any "concrete evidence" either.

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

There were NO “limited gassings!” There were NO homicidal Nazi Gassings at all!

http://www.nazigassings.com/Railroad.html
The REAL Mass Murderers were the Anglo-Americans and the Jews themselves!
Last edited by Friedrich Paul Berg on Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Friedrich Paul Berg
Posts: 3111
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:21 am
Contact:

Re: Hans (only) v FP Berg (only). The (informal) gas van debate.

Post by Friedrich Paul Berg » Mon Nov 07, 2016 2:14 am

"S-wagen" was an ordinary German abbreviation which simply meant "standard wheel drive" or two-wheel drive. That was to distinguish that kind of vehicle from an "A-wagen" which was for "All-Rad" or all-wheel-drive, generally known today as four-wheel drive. For the muddy roads common in Russia, "A-wagen" were preferred if you could get them. Becker wanted them instead of what he had. The terminology had nothing to do with "Sonderbehandlung>" All German trucks were either S-wagen or A-wagen. Ingrid Weckert explained all this in her superb essay. Once again, the hoaxers are "full-of-crap"--as usual.

A lower case "s" was used to designate "spezialwagen" which could be almost any kind of special purpose vehicle. There is no connection, intended or otherwise, to the German word "Sonderbehandlung."

The gas hoses that hoaxers make so much of were simply the interconnecting hoses from the producer gas generator to the engine--and common on ALL producer gas vehicles. The "Diamond" truck was an American truck brand that had been captured from the Soviets after being shipped from the US earlier under Lend-Lease. It was only a two-wheel drive vehicle--hence designated as an "S-wagen" by the Germans--and not that great for Russian mud. To rebuild the Diamond truck as a four-wheel drive vehicle would have been inordinately expensive--the bolts and nuts would not have even matched anything from Germany.

The gas hoses could, however, have been used to direct producer gas into any van compartment, or jail cell, or barracks to murder lots and lots of people--but not while connected to the engine while driving through the countryside. Such a "connection" would have made some sense for mass murder within stationery structures (jail cells, etc)--but that is totally different from the insane horror tale we are given by the holocaust propaganda.

The homicidal gas van tale sounds like something out of an American crime movie where the intended victim, or victims, are taken for a long ride and killed somewhere. But why bother when it could have been done simply enough in any parking lot or solid structure? It really is a hoax, folks! Get used to it.

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

There were NO “limited gassings!” There were NO homicidal Nazi Gassings at all!

http://www.nazigassings.com/Railroad.html
The REAL Mass Murderers were the Anglo-Americans and the Jews themselves!
Last edited by Friedrich Paul Berg on Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Friedrich Paul Berg
Posts: 3111
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 1:21 am
Contact:

Re: Hans (only) v FP Berg (only). The (informal) gas van debate.

Post by Friedrich Paul Berg » Sat Nov 19, 2016 5:43 pm

Perhaps the most bizarre feature of Hans' and Roberto Muehlenkamp's entire line of arguments is their reliance on the Soviet show trials in 1943 in Kharkov and Krasnodar. Don't these people know anything at all about Stalin? Don't these people know anything at all about how "trials" were tools of the fraudulent Stalinist system? Can sane people really believe that nearly all of Lenin's closest co-workers, many Jews among them, were really Nazi agents, including Trotsky?

The following about the 1935-1938 Soviet purge trials may remind us as to what was going on under Stalin--and about how dumb America was, and still is. It is about Mission to Moscow, that famous American film from 1943 based on the book by American Ambassador Joseph E. Davies (1935-1938) who must rank as one of the most thoroughly stupid diplomats in world history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_to_Moscow

Americans and others have been incredibly naive, to put it mildly--to ever take Soviet trials seriously. Parenthetically, one should also ask today whether Donald Trump is likely to be any more perceptive about Putin?

One American, and a Jew, who thoroughly disgraced himself was Benjamin B. Ferencz. He initiated and drove the so-called Einsatzgruppen Trials after WW2 leading to the execution of many Germans. Did Ferencz ever visit the Soviet Union to actually look at any of the scenes of alleged Nazi mass murder? I am not absolutely sure--but I seriously doubt it? Did he ever even ask for any kind of forensic examination by credible pathologists? Why bother when he had the so-called Einsatzgruppen Reports which would have been so easy to falsify? It seemed to me many years ago when I read some of these reports that they were entirely credible except for the numbers of people killed in the actions described. Where a relative small total number of dead was expected, what was given instead were numbers tens or hundreds of times greater. Were pages of genuine text simply rewritten with some zeroes added?

Two extremely prominent Americans from the war years are worth mentioning here. Wendell Willkie (Republican presidential candidate in 1940 and 1944) and Henry Wallace (US Vice-President 1941-1944) visited Soviet labor camps during the war and concluded that most, possibly all, of the prisoners were merely "volunteers." Most of the armed guard towers had actually been removed. Those camps were Magadan and Kolyma which postwar research and anecdotal evidence shows were horrible and yet typical of Soviet camps generally. Readers should look at what Wallace and Willkie actually said and wrote. At least Wallace realized years later that he had been taken in by an elaborate deception (like a "Potemkin village") and wrote about that. The Soviets had lied successfully--but the lie could never have worked if Americans had not been so incredibly naive, and dumb, and programmed to begin with.

The holocaust hoax is much more than just another pack of dirty, racist Jewish lies. The vast resources of the Soviet Union and the western allies were, and still are, major contributors to this racist anti-German filth. People like Hans remind us of just how thoroughly naive, and dumb, and gullible many, superficially educated, people are. The leaders of Germany today terrorize their own people with the worst lies any nation or people has ever had to endure. It is high time for a real revolution in Germany!

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

There were NO “limited gassings!” There were NO homicidal Nazi Gassings at all!

http://www.nazigassings.com/Railroad.html
The REAL Mass Murderers were the Anglo-Americans and the Jews themselves!
Last edited by Friedrich Paul Berg on Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:24 am, edited 2 times in total.

Hans
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Hans (only) v FP Berg (only). The (informal) gas van debate.

Post by Hans » Sun Nov 20, 2016 10:31 am

Here we go for the next round...first part replying to Fritz here.

Fritz wrote:The major reason producer gas vehicles should have been employed is that the Germans were desperately short of gasoline--even within Einsatzgruppe B. Hans' own source above clearly says they had received "only amounts of 200-400 Liters." That is ONLY about 100 gallons of gasoline for all of Einsatzgruppe B! How many Jews and/or Soviet citizens could they have possibly murdered with that, assuming their vehicles had nothing else to do for that entire month? But, with producer gas vehicles they certainly could have murdered millions since the essential fuel, woodchips, was almost everywhere and almost as cheap as dirt.
This document - which refers in this statement only to the group staff in Smolensk and not the whole Einsatzgruppe B - says nothing about that the amount of 200-400 Liters was meant for one month, but on the contrary indicates this was a repeated supply: "Durch das Ausbleiben mehrerer Kesselwagenzüge war an mehreren Tagen in Smolensk kein Benzin zu bekommen und später nur in Mengen von 200-400 Ltr." For all we know, it might have been a daily supply. But more importantly, this shows the staff of Einsatzgruppe B normally received and expected much higher amounts of gasoline as their contigent and that the poor supply in those day was exceptional because some tank wagons did not show up in Smolensk. Indeed, already the next monthly report of Einsatzgruppe B of 1 April 1943 explained that the "current situation regarding the fuel of the group staff can be described as good" and that the group staff has increased its fuel reserve to 5000 Liters (Deutsche Besatzungsherrschaft in der UdSSR 1941-1945. Dokumente der Einsatzgruppen II, p. 553). Doesn't sound like being "desperately short of gasoline" even at this stage of the war!

The gas vans made up only a small fraction of the vehicles of the Einsatzgruppen (e.g. 4 out of more than 140 vehicles of Einsatzgruppe B in February 1942). Their amount of fuel needed was minor compared to that of the whole group (even considering the rather high consumption of the gas vans). So if shortage of gasoline was any significant factor for the choice of vehicles, one would expect numerous producer gas vehicles in the motor pools of the Einsatzgruppen. Yet, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Einsatzgruppen operated any producer gas vehicles. There is no mention of producer gas in any of German documents related to the Einsatzgruppen, but on the contrary the documents only mention liquid fuel supply. There is no mention of any producer gas vehicles in hundreds of pages of interrogations former members of the Einsatzgruppen, but on the contrary the testimonies only mention gasoline vehicles and supply. This radically refutes that the Einsatzgruppen would have employed producer gas homicidal vans because of a "desperate" shortage of gasoline in 1941/42. The Einsatzgruppen simply did not use producer gas vehicles at this time. They were not considered adequate vehicles for the mobile German forces operating in the rear of the army.

Here some examples to illustrate that the German paramilitary forces did not bother about producer gas, but wasted gasoline instead:

- The Sonderkommando Chelmno operating the Chelmno extermination site had loaned three trucks from the Reichstraßenbauamt Hohensalza, which consumed more than 17,670 Liters of gasoline between January-June 1942 (letter of 18 May 1943, Yad Vashem Archives, O.53/83, p. 296f.).
SK-Kulmhof_fuel1.jpg
SK-Kulmhof_fuel2.jpg
SK-Kulmhof_fuel3.jpg
So Fritz, enquiring minds want to know why the Sonderkommando Chelmno wasted 17,760 Liters of gasoline to ship around Jews and their belongings if "the Germans were desperately short of gasoline"? Why didn't they use those brilliant producer gas vehicles? And if those Nazis were so stupid to waste precious gasoline in Chelmno when "the essential fuel, woodchips, was almost everywhere and almost as cheap as dirt", then why would they bother about the gasoline for their 2-3 homicidal gas vans?

- The central construction office of Auschwitz concentration camp used 1594 Liters of gasoline and 5119 kg of Diesel fuel in October 1942 (document reproduced in Alvarez, The Gas Vans, p. 345). The vehicles drove 13974 km with liquid fuel, whereas only 662 km (less than 5%) were made on producer gas. Even such a lame authority as the construction office Auschwitz, which was not even engaged in paramilitary and police operations, was able to neglect producer gas over liquid fuel.
Alvarez, TGV, p345.jpg
Again, Fritz, explain to us why the Nazis wasted 1594 Liters of gasoline and 5119 kg of Diesel in October 1942 just to drive around some construction material in some lousy concentration camp in Upper Silesia, if they desperation for liquid fuel was so great that they wouldn't use a few homicidal gas vans on gasoline?

- The so called Auschwitz Album shows several vehicles in Auschwitz in 1944, when one would suppose any drop of liquid fuel was needed elsewhere, none with producer gas set-up. Clearly, the Auschwitz camp administration did not bother about producer gas and was supplied with a contigent of gasoline and Diesel sufficient for their purpose.
Au-Album,p271a.jpg
Au-Album,p232.jpg
Au-Album,p226.jpg
Au-Album,p225.jpg
Au-Album,p224b.jpg
Au-Album,p224.jpg
Au-Album,p148.jpg
Au-Album,p144.jpg
Your turn again Fritz, please teach us why the Auschwitz camp administration did not share your enthusiasm for producer gas?

- After the assassination of Heydrich, the authorities requested 300,000 Liters of gasoline for the subsequent police and paramilitary operations, of which 150,000 Liters were granted. Alone the removal of the rubbel of the eradicated village Lidice was estimated to require up to 29,000 Liters of gasoline.
921sg.110-783,p53.jpg
921sg.110-783,p52.jpg
Just why did the Nazis were ready to burn the amount of gasoline almost needed by the whole German army in one month just to take revenge for some individual? Being so "desperately short of gasoline", how comes it they wanted to spent up to 29,000 Liters of gasoline just to remove some rubbel? Didn't they have "the essential fuel, woodchips" which "was almost everywhere and almost as cheap as dirt" in Protektorat Böhmen und Mähren?

The Befehlsblatt of the Security Police and Service of 22 November 1941 (incidently, dated right around the time the first batch of gas vans was constructed) shows not only that the RSHA did not care about the regulations on switching from liquid fuels and insisted in gasoline/Diesel to be used by the Gestapo, but also that producer gas played no role from the outset not even for those few vehicles of the secret police in the Reich, which the RSHA approved to operate with some other fuel as an exception, since liquefied petroleum gas was prefered over producer gas.
2122_sg.109-8-5p.9.jpg
Fritz is confusing the general shortage of liquid fuels in the Third Reich foremost affecting the civilian sector with the specific situation of the paramilitary forces in 1941/42, which were excluded from legal regulations and in case of the Einsatzgruppen in the Soviet Union had access to the gasoline supply of the army. Shortage of gasoline was no reason for the German paramilitary forces to employ producer gas vehicles in 1941/42 and in contrast to Fritz' assertion, they would have never employed inferior producer gas vehicles for homicidal gas vans as long as the gasoline engine was technically doing the job.
Last edited by Hans on Sun Nov 20, 2016 8:10 pm, edited 7 times in total.

Hans
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Hans (only) v FP Berg (only). The (informal) gas van debate.

Post by Hans » Sun Nov 20, 2016 10:40 am

Second part on here.
Fritz wrote: Similarly, there are no real corpses except for the ones described ONLY "verbally" by the Soviets--and NO credible western witnesses. There are no autopsies either--not even for Hadamar to support the claims that anyone was ever gassed, even in Hadamar. A Jewish-American forensic pathologist Dr. Hermann Bolker performed at least six autopsies at Hadamar--see image below--on likely gassing victims and found NOTHING!
On the contrary, it is entirely unlikely that any gassing victims could have been unearthed in Hadamar, since the 10,072 gassing victims killed there in 1941 (see number of "desinfected" people in the Euthanasia facilities, Kepplinger et al., Tötungsanstalt Hartheim, p. 124) are known to have been incinerated in its crematorium.

As was pointed out to Fritz already about one year ago, the corpses examined by Bolker had died only "several months" before the autopsy, and hence could not have died of carbon monoxide gassing, which had been halted in this Euthanasia facility way before. The Euthanasia was continued with lethal injections as established at this Hadamar trial. Although the poison could no longer be detected by Bolker, he "noted that the pupils of the bodies 'were found to be contracted...a finding which is consistent with morphine poisoning'" (Schlesinger, The Hadamar Trial: Inadequacies of Postwar Justice, p. 18).

Two things are evident from this, that Fritz has not even rudimentary knowledge on the Nazi Euthanasia and does not know that the gassings had been replaced by lethal injections in the final years of the war, and that his memory is no longer capable to recall what he was presented only a year ago on the issue and which he even promised "to include in the next edition of my book" (that is provided he does not forget it again).

It is a fortune for Holocaust deniers that the Nazis were quite concerned about not leaving behind their gassed victims and engaged in extensive body disposal in Chelmno and the occupied East. However, where they failed to do so the Soviets reported to have found evidence for carbon monoxide poisoning (see also Friedrich Paul Berg yelled for "PHOTOS photos of gassing victims"...). Such claim from a Soviet show trial should be taken carefully, of course, but in this case the gassing of people in Krasnodar is not only corroborated by internal Soviet correspondance (e.g. Report of M. Belkin, head of SMERSH Northern Caucasian Front, of 6 July 1943 on "as a result of the arrest of the agents and employees of Krasnodar Gestapo yieled details of the methods and means used by the Germans for the destruction of the Soviet people, in particular the use of a special machine - 'dushegubka'"), but also by numerous German perpetrators and bystanders towards West-German investigators, e.g.:
  • Willi Da. of Sonderkommando 10a, interrogation of 19 April 1970 (BArch, B162/1236, p. 5025)
  • Adolf Ha. of the Wehrmacht in Dulag 132, Krasnodar, interrogation of 17 January 1970 (BArch, B162/1236, p. 5057)
  • Gregor Hr. of Sonderkommando 10a, interrogation of 28 September 1965 (BArch B162/1228, p. 3415)
  • Leo Ma. of Sonderkommando 10a, interrogation of 22 March 1967 (BArch, B162/1230, p. 3861)
  • Emil Me. of Sonderkommando 10a, interrogation of 24 July 1962 (BArch B162/1220, p. 1589 f.)
  • Kurt Na. of Sonderkommando 10a, interrogation of 24 January 1969 (BArch, B162/1232, p. 4292)
  • Walter Sa. of Sonderkommando 10a, interrogation of 31 August 1965 (BArch, B162/1228, p. 3307)
  • Werner Sp. of Sonderkommando 10a, interrogation of 20 March 1967 (BArch, B162/1230, p. 3845 f.)
  • Georg Vo. of Sonderkommando 10a, interrogation of 23 November 1965 (BArch, B162/1254, p. 996 & 1009)
  • Georg We. of the Wehrmacht in Dulag 132, interrogation of 23 May 1969 (BArch, B162/1236, p. 5048)
  • Josef Wi. of Einsatzgruppe D, interrogation of 6 March 1970 (BArch, B162/1236, p. 4915ff.)
Since this evidence from multiple perpetrators and German bystanders establishes that the Sonderkommando 10a of Einsatzgruppe D operated a homicidal gas van in Krasnodar, it is indeed likely that the corpses retrieved from mass graves near the town showed evidence of carbon monoxide poisoning as explained by a Soviet medical examiners in their expert report submitted at the Krasnodar trial.
Krasnodar_examination1.jpg
Krasnodar_examination2.jpg
Last edited by Hans on Sun Nov 20, 2016 6:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Hans
Posts: 223
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 6:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Hans (only) v FP Berg (only). The (informal) gas van debate.

Post by Hans » Sun Nov 20, 2016 11:41 am

Third part re: here.
Fritz wrote: Obviously, I hit a sensitive nerve when I attacked Hans' bizarre notion of "concrete evidence." Concrete evidence, for me at least, simply means "evidence" which one can see and feel and touch and examine chemically. An actual homicidal "gas van" would have been an example of such evidence--which neither the Soviets nor anyone else has ever found or produced. Why? Were ALL of those amazing "homicidal gas vans" simply vaporized by the fiendish Nazis?
It seems as if Fritz' reservoir of arguments is already severely depleted and exhausted, as he starts to simply repeat precisely what he said earlier without providing any new argument ("Actual homicidal gas vans have never been found either in Russia or anywhere else. Had ALL of those "vans" been incinerated or vaporized somehow?") and which was already addressed by me. Of course, this argument remains unsubstantiated as long as Fritz does not show why the Nazis should have any problem with dismantling and destroying some vehicles so that there would not be recognized as homicidal gas vans. There is no reason why the Allied shoul have necessarily captured a homicidal gas van or recognized that a captured, but dismantled and destroyed homicidal gas van was such vehicle.

As far my notion of "concrete evidence" is concerned - one that by the way seems to be shared in the article Admissibility of Expert Testimony After Daubertand Foret: A Wider Gate, A More Vigilant Gatekeeper: "Additionally, Justice Dennis discussed other variables to be considered: one, a preference for direct, concrete evidence, i.e. a direct statement over and inferential one" or on the website of these defense attorneys: "However, circumstantial evidence only suggests guilt, and is not concrete evidence" - Fritz continues to quarrel on its meaning instead of addressing the actually relevant underlying issue, that there is abundant direct, specific evidence on the German homicidal gas vans. His understanding that only a homicidal gas van were "concrete evidence" - apart from being little relevant - is also lead ad absurdum by the fact that it would not only exclude contemporary German documents but also photographs and video footage.

Fritz wrote:Any supposed "gas van" could have been tested forensically with substances like "LUMINOL" (a German invention from before WW2),
even for "invisible traces of blood" or blood spatter. No doubt, many other tests could have been performed as well.
Even a positive test on blood would not demonstrate the use of any vehicle for homicidal gassings. It may have been simply used to transport wounded people or corpses. In fact, gassing victims may not bleed or usually do not bleed, so we can be pretty sure that such positive test would be used by deniers as evidence AGAINST homicidal gassings.

The problem with Fritz' "concrete evidence" is that it is not concrete on the matter at all, but inferential, indirect and unspecific. A vehicle with a connection from the exhaust to its cargo box and traces of human tissue inside the cargo box does not prove it was a homicidal gas van by the Germans. There's nothing demonstrating living people were put into the box and killed with engine exhaust, least that it was done by the Germans. The connection between exhaust pipe and box may have been made simply to delouse clothings. The tissue may have been carried there by clothing, or the vehicle was also used to transport people or corpses. Moreover, it is remains unclear who made the connection between the exhaust pipe or who transported what with the vehicle. Such evidence would only corroborate direct, specific evidence such as what we already have, like the numerous perpetrator testimonies and the contemporary German documents, but it is neither essential nor can it stand much on its own.

On my quote of the German producer gas expert Eckermann that the conversion to producer gas meant "reduced perfomance, poorer effeciency, cumbersome handling, higher maintenance and new supply provisions", Fritz simply declares it is "totally false and absurd", yet without explaining and showing what is supposed to be false and absurd here. I don't need to elaborate the point further, since deciding between the opinion the German producer gas expert Eckermann and Fritz is too obvious.
Last edited by Hans on Sun Nov 20, 2016 6:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: chocolate cake and 10 guests