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 » Sat Mar 11, 2017 2:27 pm

Friedrich Paul Berg wrote:Lying "Hans" is back even after I showed that he craftily lied about my relation to Eric Eckermann's writings. Hans LIED but is NOT man enough to admit it or even apologize. I never claimed anything Eckermann wrote was "totally false and absurd", But now, lying "Hans" tells more lies.
Already rebutted here.
After taking some of my words "out of context," Hans now claims: But the German paramilitary did not have "no gasoline at all". You [Berg] have totally failed to demonstrate this. As I have shown in a previous posting, the German paramilitary forces did have access to large supplies of gasoline and precisely for the reasons outlined by Eckermann, they were excluded from the regulations to switch to non-liquid fuels. The German police forces (Einsatzgruppen) did have "severely limited" access to large supplies of gasoline. Big difference! If the alotted gasoline was consumed, there might not be any gasoline left at all for unfinished tasks. What to do then? Sit alongside the road and wait for a new alottment--or an attack by partisans? That is all I meant and any honest reading of my text must recognize that.
Fritz,

you had advanced the premise that "if one has no gasoline at all", but you did not demonstrate that this was anywhere true, planned or anticipated in 1941/42. And since the relevance of your premise, which would mean that having "no gasoline at all" was any consideration among the Einsatzgruppen in 1941/42, is in doubt, your entire argument stumbles and collapses. That was my point and indeed any honest reading of my text would have recognized that! You also did you not provide any shred of evidence that the Einsatzgruppen "did have 'severely limited' access to large supplies of gasoline" in the relevant period. Likewise unfounded is your previous claim that "there was a critical shortage of gasoline for the entire German military" at this time. And of course, it then follows that your argument "The major reason producer gas vehicles should have been employed is that the Germans were desperately short of gasoline" is unfounded, too.

It is obviously absurd to presume that the Nazis started their war against the Soviet Union with a "critical shortage of gasoline" and the gasoline reserves had been build up again in Spring 1942 as the German army was barely moving anymore. The leading experts on the field of supply of resources of the Third Reich agree that there had been no critical shortage of gasoline among the German forces at the time the gas vans were developed and dispatched to the Einsatzgruppen, i.e. from late 1941 to early 1942. According to Dieter Petzina, there was "no shortage [of oil] effecting the war strategy until 1942" and "only since 1943 - with the military defeats on the Eastern front, the disturbed transport and strongly increasing needs of the Wehrmacht - the demands considerably exceeded the available amounts" (Petzina, Autarkpolitik im Dritten Reich, p.192). According to Wolfgang Birkenfeld, "the supply crisis failed to appear" in 1942, which "was mainly due to the Rumanian deliveries...the heavily reduced contigents of gasoline and Diesel assigned to the economy also played a role that there was no crisis". Although "in 1943 there was the increasing constraint to adjust the operative plans to the available fuel", there was "no serious total crises among the German fuel supply until Spring 1944" (Birkenfeld, Der synthetische Treibstoff 1933-1945, p. 155f.). According to Dietrich Eichholz, "even in 1943 - the year of the highest consumption, but also the highest production - there was no dangerous shortage of fuel" and the Third Reich was "sufficiently supplied with fuel for the warfare until Spring 1944" (Eichholtz, Geschichte der deutschen Kriegswirtschaft 1939 - 1945, volume 2, part 2, p. 353 & 355).

It is further absurd to presume that the RSHA would have set up highly mobile, fully motorized units operating in a wide area in the rear of the fighting army performing - in the eyes of the Nazis - vital intelligence and executive operations without allocating large fuel contigents for their tasks. The fact these fully motorized units operated in numerous towns, villages and the countryside in the Russian East according to their reports already shows that they had good access to large supplies of gasoline. The fact that they even had their own tank trucks - instead of getting handed over only some canisters - also confirms this point by the way.

It is moreover nonsense to suppose that Nazi elite forces engaged in intelligence, police and executive measures in 1941/42 would have planned operations anticipating that they will run out of gasoline and have to chop wood in the next forest. It is self-evident that the military and paramilitary forces would only plan such operations they expected to have sufficient gasoline for. Any operation of the Einsatzgruppen would have been designed so that the vehicles were carrying enough fuel or could refuel with their own tank wagon or at a Wehrmacht tank station. Even if their own reserve was exploited, they would confiscate gasoline from other vehicles rather than starting to collect wood, or blow off or reduce the operation, which were then an excellent reason to demand a higher contigent for the future. Note that the number of vehicles used by the Einsatzgruppen was insignificant compared to that of the Wehrmacht in the East and even suppposing an average higher mobility, the gasoline consumption of the Einsatzgruppen was miniscule compared to the Wehrmacht supply and reserves, which were tapped by the Einsatzgruppen.

Fritz' fantasy that producer gas generators made sense to the Germans as back-up for paramilitary forces is not only lacking any evidence and commons sense, but is also refuted by the actual Einsatzgruppen motorization (see again here). Producer gas vehicles are completely absent in hundreds of testimonies of Einsatzgruppen members as well as on any photograph showing the vehicles of the German paramilitary forces:

EG D near Rostov
Image

Waffen-SS attached to EG B
Image

EG D
Image

EG C
Image

Pol.Bat. 314 in Ukraine
Image

Bialystok
Image

Minsk
Image

Auxiliary Russian police
Image

EG D
Image

Shitomir, Ukraine
Image

The photo album of Lothar H. of Einsatzgruppe D also shows several vehicles of Einsatzkommando 10 a near Taganrog, Rostov and Krasnodar, none with producer gas setup (reproductions in BArch B 162/5618).

Now, if producer gas generators had been such a good idea for the Einsatzgruppen vehicles, it were even more so for the fighting army, where gasoline supply was more likely short for logistic reasons and where immobility was far more likely deadly. If Berg's hypothesis were true, the police, fire fighters etc., the paramilitary forces and the front army would have been the first to get equipped with producer gas vehicles if they provided any advantage. In reality, it is exactly the other way round, the producer gas generators were first provided to the civilian and economy sector, while the police, fire fighters, paramilitary forces and the front army were spared from this inferior "technology" with only supply and training troops later driving on wood. According to Eckermann, "naturally the fighting troop did not enjoy this technique" (p. 286).

Perhaps it is a most clever idea to provide police and army with a producer gas generator as back-up. Perhaps Fritz is far more intelligent than all people in charge of the German military and paramilitary forces were altogether. Perhaps Fritz is that genuis. But perhaps it is just a retarded idea he came up in order to justify his dogma that the Nazis were the good guys and did not gas other people. Take your pick, but the point here is that in either case Fritz's esteem for producer gas was clearly not shared by contemporaries and it is therefore historically irrelevant.

This is a crucial point now. Fritz has apparently no clue how people in charge of the military and police were thinking on producer gas. His entire argument against the German homicidal gas vans so far is limited to the would-coulda fallacy that the Germans supposedly would have done it differently, but since he has shown that he is incompetent to guess what the people actually thought at the time, his opinion bears no value. The paramilitary forces did not employ producer gas vehicles, which offered no advantage for their activities and since the gasoline engine was doing the job for homicidal gassings, it is clear that the Einsatzgruppen and Sonderkommando Chelmno employed homicidal gas vans on gasoline.

Given that Fritz could so far also not cope with the massive evidence on the German homicidal gas vans - numerous contemporary German documents and numerous testimonies from perpetrators, which he failed to address (see again here and here), there is indeed no reason why to reject the reality of the German homicidal gas vans.

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 Mar 11, 2017 9:36 pm

One of Hans' paragraphs above has some interesting info:
It is obviously absurd to presume that the Nazis started their war against the Soviet Union with a "critical shortage of gasoline" and the gasoline reserves had been build up again in Spring 1942 as the German army was barely moving anymore. The leading experts on the field of supply of resources of the Third Reich agree that there had been no critical shortage of gasoline among the German forces at the time the gas vans were developed and dispatched to the Einsatzgruppen, i.e. from late 1941 to early 1942. According to Dieter Petzina, there was "no shortage [of oil] effecting the war strategy until 1942" and "only since 1943 - with the military defeats on the Eastern front, the disturbed transport and strongly increasing needs of the Wehrmacht - the demands considerably exceeded the available amounts" (Petzina, Autarkpolitik im Dritten Reich, p.192). According to Wolfgang Birkenfeld, "the supply crisis failed to appear" in 1942, which "was mainly due to the Rumanian deliveries...the heavily reduced contigents of gasoline and Diesel assigned to the economy also played a role that there was no crisis". Although "in 1943 there was the increasing constraint to adjust the operative plans to the available fuel", there was "no serious total crises among the German fuel supply until Spring 1944" (Birkenfeld, Der synthetische Treibstoff 1933-1945, p. 155f.). According to Dietrich Eichholz, "even in 1943 - the year of the highest consumption, but also the highest production - there was no dangerous shortage of fuel" and the Third Reich was "sufficiently supplied with fuel for the warfare until Spring 1944" (Eichholtz, Geschichte der deutschen Kriegswirtschaft 1939 - 1945, volume 2, part 2, p. 353 & 355).
If there was "NO crisis," that was in large part because Germany had been planning for and switching over to producer gas as an alternative fuel for motor vehicles as rapidly as it could beginning in 1940 under the Schell Programme. http://www.nazigassings.com/Schell.html Surely, if Hans' sources have any value at all, they must have explained that in some detail. I did on my website with countless links.
Image
That "alternative fuel" just happened to also be a highly toxic concentration of CO (as high as 35%) and many times more deadly, as well as inexpensive, compared to liquid diesel fuel exhaust or gasoline engine exhaust.

The following is from my website, Index page 2: http://www.nazigassings.com/index2.html
"Gas Generators in War and Peace" was the lead essay for September 25, 1940 (the Air Battle of Britain had just begun) of the most important technical automotive journal in Germany during the war. ATZ is one of the best technical automotive journals anywhere, even to this day. The essay was written, still rather early in the war, not by an automotive journalist but by one of Germany's highest public officials – Undersecretary of State Major-General von Schell and General Plenipotentiary for the Automotive Industry. In the essay Schell makes a desperate plea to the entire automotive industry to switch-over to producer gas as rapidly as possible so as to allow liquid fuels to be available to the greatest extent possible for military use. How ironic that the “gas” which the generators made was also extremely poisonous; how ironic that there has never been any suggestion, not even from the most ardent Holocaust promoters, that Schell or anyone else involved with this technology had anything to do with exterminations even though this “gas” would have been ideal for just such a purpose (far, far more toxic than diesel exhaust, for example).
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 11:28 am, edited 1 time 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 Mar 12, 2017 8:26 am

Friedrich Paul Berg wrote:The "S-wagen" arguments from Hans show how far removed Hans' is from reality. Hans should read the extensive automotive literature, postwar and wartimew, instead of merely courtroom testimony manufactured to support the Soviet show trials.

S-wagens were thoroughly described in several postwar reference books. One excellent book is: German Military Transport of World War Two by John Milsom (1975). That book contains more than thirty photographs, pages 155-167, of non-homicidal trucks with captions identifying them as "S-type."

On page 81:
Lorry Production under the Schell Pogramme (Generalbevollmaechtigten des Kraftfahrwesens)
Only the following types of lorries were to be built under this programme (see Appendix 6):
(a) 1 tonners (1000 kg);
(b) 1-1/2 tonners (1500kg), A and S Types [footnote 1 below]
(c) 3 tonners (3000kg), A and S Types [footnote 2 below]
(d) 4-1/2 tonners (4500kg), A and S Types [footnote 3 below]
(e) 6-1/2 tonners (6500kg), A and S Types [footnote 3 below]
The S Type differed from the A Type essentially in that it lacked front-heel drive, but this could be built on as required. The A Type was intended for the Wehrmacht and the S Type for commercial use.
......
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Footnore 1] The A type (Allradantrieb--All Wheel Drive) replaced the legLkw1.5t, and the S Type (Standard) replaced the Lkw up to 2 tons. This class of vejicles also became the sPkw.

[Footnote 2] The A Type replaced the mgLkw3t, the S Type the mLkw3t.

[Footnote 3] These two classes [d and e] replaced all previous lorries over 3.5 tons.
Quickly, as to Sonder vehicles, I will just mention a few facts which are easy enough to verify in the postwar literature about German wartime military vehicles. There were by my last count, at least 250 different kinds of Sonderkraftwagen which were all designated by the numbers followed by "Sd Kfz" for Sonderkraftfahrzeug. Needless to say, none of those vehicles had anything to do with the "extermination" of Jews or anyone else--except as would occur in any legitmate military operations. Once again, the REAL facts show that Hans and his depraved ilk of racist liars and hatemongers have absolutely no idea as to what they are talking about when they insist that "Sonder" was some kind of euphemism or spooky codeword for mass murder.

Here, for example, is what Wikipedia has to say on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_S ... signations
I notice that Fritz has not provided a single example of where "S-Wagen" denoted "Standard-Wagen", not even in general, but more importantly not in the context of the RSHA bureaucracy. He has therefore failed to respond to my previous challenge.

Basically, Fritz commits the logical fallacy that because in some context on vehicles the term "S" denoted "Standard" in the sense of wheeldrive, that therefore it could not or unlikely mean anything else in other context and word constructions. The reasoning is flawed as the meaning of abbreviations can naturally depend on context and specific definition between sender and receptor.

In this specific correspondence between the RSHA and its branches in the East on gas vans, the text itself indicates that S-Wagen denoted "Spezialwagen".

BdS Serbien to RSHA on 9 June 1942:
To the R.S.H.A. Office Roem 2 D 3 KL. A–to att. of Major Pradl –
Berlin .–––
Re.: Special vehicle Saurer.––
Dossier: none.–––

The motorists SS– Scharf. G o e t z – a. M e y e r have accomplished the special order, hence the[y] named can be [are] ordered back with the above mentioned vehicle. Due to cracked axle of the rear half of the axle a transfer per axle [cannot take place].–– I have therefore order that the vehicle is transferred back to Berlin loaded on the [by] railway. Expected arrival between the 11. a 12 6. 42 The motorists Goetz a. Meyer accompany the vehicle.– –

The Comm. of SIPO a. the SD[38]– Belgrade– Roem 1 – BNR.
3985/42 42

sgd. Dr. Schaefer – SS – Oberstubaf –


II D 3a (2) Berlin, 11 June 42
c/o Pr. Sukkel for further action and immediate initiation of repairs. I request to be informed of the arrival of the vehicle.
pp. Just

II D 3a (9) Berlin, 16 June 42
Note: The vehicle arrived here on 16 June 42 around 13.00. Repairs will be initiated immediately after thorough cleaning.
pp. Wentritt

II D 3a 9 Berlin, 13 July 421. Note: The S-vehicle reg. no. 71463 has been completed and is to be sent to Riga with the driver.
2.) Sent to head of motor pool T.J. Niederhausen with the request to take note and for further action.
pp. Wentritt
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... tml#_doc11

RSHA to BdS Ostland on 22 June 1942:
Reichssicherheitshauptamt Berlin, 22 June 1942

II D 3 a B.Nr. 240/42 Secret State Matter

Telegram
To the Commander of the Security Police and the SD Ostland in Riga

Subject: S vehicle

The transfer of a 5 t Saurer can be expected middle of next month. The vehicle is currently at the Imperial Security Main Officefor repairs and to make minor changes. 100 m hose will be sent along.

p.p.(signature as head)

2.) F[ollow-]u[p]. immmediately at II D 3 a (9)

p.p. Rauff

II D 3a (9) Berlin, 13 July 1942
No. T. J Niederhausen for further action and please note the remark of 13 July 42 on the back of the telegram from Belgrade. For technical reasons only five rings of 10 m each can be sent.
p.p. Wentritt
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... tml#_doc13


Secondly, Fritz commits the next fallacy that because "Sonderkraftfahrzeuge" denoted some military vehicles in the context of the fighting army, then therefore Sonderwagen and Sonderfahrzeuge could not or unlikely mean anything else in other context. In reality, the RSHA special vehicles had nothing to do with the Sonderkraftfahrzeuge of the military.
Last edited by Hans on Sun Mar 12, 2017 9:02 am, edited 5 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 Mar 12, 2017 8:47 am

Friedrich Paul Berg wrote:One of Hans' paragraphs above has some interesting info:
It is obviously absurd to presume that the Nazis started their war against the Soviet Union with a "critical shortage of gasoline" and the gasoline reserves had been build up again in Spring 1942 as the German army was barely moving anymore. The leading experts on the field of supply of resources of the Third Reich agree that there had been no critical shortage of gasoline among the German forces at the time the gas vans were developed and dispatched to the Einsatzgruppen, i.e. from late 1941 to early 1942. According to Dieter Petzina, there was "no shortage [of oil] effecting the war strategy until 1942" and "only since 1943 - with the military defeats on the Eastern front, the disturbed transport and strongly increasing needs of the Wehrmacht - the demands considerably exceeded the available amounts" (Petzina, Autarkpolitik im Dritten Reich, p.192). According to Wolfgang Birkenfeld, "the supply crisis failed to appear" in 1942, which "was mainly due to the Rumanian deliveries...the heavily reduced contigents of gasoline and Diesel assigned to the economy also played a role that there was no crisis". Although "in 1943 there was the increasing constraint to adjust the operative plans to the available fuel", there was "no serious total crises among the German fuel supply until Spring 1944" (Birkenfeld, Der synthetische Treibstoff 1933-1945, p. 155f.). According to Dietrich Eichholz, "even in 1943 - the year of the highest consumption, but also the highest production - there was no dangerous shortage of fuel" and the Third Reich was "sufficiently supplied with fuel for the warfare until Spring 1944" (Eichholtz, Geschichte der deutschen Kriegswirtschaft 1939 - 1945, volume 2, part 2, p. 353 & 355).
If there was "NO crisis," that was in large part because Germany had been planning for and switching over to producer gas as an alternative fuel for motor vehicles as rapidly as it could beginning in 1940 under the Schell Programme. http://www.nazigassings.com/Schell.html Surely, if Hans' sources have any value at all, they must have explained that in some detail. I did on my website with countless links.
Not that this would be relevant for the debate on gas vans, but just out of curiousity if you know what you are talking about, please tell us how many liquid fuel had been actually saved by producer gas in 1942? With source.

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 Mar 12, 2017 4:13 pm

It makes a huge difference whether the "s" was large case or small case. Large case "S" meant "standard wheel drive" which was two-wheel drive and less expensive to build than a four-wheel-drive vehicle, However, for the muddy roads of the Soviet Union, four-wheel-drive was preferred--sometimes absolutely necessary. Lower case "s" meant "spezial" which could refer to any of hundreds of special task vehicles. A vehicle could be both at the same time. The letters "Sd" meant "Sonder" as in well over 250 different vehicle classes including tanks.

Hans should read the extensive and detailed German automotive literature before he tries to argue about it. Learn to walk before you try to run! Do some serious homework, moron!.

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 11:29 am, edited 3 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 Mar 12, 2017 4:43 pm

Friedrich Paul Berg wrote:It makes a huge difference whether the "s" was large case or small case. Large case "S" meant "standard wheel drive" which was two-wheel drive and less expensive to build than a four-wheel-drive vehicle, However, for the muddy roads of the Soviet Union, four-wheel-drive was preferred--sometimes absolutely necessary. Lower case "s" meant "spezial" which could refer to any of hundreds of special task vehicles. A vehicle could be both at the same time. The letters "Sd" meant "Sonder" as in well over 250 different vehicle classes including tanks.

Hans should read the extensive and detailed German automotive literature before he tries to argue about it. Learn to walk before you try to run! Do some serious homework, moron!
The extensive and detailed German automotive literature is not about the RSHA special vehicles and therefore irrelevant for the point discussed here.

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 Mar 12, 2017 4:51 pm

It is NOT irrelevant at all. The automotive technology was the same.

Is Hans seriously contending now that the RSHA developed its own automotive technology and terminology--separate from German automotive technology in general? COOKOO!

The following is from Part 2 of my essay: "Diesel Gas Chambers--Ideal for torture, absurd for murder" : http://www.nazigassings.com/dieselgaschamberb.html
Wherever possible, liquid fuels had to be reserved for the military, at least for the duration of the war. The interest which even Adolf Hitler showed is demonstrated by his remarks at an exhibition of Mercedes-Benz heavy trucks with Mercedes-Benz gas producers that burned coal:[86]

"Vehicles of this kind will retain their special significance after the war as well; for given the trend towards increasing motorization, we will never have a surplus of liquid fuel and will always be dependent on imports. The additional domestic fuels thus benefit our own national economy."

By the autumn of 1941, some 150,000 producer gas vehicles were already in use in Germany and the areas controlled by her. The conversion of existing trucks to producer gas resulted in a monthly savings of about 45 million liters of liquid fuel. The goal was "to free every bit of dispensable fuel for the Wehrmacht."[87] By the end of the war, more than 500,000 producer gas vehicles had been put into service by the Germans.[88]

On May 30, 1942, Reichsmarschall Göring established a "Generator Central Office" for his Four-Year Plan:[89]

"to boost generator production, to determine new types on the basis of the fuel situation at hand, to develop new solid fuels for use in the generator, and to develop suitable processes for preparation and low-temperature carbonization etc."


Göring stated:[90]

"I refer to the explanations in my aforementioned decree, regarding the urgency of making Germany as well as the occupied territories and dependent lands largely independent of liquid fuel as quickly as possible, and would ask you to vigorously support the efforts of the Central Office through the increased use of generators."


As the war continued, conversion to solid fuel became more and more urgent. On September 22, 1942, Reich Minister Speer, acting in his capacity as plenipotentiary for armament production (GBRüst), ordered the conversion of all medium and heavy vehicles including buses in all German-occupied regions.[92] A year later, the GBRüst's amendment of September 13, 1943, eliminated all exemptions. Now the conversion of all civilian vehicles was mandatory as well, including even the smallest automobiles.[93] After the war, in a long report about German oil production, the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey stated that even some of the best German tanks, 50 Königstiger, had been driven with producer gas just before the war's end.[94]

Illustration 5: The Imbert-Generator was the most widespread producer gas generator of the Third Reich, here in mass production on an assembly line in Cologne 1943.[91]

The vast numbers of producer gas vehicles as well as the fervor with which the Germans developed new vehicles and uses for this gas technology, which is so evident throughout their wartime automotive literature, undermine the Holocaust story in general. If the Germans had ever intended to commit mass murder with carbon monoxide, they certainly would have had enough brains to employ this superb poison gas technology long before using anything as idiotic as Diesel exhaust. And, it would have worked!

Eichmann and the other 'transportation experts' involved in the "final solution of the Jewish question," which was indeed primarily a transportation problem, would certainly have been fully aware of these vehicles. If they had had any expertise at all, they would have also been aware of some of the unique features of these vehicles as well. For example, each generator had a startup blower which was powered by either a small electric motor or by hand. It would have been childishly easy to attach a hose, or pipe, to the exhaust of that blower so as to force poison gas into any cellar, barracks, or prison, but nowhere in the vast Holocaust literature is any such technology even suggested.

Another irony is the fact that the same producer gas technology was actually used to gas rats and other vermin. According to the public health literature from the Third Reich, producer gas equipment from the firm of Nocht-Giemsa for killing rats was "very common."[95] And yet, no one thought of using this obvious, practical, effective, simple, and cheap technology on humans – even Jews who had sometimes been compared to rats as in the film "Der Ewige Jude" (The Eternal Jew). Obviously, the National Socialists were not nearly as fiendishly clever, as exterminationists often claimed they were, in connecting Jews to rats.
From Part 3 http://www.nazigassings.com/dieselgaschamberc.html of my essay: "Diesel Gas Chambers--Ideal for torture, absurd for murder" we have one of my all-time favorite photographs:
Image

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 11:29 am, edited 4 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 Mar 12, 2017 5:57 pm

Friedrich Paul Berg wrote:It is NOT irrelevant at all. The automotive technology was the same.

Is Hans seriously contending now that the RSHA developed its own automotive technology and terminology--separate from German automotive technology in general? COOKOO!
Since you have still not provided even a single example of S-Wagen meaning a vehicle with two wheel drive, let aside that it was used in general, there is - so far - no different terminology to begin with. Besides, there is not necessarily contradictionary or separate terminology. The RSHA might have referred to vehicles with two wheel drive as "Wagen S-Typ" and Sonderwagen as "S-Wagen", clearly different terms.

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 Mar 12, 2017 6:02 pm

Hans is wrong about everything!

For pictures of S-wagen one need only look at German Military Transport of World War Two by John Milsom (1975). That book contains more than thirty photographs, pages 155-167, of non-homicidal trucks with captions identifying them as "S-type."

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 11:30 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 » Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:34 pm

Has it dawned on Hans that he has lost his "debate" with me? Every twist and turn of his argumetnation has been more than answered. His case is nil!.

FPBerg

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 7 guests