The Easiest Rebuttal to Deborah Lipstadt's Claims of "Gassing by Submarine Engine"

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Kretschmer
Member
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2020 8:21 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

The Easiest Rebuttal to Deborah Lipstadt's Claims of "Gassing by Submarine Engine"

Postby Kretschmer » 1 week 6 days ago (Sat Nov 14, 2020 8:41 pm)

Having studied naval history for four years as of the time of writing this post, it goes without saying that easily one of the most absurd Holocaust tales that I have ever seen is the infamous Deborah Lipstadt's claim that the SS employed a diesel engine captured from a Soviet submarine as a weapon of mass murder against Jews at the alleged "death camp" of Treblinka.

While the subject of gassing by diesel and gasoline engines has been thoroughly dissected already on the Forum and within the contents of the CODOH Library, I would like to offer my own rebuttal to the claims about the submarine engine in particular. First and foremost among responses to this part of the Holocaust storyline is that while the Germans did capture a total of 36 enemy submarines during the war, none of these were of Soviet origin.

From Vol. 2 of the English edition of German Warships: 1815 - 1945 by Erich Gröner, (easily the most prolific and reliable naval historian of the Third Reich) it can be clearly seen which submarines Germany captured throughout the war on pages 103 - 110, in alphabetical order:

UB - captured at sea from the Royal Navy in 1940
UC1 and UC2 - captured from the Royal Norwegian Navy in 1940
UD1 - UD5 - captured from the Netherlands Royal Navy in 1940
UF1 - UF3 - captured from the French Navy in 1940
UIT1 - UIT25 - captured from the Regia Marina in 1943

Once again, not a single one of these 36 submarines was captured from the Soviet Navy, thus making the baseline story of a Soviet submarine having been captured contradictory to basic historical information that can be found with a two-minute dig through Navypedia. Even if we're to assume that the engine had just been a spare one found somewhere in Nikolaev or Sevastopol where major Soviet naval facilities were found, wouldn't the Germans have recorded the class that the engine was designed for use in, or at least the location of capture since according to these court historians, everything they did was "so-well documented"?

As with a vast number of other elements within the Holocaust storyline, it appears that the SS and the Germans in general only "documented" things whenever convenient for those who peddle this nonsensical "historiography." And lastly, even if the Germans had been so keen on using submarine diesel engines for mass murder, why in the world would they use a single captured Soviet engine for which they would have possessed few (if any) spare parts for, instead of one of the countless U-boat engines available?

This makes even less sense when comparing the diesel engine performance data between the German Type VIIC and Type IXC classes and the Soviet Shchuka and S-classes, as the German engines in the case of both classes generated more metric horsepower and yielded greater efficiency than their Soviet equivalents. If the SS had truly wanted to exterminate as many Jews as physically possible using a submarine diesel engine, why would they deliberately use a less-suited engine for that task?
"In all of mankind's conflicts involving deaths by chemical warfare, pesticides were the ideal weapon of choice" - said no chemist or historian ever. :lol:

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2710
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: The Easiest Rebuttal to Deborah Lipstadt's Claims of "Gassing by Submarine Engine"

Postby borjastick » 1 week 6 days ago (Sun Nov 15, 2020 6:01 am)

Yes indeed the claims of Treblinka are not only bizarre but laughable but then jews like to tell stories and stories have to be made up. I have said it many times here that if one can show Treblinka to be a hoax then the whole holocaust is a hoax, Oh and Treblinka is a hoax.

Not one gas chamber or anything else relating to the stories/fables as told by the jews about Treblinka has been proven as fact. Or proven as anything close to fact.

Note that they never showed us a submarine engine or even a petrol tank engine as was also claimed.

Moreover plenty of jews testified on camera that they went in to Treblinka and ooops then went out of Treblinka when the official story claims that it was a destination of death and that everyone who arrived there perished inside an hour or two.

And let's not even go near the crazy lunatic claims that 900,000 people woz gazzed and buried and then burned on those outside pyres so as to leave absolutely no trace at all of the crime.

'Oy vey all 747 members of my close family were sent to the gas chambers and I was the only one to survive. Except for my uncle and his thirteen brothers and cousins who I met in a New York Kosher deli in 1993'.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

Merlin300
Member
Member
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:21 pm

Re: The Easiest Rebuttal to Deborah Lipstadt's Claims of "Gassing by Submarine Engine"

Postby Merlin300 » 1 week 4 hours ago (Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:35 am)

You make a very good point, Kretschmer...no records of any kind, either by the Soviets or by the Germans.

It is amazing that the highly improbable, if not impossible, tale of an unknown captured Soviet submarine being dismantled and its diesel engine being secretly transported across Poland is still being promoted by Holocaust Believers like Professor Lipstadt.

But it is disturbing that Professor Lipstadt's ridiculousness passes without the slightest critical comment by her academic peers or the media.

david2923
Member
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:16 am

Re: The Easiest Rebuttal to Deborah Lipstadt's Claims of "Gassing by Submarine Engine"

Postby david2923 » 1 week 4 hours ago (Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:51 am)

It would have been easier to have Henry Ford ship a few engines from his Cologne plant
Water came down instead of the gas :drunken:

User avatar
Kretschmer
Member
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2020 8:21 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: The Easiest Rebuttal to Deborah Lipstadt's Claims of "Gassing by Submarine Engine"

Postby Kretschmer » 22 hours 40 minutes ago (Fri Nov 27, 2020 4:17 pm)

As something which I neglected to include in my original post, below is a simple data comparison in engine performance (generation of metric horsepower) between some of the major German U-boat types used during the war and their respective Soviet counterparts:

Major German U-boat Classes
Type VIIC
Type IXC/40
Type IID

Respective Soviet Equivalents
Shchuka-class
S-class
M-class

German Metric Horsepower Output
Type VIIC - 3,200hp surfaced / 750hp submerged
Type IXC/40 - 4,400hp surfaced / 1,000hp submerged
Type IID - 700hp surfaced / 410hp submerged

Soviet Metric Horsepower Output
Shchuka-class - 1,600hp surfaced / 800hp submerged
S-class - 4,000hp surfaced / 1,100hp submerged
M-class - 700hp surfaced / 410hp submerged

Comparing this data, it can clearly be seen that the only Soviet class listed which even performs as well as its German equivalent on the surface is the M-class coastal submarine (and I say on the surface specifically because Lipstadt alleges that a captured Soviet submarine engine was used at Treblinka, not submarine batteries or simply any set of submarine propulsion equipment.)

But even with the good performance data of the M-class which matches that of the Type IID in mind, what in the world would have prevented the Germans from simply using the more powerful engine for the Type IXC/40? In a "gas chamber" as large as those alleged, even those engines would have taken up relatively little space and could have been easily concealed from view.

And yet, according to Lipstadt, the SS-TV would for some inexplicable reason choose to use a less-powerful Soviet engine (again, for which they would have had few, if any spare parts for to keep it operable) for the task of extermination at Treblinka, supposedly sourced from a captured Soviet submarine that has zero evidence of having existed. If the equally-as-ridiculous Holocaust tales about the SS-TV using captured T34 engines for the same task don't already convince you that Treblinka was anything but a "death camp," this should.
"In all of mankind's conflicts involving deaths by chemical warfare, pesticides were the ideal weapon of choice" - said no chemist or historian ever. :lol:

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2451
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Re: The Easiest Rebuttal to Deborah Lipstadt's Claims of "Gassing by Submarine Engine"

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 20 hours 40 minutes ago (Fri Nov 27, 2020 6:17 pm)

Great documentation Kretschmer! Glad to have your expertise here.

Where does Lipstadt say that the Germans used a captured Soviet submarine engine?

I dealt with the notion of the captured Soviet submarine engine in my video One Third Of The Holocaust, chapter 28 on the Adolf Eichmann testimony in Israel, where he said the Germans used such an engine at Lublin connected to a farmer's hovel. I then filmed my 'voyage' to an American WWII submarine, USS Pampanito, and showed how big and complicated a WWII submarine engine is.

So before it was part of Lipstadt's story, it was in Eichmann's testimony in the early 60's regarding another inland place, Lublin.

I think we can all agree the Nazis were 'Nationalists.' They wouldn't have used a Soviet engine, period. It's probably in the story because it sounds diabolical. Plus the spare parts issue. Plus no manual. Plus no trained technicians to run it. The American one had 5 or 6 different dials to monitor if memory serves.

Hilberg mentions a captured Soviet tank. See chapter 4 in OTOTH "Engine Exhaust." It's clear that the lie story is shifting around as it's passed around. Soviet tank, Soviet submarine. Not unlike the dog Barry being at Treblinka, but then Sobibor also.'

And on top of this, there's the Fritz Berg diesel issue.

User avatar
Kretschmer
Member
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2020 8:21 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: The Easiest Rebuttal to Deborah Lipstadt's Claims of "Gassing by Submarine Engine"

Postby Kretschmer » 18 hours 57 minutes ago (Fri Nov 27, 2020 8:01 pm)

Carto's Cutlass Supreme wrote:

Where does Lipstadt say that the Germans used a captured Soviet submarine engine?

In The Most Ridiculous Testimony thread, the story was mentioned as having been used by Lipstadt and her "experts" at the Irving v Lipstadt Trial, though the commentary provided there I felt was insufficient, thus motivating me to post a new topic dedicated to this subject.
I then filmed my 'voyage' to an American WWII submarine, USS Pampanito, and showed how big and complicated a WWII submarine engine is.

While the Germans did use a less complicated array of propulsion equipment in submarines than what the US Navy used in theirs, (as the vast majority of US Navy submarines which saw combat during the war were fleet submarines, thus requiring the use of two pairs of diesel engines) you are still correct in your assumptions that U-boat engines were quite large and difficult to transport.

Theoretically, as mentioned earlier, a single German or Soviet submarine engine would have been small enough to fit inside one of the larger (so-called) "gas chambers" and be camouflaged relatively well, but it would have been a highly laborious task that would have undoubtedly been noticed by inmates in short notice.

Even if some anti-revisionist insisted down the line that the engine had perhaps been disassembled, carted piece by piece into the "gas chamber," and reassembled, it would have taken days to weeks to put the engine back together, and there is also zero evidence or documentation which proves that any shipbuilding technicians or Kriegsmarine engineers were employed by the SS within the concentration camp system. It is also worth mentioning that unlike the SA, the SS formed no maritime service organization of any kind during its history, only further invalidating Lipstadt's claims.
They wouldn't have used a Soviet engine, period. It's probably in the story because it sounds diabolical. Plus the spare parts issue. Plus no manual. Plus no trained technicians to run it.

In that other thread that I referenced earlier, (https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=7033&start=45; see the thread's second page) it's mentioned that the testimony on "gassings by submarine engine" which took place during the Irving v Lipstadt Trial included a claim that Treblinka's "head gasser" (not named by the way, of course) took two-and-a-half hours to start the engine on his first attempt.

Even if the Soviets had indeed destroyed all operating manuals on these engines in their retreat from Nikolaev, and even if U-boat engines could not be used out of supply concerns raised by the Kriegsmarine, why not use a Chief Engineer of the U-bootwaffe who would be at least somewhat qualified in understanding the operation and mechanics of the engine instead of a random SS camp guard? The entire story becomes increasingly nonsensical the more one involves his thought process into it.
"In all of mankind's conflicts involving deaths by chemical warfare, pesticides were the ideal weapon of choice" - said no chemist or historian ever. :lol:

User avatar
Kretschmer
Member
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2020 8:21 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: The Easiest Rebuttal to Deborah Lipstadt's Claims of "Gassing by Submarine Engine"

Postby Kretschmer » 6 hours 39 seconds ago (Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:57 am)

First, on a somewhat unrelated note that I should have included in my previous post, I thank you very much for these kind remarks:
Great documentation Kretschmer! Glad to have your expertise here.

As I was in too much of a rush of answering your individual questions and statements, replying to this particular section of your post hardly crossed my mind. Anyway, apologies for not thanking you earlier.

...


One other hole in the story that I have recently noticed is that ironically enough, for the people whose best evidence of the "Holocaust" rests in so-called "documents," and "testimonies," is the lack of any shipyard documentation that makes note of a Soviet submarine being brought in.

This would have been a necessary step in the process of removing the engines from inside of the pressure hull, and as the works of Erich Gröner prove, hardly any German shipyard or design documentation was lost during the war despite the devastation of the large shipyards (Blohm & Voss, Germaniawerft, AG Weser, Howaldtswerke, Deutsche Werft, Deutsche Werke, Schichau, KMW, etc.) by Allied terror bombing.

All of the documents in the hands of these yards were then stolen by the Allies before many of them were looted of their equipment and dismantled, so again, what happened to these liars' notion that the dastardly and comically evil Germans' actions were just "so-well documented"?
"In all of mankind's conflicts involving deaths by chemical warfare, pesticides were the ideal weapon of choice" - said no chemist or historian ever. :lol:


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Archie and 11 guests