Deadly Diesel

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2359
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:30 pm)

TMoran wrote,
At most, the alleged victims of Diesel chambers would have suffocated. Not a nice way to go.

Do you mean from lack of oxygen? Because diesel exhaust would actually pump oxygen into the chamber. There's no spark plugs and it's about compressing a gas and air mixture until it explodes in the cylinder I think. Perhaps you meant via lung irritation from particles though.

TMoran wrote:
Diesel engines are used in places where gasoline engines would be too dangerous even though the places may be ventilated.


But also, in big engines in general, like every semi truck you see on the road. And every tractor etc. Then there was the diesel Rabbit in the early 80's by Volkswagen.

Treblinka made up stories involve a Russian tank engine. I think this would have surely been diesel. Does anyone know? Other stories mention Russian sub engine: surely diesel.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9805
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:53 pm)

I think Tom Moran meant that the alleged victims of diesel gassing would have suffocated from being in an enclosed area before they would have died of diesel. IOW, they would have died without the alleged diesel rather than with it. Ironic.

What another dumb story the gassings lie is.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Richard Perle
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:45 am

Postby Richard Perle » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:58 pm)

On the BBC documentary which just finished, (which I wish you guys could have seen by the way) they claimed that a German officer fell asleep in his car and almost died, and that this was how the idea to use exhaust gas as a means of killing came about. They then showed a thin man (typhus victim?) being led by a nurse into a room. The film jumped to another scene which showed a car (presumably gasoline) with pipes coming from the exhaust pipe and going into a wall. This was supposed to be a test. They also claimed that earlier carbon monoxide tanks were used in the phoney shower-room setup, but that these cannisters of gas were too impractical to transport around.

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2359
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:31 pm)

Here's one hint about diesel.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/s ... 61,00.html
One day, feeling desperate, he fed a hose pipe from the exhaust of his diesel car through the driver's window and attempted to gas himself. 'But even that didn't work,' he says now. 'I laughed. I couldn't even commit suicide successfully.'

User avatar
Scott
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 7:00 am

Postby Scott » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Jan 11, 2005 7:22 pm)

Richard Perle wrote:The film jumped to another scene which showed a car (presumably gasoline) with pipes coming from the exhaust pipe and going into a wall.

I've seen this and it shows an early Volkswagen, I believe. If the film clip is genuine it probably shows the fumigation of a barn for rodents with gasoline engine exhaust, a common practice from what I understand. Naturally this would not work with a diesel engine.

:D

Richard Perle
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:45 am

Postby Richard Perle » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:14 pm)

That's an interesting theory. I'm not sure if it was a VW. I'm more inclined to believe it was some other 1930s car, but I was paying more attention to the apparatus. The jump from the skinny guy entering the building to this car footage was quite jolting and there was no proof that it was the same place.
To find some kind of proof that they did fumigate barns like this would be important because that kind of image can be too convincing to the hoaxer's case.

User avatar
ClaudiaRothenbach
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:16 pm

Postby ClaudiaRothenbach » 1 decade 4 years ago (Wed Jan 12, 2005 2:44 pm)

Carto's Cutlass Supreme wrote:Treblinka made up stories involve a Russian tank engine. I think this would have surely been diesel. Does anyone know? Other stories mention Russian sub engine: surely diesel.


Russian tanks had diesel engines - see Rudolf Report

gasto
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 11:40 am
Location: Argentina

Postby gasto » 1 decade 4 years ago (Wed Jan 12, 2005 3:15 pm)

Indeed, soviet tanks are said to be equiped with 500 HP diesel engines...
If Human Soap rumour was fake, why can´t all the other absurd claims be too??

User avatar
Scott
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 7:00 am

Postby Scott » 1 decade 4 years ago (Thu Jan 13, 2005 1:57 am)

Unfortunatley, I just have an anecdote that this kind of fumigation with car exhaust was done during the war. In the U.S. my grandfather just used cyanide and he had a barn with barrels full of the stuff. It was used in mining and pest control. When we were clearing out the estate we didn't know what to do with it so we called the EPA. They were shocked and relieved that we were getting rid of it.

Btw, the Soviet KW-1 heavy tank and the T-34 medium tank used the model W-2 twelve cylinder diesel engine, a excellent design and remarkably lightweight. This engine had a brake horsepower of about 500 at 1500 rpm. These tanks were available in numbers in 1941-42, and after 1942 all Soviet tanks used this diesel engine. Models built before this, except for the two above, used gasoline engines like a copy of the famous American twelve cylinder Liberty aircraft engine, also used on boats.

A submarine engine would almost certainly be a diesel and huge, usually two engines of over 1,000 horsepower each. There was one model of a German midget sub that was used in small numbers late in the war that had a small gasoline engine due to the shortage of standard 90 horsepower diesel truck engines that midget subs normally used. I don't know about Allied or Japanese midget subs or Soviet submarines.

The 500 horsepower W-2 diesel engine salvaged from a Soviet tank would be a good choice to provide electrical power if mated with a German or other 50 Hertz dynamo. It would require welding a solid frame and mounting a radiator and fan as well as external fuel tank but it would provide a peak output of 373 kilowatts at full load, probably half that for continuous use if the demand was needed. There is no practical way that the Germans could have loaded down a 500 horsepower engine enough to produce lethal carbon monoxide when overloaded like this for a supposed gassing, and it would be very severe on engine life as it would produce copious black smoke. Probably something like this or a diesel engine used to pump water for bathing and delousing was mistaken for a death house. I can imagine that Heckenholt might have named it as though it were a famous health spa, rather ironically, but not for the reasons that Gerstein alleges.

Any gasoline truck or car engine would have done the job. That is exactly what Scharführer Fuchs testified that he installed at Sobibor. But his story has certain technical holes that should have been plain to a rigorous cross-examination. It is the only claim that I know of where sufficient detail was been established so we know that he was definitely talking about a gasoline engine (at Sobibor). Heckenholt supposedly installed the engine at Treblinka and Fuchs installed the electrical system at that camp afterwards.

:D

Richard Perle
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:45 am

Postby Richard Perle » 1 decade 4 years ago (Wed Jan 19, 2005 1:32 pm)

A howler last night was when we were shown a building, not in any of the camps, (Podz or something was the name of the town or area) where people were herded from the basement up into a truck which then gassed them. (sounded like a gasoline engine in the reconstruction) It was claimed that the building was destroyed to hide evidence. What evidence? The gassings took place in a truck that was not part of the structure and would have been simply driven away. But this type of absurd narrative goes completely unchallenged.


Does anyone know if German trucks were gasoline or diesel at the time?

User avatar
Scott
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 7:00 am

Postby Scott » 1 decade 4 years ago (Wed Jan 19, 2005 6:25 pm)

It was Lodz (pronounced Lozh) and the camp is Chelmno, where the Jews in the Lodz ghetto were sent to (or through). The reports in the Kogon, Langbein, Rückerl book say Otto engines (i.e., gasoline). But a favorite picture of a gas-van is a picture of a derelict Magirus-Deutz diesel found near Chelmno. It was investigated by the group in the picture shortly after the war and determined not to be an actual gas-van but similar. Nevertheless, this photo often appears on many Holosites and was also in Gerald Fleming's book. The same photo appeared in a film documentary from Brandeis Universityabout the Krasnodar gas-van trials held in the Soviet Union in 1943, the first gas-van reports that I know of. In a book published in New York by the Soviets in 1944 about the trials the gas-vans are by Saurer with diesel engines. Some Nuremberg documents discuss a small gas-van and a large one, e.g., PS-501.


[url=http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Holocaust/shootingstovans.html]http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Holocaust/shootingstovans.html
Image[/url]

Here is a picture of a Saurer moving van.

Image

:D

Richard Perle
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:45 am

Postby Richard Perle » 1 decade 4 years ago (Wed Jan 19, 2005 6:52 pm)

It's hard to fathom how diesels would be so widely used when on their first use the shortfalls of trying to kill with diesel exhaust would have been seen.

So either the instances of diesel gassing are fake and the gasoline stories are true, or both are phoney. Why should we believe one and not the other?

User avatar
Scott
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 7:00 am

Postby Scott » 1 decade 4 years ago (Wed Jan 19, 2005 7:00 pm)

The layman thinks that diesel exhaust must be more deadly since he can smell it, whereas gasoline exhaust is sometimes odorless. Propaganda is usually made by journalists and lawyers and not engineers. I don't think any of the gas-van stories are true. But what could account for the rumor is that if the police were using vans to transport prisoners powered by wood gas (carbon monoxide) it is very possible that accidental asphyxiations could happen from time to time. That is how rumors get going.

:D

User avatar
Moderator2
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2004 5:32 am

Postby Moderator2 » 1 decade 4 years ago (Wed Jan 19, 2005 8:57 pm)

kk, I deleted your post because:

1. You made a double post
2. We are trying to have a debate and you post ‘Perhaps it is because 'Diesel' is a distinctly German name...’

That isn’t funny at all, you could not provide anything further to this topic.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests