Poison Gas: Another Fuel for Motor Transport

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Friedrich Paul Berg
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 938
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 11:16 am

Poison Gas: Another Fuel for Motor Transport

Postby Friedrich Paul Berg » 1 decade 1 month ago (Thu Sep 10, 2009 4:34 pm)

NEW BOOK: Producer Gas: Another Fuel for Motor Transport

http://books.google.com/books?id=OZYrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=%22producer+gas%22&source=bl&ots=PQbyjnhC51&sig=Dd_tqPlW_ERy_IO-cL6baDYIx30&hl=en#v=onepage&q=&f=false

The book linked above discusses with many photographs the widespread producer gas (Holzgas) technology. Producer gas also happens to be poison gas. According to the holocaust legend, nearly two million Jews as well as countless non-Jews were all supposedly gassed to death (in Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor) with the carbon monoxide in diesel exhaust. The absurdity of that claim becomes apparent when one realizes that producer gas is essentially carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide is an excellent fuel but it is also extremely toxic. It was used to propel at least 500,000 vehicles throughout German-occupied Europe. See pages 17 and 18, for example. For a thorough discussion of the producer gas technology one must, however, read at least some of the vast German literature on this subject in wartime technical journals such as ATZ Automobiltechnische Zeitschrift (especially from 1940 and 1941) or the postwar works of Erik Eckermann. A serious deficiency in the linked book is that the bibliography fails to include even one German work on this subject. The most comprehensive book on the subject anywhere, ever, is Generator-Jahrbuch 1942 edited by Ostwald, 1943, (496 pages) and published with the special consent of Reichsminister Albert Speer and the Zentralstelle für Generatoren.

Diesel exhaust contains hardly any carbon monoxide (far less than 1/2%), but producer gas contains between 18% and 35% carbon monoxide. The vast majority of civilian motor vehicles in wartime German-occupied Europe were, in fact, driven with extremely lethal concentrations of carbon monoxide and yet, if one believes the holocaust legend, it never ever occurred to the fiendish Nazi scientists to use producer gas to kill anyone, ever. If the diesel exhaust gassing claims persist, one should also add that the Nazis were the most technically stupid mass murderers of all time. What kind of fuel did the fiendish Nazis use to run their homicidal diesel engines? Producer gas, perhaps? Why not? "Hey Demjanjuk, why not use the producer gas (the fuel itself) to kill those Jews and skip the diesel engines (or gasoline engines) entirely?" Why not, indeed? The simple answer is that there was no desire or plan to murder the Jews in the first place. The "holocaust" really is a monumental Jewish hoax!

Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at http://www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!
The Holocaust story is a hoax because 1) no one was killed by the Nazis in gas chambers, 2) the total number of Jews who died in Nazi captivity is miniscule compared to what is alleged.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 938
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 11:16 am

Re: Poison Gas: Another Fuel for Motor Transport

Postby Friedrich Paul Berg » 1 decade 1 month ago (Wed Sep 16, 2009 3:16 pm)

If someone could explain to me why the post above did not generate more interest, I would appreciate it. Is it all too technical--or what?

A superb new book in German is: Eckermann, Erik. 2008. Fahren mit Holz: Geschichte und Technik der Holzgasgeneratoren und Ersatzantriebe. Bielefeld, Germany: Delius Klasing Verlag, (392 pages).

Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at http://www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!
The Holocaust story is a hoax because 1) no one was killed by the Nazis in gas chambers, 2) the total number of Jews who died in Nazi captivity is miniscule compared to what is alleged.

User avatar
Occam's Razor
Member
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:45 pm

Re: Poison Gas: Another Fuel for Motor Transport

Postby Occam's Razor » 1 decade 1 month ago (Wed Sep 16, 2009 5:03 pm)

Mr. Berg wrote:
If someone could explain to me why the post above did not generate more interest, I would appreciate it. Is it all too technical--or what?


I'd say, because everybody agrees. It's not controversial enough. You're simply right, that's all.

1) The idea that hundreds of thousands of jews were killed with diesel exhaust is ridiculous. Diesel exhaust is simply not toxic enough. It contains not enough carbon monoxide to kill and it contains enough oxygen to breath.

2) Even if gasoline engines were used in Belzec and Sobibor, as some believers maintain because of some dubious eyewitness reports, two problems remain:

a) The vast majority of eyewitnesses for Treblinka say the Treblinka gas chambers used diesel engines. Which is ridiculous (see point 1) and therefore automatically discredits gassing claims for Belzec and Sobibor. Unfortunately for the believers, Treblinka is said to have killed by far the largest amount of jews of all the Reinhardt camps. Even several trial verdicts "confirmed" that diesel engines were used at Treblinka. If these trial verdicts are wrong, all these trials, where several people were sentenced to long prison sentences (some of them for the rest of their life) are discredited.

b) Gasoline engines would kill because of the CO content of the exhaust. Victims of fatal CO poisoning have a distinct cherry red skin color. Instead of lots of testimonies that speak of a strange cherry red color of the skin of the victims, we only have a few eyewitness acounts that say the skin color of the victims was blue (Gerstein, Pfannenstiel, Auerbach), white (Auerbach), yellow (Wiernik) or not noteworthy at all. Therefore the gasoline engine explanation is just as ridiculous as the diesel engine explanation. It doesn't correlate with eyewitness accounts, that say that Treblinka used diesel engines and that do not say that the skin of the victims was cherry red.

That's essentially what Mr. Berg is saying for years, and he's absolutely right.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 938
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 11:16 am

Re: Poison Gas: Another Fuel for Motor Transport

Postby Friedrich Paul Berg » 1 decade 1 month ago (Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:23 pm)

My thanks to Occam's Razor for his reply.

The two books I discussed in my earlier posts on this thread are about Holzgas. Occam's Razor did NOT mention that technology at all. I have had some really bizarre opposition over the years regarding that technology's importance and relevance to holocaust revisionism. Perhaps, it is still out there.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!
The Holocaust story is a hoax because 1) no one was killed by the Nazis in gas chambers, 2) the total number of Jews who died in Nazi captivity is miniscule compared to what is alleged.

nathan
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:14 am

Re: Poison Gas: Another Fuel for Motor Transport

Postby nathan » 1 decade 1 month ago (Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:31 am)

Whenever a gas chamber allegation is proven false it is reclassified as an irrelevant mistake. Eyewitness testimony about Diesel engines may soon be counted among the irrelevant falsehoods, largely as as an unacknowledged consequence of your persuasive technical writings. It is being conceded that petrol engines would have made better weapons than Diesel engines. But since mass gassings are (I choose my word) undeniable, then it will simply follow that petrol engines must have been the weapons of choice at Belzec and Treblinka, as they officially were at Sobibor. It is already argued in the mainstream that sightings of diesel engines are to be counted as the honest misperceptions of inexpert eyewitnessea. (A petrol engine might sound like a Diesel engine etc.)

You made the negative case against Diesel in a manner that persuaded people who do not, like yourself, have the standpoint of aggrieved German nationalism.

If you succeed in making an equally strong positive case for producer gas then it might still remain for you show that any feasible device which generated this gas could not have been honestly mistaken for an internal combustion engine of any kind, especially by a knowledgable “gasmeister”.

Eg:



Testimony of SS Scharfuhrer Erich Fuchs, in the 1963 Sobibor-Bolender trial, Dusseldorf:
-------------

.....We unloaded the motor. It was a heavy Russian benzine
engine, at least 200 horsepower. we installed the engine
on a concrete foundation and set up the connection between the
exhaust and the tube.

I then tested the motor. It did not work. I was able to repair
the ignition and the valves, and the motor finally started
running. The chemist, who I knew from Belzec, entered the gas
chamber with measuring instruments to test the concentration
of the gas.

Following this, a gassing experiment was carried out.
If my memory serves me right, about thirty to forty women were
gassed in one gas chamber. The Jewish women were forced to undress
in an open place close to the gas chamber, and were driven into
the gas chamber by the above mentioned SS members and the Ukrainian
auxiliaries. when the women were shut up in the gas chamber I and
Bolender set the motor in motion. The motor functioned first in neutral.
Both of us stood by the motor and switched from "Neutral to "Cell" (Zelle), so that the gas was conveyed to the chamber. At the
suggestion of the chemist, I fixed the motor on a definite speed so
that it was unnecessary henceforth to press on the gas. About ten
minutes later the thirty to forty women were dead.



(Quoted in "BELZEC, SOBIBOR, TREBLINKA - the Operation Reinhard
Death Camps", Indiana University Press - Yitzhak Arad, 1987, p. 31-32).

grenadier
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 9:07 am

Re: Poison Gas: Another Fuel for Motor Transport

Postby grenadier » 1 decade 1 month ago (Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:53 am)

The way I see it, if the Nazis had ever thought about mass murdering the joos through the
use of carbon monoxide using engine exhaust, as is alleged by the hoaxters, then they would
have used Holzgas(the fuel in this case), as Mr.Berg has pointed out. Even before the war had started the Wehrmacht
had already converted nearly 10% of their trucks, if I remember correctly. Germany always had
serious problems regarding liquid fuels and therefore attempted to reduce its dependency on oil.
As the war dragged on and the situation became more serious, increasing numbers of vehicles were
converted to producer gas technology. The technology was widely known at all levels of German society.
There is a photo at Mr.Bergs website which shows the devil himself(Hitler) inspecting such trucks.
It was also well known that should leaks occur, there was great danger of death on account of the
extremely high carbon monoxide concentration.
But we're supposed to believe that Heydrich turned to the head of his office for technical affairs
within the RSHA, Walter Rauff, whose jurisdiction we're told by super hoaxter Browning, included
ALL motor vehicles - ca 4.000 - of the security police, and this guy's technical experts came up
not with producer gas trucks but instead diesel or perhaps - according to new hoaxterism - gasoline
powered trucks.

Btw mr.Berg, are you aware of gasoline powered Saurer trucks? I checked a book some time ago(can't
remember the title exaclty) on german trucks and the ones mentioned were all diesel.

Nathan:
Whenever a gas chamber allegation is proven false it is reclassified as an irrelevant mistake. Eyewitness testimony about Diesel engines may soon be counted among the irrelevant falsehoods, largely as as an unacknowledged consequence of your persuasive technical writings. It is being conceded that petrol engines would have made better weapons than Diesel engines. But since mass gassings are (I choose my word) undeniable, then it will simply follow that petrol engines must have been the weapons of choice at Belzec and Treblinka, as they officially were at Sobibor. It is already argued in the mainstream that sightings of diesel engines are to be counted as the honest misperceptions of inexpert eyewitnessea.


You reproduced the reasoning of Roberto M quite faithfully Nathan. Let me also channel Roberto so as to add
a few other points... channeling... I'm Roberto now..

:clown:

Since the mass gassings with Carbon Monoxide are a "PROVEN" FACT, it is totally irrelevant what "WOULDA", "COULDA", been a better solution, pure revisionist "wishful thinking"! At any rate, why would your Nazi heroes have used a technology that was so dangerous and could have killed themselves?


But bobby boy, the Germans drove around in hundreds of thousands of such vehicles and at any rate,
fixed installations would have been safer... Also, that Carbon Monoxide mass gassings are a proven "fact" is only
"wishful thinking" on your part dear lad...

:clown:
You %##$%##, gimme your address, phone number, workplace address and all so that I can go pay you a visit!


PS: Nathan, no way the above Fuchs testimony could be construed to support the notion that
he confused or otherwise meant producer gas. Same for the rest of the lame testimony in favor of gasoline.

User avatar
Occam's Razor
Member
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:45 pm

Re: Poison Gas: Another Fuel for Motor Transport

Postby Occam's Razor » 1 decade 1 month ago (Thu Sep 17, 2009 1:51 pm)

FPB wrote:
The two books I discussed in my earlier posts on this thread are about Holzgas. Occam's Razor did NOT mention that technology at all.


Yes, I noticed that, too, after I posted my reply. :D

In my opinion it is an established fact that hundreds of thousands of producer gas vehicles were in use in wartime Europe and that they would have been a much superior killing device in comparison to diesel engines and even gasoline engines.

Your essays prove that very convincingly.


I have had some really bizarre opposition over the years regarding that technology's importance and relevance to holocaust revisionism. Perhaps, it is still out there.



I think I know what you mean. The widespread use of producer gas technology and train delousing tunnels let the Nazi gassing claims appear clumsy and silly. But for some strange reason these arguments do not get the attention they deserve, neither among revisionists, nor among antirevisionists.

One problem is, that this argument makes the gassing claims according to the established story more unlikely, but not impossible. I think you stated it somewhere else, if the believers maintain that the Nazis used diesel engine exhaust for mass murder, they should at least add that the Nazis were the most stupid mass murderers in history (I'm paraphrasing, but I believe you wrote s.th. like this).

The results of the Leuchter and Rudolf-report, on the other hand, could be a 100% effective argument. If it can be shown with 100% certainty, that the measured results that seem to show tiny amounts of cyanide residue in the walls of the alleged homicidal gas chambers are statistically not different from walls that never had any contact with cyanide gas, and if it can be shown that there should be at least slightly higher amounts of cyanide residue, than the claims of homicidal gassings in these buildings must be regarded as refuted.

Your arguments are not that absolute. They are about probability. And for a religious believer that might not be enough. But together with other arguments they could become decisive.



For a believer it looks like this: Fritz Berg is trying to convince us, that producer gas was used in the Reinhardt camps to gas people. (Yes, for a believer the question is not, whether the jews were gassed or not, but with what kind of engine.) But there is no evidence for the use of producer gas in these camps. On the other hand, there are several witnesses that claim there were engines - some claim diesel engines, and a few even claim gasoline engines. Therefore, Mr. Berg must be wrong.


For a revisionist it looks like this: Fritz Berg has succesfully argued that diesel engines would have been a very unlikely, almost impossible and definitely stupid and ridiculous way to kill people. Fritz Berg has also convinced us that gasoline engine exhaust is unlikely, since victims would still show a cherry red skin color - which is not supported by eyewitness accounts. Now he tries to convince us that producer gas would be much more likely. (But that's also impossible, same problem with the skin color.)


Certainly I know perfectly well that your intention is not to convince us that producer gas was used to kill anyone at the Reinhardt camps. You simply want to show that producer gas would have been a much more effective, easier and cheaper method for mass murder than the other alleged methods. The Germans had the necessary knowledge and the necessary devices. And every revisionist will realize that as well. But maybe that's what's going on on an unconscious level.


It seems we have the same problems with your train delousing tunnel argument. I know there was a thread here in the CODOH forum several months ago (or more than a year ago) were you tried to convince your readers that train delousing tunnels would have been a superior killing device than the clumsy Nazi gas chambers. And you mentioned how Prof. Faurisson disagreed and maintained that any such gassing with Zyklon B or any other form of prussic acid would be "impossible". Well, I agree completely with you, it would have been possible and it would have been much easier than the silly gas chamber method. I remember that you were also a bit disappointed with the response.

Btw, have you ever suggested to combine train delousing tunnels with producer gas generators? :o :twisted: :mrgreen:

Apparently you were not able to convince many here at the forum. Maybe there is an unconscious resistance in revisionists, that they are convinced that any method of mass gassing would be impossible. Or that revisionists want to hear that the alleged methods were impossible (and not what other methods would have been possible), and antirevisionists don't want to hear anything that makes their theories unlikely at all. So in a way there's not really a market for alternative gassing theories, even if they are more realistic. Something like that. It's my guess for a psychological explanation. I don't know.

Maybe one problem is that most people today are not convinced enough if you tell them there were hundreds of thousands of producer gas cars and several train delousing tunnels in Europe. They need more visual evidence. I know that you show several photos on your website. But most people won't bother to read a book or a website that claims the holocaust did not happen. In my opinion, videos are the only effective way. Denierbud did a very good job with his "One third of the holocaust". I assume you know that he used your producer gas argument. And I also know that videos exist where you personally show and explain the producer gas technology, among other interesting facts (they're excellent, btw). We need more of this stuff, and these videos need to be easily available and of high quality (DVD, downloadable for free). And this would be an argument where more is better. The more photos with producer gas vehicles or train delousing tunnels you can find, the better. The sledge-hammer method. From this perspective it makes sense that you're looking for as many books on producer gas technology as possible.



Back to the diesel / gasoline engine debate:

The fact that eyewitnesses did not mention cherry red skin color is a convincing argument that any method that involves carbon monoxide (CO) is very unlikely. We can therefore rule out with a high probability that any engine exhaust, be it from diesel or gasoline engines, or producer gas, was used to kill jews in the Reinhardt camps.

Any antirevisionist who would make this concession could just as well concede that the whole holocaust story is a hoax.

Determined antirevisionists won't admit that producer gas was used, because there is no evidence at all (neither physical nor eyewitnesses) that producer gas was used. They realize that it would be self-defeating to admit the use of producer gas. At the very moment when they would admit that producer gas could have been used, their story would implode. On the other hand, some of them have realized that diesel engine exhaust is very unlikely. Because of your very convincing essays. (Though they won't admit that.) They have to argue that gasoline engines were used. It's their only way out.

Several antirevisionists have conceded that diesel engines wouldn't make sense.

Look what two influential antirevisionists have to say about the murder weapon:

Peter Witte is the guy who, together with Stephen Tyas, published an article on their discovery of the Höfle telegram:


Die Frage Benzin oder Diesel ist in der Auseinandersetzung mit Holocaustleugnern von hoher Bedeutung. Sie behaupten nämlich durch die Bank, dass mit dem angeblichen Einsatz von Dieselmotoren eine Vergasung von Menschen nicht oder nur sehr schwer möglich sei (was nicht falsch ist) und deshalb natürlich auch kein Holocaust in Belzec, Sobibor und Treblinka und mit Hilfe von Gaswagen stattgefunden haben könne. Um diese Leute auch öffentlich zu bloßzustellen, scheint mir die Zurückweisung der Dieseltheorie heute ein wissenschaftliches und auch politisches Muss. --Peter Witte 13:31, 16. Jun 2004 (CEST)

source:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion ... otorabgase
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion ... Massenmord)#Benzin-_oder_Dieselmotorabgase.3F


my translation:

The question gasoline or diesel engines in the debate with holocaust deniers is of great importance. They claim unequivocally that with the alleged use of diesel engines a gassing of humans is not or only under great difficulty possible (which is not untrue) and therefore certainly a holocaust in Belzec, Sobibor or Treblinka and with the help of gas vans could not have happened. In order to publicly expose these people [as charlatans] the rejection of the diesel theory appears to me today as a scientific and political must.



My translation may not be perfect, I welcome any suggestions to correct or improve it, but I guess the message is obvious.
Notice how Witte argues for the establishment of the gassing claims for political reasons. I thought it's always the Nazis who deny the holocaust for political reasons.

And here's Sergey Romanov:


It also seems to me that it is simply not feasible to use diesel engines for gassings, even if they can kill, when one has access to petrol engines.

- Sergey Romanov
source:
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... evant.html


One might add, it is simply not feasible to use petrol engines for gassings, even if they can kill, when one has access to producer gas generators.


So several (ok, two) influential antirevisionists have conceded that diesel exhaust is unlikely. I think that's an important breakthrough. Now they spend all their energy to prove that the Reinhardt camps, especially Treblinka, used gasoline engines. And that seems to be an impossible task. As far as I know, for Treblinka there are 2 eyewitnesses that claimed gasoline engines, 7-10 for diesel engine, 1 for a tank engine (uncle Wiernik, no mention whether diesel or gasoline) and several trial verdicts that say diesel engine. Good luck.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 938
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 11:16 am

Re: Poison Gas: Another Fuel for Motor Transport

Postby Friedrich Paul Berg » 1 decade 1 month ago (Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:35 pm)

My thanks to Occam's Razor, Nathan and Grenedier for their lengthy posts above which have all been extremely helpful to me. I will have more of a reply to them later with more thoughts of my own.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at http://www.nazigassings.com
NaziGassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!
The Holocaust story is a hoax because 1) no one was killed by the Nazis in gas chambers, 2) the total number of Jews who died in Nazi captivity is miniscule compared to what is alleged.

Drew J
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:13 am

Re: Poison Gas: Another Fuel for Motor Transport

Postby Drew J » 1 decade 1 month ago (Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:41 pm)

I'm a late comer to the Reinhardt camps Friedrich. So forgive my rookie state of mind. I am unable to provide detailed resources or commentary on these Reinhardt camps as I have spent the last few years on the zyklon b issue and the gas chambers and thus the work of Zundel, Cole, Rudolf, Leuchter. As I understand, Jews no longer stand by the diesel engine claim. Problems were pointed out and so they said well the camp inmates just assumed it was a diesel engine but it was actually a gasoline engine. And now they say it was just regular gas engines used in the Reinhardt camps instead of diesel.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 938
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 11:16 am

Re: Poison Gas: Another Fuel for Motor Transport

Postby Friedrich Paul Berg » 1 decade 1 month ago (Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:25 pm)

The basis of all the diesel claims is the statement of Kurt Gerstein who supposedly witnessed at least one diesel gassing with a stopwatch in hand. All such gassings according Gerstein always took about 32 minutes. The Gerstein statement is still used again and again, even in recent books like Murderous Medicine (2005) by Naomi Baumslag (page 62), Epidemics and Genocide (2000) by Paul Weindling (pages 293-303), Legacies of Dachau (2001) by Harold Marcuse (page 219). The Gerstein Statement is ridiculous and unbelievable for many good reasons but it is still a cornerstone of the holocaust hoax. No doubt, holocaust believers like Muehlenkamp would like to see it go away, or try to ignore it, or pretend that it is unimportant. It is so embarassing for the the greatest hoax of modern times. Why doesn't it just go away? Well, it can't go away because it is one of those few things the hoaxers actually have to overwhelm us.

There is not even one book written anywhere that claims the CO at the Reinhardt camps from anything other than diesels. The holocaustcontroversies.org people are making lots of noise on the internet, but the establishment hoaxers do not take them seriously. The closest any author has come to accepting their point of view seems to be John C. Zimmerman who wrote that the source "may" have been gasoline engines. That is as good as it gets for them.

It should, however, be noted that there may also have been engines which were gasoline models which emit greater amounts of carbon monoxide and are more efficient for lethal gassing. It is difficult for witnesses to identify the precise type of engine used.

Zimmerman, John C. Holocaust Denial, Demographics, Testimonies and Ideologies Copyright 2000, pg. 356.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at http://www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!
The Holocaust story is a hoax because 1) no one was killed by the Nazis in gas chambers, 2) the total number of Jews who died in Nazi captivity is miniscule compared to what is alleged.

grenadier
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 9:07 am

Re: Poison Gas: Another Fuel for Motor Transport

Postby grenadier » 1 decade 1 month ago (Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:34 pm)

Mr.Berg:
The basis of all the diesel claims is the statement of Kurt Gerstein who supposedly witnessed at least one diesel gassing with a stopwatch in hand.


I always thought so too, but more recently I have wondered if they are not perhaps connected to the "findings" of the Soviets at the Krasnodar and Kharkov trials back in 43. Maybe the Gerstein "statements", in their many different forms, are somehow connected to those trials verdicts? I gottta mull this over...

Mr.Berg:
There is not even one book written anywhere that claims the CO at the Reinhardt camps from anything other than diesels. The holocaustcontroversies.org people are making lots of noise on the internet, but the establishment hoaxers do not take them seriously. The closest any author has come to accepting their point of view seems to be John C. Zimmerman who wrote that the source "may" have been gasoline engines.


I think you are correct about no books claiming gasoline, but there is at least one paper, by German historian Peter Witte(Occam's razor mentioned him), and he is a much more well established hoaxter than is Zimmerman. If I remember correctly from my readings of holocaustcontroversies.org, it's Witte they are taking after. Just a detail I guess...


Perhaps you missed my question to you. Since the firm Saurer is implicated in those gas vans "documents", are you aware of it ever making gasoline powered trucks?

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1652
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Re: Poison Gas: Another Fuel for Motor Transport

Postby Moderator » 1 decade 1 month ago (Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:50 pm)

Drew,
We want your comments and views. When posting quotes please tell us why you find it important, compelling, etc. Please read our guidelines.
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 938
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 11:16 am

Re: Poison Gas: Another Fuel for Motor Transport

Postby Friedrich Paul Berg » 1 decade 1 month ago (Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:14 pm)

My thanks to Drew J. and Grenadier for their comments.

Saurer certainly did build many trucks with a gasoline engine option--but, the bread and butter of the company was its excellent diesel engine technology going back to 1908. At that time Adolph Saurer and Rudolf Diesel together built "the [world's] first high-speed vehicle diesel-engine ... using a Saurer 4-cylinder gasoline engine as a basis." The quote is from: The Complete Encyclopedia of Commercial Vehicles, First Edition, 1979?, page 541.

In 1932 Saurer made what may well have been the greatest advance in diesel engine design ever with its "double swirl piston system" (also known as the "bowl-in-piston" design) which is today the basis of the phenomenal VW TDI diesels as well as the improved diesels from Mercedes and BMW. The earlier Mercedes design with pre-combustion chambers and glowplugs has been totally replaced by what is essentially a pre-WW2 diesel design from Saurer with the addition of far superior fuel injection from BOSCH.

Although I used to believe that nearly ALL of the Saurer vehicles made during the war for Germany (regardless of where--in Switzerland, Austria or France) were diesels, I never found absolute proof of that--and now thanks to Fahren mit Holz I now know that that was only the case until July 1, 1942. Truck manufacturing was strictly regulated under the "Schell programme" to conserve materials ever since the start of the war. Although all other truck manufacturers in Germany were permitted to make only a standardized "Einheits-Diesel," the Saurer company plant in Vienna had special permission to continue making its unique diesel engines and trucks. Some gasoline engine trucks might have been made on special order but there certainly would have been many pre-war Saurer gasoline-powered trucks available almost everywhere.

Nonetheless, gasoline engines in Saurer trucks were required in an odd way for the producer gas vehicles made by Saurer after July 1, 1942 that used two-fuels. Two-fuel arrangements were common from many manufacturers at this time. The fuel used most of the time was producer gas -- but gasoline or liquid diesel fuel was also used as needed to boost performance to go up a steep hill, for example, and when the engine was still just getting started while the producer gas generator was still warming up. Until July 1, 1942 Saurer engines used liquid diesel fuel only as their second fuel, but after that date--the second fuel had to be gasoline only which meant that the cylinder heads had to first be rebuilt with spark plugs where the fuel injection nozzles had been earlier. The pistons and cylinder heads were also altered to change the compression ratio to only 9:1. The complexity of this change was intended to conserve diesel fuel for military vehicles. This is discussed in Fahren mit Holz, pages 183 and 184.

Friedrich Paul Berg
Learn everything at http://www.nazigassings.com
Nazi Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde vergast!
Last edited by Friedrich Paul Berg on Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Holocaust story is a hoax because 1) no one was killed by the Nazis in gas chambers, 2) the total number of Jews who died in Nazi captivity is miniscule compared to what is alleged.

grenadier
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 9:07 am

Re: Poison Gas: Another Fuel for Motor Transport

Postby grenadier » 1 decade 1 month ago (Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:54 pm)

Thanks Mr.Berg for your lengthy reply to my question!
Best regards.

Drew J
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:13 am

Re: Poison Gas: Another Fuel for Motor Transport

Postby Drew J » 1 decade 4 weeks ago (Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:27 pm)

I just viewed Sergy's article about the diesel issue allegedly being moot. Here is my summary. Please note that what I say of these witnesses in the one or two lines is a quick summary of what Sergy has said about them in his blog.



Kurt Gerstein.
some exaggerations. Not reliable source about diesel engine. No one knows if he saw one himself.

Prof. Pfannenstiel
spoke to Rassinier about Belzec. Claimed he saw diesel gassing experiment. Gave size dimensions of engine as well as cylander numbers (six).
But he was an outsider, "and a hygienist, not a technician" he still could have gotten the type of engine wrong.

Karl Alfred Schluch
quoted in Mattogno's book on Belzec. Claimed a diesel engine was used based on how it sounded. He never saw it.

Rudolf Reder
A Belzec inmate who described an engine as running on petrol. But that's problematic. It only could be diesel or petrol at Belzec. Not certain yet.

SOBIBOR:
SS-Scharfuehrer Erich Fuchs (april 8 1963 testimony)
claims at Sobibor, "we unloaded the motor. It was a heavy Russian benzine engine, at least 200 horsepower." This is regarded
as evidence of a non diesel, actual petrol engine at Sobibor by the extermination theorists.

TREBLINKA:
Eli Rosenburg (1047 affidavit)
talked about "exhaust fumes of a single diesel engine

Ukrainian guard - Leleko
claimed diesel engines were used.

Ukrainian guard - Malakon
claimed diesel engines were used.

Drew J:
I have to wonder if they were fed this testimony since they don't explicitly say they saw the engine themselves or even attempt to describe it. However, since Sergy and others say the diesel issue is moot and that only the people who saw the engines say they were petrol (at least with respect to Sobibor), then I'm pretty sure these Ukranian at Treblinka were probably fed that testimony like so many other Germans were fed testimony or tortured or 'encouraged' to say certain things as show in Austin App's THE SIX MILLION SWINDLE.
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=311959
Let's not forget Hoess was tortured as well along with many others.
THE TORTURE OF JULIUS STREICHER
http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/5/1/ ... 6-119.html

Yankel Wiernik author of A YEAR IN TREBLINKA
motor from a Soviet tank used in Treblinka. He does not say it was diesel. So this looks promising in the eyes of extermination theorists.

Erich Fuchs (Sobibor)
claimed that his engine was also from a Soviet tank (though this was disputed by Erich Bauer, who said it was a Renault engine), and yet it was a petrol engine. In fact, quite a lot of Soviet tanks had petrol engines.

"I have also seen claims that T-34 tank's engine was used. I have seen this claim ascribed to Kurt Franz, though I can't tell if the reference is true. I've seen deniers argue that since T-34 tanks had diesel engines, the Treblinka engine had to be diesel too. For the sake of the argument, let us assume that Treblinka engine was indeed from T-34 tank. Now, it is simply not true that all T-34s were diesels. Because of shortage of V-2 diesels in the autumn of 1941 it was ordered to implement the ways to install old carburetor engines M17-T in T-34 tanks (I. Shmelyov, "Tank T-34", Tekhnika i vooruzhenije, no. 11-12, 1998). Another author confirms that some T-34s had M-17, a powerful aviation motor, installed (E. Zubov, Dvigateli tankov (iz istorii tankostrojenija), 1991).

Now, if you visually compare petrol M-17 and diesel V-2, both used in T-34s (though the latter used in the majority of them), you will see why some people might confuse the two. Further source of confusion might stem from that incorrect belief that T-34s had only diesel engines.
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... evant.html

I agree with Sergy that as a logical principle, strictly in the realm of relations of idea, the people who did not operate or install the engine could have been mistaken about the type of engine. In other words, if you don't see it and only hear it, like Karl Alfred Schluch who was in Belzec, then you can't know for sure.
Sergy goes on to quote historian Peter Witte who lists three German officers as the gas masters of the camp. Keep in mind that earlier in the blog, Fuchs is stated to have been a witness in regards to SOBIBOR, not Treblinka.


"In this case even three former Gasmeister (“Gasmasters” / Erich Bauer, Erich Fuchs, and Franz Hödl), who must have really have known the facts, since they all killed with the same motor, confirmed in court that it was definitely a petrol motor. Bauer and Fuchs, having been professional motor mechanics, simply quarrelled during the trial about whether it was a Renault motor or a heavy Russian tank motor (probably a tank motor or a tractor motor) having at least 200 PS. They also disputed whether the method of ignition was a starter or an impact magnet, which diesel motors obviously do not have, being self-igniting...
Hödl reported that they once tried a Diesel motor for the the gas chambers, but it did not work!"

"Witte's claims should be checked, of course, but in any case Berg's diesel arguments simply don't work for Aktion Reinhard(t) camps - the people that really mattered apparently testified only about petrol engines. All the witnesses who mentioned diesels would be simply mistaken, and there's nothing surprising or sinister about that."
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... evant.html

This is the main thrust of their argument. That anyone who talks of diesel engines didn't actually see them and made mistakes. The ones who saw the engines and made contact with them never spoke of diesel engines. Therefore the revisionists are in trouble. The blog continues on.

Roberto supplies us with the following information: Zalman Levinbuck testified about the petrol engine ("The people are poisoned during the drive by gases and exhaust fumes that are created by the combustion of gasoline in the motor.", Kogon/Langbein/Rückerl et al., Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas, p. 91); Friedrich Jeckeln "mentioned too high gasoline consumption" as one of the problems with gas vans (Christian Gerlach, Kalkulierte Morde, p. 767); Chelmno gas van driver Walter Burmeister testified about "Renault trucks with Otto engines" (i.e. petrol motors; Kogon et al.); SS-Oberscharfuehrer Walter Piller who served in Chelmno mentioned "gases that had been created by the gasoline motor" (Kogon et al., p. 138).

And it seems that most witnesses simply don't mention the engine type. But the preponderance of evidence is clearly on the side of petrol engines.

Finally, we know that some gas vans were Saurers. Denier Ingrid Weckert states:
What the writer claims with regard to the problems encountered during 'gassing' must be read in conjunction with Friedrich Berg's chapter in this volume. For as long as there is no proof that the RSHA's Saurer vehicles were not equipped with Diesel engines, as was normally the case, the gassing tales cannot be given any credence.


Well, it's easy, then. Since we do know from extensive documentation and eyewitness statements that there were gas vans, and if we assume that Berg is correct, then Saurer gas vans were Saurers with petrol engines.

Also, Nick pointed out that old, 1920s models had petrol motors, so maybe old RSHA vehicles were converted. Otherwise, it is also possible that only Saurer chassis were ordered, and petrol engines were installed afterwards.

Be that as it may, it is clear that until deniers will dig up eyewitness statements of the people who were "in the know", who simply had to be informed about the type of engine (such as those who ran the engines in the camps, or gas vans and gas chambers inventors), and who mention the alleged successful use of diesel motors, they have no case whatsoever. They still haven't found any such statements. Thus, the "diesel issue" is moot.

Update: Nick provided me with the following document:
'Motor Wkw Pol. 51140 ausbauen und nach Lublin schaffen. Reparatur wird von hier veranlasst'

SSPF Lublin an Aussenstelle Minsk, Stubaf Dolp, 1.11.41, GPD 438 (10.11.41), item 21, PRO HW 16/32

I'm quoting it only to show that engines for the camps did not have to come from Poland proper - they could have come from any of the occupied territories.

Update 2: Previous version of this article (including one of the updates) relied on two unreliable sources from a usually reliable site. Authenticity of these sources is in question, so I have removed references to them. The sources insisted on diesel engines in Treblinka, so their initial inclusion would not help my thesis in any way, so don't complain. Maybe I will tell a more detailed story about these sources some time...


The blog ends there.

So in other words, it was not diesel. Witnesses were mistaken or simply not credible as they were nowhere close enough to actually see it and figure out it was diesel. The real witnesses mention petrol. Case closed for the extermination theorists.

Now let's say these German officers who testified to petrol engines from Soviet tanks (among other possible places) are to be contended with. Fine. Now that the extermination theorists have made up their mind, maybe they'd like to show us the bodies now instead?
Last edited by Drew J on Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 2 guests