Germania, in an attempt to find the mythical and patently silly CO (welding) bottles comes up with a 'gas vans' story that is ludicrous in its content and laughable in it's assertions. He finds comfort in material from the so called 'holocau$t' History Project, that was a mistake.
Typical of the 'holocau$t History Project' we find fake documents in abundance, this batch concerns the never found 'gas vans'.
The 1st one is allegedly from Walter Rauff to Friedrich Pradel, and purporting to establish the use of "special vans" in Mauthausen :
http://www.holocaust-history.org/194203 ... onderwagen
However, there seems to be problems :
According to Ingrid Weckert [The Gas vans, A Critical Assessment of the Evidence] : http://vho.org/GB/Books/fsfth/10.html
[Rauff's] "personnel file (copies in the author’s possession) shows that his initial profession was “marine officer”. He left the navy in late 1937 for personal reasons and transferred to the RSHA. In May 1940, however, he returned to the navy and left it one year later as lieutenant commander. From autumn 1941 to May 1942 he was stationed in Prague, just as he claims. As of June 1942 he was on SD duty in north Africa, and later in Italy, at least until May 1944, when the Italian front collapsed.
Thus, it is not clear how he could have been involved in design and construction of these vans, the purpose of which is still hidden to us." In March 1942 he was thus in Prague and not in Berlin. There is also an oddity at the end of the letter : Pradel's rank is mentioned as "Major". However in the SS, ranks had other names and his should have been therefore Hauptsturmführer", equivalent to that of major.
more fake documents about silly 'gas vans' from:www.holocaust-history.org
-- Forgeries galore ! [Part I : SS Just to SS Rauff]
Willy Just to Walter Rauff
The first lines of the document are already suspicious :
II D 3 a (9) NI. 214/42 G.RS.
Berlin, den 5. Juni 1942
Betrifft: Technische abänderungen an den im Betrieb eingesetzten und an den sich in Herstellung befindlichen Spezialwagen.
Seit Dezember 1941 wurden beispielsweise mit 3 eingesetzten Wagen 97 000 verarbeitet, ohne daß Mängel an den Fahrzeugen auftraten. etc.
In correct German, "einzig" [only] has no superlative, i.e "einzigste". Furthermore, this is not even true, for at least 3 "originals" can be found : one "original" at the Bundesarchiv Koblenz, another "original" published as facsimile in "Nazi Mass Murder", by Eugen Kogon, Hermann Langbein, and Adalbert Rückerl, and a 3rd "original" as facsimile in NS-Prozeße, by Adalbert Rückerl, 1972.
To begin a sentence in German with "beispielsweise" [for instance] is absurd, unless you're referring to something stated before, which is clearly not the case. Quite revealingly, the translation published by Jamie McCarthy omits it. A correct translation would be :
Since December 1941, by way of example, 97 000 were processed with 3 vans etc. which in itself sounds quite ridiculous.
Jamie McCarthy omits a large chunk of point 2 on page 2:
In einer Besprechung mit der Herstellerfirma wurde von dieser Seite darauf hingewiesen, daß eine Verkürzung des Kastenaufbaues eine ungünstige Gewichtsverlagerung nach sich zieht. Es wurde betont, daß eine Überlastung der Vorderachse eintritt. Tatsächlich findet aber ungewollt ein Ausgleich in der Gewichtsverteilung dadurch statt, daß das Ladegut beim Betrieb in dem Streben nach der hinteren Tür immer vorwiegend dort liegt. Hierdurch tritt eine zusätzliche Belastung der Vorderachse nicht ein.
The omission is not innocent. The document refers to a previous "discussion with the manufacturing firm" and that "this firm pointed out that a reduction of the box compartment would result in an unfavourable shifting of the weight". The number "II D 3 a (9) NI. 214/42 G.RS" purports the idea that it belongs to a series of documents dedicated to the correspondence between the RSHA and the company Gaubschat.
Another document in the series, "II D 3 a (9) NI. 668/42 G.RS", dated 23rd June 1942, presents a troubling similarity with the document above and contains nothing suggesting gassing, CO, liquids etc. Furthermore it refers explicitly to a meeting with Gaubschat on 16th June 1942.
Ingrid Weckert, The Gas Vans: A Critical Assessment of the Evidence :
A closer examination of the Note of June 5 and a comparison with the RSHA letter of June 23, 1942 shows that the Note is a sort of plagiarism of the letter of June 23. Both items are subdivided into 7 points pertaining to the RSHA's requested changes. The Note interprets these requests in a way that would point to exhaust-gas murders of human beings.
We submit that the "Note" of June 5 is a fabrication. Its authors wrote it after the letter of June 23 was written, and predated it. The various points were rewritten, and supplemented with additional remarks in such a way that murderous intentions are made apparent. One proof for this fabrication is the fact that the "Note" of June 5, in point 2, refers to a consultation between the RSHA and Gaubschat which the letter of June 23 shows not to have taken place until June 16, fully 11 days after (!) the alleged writing of the "Note" of June 5!
To further substantiate our claim, we shall now compare and contrast the corresponding points from the letter of June 23 and the Note of June 5. All those remarks in the Note which indicate "gassing", ie. the loading of the vehicles with humans, and which do not occur in the letter of June 23, are indicated by this author with bold [aka "red"] print.
LETTER OF JUNE 23, 1942
"NOTE" OF JUNE 5, 1942
"1. The cube body is to be reduced in length
by 800 mm [31.5"]. [...] We herewith
acknowledge the objections raised, that such
a shortening would cause a disadvantageous
distribution of weight. [The preceding text
shows that this objection was raised by
Gaubschat on the occasion of a verbal
discussion on June 16, 1942.] Any
disadvantages resulting herefrom will not be
complained of to the firm of Gaubschat."
"2. It would seem necessary to decrease the load area. This will be achieved by shortening the body by approximately 1 m [39"]. The above problem cannot be solved, as has been attempted, by reducing the number of objects per load. This is because a reduction in the number necessitates a longer operation time, since the empty space also must be filled with CO. [...]
In a discussion with the manufacturer it was pointed out by the latter that a shortening of the cube body would result in a disadvantageous weight displacement. In fact, however, an involuntary balancing in weight distribution occurs because during operation the load strives
towards the back door and always largely ends up there."
"5. The slide-covered openings in the rear doors are to be omitted, and replaced with open slits of 100 x 10 mm [4 x 0.4"] in the upper back wall (not door). They are to be covered on the outside with easily movable, hinged metal flaps."
"1. To allow for the rapid inflow of the CO while preventing excessive pressure, two open slits of 10 x 1 cm [4 x 0.4"] are to be located in the upper back wall. These are to be covered on the outside with easily movable, hinged metal flaps to allow for self-regulation of any potential excess pressure."
"6. The closeable drain opening in the right front part of the cube floor is to be omitted.
Instead, a drain opening of about 200 mm [9"] in diameter is to be cut into the cube floor. This opening is to have a strong, tight-fitting, hinged lid that can be closed and
safely opened from outside."
"4. To allow for easy cleaning of the vehicle [this expression builds on the implied allegation that the gassed people were covered with excrement and filth and had dirtied the vehicle accordingly], a tightly closeable drain opening is to be located in the center of the floor.
The drain cover, about 200 to 300 mm [8 to 12"] in diameter, is to be equipped with a U-trap so that thin fluid can also drain out during operation." [This too is a reference to excretions from the dying people.]
"7. The interior lights are to be protected with a domed wire guard that is stronger than that used to date."
"6. The lighting appliances are to be more strongly protected from destruction than they have been so far. The iron grid guard over the lamps is to be domed enough to render damage to the lamp glass no longer possible. From practical experience it was suggested that the lamps should be omitted altogether, since allegedly they are never needed. It was found, however, that when the back door is closed, ie. when the interior becomes dark, the load urgently strives towards the door. This is because, at the onset of darkness, the load strives towards
the light. [Utter nonsense. Once the door was closed, it would have been no lighter there than in the rest of the cube body.] Further, it was found that a commotion, probably due to the eerie nature of darkness, always breaks out at the point where the doors are closed.
For this reason it would be expedient to turn the lights on before and during the first minutes of operation."
The letter of June 23 contained seven points. The Note of June 5 is also organized into seven points, but not all of them correspond even partly to the content of one of the points of the letter. Evidently some of the RSHA's June 23 requests for modification did not lend themselves well to the gassing theory and so they were left out. Instead, two supplements were added.
For example, point 3 in the Note of June 5 reads:
"The connecting hoses between the exhaust and the vehicle frequently rust through because they are corroded on the inside by fluids. To prevent this, the filler pipe is henceforth to be mounted in such a way that input proceeds from above downward. This will prevent fluids from entering."
Connecting hoses for exhaust gas are added to the text here, whereas there was no mention of such a thing in the original letter.
Another supplementation is to be found in point 7 of the Note, where the need for a removable grate is mentioned. The text states that since "the firm commissioned with this work [...] considers this design [...] to be impracticable at this time", the design should be submitted "to a different firm". This is entirely new to anyone familiar with these matters, and contradicts the urgency of the commission which is repeatedly expressed in other letters. Besides, internal notes jotted by members of the RSHA onto the back of Gaubschat's letter of May 14, 1942 confirm that the RSHA decided to dispense with the removable grate and agreed to "production as to date". There is no mention of a different firm to be consulted.
and yet more fakery from the 'holocau$t' History Project - www.holocaust-history.org
-- Forgeries galore ! [Part II : Wetzel to Lohse]
October 25, 1941: "Gassing Devices"
Replies to the Simon Wiesenthal Center :
Moving on to Mr. Breitbart's next contention, namely the reference to an alleged communication sent by Hinrich Lohse to Higher SS and Police leader Friedrich Jackeln, informing him that it was the "Fuehrer's wish" that the Jews of Riga be liquidated: Here again we are confronted with a brief statement which is prima facie patently absurd. Does Mr. Breitbart himself believe, or expect intelligent people to believe that the Jews of Riga were liquidated simply because someone told someone else that it was the "Fuehrer's wish", and that this "wish" be carried out by Jackeln like the genie from Alladin's lamp? There is a storm of controversy among historians concerning these alleged communications sent to and from Hinrich
Lohse himself escaped prosecution by the Allies after the second world war, a fact which is suspicious in itself. He was prosecuted by the German government decades later for "participating in an undemocratic regime". Alfred Rosenberg, one of the major defendants at Nuremberg and Lohse's nominal superior, consistently rejected documents without verifiable signatures, or "documents" which were purported to be facsimiles. The Lohse "documents" have a curious history: In 1945, a Jewish-American Sergeant attached to the U.S. 82nd AirborneDivision claimed to have found these documents among Alfred Rosenberg's files. The Sergeant's name was Szajko Frydman. These "documents" are unique in that they were "processed" at the Yiddish Scientific Institute (In New York City!), before they were sent on to Nuremberg, Germany. Mr. Frydman also has the distinction of serving as a staff member at the Yivo Institute both BEFORE and AFTER his service in the U.S. Army. There are a number of facts I find to be extremely disturbing when broaching the question of authenticity regarding these documents. In the first place, they are facsimiles and do not bear the signature of the author. Only a large, printed "L" is scribbled at the bottom of the page. A second concern is what Alfred Rosenberg himself had to say about the Lohse "document" at Nuremberg. When asked by Prosecutor Dodd whether the "L" at the bottom of the page was Lohse's signature, Rosenberg replied, "That could hardly be Lohse. I do not know Lohse's initial...It could also be Leibrandt." One thing is certain - whether this document is authentic or not, it certainly does not prove that it was the policy of the German government to exterminate the Jewish race in Europe.
Perhaps Alfred Rosenberg correctly assessed the actual situation when he stated, "As time went by I received much information regarding instances of violence committed in the East. Upon investigating, it was found very often that these reports did not conform with the facts...I might perhaps give the following general answer about the many files and reports from my office: In the course of 12 years of my Party office and 3 years in the Eastern Ministry, many reports, memoranda, carbon copies from all sorts of divisions were delivered to my office...As far as these documents are concerned...without heading, without signature, and without any other details - which I never received personally, but which I assume was probably
delivered by police circles to my office. Thus, with the best of intentions, I cannot state my position as to the contents of this document." (All quotes taken from International Military Tribunal Proceedings, Volume XI)
Greg Raven :
What the anti-revisionists don't tell you about this document
This document is NOT a letter
The document cited above is in fact NOT a letter, but a draft of a letter, one that shows no evidence that it was sent.
This document is NOT signed
This draft bears Wetzel's initials only.
This document is rarely cited by knowledgeable anti-revisionists
The reason this document is not used more often in the fight against revisionists is that most anti-revisionists now avoid using it, even among themselves. This is obvious in the fact that there would be no split between the "Intentionalists" and the "Functionalists" if NO-365 were a valid document, for NO-365 would have been proof of the "Intentionalists" position.
Brack denied participation
Brack himself denied all the relevant portions of the letter that concern him, as seen in the transcript of his questioning at the NMT [Green Series, Volume 1, pages 888-889, as found in the NWCT CD-ROM, copyright Aristarchus Knowledge Industries 1995.]:
Q. I want to put to you NO-997, which is Prosecution Exhibit 506 for identification, your Honors. This is a draft of a letter from the Reich Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories to the Reich Commissioner for the East:
"Solution of the Jewish Problem. Reference: Your report of 10/4/1941, concerning the solution of the Jewish problem.
"I have no objection against your suggestion for the solution of the Jewish problem. Attached please find a memorandum concerning the conversation between my expert consultant, Amtsterichtsrat Dr. Wetzel, Oberdienstleiter Brack of the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, and Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, expert consultant to the Reich Security Main Office. Please note the details of the matter from this memo. Will you please take the necessary steps at the Reich Security Main Office and with Oberdienstleiter Brack from the Chancellery of the Fuehrer via your Higher SS and Police Leader. Please keep me informed.
[Handwritten] "F. d. H. M., [For the Minister]
"2d Copy, (a) Reich Security Main office, (b) Chancellery of the Fuehrer Attention: Oberdienstleiter Brack, Copy of (1), including enclosure for information."
Did you receive a copy of this letter?
A [Brack]. May I first ask you what the date of this letter is?
Q. Only 1941 is mentioned here. But that is the date I told you. Did you receive a copy of this letter, Herr Brack?
A. I did not receive a copy of it nor did I even see a copy of that letter, nor do I know this Amtsgerichtsrat Wetzel.
Q. Did you have a conference with Eichmann on this problem, on the solution of the Jewish question?
A. I already said I cannot even remember the name Eichmann, nor can I remember the name Wetzel.
Q. Do you know anything about the matters discussed at this conference concerning the solution of the Jewish problem?
A. No. I know nothing.
Q. You have no idea. You never made any suggestions as to what kind of treatment or what kind of gas chambers should be used for the solution of the Jewish problem? You never did that?
A. I can remember nothing in this connection.
Q. You were questioned by the Tribunal last Friday as to whether plans were made for the construction of the gas chambers in the euthanasia stations or whether an engineer or specialist was ordered to assist the directors of the stations in setting up such gas chambers, were you not?
Q. You were not able to give any information to the Tribunal on that fact, were you?
A. No. I said I didn't concern myself with these matters.
Q. Is the name Kallmeyer, K-a-l-l-m-e-y-e-r, familiar to you?
A. Yes. But I can't remember in which connection.
Q. His wife executed an affidavit for you here. (Brack 39, Brack Ex. 23.) Do you remember him now?
A. Yes. Yes, I remember him now.
Q. Was Kallmeyer the engineer, or was he a chemist, who made these plans for gas chambers and assisted the directors in euthanasia stations in setting up these gas chambers?
A. No. Kallmeyer had to check that the gas chambers were operating properly, but I don't believe he made any plans for that purpose.
Q. Kallmeyer was the man who supervised these gas chambers, was he not?
A. I believe so, yes, but not for long, only for a short time.
Q. All right. And does the name Kallmeyer refresh your memory as to eventual plans you made together with Eichmann about the solution of the Jewish problem, Herr Brack?
Q. I want to put to you Document NO-365, which will be Prosecution Exhibit 507 for identification, your Honors. This is a draft from the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Territories dated Berlin, 10/2/1941.
"Referent AGR. Dr. Wetzel "Re: Solution of the Jewish Question
"1. To the Reich Commissioner for the East
"Re: Your Report of 10/4/1941 Concerning Solution of the Jewish question
"Referring to my letter of 10/18/1941, you are informed that Oberdienstleiter Brack of the Chancellery of the Fuehrer has declared himself ready to collaborate in the manufacture of the necessary shelters, as well as the gassing apparatus. At the present time the apparatus in question are not on hand in the Reich in sufficient number they will first have to be manufactured. Since in Brack's opinion the manufacture of the apparatus in the Reich will cause more difficulty than if manufactured on the spot, Brack deems it most expedient to send his people direct to Riga, especially his chemist Dr. Kallmeyer, who will have everything further done there. Oberdienstleiter Brack points out that the process in question is not without danger, so that special protective measures are necessary. Under these circumstances I beg you to turn to Oberdienstleiter Brack, in the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, through your Higher SS and Police Leader and to request the dispatch of the chemist Dr. Kallmeyer as well as of further aides. I draw attention to the fact that Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, the referent for Jewish questions in the RSHA, is in agreement with this process. On information from Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, camps for Jews to be set up in Riga and Minsk to which Jews from the old Reich territory may possibly be sent. At the present time, Jews being deported from the old Reich are to be sent to Litzmannstadt, [Lodz] but also to other camps, to be later used as labor in the East so far as they are able to work.
"As affairs now stand, there are no objections against doing away with those Jews who are unable to work with the Brack remedy. In this way occurrences would no longer be possible such as those il which, according to a report presently before me, took place at the shooting of Jews in Vilna and which, considering that the shootings were public, were hardly excusable.
Those able to work, on the other hand, will be transported to the East for labor service. It is self-understood that among the Jews capable of work, men and women are to be kept separate. "I beg you to advise me regarding your further steps."
Herr Brack, are you still going to maintain what you said here in direct examination, namely, that you tried to protect the Jews and to save the Jews from their terrible fate and that you were never a champion of the extermination program?
A. I should even like to maintain that misuse, terrible misuse, was made of my name. I see from this letter and from the date of this letter that all these negotiations were carried out at a time when I was familiar away from Berlin, when I was on sick leave. If I have the possibility I hope I shall be able to bring witnesses who will testify to that effect. I must frankly admit that at this period something was going on which entirely contradicted my opinion, but this could only have been done under misuse of my name and my agency. I was not willing to participate in these things.
Adolf Eichmann denied participation
Adolf Eichmann also denied discussing gas chambers with Wetzel. According
to Raul Hilberg (The Destruction of the European Jews, 1985, page 875, 24n):
"In Jerusalem, Eichmann declared that he had NOT discussed gas chambers with Wetzel. Eichmann trial transcript, June 23, 1961, sess. 78, p. R1; July 17, 1961, sess. 98, p. Bb1."
Wetzer was never punished
Wetzel was never punished for his alleged role in this matter. According to Ingrid Weckert, who wrote an eleven-page study of this document in June 1990, Wetzel had no trouble after the war with the Allies and worked for the UN in Cuba. In 1961, he was indicted by a German magistrate in Hannover. Wetzel was not asked any questions about the "Vergasungsapparate" mentioned in the letter, and to this day we have no idea what this means. The prosecutor was satisfied with Wetzel's answers, and decided there would be no trial.
No gassings in Riga
No one now claims there were gassings in Riga.
When given the choice of all the documents said to support claims of homicidal gassing by the Third Reich, Brian Harmon chose this one. Therefore, we must conclude that this document represents Harmon's best documentary evidence of the existence of homicidal Nazi gas chambers. The reader is invited to judge for himself: if this is the "best evidence," how weak must be the rest of the so-called evidence?
Please remember that we are constantly told that the Holocaust is the best-documented event in history, yet supporters of the Holocaust extermination stories are forced to rely on documents such as NO-365 that are essentially worthless. Rather than hunt up further worthless documents, it would be far better for the anti-revisionists to meet Robert Faurisson's challenge:
"Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber."
The reason they have not done so, of course, is because they cannot:
no such gas chamber exists.
Just let me add here that the infamous letter from Becker to Rauff is NOT an original letter at all nor has anyone ever pretended to have any such original letter when pressed. What is produced by their own admission, but only when you really press them at the National Archives (major culprits in the holocaust hoax conspiracy), is a copy of what is merely at best a carbon copy of Becker's letter to Rauff. That is obvious when one actually sees it--and it does not even have Becker's signature. Because it was obviously only a CARBON that would never have actually been sent to Rauff in Berlin but might only have been found in Becker's files in Kiev (the exact provenance is unknown admittedly by the archives), the prosecutors found it necessary to get Rauff after the war to make an affidavit saying that he actually received that letter, the original of course, in May of 1942 in Berlin.
Nonetheless, and here we see some of the typical hoakery involved with "documents," the carbon is marked with signatures and stamps that would only have been put on the original after it arrived in Berlin. In other words, someone--guess who--marked up a carbon to make it look somewhat like an original. Clearly this is flagrant "document tampering" and deception at the very least--intended no doubt to thoroughly fool the less than critical students of this subject.