Video of Germans gassing people with exhaust gas

[Callafangers]

I just want to make sure folks understand the problem here as it took me a moment to see it:

bricks.jpg (93.95 KiB) Viewed 247 times

You can actually count the number of shorter-length bricks between the two vertical lines under the window (or piping) in either photo. At all levels, there are only nine (9) in the alleged 'gassing' footage site, and there are ten (10) under the window at the Mogilev institute photo.

There is also a ledge which protrudes underneath the window, whereas there is only some questionable protrusion under the 'chamber' piping, and in any case the bricks which are on the questionable 'chamber' ledge are shorter (half-length) compared to those on the obvious protruding ledge under the window of the institute (full-length).

Compare this:

lower.jpg (178.96 KiB) Viewed 247 times

To this:

windowlower.jpg (69.51 KiB) Viewed 247 times

I think the biggest discrepancy remains the fewer number of bricks (nine vs. ten short bricks) between the "two [vertical] lines", especially since these two "straight lines" are reportedly (per Sergey) stated by witnesses, making this an important feature to consider.

It is still possible this is the same building and that Sergey just identified the wrong window but then, if so, we still face the lack of an original film/source, questionable provenance, inconsistent and/or dubious testimony, and typical pattern alignment with other Soviet post-war hoaxes and deception.

[fireofice]

It's fake and staged. It probably is a real car from Einsatzkommando 8, but the Allies definitely had access to all kinds of German vehicles after the war.

What distinguishes a car from Einsatzkommando 8, from just a car?

The symbols on the car.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ssing.html

[Stubble]

Right. The accused described the brick as being plastered though, so, unless they are mistaken, the photo and the video are from the wrong places.

Or the plaster was removed at some point. Which puts the picture and the video both not contemporary with the event as described.

Dr. Albert Widmann and his laboratory assistant Hans Schmidt

The scene shown on this picture cannot show the events at Mogilev. As I already made clear, the building was covered with white plaster and had a foundation block. Moreover, one of the two hoses we had brought with us was much thicker than the other one. The vehicles used at Mogilev did not stand parallel to, but perpendicular to, the wall of the house. To the best of my remembrance, the hose did not have a support. I am unable to identify the vehicles in the picture as vehicles of the RKPA [Reichspolizeiamt]. The RKPA did not have any trucks at all. I do not know the license plates of the vehicles, in particular, I cannot explain the tactical sign on the platform of the truck. I do not know this sign.

After a second look at the pictures, I wish to point out that the window walled up with bricks sharply stood out against the wall of the house, which was covered with white plaster, and looked abominably ugly. Finally I did not see anybody taking pictures.

In my opinion these pictures were not taken during the action in Mogilev. I only remember a connecting piece and a hose. I also believe that the boards lying before the wall and the post which can be seen on the picture did not exist at Mogilev. Furthermore, I remember that only the window was walled up with bricks and that the rest of the building was not made of bricks. Finally, I think that in Mogilev the vehicle stood further away from the house and that the position of the connecting piece [in the wall of the house] was lower. The license plates of the vehicles visible in the picture are unknown to me, this means that I do not know these license plates. […]

My memory of the action in Mogilev strongly differs from the scenes in these pictures. Therefore, I think that these pictures do not show the action in Mogilev. The facility shown on the photographs seems to be quite sophisticated whereas the facilty used at the action in Mogilev was clearly provisional.

[Callafangers]

It's fake and staged. It probably is a real car from Einsatzkommando 8, but the Allies definitely had access to all kinds of German vehicles after the war.

What distinguishes a car from Einsatzkommando 8, from just a car?

The symbols on the car.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ssing.html

I suppose it would be equally easy for the Soviets to paint relevant symbols on the back of vehicles as it would be for them to relocate the vehicles (for a propaganda film). Either option seems plausible and perfectly within available means.

I think this goes hand-in-hand with Stubble's points above, though... it would appear this staged gassing at the brick buildings was not part of the 'Mogilev test gassing' narrative at all, per Widmann and Schmidt... which can only mean one thing: a new 'gassing' discovery!

...but if it isn't Mogilev, then it seems we lack corroboration... but wait, this just in -- my grandpa says he was in Minsk in 1942 and he saw a gassing operation there, just like the one in the video (I only had to pay him $50 to say it)! My goodness -- this is a new, confirmed historical find! Let's add it to the official historical record.

Am I doing this historiography thing right, Hans? Nick? bombsaway?

[Wetzelrad]

What do you make of Sergey's analysis?

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ng_23.html

This seems convincing to me. It's the same technique I would use. Their annotations are unhelpful, but the wall's features do appear to line up. Here's my go at it:

mog.gif (232.36 KiB) Viewed 193 times

I used perspective shift on a screengrab from the video, and nothing else. Callafangers's criticisms above are reasonable but not convincing. It isn't merely that the bricks are in a standard arrangement. Some of the rows of bricks are misaligned, yet they match in the images. Beside that, the darker bricks match, although it is hard to tell with all the damage and mess on the wall.

I also think a lot of revisionist arguments make sense here. The shadow of the man projected on the wall borders on absurd.

[Stubble]

I think this goes hand-in-hand with Stubble's points above, though... it would appear this staged gassing at the brick buildings was not part of the 'Mogilev test gassing' narrative at all, per Widmann and Schmidt... which can only mean one thing: a new 'gassing' discovery!

Or, hear me out, they shot their 'recreation' at the wrong building on the grounds...

I could go further, but, it becomes conspiratorial and non confirmable without the accused to interrogate.

[Callafangers]

I used perspective shift on a screengrab from the video, and nothing else. Callafangers's criticisms above are reasonable but not convincing. It isn't merely that the bricks are in a standard arrangement. Some of the rows of bricks are misaligned, yet they match in the images. Beside that, the darker bricks match, although it is hard to tell with all the damage and mess on the wall.

On closer review of some different stills in the video, I should concede that the panel of bricks in the video may be closer to ten short-bricks across than I initially interpreted. It's difficult to say for certain because the vertical line on the left is not clearly visible in any of the shots. But here's my latest count and given my best estimate of where the line on the left lies (still slightly less than ten short-bricks across, but arguably close enough):

3.jpg (131.75 KiB) Viewed 162 times

Regarding the general pattern of bricks, can you specify or highlight which specific bricks you note as "misaligned" (i.e. the masonry actually being uneven)? It looks pretty consistent to me but perhaps I've overlooked something.

As for the bricks "lining up", this really isn't compelling in itself to suggest we are seeing the same wall or even the same building. It is a common brick pattern.

Consider that this is the most prominent pattern which Sergey highlights to show similarity between the image and video in question:

4.jpg (46.41 KiB) Viewed 162 times

From the bricks that can be made out in the [grainy, low quality] institution photo, we can see it there, more than once:

1.jpg (93.1 KiB) Viewed 162 times

The thing is: this is a tiled pattern -- it repeats over and over again, exactly the same each time:

2.jpg (85.1 KiB) Viewed 162 times

Thus, to find this pattern in a similar kind of bricklaying is not uncommon at all -- it is guaranteed, as it repeats every ten inches or so. This also means that to find a vertical line intersecting it at a similar point (say, within one inch) in each image is not statistical proof. I would still count it as supporting evidence for the claim it's the same location, but this alone is not enough to draw a conclusion.

Moreover, as shown in the second-to-last image above, it is completely clear that the protruding ledge pointed out earlier is not of the same brickwork. The only charitable interpretation is that it has been rebuilt at some point:

ledge.jpg (47.4 KiB) Viewed 159 times

Additionally, the still image (the institute) was taken at war's end when the building is riddled with what appears to be hundreds of bullet impacts and explosive shrapnel dents/debris. This coupled with the terrible image quality in both images limits the ability to draw a valid conclusion about their being the same place.

I am quite open to the possibility they are the same location -- after all, if I were the Soviets, I would certainly prefer to develop propaganda imagery at the same location I'm alleging such events to have occurred -- but I think we all have witnessed the "noble victors" be sloppier than this in the past, so I think it's worth still applying careful scrutiny to even the claim that this is the same building. As for now, I remain skeptical.

[Wetzelrad]

Regarding the general pattern of bricks, can you specify or highlight which specific bricks you note as "misaligned" (i.e. the masonry actually being uneven)? It looks pretty consistent to me but perhaps I've overlooked something.

Well, I'm not going to draw on it, but here is what my comparison looks like side-by-side in better quality.

mogilev side by side.jpg (154.16 KiB) Viewed 142 times

Obviously the bricks are layered alternately with one line of wide bricks and one line of short bricks. But their ends and centers are not perfectly aligned. It's that left-right distance that gives us a lot of identifying information. It differs as you go down the wall. And while it's impossible to see the edges of every brick, the edges that can be seen do match. Nothing is to the left or right of where it should be. It's especially noticeable that there is a significant left-right shift around the bottom line of the window, which is the same across both images.

From the bricks that can be made out in the [grainy, low quality] institution photo, we can see it there, more than once:



The thing is: this is a tiled pattern -- it repeats over and over again, exactly the same each time:

Yes. Well, the repetition is to be expected going sideways, so maybe that lends some support to the idea that this could be another window to the left or right on the same wall. But the pattern itself and its height are pieces of identifying information.

Moreover, as shown in the second-to-last image above, it is completely clear that the protruding ledge pointed out earlier is not of the same brickwork. The only charitable interpretation is that it has been rebuilt at some point:

Yes. You can see in the "gassing" shot that the mortar appears black in that area, and it's at the correct height: the 12th layer below the bottom of the window. Even in that state I see it as supporting evidence. If they rebuilt the window then I guess they would rebuild this ledge too.

I am quite open to the possibility they are the same location -- after all, if I were the Soviets, I would certainly prefer to develop propaganda imagery at the same location I'm alleging such events to have occurred -- but I think we all have witnessed the "noble victors" be sloppier than this in the past, so I think it's worth still applying careful scrutiny to even the claim that this is the same building. As for now, I remain skeptical.

I'm reasonably confident this is the right location based on everything combined. Maybe you could expect to find two buildings with brickwork this similar, but for both to be alleged to be Mogilev is too much.

Here is a different photo of the place that I didn't notice until now. Not part of the video, or is it? [EDIT: I see now that they montaged this from multiple stills of the film. The seams are obvious. Der Spiegel did something similar.]

[Callafangers]

I'm reasonably confident this is the right location based on everything combined. Maybe you could expect to find two buildings with brickwork this similar, but for both to be alleged to be Mogilev is too much.

Here is a different photo of the place that I didn't notice until now. Not part of the video, or is it? Less contrast. Romanov used a version of this photo in his comparison.

Fair play, your side-by-side is most helpful. There are now a few specific features that stand out to me as matching. The bricks alone aligning were not convincing but there are also some blemishes/indentations that I think overall push it in the direction of a matching location (too many "strange coincidences"), although it still doesn't explain why they reconstructed the ledge at the bottom... however it looks like an entire street was also added there, and given the poor condition of the bricks on the early 'gassing' ledge, it could have been a simple improvement (German? Soviet?).

In particular, it is this "little tornado" pattern on a particular brick that caught my eye:

tornado.jpg (193.76 KiB) Viewed 128 times

None of the other bricks have a "little tornado"... perhaps this shouldn't be the straw that broke the camel's back but this is the kind of unusual and identical anomaly I am willing to accept as too much coincidence, particularly when coupled with the other alignments.

EDIT: One minor (major?) correction to my earlier statement, here:

Additionally, the still image (the institute) was taken at war's end when the building is riddled with what appears to be hundreds of bullet impacts and explosive shrapnel dents/debris.

On second look, I don't think what I describe here is actually the case -- most of what I thought was bullet/impact dust and damage may actually just be the light and shadows from trees above, which is more apparent in the full view:

mogilev photo.png (98.83 KiB) Viewed 126 times

[Stubble]

I'm going to be taking a hiatus from the forum for research purposes, but, I want to say this plainly and clearly before I go.

The reason the orientation of the vehicles is wrong is because it was very important for them to be identifiable in the shot, so the tag and the unit symbol had to be visible.

This is, to me, quite obviously a recreation.

No film crew was on site according to the accused, and the building is wrong.

Of course, I'm open to being wrong, but, to be knocked off my position would take evidence that does not exist.

A working theory is that the accused were forced to confess, and as an out for appeal, they wrote in a building that doesn't exist. When the film was produced as evidence, they balked because it never happened.

This is just a theory and without the accused, I can not interrogate them to find out, which is unfortunate.

SOP in the case of mercy killing incurable people was morphine or barbitol overdose from what I can gather. Again, I could be wrong, this is the information as I understand it however.

[Wetzelrad]

The bricks alone aligning were not convincing but there are also some blemishes/indentations that I think overall push it in the direction of a matching location [...]

Right, I would also point these two out. On the left is a tiny outcrop of mortar that shows up in both images, blurry albeit. On the right there is a brick which is, I guess, shorter than it should be, with more mortar above it.

blemishes.jpg (170.84 KiB) Viewed 75 times

On second look, I don't think what I describe here is actually the case -- most of what I thought was bullet/impact dust and damage may actually just be the light and shadows from trees above, which is more apparent in the full view:

That makes more sense. So both images have really unfortunate lighting.

I had assumed the film predates the book photo, but if all that is only shadow then it's more likely the other way around. Therefore the building was not reconstructed but destructed.

[fireofice]

That makes more sense. So both images have really unfortunate lighting.

I had assumed the film predates the book photo, but if all that is only shadow then it's more likely the other way around. Therefore the building was not reconstructed but destructed.

Well it could be either that trees grew there, or trees were cut down. Although depending on when the picture is said to be taken, those may or may not have to be some pretty fast growing trees. This source says that trees grow 12 to 24 inches a year at a moderate rate, with the fastest trees growing 25 inches a year.

https://blog.davey.com/tree-growth-rate ... ould-know/

Those trees would have to grow large enough to cover the top there. Or it could just be the position of the sun that makes the difference.

If they were cut down, this indicates they cut down all those trees just to get that spooky shadow in.

Although the photo from the source is presented as present and therefore after the film. The original source that was cited:
Istoriya mogilyovskogo evrejstva. Dokumenty i lyudi is no longer up, so I can't check for sure, but the Russian text under the image says: "Present-day view of the psychiatric hospital building in which the fascists carried out the action to exterminate patients."

I put it through ChatGPT and it said the book in question was written in 2003, so that's probably enough time for trees to grow there.

[Wetzelrad]

The reason the orientation of the vehicles is wrong is because it was very important for them to be identifiable in the shot, so the tag and the unit symbol had to be visible.

You're right. Nothing about the film would be useful to the Germans, but several aspects of it are highly convenient for the Allies.

Although the photo from the source is presented as present and therefore after the film. The original source that was cited:
Istoriya mogilyovskogo evrejstva. Dokumenty i lyudi is no longer up, so I can't check for sure, but the Russian text under the image says: "Present-day view of the psychiatric hospital building in which the fascists carried out the action to exterminate patients."

In that case disregard my speculation. I will take it on faith that it is a postwar photo and that the wall was remodelled.

Those trees would have to grow large enough to cover the top there. Or it could just be the position of the sun that makes the difference.

If they were cut down, this indicates they cut down all those trees just to get that spooky shadow in.

No, probably not cut down, but that is an interesting line of thought. The trees and the shadows could both be useful information in investigating this film.

One idea would be to check the angle of the shadows on the wall in the film. The HC bloggers hypothesize that this might not be a shadow from a floodlight but actually a low-hanging sun. If that's the case, the angle of the shadows on the wall could be measured to determine the time of year. The bloggers say it was September 1941, with speculation on possible alternate dates.

This could prove or disprove a number of things, so it's worth checking.

[pilgrimofdark]

First post here, but have been reading the HH series and orthodox books for a couple years now. So a total novice at this.

Mattogno's Take

Mattogno writes about this video in "Chapter 6: The Genesis of the 'Gas Vans' and Their Use by the Einsatzgruppen" in Part I of The Einsatzgruppen in the Occupied Eastern Territories (pp. 313-316).

He argues its a re-enactment and most of the details are wrong and, as usual, technically absurd. Also, there is no single shot of the building, "gas vans," and "victims" together. All of these scenes had to be stitched together, so could have come from disparate sources. And the license plate of the vehicle can identify it as likely belonging to the Einsatzgruppen.

The first thing to note is that the three scenes have no relation to each other. They do not contain any common detail that would indicate that they were taken at the same location or during the same time period. They are obviously completely different scenes that have been artificially spliced together. In order to create the impression of a continuity, the middle scene of the emaciated persons was inserted between two scenes with vehicles.

https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/the ... rritories/

History Mohylev Jews by Emil Majuk

The HC Blog link to the book with the "modern" photo isn't working, but here is a working link and the ISBN for the book. It's in Russian so I can't read it.

Working archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20170102153 ... ____2_2010
ISBN: 9789856891123

Anyway, previous pages of the book show captures from the video, so we might be at the "incestuous Soviet propaganda" stage of history here.

Actual Location & Modern Day

It seems possible the psychiatric hospital wasn't actually in Mogilev, but in Novinki:

https://obitel-minsk.org/en/novinki-an- ... tuous-past

The Nazis had parked a gas van, drove the patients into the hospital steam house and let the gas in. Around 200 people were gassed.

It's not clear at all how "modern" of a view of the building it could be, though it's not clear which year it was rebuilt.

After liberation on 3 July 1944, the mental hospital was rebuilt ...

This seems to be the official website of the hospital now. History page linked:
https://mentalhealth.by/istorija-rnpc/

Poor English translation:

At the end of June 1941. The area where the Novínka colony was located was occupied by the Germans. In September, after the completion of harvesting, patients were taken to the bath of the colony, where the car was delivered - "Dushegumpka" [possibly "Soul Destroyers"]. The patients were locked in the baths and gas was allowed, and all the patients were strangled. The bodies were taken to the village of Drozdy and they were buried there. In total, about 200 mentally ill were strangled [sic, maybe asphyxiated in original?].

[Wetzelrad]

There is an information rich article on CODOH related to this, but it's old and almost definitely contains inaccuracies.
https://codoh.com/library/document/the- ... d-gas-van/

I want to return to this article from Klaus Schwensen, because he is largely vindicated.

On the first photo -- which Der Spiegel represented as a "SS-Gaswagen", and which Simon Wiesenthal repeatedly claimed was an ambulance used by Walter Rauff to execute Jews -- it has been demonstrated that the image comes from a Polish postwar film titled Ambulans. See timestamp 8:49 in that film. I believe this was discovered by David Cole when he noticed the Simon Wiesenthal Center presenting this piece of fiction as a "documentary".

On the second photo -- a commonly shared photo of the front of a damaged Magirus Deutz truck -- it is now broadly accepted not to be a gas van. Schwensen points out that the Poles who investigated it described it as a "former Wehrmacht disinfection van". In 1995, Jerzy Halberstadt allowed that it is "probably" not a gas van.
http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/ ... _vans.html

That determination appears to be undisputed. The HC blog agrees. You can see today that Wikipedia still widely uses this image with false captions of "gas van" or claimed similarity to a gas van, but there have also been some efforts to fix this by changing references to it to say "furniture van" or otherwise.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... d_1945.jpg

On the third photo -- stills from the film attributed to Arthur Nebe -- there may be more to it. However, it is not a "gassing van" as captioned by Der Spiegel, but actually a car and a truck. It is not a "gas chamber at Belzec" as captioned by Saul Friedlander, but actually images of Mogilev and Auschwitz he put together in a montage.

Saul Friedländer claimed photos of Auschwitz and Mogilev were actually of a diesel gas chamber in Belzec.jpg (228.6 KiB) Viewed 34 times

It did not use diesel, because diesel would not have been an effective homicidal gas. Gerstein did not operate it. It was not found in 1949, as Gerald Reitlinger claimed, but supposedly in 1947.

Schwensen took the position that a gassing experiment at Mogilev did take place, but that this film was a forgery. Although this is compatible with the witnesses, it is somewhat incongruent, like Halfocaust theory. The HC bloggers dislike him for this, but they aren't actually far apart since they implicitly agree with him about the first two photos.

With the historians and other authorities being such fabulists, it's difficult to take the subject seriously. We don't even seem to have the original, uncut film to look at. I can only think of two things that could convince me of this film's origins:
1) The footage could be dated by other photos. Determining the date could prove it is pre or post war.
2) The chain of custody could be proven. Merely claiming it was found in Nebe's residence in 1947 is worthy of ridicule.