How many documents were fabricated?

[bombsaway]

"fabrication of documents,"

Not very many. There are, what, three explicit gas chamber/gas van documents?

I would agree that a large number, say more than a hundred, is not realistic, but I don't think that was the case.

Gas van documents I count 5 or 6 here that revisionists say would be fake

4,5, 9, 10, 12, 14

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... tml#_doc12

We can add to this the FG report, the documents on HCN detectors in the crema (which Mattogno thinks were fabricated)

Sonderkommando manuscripts must all be fake as well, there are what 8 of them?

The Greiser correspondence points explicitly to 100,000 Jews being "euthanized" in his district (Warthegau)- FAKE

But this is just the beginning.

Archie, are all these documents real?

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... 29-30.html

I feel like we can easily get up to 100 documents that must be faked when we start taking into account the shootings in the East

[curioussoul]

It's very telling that pretty much every document that contains a no-nonsense admission of mass murder from the Germans themselves is related to the Einsatzgruppen. The question of the veracity of the EM reports is obviously a huge topic of discussion, and I do believe many of them contain genuine errors and exaggerations, but when your only serious documents about mass murder of Jews come from an anti-partisan combat unit operating in the Occupied Eastern Territories and specifically tasked with rooting out and neutralising threats behind the front line, it's clear you're on shaky grounds front the get-go.

As for faked documents unrelated to the Einsatzgruppen, serious revisionists very rarely allege fraudulence, but if you're to ask me, I would point to the June 28 Handover Protocol for Crematorium III at Birkenau as an obvious example of a possibly fraudulent document that just seems too convenient and absurd to be genuine, as well as the odd request to Topf for a Hydrogen Cyanide measuring device. Both of these documents have obviously been dealt with at length by Mattogno and others throughout the years.

I think the error antirevisionists tend to make is to assume no ill intent or nefarious motives. Of all the positions that antirevisionists take, this is hands down the most absurd one, because it's intuitively true for any sane person that there were massive incentives to lie about German crimes after the war. That doesn't automatically make the accusations false, but it should put us on edge when it comes to over the top or ridiculous claims, such as those related to the Holocaust. Faking documents, as a practical matter, would have been very easy and it's not hard to imagine some overly zealous Jew in the Allied occupation regime taking matters into his own hands.

[bombsaway]

This thread was about fabricated documents.

How many of those Babi Yar documents are fabricated, they're all real you think?

[Stubble]

This thread was about fabricated documents.

How many of those Babi Yar documents are fabricated, they're all real you think?

Raises an important question either way. If real, why do they exist, assuming the massive cover up operation. This small collection of files could have been easily destroyed and simply was left. Odd, ain't it?

We are told all reference was destroyed to any extermination and so we are left with 'criminal traces' and yet, here these sit.

Personally, I don't know how many of the Einsatzgruppen Reports are real or fake as I haven't bothered to look at all of them. I will say that slipping some fakes in with some real ones is a common tactic, and I've said this before.

most of these are mundane reports on antipartisan (antiterrorist) operations. Firefights, file recoveries, stuff like that. Some are different.

With Babi Yar specifically, again, I need to dig further. If there was an operation to move these jews, not have them lay head to foot face down in quicklime and wait patiently to be shot in the back of the head, how many of those are we talking? Not very many, eh?

Do you think the evil nazis were completely thorough with all the gassing documents but somehow missed this handful? I mean to say, you believe this? With a high percentage of certainty?

Edit; upon going back through the Einsatzgruppen OSR's I have come to realize, yes, I have read them, they however are not replete in their availability. Even the released OSR's are dominated by mundane reports of antiterrorist actions and intelligence gathering.

[bombsaway]

"Odd, ain't it?"

https://chatgpt.com/share/68216a63-f1ec ... 283418b790

It's an important question Stubble. This tells you what you need to know from the orthodox perspective

[Archie]

"fabrication of documents,"

Not very many. There are, what, three explicit gas chamber/gas van documents?

I would agree that a large number, say more than a hundred, is not realistic, but I don't think that was the case.

Allow me to elaborate on this comment a bit. To clarify, by no means do I think it is impossible for governments to forge a large number of documents. Nor would I get hung up on that 100 figure which I threw out off the top of my head. I think it was certainly within their means to lots of documents, I just don't think that's what happened. They didn't really need to forge a bunch of documents for those show trials. It seems to me that if they were going to go through the trouble of forging a very large number of documents that they would have forged better, more explicit ones and they would have featured them more prominently. It just doesn't seem to have been the strategy. Could have have forged a good number and not really used them? I suppose, but I've never had reason to think that.

I would add that you should really consider when the document emerged/became known. Individual documents that surfaced late would not have to be part of any mass forgery operation. These could be one-offs and not all by the same entities. If there was really major forgery of documents, presumably this would have been in the early post-war period. But I could see a trickle of one-offs emerging later.

Another point would be whether we are talking about forging documents from scratch versus potential slight modifications of otherwise authentic documents. The latter would obviously be much easier. It is difficult to know to what extent any of the documents have been tampered with in some way. You might say that we can't assume this without conclusive proof but I see no reason to assume absolute fidelity. My position is that most documents are presumably but not necessarily authentic.

I would break this down into categories.

Stationary Gas Chambers

-The Second Franke-Gricksch Report
-You say HCN detectors but this would be circumstantial. Butz disagreed with Mattogno on this.
-Pressac criminal trace more generally: All of these are ambiguous/circumstantial, so it is not strictly necessary to assume forgery. My view is that these were not forged but more likely cherry-picked by Jan Sehn and the Poles and we are missing (perhaps deliberately) many of the documents that would have provided the necessary context to interpret all these things definitively.

There is, to my knowledge, one explicit document about CO gassings in euthanasia context (the one from the T1021 microfilm). This document has not received sufficient study. IF it is legit, then I would consider conceding CO gassings in the context of euthanasia, but this wouldn't automatically prove the gassings in the so-called extermination camps or establish the scale.

Gas Vans

The big ones are PS-501 and the Just document. Most revisionists think these are fake. There's also one about Mauthausen in the same folder as the Just document. I tend to lump those two together. Not a big number. I will check your link later, but 6 (taking your word for it for a moment) is not a big number.

Bottom line on the gas chambers we are talking about a quite small number of implicit forgeries. This is really what I had in mind with my comment, and nothing you have shared here inclines me to reconsider. If the gas chambers don't hold up, then the Holocaust is a fraud and honestly nobody is going to care about whatever other parts of it might have some grain of truth.

Einsatzgruppen

There are a lot of Einsatzgruppen documents, and some revisionists suggest forgery here, but I don't see this as necessary. Clarification here: Just because a document is "authentic" does not mean it is accurate. This seems to be a point anti-revisionists cannot grasp. If there is a document, even an authentic one, saying 34,000 Jews were killed in two days at Babi Yar, I still would not accept that number. I do not care what a piece of paper says. It's either bogus or modified or it's just wrong because of the logistical implausibility and lack of physical evidence. "But why would they inflate figures?" you might ask. This is actually extremely common in wars.

There are few Einsatzgruppen documents that might be challenged like maybe the Jaeger report which was not discovered until 1963. Maybe Meldung 51. But at least for me, I don't see the need to assume hundreds of forgeries here.

I could go on, but I think these are the key points.

[bombsaway]

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... 29-30.html

Archie, can you go through the Babi Yar documents and tell me your feeling on if they were faked or not? You can speak probabilistically and roughly here. If you accept that they all might be real, I'll show you in another thread why this is a problem for your argument that the event did not transpire as believed.

[Archie]

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... 29-30.html

Archie, can you go through the Babi Yar documents and tell me your feeling on if they were faked or not? You can speak probabilistically and roughly here. If you accept that they all might be real, I'll show you in another thread why this is a problem for your argument that the event did not transpire as believed.

We've discussed this before on the old forum. I'm not going to go through all of those right now but here is what I told you last time.

Speaking only for myself, I would not want to make any sort of definitive pronouncement on the authenticity of each of these documents.

I would sort them in three categories. Documents 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 12, 17, 18 are rather vague and I don't see them as very strong for your case. Documents 4, 7, 10, 11, 15, 16 are incriminating but they are USSR exhibits which to me makes them somewhat questionable. Then 8, 9, 13, 14, 19, 20 are other incriminating documents, although 14 doesn't give any numbers. The last one appears to have been an NMT document (NO-2657). Some of the facsimiles don't look very impressive (just regular typed pages). If they are authentic, we also have the question of numerical accuracy (see my earlier post).

https://archive.codohforum.com/20230609 ... c23cd.html

Probably a good one to focus on would #7. That's the most famous and has been the most discussed. It says "on 29 and 30 September 1941, 33,771 Jews were executed in Kiev," which is quite explicit. However--and this is what really separates my approach from yours--I would not accept that as proof even if the document were known with certainty to be authentic and unaltered. Because documents can be wrong, especially with numbers.

For me, the much stronger considerations are:

• The logistical implausibility of the procedure as described
• The lack of physical evidence (the Soviets found nothing there in Nov 1943)
• The story of the 80,000-100,000 bodies being dug and burned which was so implausible not even the NYT reporter believed the ESC's Jewish "eyewitness." The air photos also don't support this clean-up operation.

Now then, if there is a tension between some of the documents and the physical evidence, how could this be reconciled? Forgery or modification is one possibility. Another possibility is that the numbers might simply be completely wrong and unreliable.

[TlsMS93]

The story of the leaflet calling on the Jewish population of Kiev is already a forgery, let alone the place of the massacre, the number of deaths, the method of killing, blood geiser, good aerial photos of the untouched place, etc.

Einsatzgruppen?

“As for the number of victims, it cannot be excluded that the accounting precision with which the Event Reports were written conveys a false impression; it is possible that the exact number of people killed during the massacres was not recorded, and it seems conceivable that the figures given are exaggerated in order to polish the ‘record of success’.”

Peter Longerich

[Nessie]

...

Probably a good one to focus on would #7. That's the most famous and has been the most discussed. It says "on 29 and 30 September 1941, 33,771 Jews were executed in Kiev," which is quite explicit. However--and this is what really separates my approach from yours--I would not accept that as proof even if the document were known with certainty to be authentic and unaltered. Because documents can be wrong, especially with numbers.

For me, the much stronger considerations are:

• The logistical implausibility of the procedure as described

Argument from incredulity.

[*]The lack of physical evidence (the Soviets found nothing there in Nov 1943)

Alternative or a lack of evidence is how to correctly determine if a described event took place or not. In the case of Babi Yar, that would be evidence to prove after the Jews gathered there, they were transported to a camp or ghetto, or, there was a thorough search in 1943 and no traces of any corpses or bullets were found.

[*]The story of the 80,000-100,000 bodies being dug and burned which was so implausible not even the NYT reporter believed the ESC's Jewish "eyewitness." The air photos also don't support this clean-up operation.
[/list]

Back to the argument from incredulity, but with a nod to the need for evidence.

Now then, if there is a tension between some of the documents and the physical evidence, how could this be reconciled? Forgery or modification is one possibility. Another possibility is that the numbers might simply be completely wrong and unreliable.

Or, it has come about because of a Nazi cover-up. A crime that was not thoroughly investigated at the earliest opportunity, that has had a large scale destruction of evidence, is not going to end up with "tension". The bottom line is that if 80-100,000 Ukrainian Jews were not killed at Babi Yar in 1941-2, then where were they in 1943? There is corroborating documentary, physical and witness evidence they were shot. That the evidence is limited in its scale, is explainable by the destruction of evidence. There is also evidence of motive and opportunity, with the actions of the EG and Nazi attitudes towards Eastern European Jews.

[Archie]

Archie, of the German 20 documents here, how many are forgeries?

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... 29-30.html

I think you probably have to call a huge portion of the shooting documents faked, because of the nuh mass graves thing. There are thousands of shooting documents though. I think revisionists don't understand how much is really out there.

Discussed here:
viewtopic.php?t=342

Please continue your derail there, tia.

No need. Probabalistically, you cast doubt on about 60% of the Babi Yar documents in that page. If we extrapolate across the whole of SS police shooting documents, you would probably have such qualms with hundreds.

If you're not casting doubt then you can't answer a simple question.

First of all, your Keen-style demand is in no way a "simple question." Reconciling contradictory data and having to give definitive yes/no authenticity attestations on 20 documents based is not simple. Second, I clearly said I was not wedded to forgery as an explanation.

From my quotes here is this thread which you never replied to and which you are now misrepresenting to derail another thread.

There are a lot of Einsatzgruppen documents, and some revisionists suggest forgery here, but I don't see this as necessary. Clarification here: Just because a document is "authentic" does not mean it is accurate.

Now then, if there is a tension between some of the documents and the physical evidence, how could this be reconciled? Forgery or modification is one possibility. Another possibility is that the numbers might simply be completely wrong and unreliable.

Regarding the Einstazgruppen reports, even orthodox historians have conceded to an extent that the numbers in the reports are not realistic. Reitlinger for example says the 363,211 number in NO-1128 was "a quite manifest exaggeration." He doesn't say it's fake but he doesn't believe the number. You in contrast seem to think that numbers on paper are proof.

As a final point, I'll say that I would question extrapolating out from Babi Yar. Babi Yar was very high profile, so that would imo be relatively more likely to generate forgeries than other less significant episodes.

[bombsaway]

I asked you probabilistically, so there is no true binary here.

I would scoff at the notion of Babi Yar having significantly more "incriminating" documents on per capita basis . German documents report over and over about mass executions of entire populations of ghettoized Jews (under the guise of resettlement). This doesn't fit the reprisal model, which is based on killings being publicized (so as to deter others from acting this way) and in which whole populations aren't killed. Whole populations being killed fit the genocide model.

Maybe we should go one by one through non Babi Yar documents and you can tell me, probabilistically, if you think they're fake.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... to_16.html

On 9 November 1942, the leader of 10th company of SS-Polizeiregiment 15, Helmut Saur, reported that the men were employed for "guarding at the assembly point, securing the individual transports to the execution site, which was about 4 km outside Pinsk". He goes on that "10,000 people were executed. On 30 October, the ghetto was searched through for second time, on 31 October for the third time and on 1 November for the fourth time. A total of about 15,000 Jews were brought to the assembly point. Sick Jews and some children left in the houses were immediately executed in the ghetto in the courtyard. In the ghetto, about 1,200 Jews were executed." (VEJ 8, document 219).

It is absolutely trivial to find documents that revisionists will find suspicious here. I could go on for hours, days. It seems like willful self-ignorance at this point.

[Callafangers]

Gas van documents I count 5 or 6 here that revisionists say would be fake

4,5, 9, 10, 12, 14

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... tml#_doc12

bombsaway is up to his usual trickery of pretending to forget things that were debated some time ago. On gas vans and the documents he listed above, most have already been addressed by myself and others at the earlier forum, however some of this was lost in the sabotage that happened there. I did save some of it, e.g. for docs 4 and 5:

4) Document 4 is a Letter from Walther Rauff to the Criminal Technical Institute at the Reich Criminal Police Office of 26 March 1942 on "special wagons" and "gas bottles with carbon monoxide" for concentration camp Mauthausen.
The mention of "carbon monoxide" is clearly what is concerning about this document, if legitimate. That said, look at who wrote it. Rauff despite being administrative head of the technical affairs department for the RSHA, had no formal technical or engineering training himself (he was formerly a naval officer; I have found no indication of formal education in any technical field). Even if we concede the document is fully legitimate, we cannot presume he is necessarily and sufficiently aware that CO is ineffective for delousing (or other) purposes. Even if he may have learned this in passing at some point, he is no expert, and simple errors can occur as such.
Rauff's mention of which "remedies" to use was just as casual as much of the rest of this document, factoring in errors insofar as the missing initials of the author and typist (which Hans seems to acknowledge in his Alvarez rebuttal) as well as the typed name of the author and his name and rank. Mattogno also points out (from "Inside the Gas Chambers"):

• The statement that the author is 'returning the file' (documentation) was not a standard practice,
• The author implies the use of "special vehicles" had been ordered by Heydrich but no such order
  apparently exists,
• The story about the "availability of the chassis" seems contrived and extrapolated from correspondence
  between RSHA and the Gaubschat company.
• Likewise, the use of "steel bottles with carbon monoxide" seems contrived to produce a document
  using the infamous term, which otherwise does not appear in any document
• Misuse of the term "implementation" (lacking an object) suggests translation error, an original
  document perhaps written in English
• The contradiction in a gas van being requested when unfit detainees were allegedly being shipped to
  Hartheim to be killed and a gas chamber was being constructed.
• There remains no concrete documentary evidence supporting the actual use of a gas van at
  Mauthausen.
• The only basis for assuming the presence of a gas van in Mauthausen comes from inconsistent
  statements from former SS and detainees.
• The story of Franz Ziereis, who confessed to driving the van, is absurd, and Ziereis' account does not
  align with other testimonies.

How many of these has Hans directly responded to?

5) This document is a Letter from Harald Turner to Karl Wolff of 11 April 1942 on "I shot dead all the Jews I could get my hands on in this area, concentrated all the Jewish women and children in a camp and with the help of the SD got my hands on a 'delousing van', that in about 14 days to 4 weeks will have brought about the definitive clearing out of the camp".
Simply put, Turner calls it a "delousing van". This tells me the SD supplied his request for a delousing van and he is either using it for delousing (to simplify delousing efforts in implementing official transit policy; to "clear [remaining Jews] out" of the occupied territories quickly [with delousing as a required step pre-transit]), or he actually has decided to murder them in a van otherwise designated for delousing. The fact that he had to purchase (angeschafft) this van on his own rather than being supplied it automatically (to kill maximum Jews per official German policy, as alleged) is significant. [note: 'angeschafft' can also mean 'acquire' or 'obtain', but context still shows Turner sought after this device/van -- it was not automatically given per policy]

And here's 9 and 10:

9) This is a letter from August Becker to Walther Rauff of 16 May 1942 on "death van" and "the persons to be executed suffer death from suffocation and not death by dozing off as was planned" I'll be incorporating some of Mattogno's arguments in "Einsatzgruppen" here, throughout.
That the detainees "fall asleep peacefully" when gassed after 'lever adjustments' (Becker's claim, here) is apparent fabrication in that victims in any case would have died of asphyxia, extreme headache, extreme shortness of breath, and total panic as stinking, hot, noxious gas flowed into their crowded breathing space beside screaming, dying relatives. There is no conceivable way that this can be considered "dozing off", nor presumably that there would even be an absence of the same horrifying characteristics of "[d]istorted faces and excretions" which are said to have been totally eliminated through this mere "adjustment of the levers".
Regarding the levers, Hans has stated in his response to Alvarez:

[Becker] probably adjusted spark and throttle levers (perhaps also choke?) of the gasoline engine. This corresponds to the testimony of Helmut Hoffmann from the Criminal Technical Institute of the Security Police on "adjusting the carburetor to obtain a deadly mixture as quickly as possible" and "retarded ignition"

Hans admits he has no clue what kind of "mixture" through simply adjusting a carburetor would be sufficient to totally prevent signs of extreme distress causing excretion and facial contortion in death while pumping exhaust gas into a sealed compartment of [utterly-horrified] human beings. But he still believes it can be done.
The improbability of the above adds weight to Mattogno/Alvarez's suggestion that the use of the term "levers" was not about "spark and throttle levers" as Hans has been forced to assume but, rather, suggests reference to a "first-generation gas van"; an inconsistency suggesting possible fabrication or forgery of the document in question.
The next issue is the designation of victims in the letter as "detainees" (Häftlinge). This term would far more likely have been used for people arrested and detained as criminals, dissidents, etc.; implying that the use of the word might indicate a fabrication, or even that 'gas vans', if true, were really intended for limited use on death-sentenced criminals, political prisoners and the like (rather than Jews).
A few other criticisms from Mattogno:

• It is inconceivable that SS soldiers would unload the "gas vans" themselves, thus putting their health at risk. The justification of a fear of detainees using the opportunity to escape is absurd.
• Other language abnormalities are also present: "Moreover, a German hardly would have said that a defect was “carried out” (“ausgeführt”), but rather it was repaired (“repariert”), and the use of the term
  “group” (“Gruppe”) instead of “Einsatzgruppe” is very reminiscent of the common linguistic usage of Americans during interrogations and trials.
• The letter mentions frequent breakdowns of the "gas vans" and the need to inform Berlin via radio when this occurs. No such radio messages were ever intercepted by the British.

Mattogno notes that further problems come from examining this document beside Becker's 1960 testimony and the "Just Memo", which moves us into Document 10, below.

10) This is a memo of Willy Just of 5 June 1942 on "ninety-seven thousand have been processed using three vans", "to facilitate the rapid distribution of CO" and "when the back door is closed and it gets dark inside, the load pushes hard against the door"
The "Just Memo" (allegedly writen by German workshop foreman, Willy Just) is dated a few weeks after the Becker letter (Document 9, above) and proposed seven technical modifications to these "special vehicles" (which must ostensibly be based on Becker's experiences and observations)... but Becker's letter mentions just three technical issues, which are not reflected at all in the "Just Memo". Hence, there is a total disconnect in terms of technical issues and modifications reported between these two documents. (EG, p. 370)
Most significant of these technical issues not reflected in the "Just Memo" is the total immobilization of the Sauer vehicles on wet roads (even slightly rainy weather renders them inoperable), and this condition (wet, perilous roads) was a far more serious and common issue in the Eastern territories. Despite this, the "Just Memo" states that "97,000 were processed [...] without any defects in the vehicles". Establishment historians today claim that this specific figure of 97,000 and "without any defects" refers to Chelmno but, as Mattogno notes, if so, then the need for the seven proposed technical modifications to the vehicles noted within this same document do not make sense.
What else doesn't make sense is the notion that Jews from Poland were taken hundreds of miles through occupied territory (passing actual 'gas chamber' buildings of Treblinka and other AR camps) just to be put into 'gas vans' (or shot) in Minsk (a problem acknowledged by von dem Bach-Zelewski). And perhaps what makes the least sense is that "liquidating" these transports was against Himmler's explicit order that these transports were not to be treated as such (see EG, p. 327-331).
Becker's narrative suggests the existence of previous and/or subsequent reports on the operation and modification of gas vans, yet these reports are neither mentioned by Becker nor do they seem to exist. The problems with the timeline and missing documentation in this regard are worth looking at more closely:

• Mid-May 1942: Becker sends a letter to Rauff stating that he had completed inspection of Einsatzgruppen D and C and will proceed onto Group B.
  Implies Rauff already knew about the inspection and its purpose (suggesting there should be earlier communication) but no such communication is mentioned by Becker (all indications are that it doesn't
  exist).
• Mid-May 1942 to September 1942: Becker is supposedly with Einsatzgruppen B and A.
  This [extended stay] should have required another report to Rauff, but it doesn't exist, is never mentioned by Becker.
• September 1942: Becker travels to Berlin to report to Rauff, but Rauff is not there. Pradel (Rauff's deputy) advises Becker to write a detailed report.
  This report should [logically] be the letter dated 15 May 1942, but the date contradicts Becker's narrative that he was advised to write the report in September 1942 -- months after the letter was allegedly written!

Becker's testimony indicates he stayed with Ohlendorf for two months but his account does not mention any other Einsatzgruppen leaders, which is surprising given the length of his [alleged] stay with them.
Ohlendorf seems to have had no knowledge of ever staying with Becker. Additionally, other Einsatzgruppen leaders' statements did not acknowledge Becker's presence or role. Mattogno points out that it looks quite like any affirmative [postwar] statements insofar as homicidal 'gas vans' made by these officials are derived from the contents of the letter, therefore, rather than the contents of the letter being derived from any actual events involving these individuals.
Making matters worse, Becker’s letter and the “Just Memo” have neither any reciprocal relation to each other, nor to the correspondence between the RSHA and the Gaubschat Company. A memo dated 27 April 1942 (Document 6, above) proposes the "retractable grate" modification. This modification is then proposed all over again in the "Just Memo" of 5 June 1942. The April memo could not have been easily missed. Then, just weeks after the "Just Memo", a 23 June memo abandons the idea of the retractable grate altogether (right after it had been ordered/proposed by the "Just Memo"!). Altogether, as Mattogno
further illustrates in EG p. 373 by comparing to known authentic documentation, there is a total lack of correlation and continuity between these 'suspicious' documents and those which are certainly authentic.
Hans identifies a possible candidate for the “Ruhl” Becker refers to, a SS-Hauptsturmführer Heinz Trühe in Riga. If this is correct, Trühe would be the presumed head of Maly Trostenets “extermination camp” whom Becker allegedly told to request more gas vans for this location. Hans provides a letter with this type of request to the RSHA, from Trühe. Unfortunately for Hans, this request was sent on June 15, 1942, which is around three months before Trühe/Ruhl and Becker first discussed the need for more homicidal gas vans (September of 1942; see EG p. 367).
This remains a very big problem for Hans. In September 1942 (month of Becker’s visit to Minsk and conversation with Truhe/Ruhl), a capacity of up to 22,050 Jews could have been gassed (using Gerlach claim that each van could kill 350-400 per day) in that time but only 3,600 arrived in that entire month (EG, p. 368). This makes the entire notion of more homicidal ‘gas vans’ being needed completely absurd.
Even with “leaky hoses”, there is no indication the request should have entailed any additional vans (e.g. rather than just replacement hoses, if that was even causing delays, which is not stated), given the capacity was several-fold that of the actual arrivals (similar proportions existed for surrounding months, i.e. August).
On the other hand, the need for some kind of “special vehicles” for delousing purposes could have been needed in greater number at the time (given Jews resettled in the area and infestation risks, generally).
Mattogno doesn’t say this but I can’t help but wonder.
In summary, the claims for homicidal "gaswagens" are sloppy and inconsistent, the documents do no favors, and this overall looks quite like a postwar frame job.
How much of this did Hans address in his rebuttal to Mattogno? Did he even reach 10%?

[Note: while some of this can lean to suggest fabrication, this series is also the absolute 'highlight reel' of alleged gas van documents, and the problems noted are real and largely unaddressed by establishment scholars.]

[bombsaway]

Callafangers, you're looking at an old post of mine. But anyway you seem to think these documents were fabricated, which agrees with my supposition "revisionists say would be fake"

[Callafangers]

Callafangers, you're looking at an old post of mine. But anyway you seem to think these documents were fabricated, which agrees with my supposition "revisionists say would be fake"

Revisionists might interpret some as fake; a reasonable position which has been acknowledged. The rationale for this is clear and well-within capacity for known motives and available means. Nonetheless, even regarding the documents shared in my last post, I consider that an interpretation of forgery may be unnecessary, e.g. I suggest:

4) Rauff was a casual and simply spoke out of ignorance; also, there were some CO experiments for delousing purposes around this time.
5) Turner refers to a "delousing van" explicitly and mentions he had to obtain it on his own (with local SD help; not provisioned automatically) -- this in any case (even if for homicide, which isn't apparent since a literal delousing interpretation remains valid) reflects his own individual pursuit, not any larger German policy.
9) Numerous problems with this document, from medical, engineering, and security logic to inconsistent and abnormal phrasing and a lack of corroboration (e.g. radio messages). Possible forgery, and not even clearly referring to Jews (mentions "detainees" / Häftlinge).
10) The Just memo; absurd logistics and timeline if interpreted as homicidal, especially when compared with Becker letter and timeline (Becker's alleged travels are completely incoherent).

Revisionists (e.g. Mattogno) still often discuss the possibility (or probability) of forgery, since this is always relevant, often plausible, and worthy of due diligence.

As mentioned here:

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=890

...exterminationists smirk at the notion of revisionists raising forgery suspicions, despite that forgery (for almost any document of great narrative significance) is a reasonable hypothesis given the motives/means of the period and since. In other words, revisionists are simply doing the historians' job for them -- they should have already explored these angles but haven't (for political reasons, echo chamber / biases, etc).