Homicidal Gas Vans

[bombsaway]

I don't care about the literature. I care about primary sources and am capable of interpreting them without the need for "experts" to tell me what they mean. This is a whole other aspect that I think is causing you a lot of undue confusion. If you take the testimonies and the the documents at their word, SK Lange was conducting mass killings of mental patients with gas vans hooked up to bottled CO. Then SK Lange took up residence at Chelmno where vans were used with the modification of engine exhaust being used. There being a transition period here between both kinds of vans is not something that strikes me as improbable.

This is a perfect example of why Holocaust Inc is so insidious. We've just recently had an entire other thread where you and your friends were making the exact opposite case for your arguments. Watch this:

"I don't care about the literature. I care about primary sources and am capable of interpreting them without the need for "experts" to tell me what they mean. If you take the testimonies and the the documents at their word, John Henry Witton was producing jew soap at his facility in Danzig"

Let's put this to the test. I looked at the testimonies and saw nothing about Jew soap. Make your case and present the testimonies. My standard is, as I've said many times before, is primary sources, first hand testimonies take precedence. Mass events cannot be assumed on the basis of secondary sources or rumors.

[Stubble]

If you look at the first post from Bombsaway in this thread you can see the narrative for the gas vans is indeed constructed from primary sources.

I haven't personally found the time to vet all of them, but, they are there.

I can respect your point about the primary sources for soap. That said, Bombsaway was clear that he accepts small scale manufacturing of soap. That leads into a whole other series of questions that I will reserve for the soap thread.

One thing that is utterly undeniable is that people died at chelmno. They were then taken off site for disposal. Why they were taken off site, I don't personally know. It is supposed by the orthodoxy that this was procedural to kill internees in the vans.

I personally have never and will never ascribed to the Kaiser's Koffee Kafe. That said, there is a case to be made for it. From that case, comes this other.

Ultimately these are the points of contention in my opinion.

[Archie]

I don't care about the literature. I care about primary sources and am capable of interpreting them without the need for "experts" to tell me what they mean. This is a whole other aspect that I think is causing you a lot of undue confusion. If you take the testimonies and the the documents at their word, SK Lange was conducting mass killings of mental patients with gas vans hooked up to bottled CO. Then SK Lange took up residence at Chelmno where vans were used with the modification of engine exhaust being used. There being a transition period here between both kinds of vans is not something that strikes me as improbable.

Lmao. Like you are some serious primary researcher. You ain't doing primary research. You are pulling stuff from HC which btw is a secondary source and not even a prestigious one. Yes, HC features selected primary sources, as does the HH series and many other secondary sources. But there's a huge difference between looking at a handful of documents compiled in a secondary source (which is still relying on another's work) and actually going through all the raw sources in context.

The "official story" on the Holocaust comes from the literature. That's what you are defending, whether you realize it or not. You are shooting yourself in the foot with this bizarre argument. Over at Skeptics they were all about "the literature" and were constantly glazing the Holo-historians. They would give you a list of 300 Holocaust books and if you hadn't read all of them, they would say you don't have standing to opine on the topic.

To get more specific, if the secondary sources (i.e., expert historians) on Chelmno were wrong for 60 years or so then there needs to be some accounting for this. If it were true, as you imply, that the testimonies strongly support bottled CO gas vans at Chelmno, how is it that all the courts and historians didn't pick up on this? I suspect it is because you are not correct about the primary sources.

You seem to be saying that there are testimonies talking about bottled CO for euthanasia in 1939-1940 in connection with Lange and that because Lange later went to Chelmno this would then prove (or suggest) that bottled CO was used there as well (in late 1941). There's a jump that you're making there and it seems you are trying to gloss over it. Are there any postwar testimonies that actually say anything about this at Chelmno? Maybe there are some, but I have been unable to find them. If there aren't, then there's the explanation for why we aren't seeing it in the secondary sources. Like I said, Montague does say there was a bottled CO gas van at Chelmno, but it seems he based this largely on the Szalmek report, plus the circumstantial argument about euthanasia. I am proposing that the split between the early and the late story is too sharply dileanted.

[bombsaway]

I don't care about the literature. I care about primary sources and am capable of interpreting them without the need for "experts" to tell me what they mean. This is a whole other aspect that I think is causing you a lot of undue confusion. If you take the testimonies and the the documents at their word, SK Lange was conducting mass killings of mental patients with gas vans hooked up to bottled CO. Then SK Lange took up residence at Chelmno where vans were used with the modification of engine exhaust being used. There being a transition period here between both kinds of vans is not something that strikes me as improbable.

Lmao. Like you are some serious primary researcher. You ain't doing primary research. You are pulling stuff from HC which btw is a secondary source and not even a prestigious one. Yes, HC features selected primary sources, as does the HH series and many other secondary sources. But there's a huge difference between looking at a handful of documents compiled in a secondary source (which is still relying on another's work) and actually going through all the raw sources in context.

I'm not a serious researcher of course, but I can look at the documents and testimonies. Revisionist also present documents and testimonies that they support their case, and I almost always disagree with their interpretations for reasons that are clearly articulable to me. Your argument would seem to rely on the existence of undisclosed or destroyed testimonies and documents, which sure, I'll believe it when I see it.

I read HC not for the analysis of the authors but for the documents that they are referencing and quoting. I disagree with the authors analysis at times about certain documents, my approach is actually pretty conservative. I'm not taking their word for anything.

One is capable of logically deducing things. Like you can look at the Greiser correspondence, and see clearly that when he talks about 100,000 Jews getting special treatment, he is talking about killing. That's not ultra clear from that document alone (all we have is the term "special treatment" a self evidently coded term that often meant killing), but the full exchange makes it so. This is not something I needed authors to inform me about. (Starting at document 26 https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... erman.html )

[bombsaway]

To get more specific, if the secondary sources (i.e., expert historians) on Chelmno were wrong for 60 years or so then there needs to be some accounting for this. If it were true, as you imply, that the testimonies strongly support bottled CO gas vans at Chelmno, how is it that all the courts and historians didn't pick up on this? I suspect it is because you are not correct about the primary sources.

I don't know if they strongly support. By my standards the evidence isn't very strong https://holocaustresearchproject.net/ot ... aries.html

The gas van description might be second hand, the testimony seems a bit confused on the matter

Our comrades from among the ‘eight’ told us there was an apparatus with buttons in the driver’s cab. From this apparatus two tubes led into the van. The driver (there were two execution gas vans, and two drivers – always the same) pressed a button and got out of the van.

I said in this very thread that you shouldn't assert mass events based on second hand accounts, rumors, etc.

So really we're dealing with something that might possibly be true. Based on the supplied time frames, this was very early on in the camp's operation, like the first few weeks. So again, it's plausible, and fits with my speculation that there was a transition period, or they were experimenting before settling on a method.

But so what? You think that the existence of such a testimony is strong evidence of a conspiracy to "write" the Holocaust? I understand what you're getting at, but it's just speculation. You should instead try to find direct evidence of that conspiracy. I would imagine with thousands of fabricated witnesses and documents, millions of "disappeared" Jews you should be able to do this. Just like how Stubble scoffs at stories of the Germans poisoning people with gas in enclosed spaces, I find it laughable that such a conspiracy could be perpetuated without a shred of direct evidence for it surfacing. I think believing in such a conspiracy, absent direct evidence, is irrational.

[Stubble]

Now Bombsaway, are you legitimately going to stand there and say that the events of the shoah have not been manipulated? That the historiography we have received is the gospel, infallible and inerrant? The single voice of truth?

It has been demonstrated time and time again that many of the fantastical claims and testimonies are indeed lies. You'd say embellished tellings I'm sure. Regardless, inaccurate.

Now, this doesn't specifically address the claims about the Kaiser's Koffee Kafe, or the homicidal gas vans of the east, but, there is most definitely a pattern of manipulation that runs like a red thread through the event.

Everything from turning individuals in to comic book villains to changing the name of an entire operation and spinning a narrative around it, this event has been written into the historical record in a willfully inaccurate and dishonest way.

You posit that it would be a vast conspiracy of millions of people to simply edit a real document or two, create a handful and to generate correspondent testimony, by hook or by crook.

Such a position, I caution you, is woefully naive. It's also not tenable when so much can be demonstrated to have been a bald faced lie.

There were various complex and multifaceted disinformation and propaganda operations going on during the war, I can demonstrate some that continued after. That doesn't address gas vans however.

No one is disputing, for example, that people died at Chelmno, or at Auschwitz for that matter. That's not the argument here. The argument is about gas vans.

Your specific argument with Archie is about a specific position you have taken with regard to canned carbon monoxide vs engine exhaust. It relates specifically to the orthodox historiography. I believe Archie highlighted what I would classify as a revisionist streak in your line on this matter, your plank if you will. You see, you are going against consensus in your assessment.

Obviously, from my position, I see no problem with it. You also have a rational behind it. If I believed in gas vans, I would certainly see no reason not to believe in gas vans at Chelmno that used Carbon Monoxide from canisters. It would make logical sense for the process to be carried over from earlier operations and later revised to better fit the nature of the mission and available resources (fitted for exhaust executions). It's a reasonable view to hold. It still isn't the orthodox view however.

[bombsaway]

Now Bombsaway, are you legitimately going to stand there and say that the events of the shoah have not been manipulated? That the historiography we have received is the gospel, infallible and inerrant? The single voice of truth?

It has been demonstrated time and time again that many of the fantastical claims and testimonies are indeed lies. You'd say embellished tellings I'm sure. Regardless, inaccurate.

Single voice of truth is a silly what to look at history. History is just narrative, abstraction of real events. Witnesses testimony and evidence have a certain unknowableness and uncertainty to them, in that we're interpreting language. An example of this would be Goebbel's "liquidated" diary entry, where many revisionists interpret that word as meaning "moved out" or some such. Witnesses are unreliable too. Prosecutors make unfair claims and muddy the truth. The Nazis covered up and occluded the truth. So with the Holocaust, there's a lot of interpretability about it.

But you're saying something else. Documents were mass fabricated, false confessions were forced, all contradictory evidence was suppressed. I refuse to believe something like this could have just happened, so you're basically necessitating the existence of powerful conspiracies, Soviet and Western, that built the false narrative. Maybe you say it's all provable lies, like the whole gassing narrative, and that proves the conspiracy. Well that's your opinion but I lost you on that one. It seems like an irreconcilable gulf to me.

[Stubble]

None of that has to do with gas vans.

The most important fake gas chambers to call fake are the one the allies build in paris and later in dachau.

I don't care if you accept that the gas chambers that have been proven to be fake at majdanek are indeed fake. All the red commie scum actually did was bust holes in concrete (sounds familiar) in existing fumigation chambers. The western forces built elaborate non functional set pieces for film. That's nasty.

With the documents, yes, there are many fakes, probably more fabrications.

Stuff that us beyond reproach is corroborated from radio intercepts and things of that nature. It comes from multiple sources, not simply a book someone put under their pillow.

[borjastick]

None of that has to do with gas vans.

The most important fake gas chambers to call fake are the one the allies build in paris and later in dachau.

I don't care if you accept that the gas chambers that have been proven to be fake at majdanek are indeed fake. All the red commie scum actually did was bust holes in concrete (sounds familiar) in existing fumigation chambers. The western forces built elaborate non functional set pieces for film. That's nasty.

With the documents, yes, there are many fakes, probably more fabrications.

Stuff that us beyond reproach is corroborated from radio intercepts and things of that nature. It comes from multiple sources, not simply a book someone put under their pillow.

Well said and completely correct.

[bombsaway]

None of that has to do with gas vans.

The most important fake gas chambers to call fake are the one the allies build in paris and later in dachau.

I don't care if you accept that the gas chambers that have been proven to be fake at majdanek are indeed fake. All the red commie scum actually did was bust holes in concrete (sounds familiar) in existing fumigation chambers. The western forces built elaborate non functional set pieces for film. That's nasty.

With the documents, yes, there are many fakes, probably more fabrications.

Stuff that us beyond reproach is corroborated from radio intercepts and things of that nature. It comes from multiple sources, not simply a book someone put under their pillow.

Why not believe that the UK was forging these as well? A vast trove of Einsatzgruppen OSR's were found by the Americans.

[HansHill]

Let's put this to the test. I looked at the testimonies and saw nothing about Jew soap. Make your case and present the testimonies. My standard is, as I've said many times before, is primary sources, first hand testimonies take precedence. Mass events cannot be assumed on the basis of secondary sources or rumors.

Sure. I gave plenty of examples in the "soap" thread, so for this thread I will limit it to just one, as the topic here isn't jew soap, but rather I'm highlighting the inconsistency of how you interpret the evidence as it relates the the gas vans.

So to address your challenge, I only present one direct testimony, that of Sigmund Mazur who testified to the actual production of the soap at Nuremberg:

Q: Tell us how the soap was made out of human fat at the Danzig Anatomic Institute.'

"A: 'In the courtyard of the Anatomic Institute a one-story stone building of three rooms was built during the summer of 1943. This building was erected for the- utilization of human bodies and for the boiling of bones. This was officially announced by Professor Spanner. This laboratory was called a laboratory for the fabrication of skeletons, the burning of meat and unnecessary bones. But already during the winter of 1943-44 Professor Spanner ordered us to collect human fat, and not to throw it away. This order was given to Reichert and Borkmann."

You will now tell me that you discredit this testimony for some inconsistent reason.

[Stubble]

None of that has to do with gas vans.

The most important fake gas chambers to call fake are the one the allies build in paris and later in dachau.

I don't care if you accept that the gas chambers that have been proven to be fake at majdanek are indeed fake. All the red commie scum actually did was bust holes in concrete (sounds familiar) in existing fumigation chambers. The western forces built elaborate non functional set pieces for film. That's nasty.

With the documents, yes, there are many fakes, probably more fabrications.

Stuff that us beyond reproach is corroborated from radio intercepts and things of that nature. It comes from multiple sources, not simply a book someone put under their pillow.

Why not believe that the UK was forging these as well? A vast trove of Einsatzgruppen OSR's were found by the Americans.

Well, for one thing, there is the highly secretive nature of the decoding room. That's all a topic for another thread though and has nothing to do with gas vans.

More critical is the importance of more than 1 source. Multiple sources is best for authentication.

Oh So Social was certainly not above document doctoring and manipulation. They also weren't above seeding fakes in with authentic documents. To think only the Soviets were capable of document or photograph manipulation is naive.

Can we talk about gas vans?

[bombsaway]

Let's put this to the test. I looked at the testimonies and saw nothing about Jew soap. Make your case and present the testimonies. My standard is, as I've said many times before, is primary sources, first hand testimonies take precedence. Mass events cannot be assumed on the basis of secondary sources or rumors.

Sure. I gave plenty of examples in the "soap" thread, so for this thread I will limit it to just one, as the topic here isn't jew soap, but rather I'm highlighting the inconsistency of how you interpret the evidence as it relates the the gas vans.

So to address your challenge, I only present one direct testimony, that of Sigmund Mazur who testified to the actual production of the soap at Nuremberg:

Q: Tell us how the soap was made out of human fat at the Danzig Anatomic Institute.'

"A: 'In the courtyard of the Anatomic Institute a one-story stone building of three rooms was built during the summer of 1943. This building was erected for the- utilization of human bodies and for the boiling of bones. This was officially announced by Professor Spanner. This laboratory was called a laboratory for the fabrication of skeletons, the burning of meat and unnecessary bones. But already during the winter of 1943-44 Professor Spanner ordered us to collect human fat, and not to throw it away. This order was given to Reichert and Borkmann."

You will now tell me that you discredit this testimony for some inconsistent reason.

Where do we get Jew soap from this?

[HansHill]

Where do we get Jew soap from this?

We don't. There is no jew soap because he's lying.

[bombsaway]

Where do we get Jew soap from this?

We don't. There is no jew soap because he's lying.

I mean I don't see any mention of Jews so he's not even lying about that, it just isn't mentioned. It would be against my methodology to believe that was about Jews