Why the "Diesel Issue" is Relevant

[fireofice]

One of the methods claimed for mass extermination is from engine exhaust. The kind of engine exhaust claimed by historians for a long time has been diesel. However, the main problem with this is that diesel is not very efficient for mass killings. Information on that here:

https://codoh.com/library/document/the- ... -chambers/

https://codoh.com/library/document/the- ... in-a-myth/

https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/instr ... haust/266/

Because of these problems, some have backed away from the diesel claim and say it was from gasoline. The most vocal proponents of this are the HC bloggers, although some mainstream historians have also taken that position as well.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... evant.html

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... _9432.html

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... s-why.html

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ns-at.html

I will mainly be focusing on the Reinhard camps here, not so much on the gas vans and Chelmno, which for this I'll concede the gasoline claim for those. I just want to note here that there are some contradicting claims for the gas vans. In The People's Verdict book, diesel is claimed. Sergey also found a reference to diesel in some documents he dug up. However, there are also references to gasoline as one of the articles I linked demonstrates.

For a full treatment, I suggest reading section 8.1 point 95 of Carlo Mattogno's response, I'll just be summarizing the most important points here. If you look through the gasoline witnesses for the Reinhard camps, you'll see most of them are for Sobibor. Mattogno however concedes the gasoline issue for Sobibor calling it "old news" established by the 1966 Hagen Court. So this leaves Belzec and Treblinka.

The only 2 claimed gasoline witnesses for Belzec are Rudolf Reder and Kasimierz Czerniak.

For Reder, his earliest testimony says:

The [exhaust] gas was evacuated from the engine directly into the open air, and not into the chambers.

So this doesn't even describe a mass killing with the gasoline gas. So much for that testimony.

For Czernaik, the HC bloggers claim that he said gasoline was used in the margins of a document. However, Mattogno comments:

It is unknown who the author is, but since the translation was prepared in West Germany 14 years after Czerniak made his deposition in communist Poland, it certainly was not added as a result of a remark made by Czerniak. Hence the remark was most probably added by a prosecuting judge.

Two of the other witnesses, Kurt Gerstein and Wilhelm Pfannenstiel, claimed Diesel. The HC bloggers tried to make it seem like Gerstein wasn't a direct witness, but this isn't true at all. Gerstein's testimony:

Heckenholt is the driver of the Diesel […]. With the exhaust gases of his Diesel the people are supposed to be brought to death. […] But the Diesel did not function. This would happen relatively rarely, I was told – Captain Wirth arrives. One sees that it is embarrassing to him, that today of all days it has to happen when I am here. Yes, I see everything! and I wait. My stopwatch registered everything properly. 50 minutes, 70 minutes – the Diesel does not start up! […] Captain Wirth lashes the whip into the face of the Ukrainian who is supposed to help Heckenholt with the Diesel. – After 2 hours 49 minutes – the stopwatch registered everything well – the Diesel starts up!

As can be seen, Gerstein spent almost 3 hours with it, and he literally says he saw everything. So no, you can't get this to be hearsay. On top of that, Gerstein was an engineer. The HC bloggers make a big fuss about the experts and the ones close to it saying it was gasoline. Well Gerstein as an engineer was the biggest expert of all of the witnesses at Belzec. Going by that standard, he should be listened to above everybody. And since Pfannenstiel also claimed Diesel, he would be a "corroborating witness".

For Treblinka, the only witness claiming gasoline is Nikolay Shalayev. Here is what he said:

It was an ordinary, four-cylinder engine which used gasoline and, according to the story, of the German machine operator, was of Russian make. The engine was installed on a wooden frame and started as soon as people were herded into the gas chamber rooms, whereupon the exhaust pipe was covered up and the valve of the pipe was opened, through which the exhaust entered the "bath".

Since he couldn't tell what make it was on his own, it seems to me that this testimony would not override all the other testimonies for diesel. Here are Soviet and German tank engines, it seems rather amazing to me that he wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharkiv_model_V-2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_W ... ch_engines

On top of that, the skin coloration claimed (not red/pink) is more consistent with diesel than gasoline. Although the skin color issue is a whole other problem for them, so I won't dwell on that.

This means that the diesel issue is still relevant, for Belzec and Treblinka at least. Although Sobibor was the camp that killed the least of all the Reinhard camps. Why would they have the most efficient killing method for the Reinhard camp which killed the least amount, and less efficient methods for the camps that killed way more? That doesn't make any sense at all.

[Nessie]

...

Because of these problems, some have backed away from the diesel claim and say it was from gasoline. The most vocal proponents of this are the HC bloggers, although some mainstream historians have also taken that position as well.

...

Open-minded historians, after reading the diesel issue put forward initially by FP Berg (IIRC) checked the witness evidence. They found that those who worked with the engines used to gas people, the eyewitnesses, such as Erich Fuchs, either said they were petrol, or they did not say what fuel was used. Most of the people who worked at the gas chambers, such as Yankel Wiernik, or saw a gassing, such as Kurt Gerstein, but may not have seen the engine, vary. Some say it was petrol, some diesel and some do not say what fuel was used, and since many likely did not see the engine, their evidence is hearsay. There were also engines used as generators for the camps, and if they were diesel, then there is an explanation for some confusion and mistakes.

The main reason why diesel is relevant, is that it is a good way for so-called revisionists to learn how to better identify eyewitness from hearsay evidence and to understand that mistakes can be made, when people are remembering something, often decades later.

[Archie]

An overarching point I would make is to remind ourselves that under the revisionist thesis there was no gassing engine. The engines described in these testimonies, if they had any basis in reality, were probably being used as generators (as accidentally admitted in the Nov 1942 Treblinka report). Debating whether the gassing engine was gasoline or diesel is like debating over what materials they made the Death Star out of in Star Wars or some other fictional universe. The Holocaust fabulists happened to pick the wrong one and ran with it for decades and HC is now hoping for a redo.

Was it gasoline or diesel? Neither, because it didn't exist.

Revisionists like Fritz Berg debunked the standard story back in the 1980s on technical grounds. In 2011(!), unable to defend the story technically, the Holocaust Controversies bloggers attempted to change the story to gasoline engines and proceeded to hunt around for primary sources that would fit their desired conclusion. Now they are attempting to use the fact that the primary sources are highly contradictory to their advantage, even though objectively speaking the inconsistency in the testimonies and obvious interdependence are simply additional reasons not to believe any of this.

Their claim is that if you screen the testimonies for "direct" testimony and for technical competence that the gasoline testimonies emerge as the clear winner. But the testimonies do not split as cleanly as they say and in fact their elevation of the gasoline testimonies is arbitrary.

Two of the other witnesses, Kurt Gerstein and Wilhelm Pfannenstiel, claimed Diesel. The HC bloggers tried to make it seem like Gerstein wasn't a direct witness, but this isn't true at all. Gerstein's testimony:

Agreed, and this is really where their argument breaks down because Gerstein was both technically competent and a direct observer. Their interpretation of Gerstein is quite desperate. The engine was supposedly right next to the gas chamber building (16 and 17 below) and he was there for several hours as a technical observer to a gassing, during which the engine broke down.


If we are to take Gerstein seriously (they pretend to), there needs to be some explanation for how he got the erroneous idea that it was a diesel if it wasn't. I will add here as a minor point that diesel engines also sound and smell different.

From an old post of mine, surveying the witnesses, with a focus on Belzec.

Diesel
1) Gerstein: Technical background, closely monitored a gassing, describes the engine breaking down for a long time, mentions diesel repeatedly. Says Globocnik described a diesel engine for gassing."
2) Pfannensteil: "The engine itself was not in a separate room but stood in the open, raised on a platform. It was a diesel engine."
3) Schluch: "For the gassings an engine was started up. I cannot give a more detailed description of the engine because I never saw it. I am certainly not a specialist, but I would say that based on the sound, it was a medium-sized diesel engine."
4) Oberhauser: “at first the Jews were killed with a gas, but after the camp was enlarged, they were killed by diesel exhaust”.

"Uncertain" (although one of these actually leans toward diesel)
5) Gley: "After the doors of the gas chambers had been closed, a large engine-I don’t know whether it was a diesel or an Otto (gasoline) engine-was started up by a mechanic from the Hiwi section. The exhaust fumes of this engine were fed into the chambers and caused the death of the Jews."
6) Semigodov: "The people doomed to death were driven into these gas chambers or “dushegubki”, as they were also known, where they were killed with exhaust gas from a diesel motor (found in the same building) or some other motor."

Gasoline (only two)
7) Reder: "I myself saw that in that small room there was an engine with petrol fuel that looked very complicated. I remember that the engine had a flywheel, but I could not make out any other specific construction or technical features. This engine was always operated by two technicians, Russians from the armed camp staff. I know only that the engine used 4 cans of petrol each day, because that is how much petrol was brought to the camp every day. It was when the petrol was delivered to the engine room that I briefly had the opportunity to look inside the room."
8) Czerniak: “The 200 H.V. motor was powered by gasoline, as were the three other mentioned cars."

https://archive.codohforum.com/20230609 ... &start=450

They then draw the following conclusion.

From the testimonies of Shalayev (Treblinka), Hödl (Sobibor), Fuchs (Sobibor), Bauer (Sobibor), Reder (Belzec) and Czerniak (Belzec) it is clear that the engines in the Reinhard camps were petrol.

It is "clear" based on 2/8 witnesses?! What???

The Czerniak testimony is obscure and not impressive at all (see MGK reply, pg 826). Really what this comes down to is they are trying to say Reder should be favored over Gerstein, but Reder is anything but reliable on technical matters (see his ludicrous testimony about the mass graves).

Lastly, I would just say that if it were really true that the testimonies favored gasoline we still have the puzzle of how diesel is what made it into the history books. Imo, it clearly comes from Gerstein. The Belzec trial testimonies (like Oberhauser) favor diesel because they are derivative. And the history books say diesel because that's what the earliest histories like Hilberg said.

[Archie]

Open-minded historians, after reading the diesel issue put forward initially by FP Berg (IIRC) checked the witness evidence.

No, if you believe it was gasoline that means "the historians" you are always glazing got it wrong for 66 years (and counting) and had to be corrected by Sergey, an independent blogger, in 2011. If you believe this, it contradicts all of your usual nonsense that "everything has been carefully checked and vetted by professional historians."

[Nessie]

Open-minded historians, after reading the diesel issue put forward initially by FP Berg (IIRC) checked the witness evidence.

No, if you believe it was gasoline that means "the historians" you are always glazing got it wrong for 66 years (and counting) and had to be corrected by Sergey, an independent blogger, in 2011. If you believe this, it contradicts all of your usual nonsense that "everything has been carefully checked and vetted by professional historians."

You just made that quote up. Strawman fallacy yet again. I am well aware mistakes can be made and then repeated. Someone wrote about diesel engines and other historians and journalists followed, without picking up on the error. However, the so-called revisionists then made a mistake, by not separating hearsay and eyewitness descriptions of the engine and noting there was also a camp generator.

[Archie]

Just to drive home how ridiculous it is to try to elevate Reder as a reliable witness on technical matters, recall that this is the same clown who claimed that the mass graves at Belzec covered 75,000 sq meters (which is larger than the entire camp) and contained 3,000,000 bodies.

One pit was 100 meters long and 25 meters wide. One pit held about 100,000 people. In November 1942 there were 30 pits, hence 3 million corpses. (quoted in HH9 and HH28)

I mean, come on. We should not be relying on this guy for anything much less some subtle point like diesel vs gasoline.

Even the mainstream has admitted Reder is questionable. Here's Michael Tregenza (as quoted by Mattogno):

Judged in the light of what we know today, the two reports [Reder and Hirszman] are contradictory and contain inconsistencies. Reder, for example, spoke of 3 million victims and gave false dimensions regarding the mass graves and the camp. He stated that Rumanians and Norwegians had been involved in the exterminations, which is incorrect, and he mentions an undocumented visit to Bełżec by Himmler. Hirszman, too, exaggerated the number of victims, speaking of 800,000 victims between October and December of 1942; he spoke of roll calls, which Reder, for his part, discounted; he spoke of children being thrown into the gas chambers over the heads of the women, which is improbable considering the height of the ceiling in the chambers.

Further information regarding Bełżec is limited to the frequently mentioned report of the SS officer Kurt Gerstein, the ‘Gerstein Report.’ […]

Based on the current state of our research, we must also designate Gerstein’s material on Bełżec as questionable, even belonging to the realm of fantasy in some places. He gave erroneous dimensions for the mass graves, the number of guards he mentioned is too high, he assigned twenty to twenty-five million victims to Bełżec and Treblinka, he described the camp commander Wirth as ‘a frail and small man from Swabia’ (in reality, Wirth was tall and broad-shouldered), etc. In contrast to Gerstein’s statements we must assume that he spent more than two days in the Bełżec camp. As he indicated to another witness, he was present there on several occasions. As has been ascertained by later investigations and statements, all three eyewitness reports regarding the Bełżec camp must be considered to be unreliable.

[Nessie]

Just to drive home how ridiculous it is to try to elevate Reder as a reliable witness on technical matters, recall that this is the same clown who claimed that the mass graves at Belzec covered 75,000 sq meters (which is larger than the entire camp) and contained 3,000,000 bodies.

That means Reder, like most of us, is poor at estimations. You are wrong to use that, as a reason to dismiss the entirety of his evidence.

One pit was 100 meters long and 25 meters wide. One pit held about 100,000 people. In November 1942 there were 30 pits, hence 3 million corpses. (quoted in HH9 and HH28)

I mean, come on. We should not be relying on this guy for anything much less some subtle point like diesel vs gasoline.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evo-news ... evolution/

"Bad at estimating? Blame evolution
When we humans make judgments, we often feel that we are 100% in charge of our thinking — that we simply observe the world as it is and make a conscious decision about it — but in fact, our brains and sensory systems have built-in biases that may subtly (or not so subtly!) influence both our perceptions and decision-making. Psychologists have demonstrated lots of them: We pay more attention to observations that support our current ideas than to observations that contradict what we already think. If an object is moving to the right, we perceive it as being further to the right than it actually is. We think that sounds that get louder are changing more than sounds that get softer. We view travel routes with more turns as longer than straight routes, even when they are the same distance. And those are just a few of the biases that shape how we view the world."

Even the mainstream has admitted Reder is questionable. Here's Michael Tregenza (as quoted by Mattogno):

Judged in the light of what we know today, the two reports [Reder and Hirszman] are contradictory and contain inconsistencies. Reder, for example, spoke of 3 million victims and gave false dimensions regarding the mass graves and the camp. He stated that Rumanians and Norwegians had been involved in the exterminations, which is incorrect, and he mentions an undocumented visit to Bełżec by Himmler. Hirszman, too, exaggerated the number of victims, speaking of 800,000 victims between October and December of 1942; he spoke of roll calls, which Reder, for his part, discounted; he spoke of children being thrown into the gas chambers over the heads of the women, which is improbable considering the height of the ceiling in the chambers.

I would disagree that means Reder and Hirszman contradicted each other. They agree Belzec was a death camp, that had gas chambers. That they gave different estimations as to the number of dead, is to be expected. If you ask someone to estimate the size of a pit, they are more likely to get it wrong. That one spoke of roll calls that another discounted, is down to their varying experiences and what they saw. As for children being thrown in to the gas chambers, that is likely a figure of speech or emotive descriptive, not to be taken literally. Or it may be a second hand atrocity rumour.

Further information regarding Bełżec is limited to the frequently mentioned report of the SS officer Kurt Gerstein, the ‘Gerstein Report.’ […]

Based on the current state of our research, we must also designate Gerstein’s material on Bełżec as questionable, even belonging to the realm of fantasy in some places. He gave erroneous dimensions for the mass graves, the number of guards he mentioned is too high, he assigned twenty to twenty-five million victims to Bełżec and Treblinka, he described the camp commander Wirth as ‘a frail and small man from Swabia’ (in reality, Wirth was tall and broad-shouldered), etc. In contrast to Gerstein’s statements we must assume that he spent more than two days in the Bełżec camp. As he indicated to another witness, he was present there on several occasions. As has been ascertained by later investigations and statements, all three eyewitness reports regarding the Bełżec camp must be considered to be unreliable.

So-called revisionists have zero experience dealing with witnesses and no idea how they can behave. They refuse to learn about witness evidence and how some people have better memories and more accurate recall than others. Gerstein is a poor witness in terms of his reliability and remembering and recalling details and descriptions. That does not mean, therefore he lied that Belzec was a death camp. It just means his descriptions and recall is poor.

[HansHill]

The topic of this thread is the "diesel issue" and more specifically, why those (false) claims matter in the overall holocaust picture.

Revisionists have fulfilled their duties by demonstrating the claims, as presented, are bogus. Moving the goalposts in response, to another murder weapon, is weak.

[Nessie]

The topic of this thread is the "diesel issue" and more specifically, why those (false) claims matter in the overall holocaust picture.

Revisionists have fulfilled their duties by demonstrating the claims, as presented, are bogus. Moving the goalposts in response, to another murder weapon, is weak.

The diesel claims are explainable mistakes. Witnesses make mistakes.

[Archie]

That means Reder, like most of us, is poor at estimations. You are wrong to use that, as a reason to dismiss the entirety of his evidence.

My argument is that if he is generally unreliable on many points (Tregenza agrees), then we should be wary of relying on what he says about the engine.

You/HC are arguing here that Reder is especially reliable on the point of the engine type. You're saying that because Reder said gasoline, we can take that to the bank because he is so accurate. We should disregard all the other witnesses, including Gerstein, who say diesel, because Reder is so rock solid.

[Nessie]

That means Reder, like most of us, is poor at estimations. You are wrong to use that, as a reason to dismiss the entirety of his evidence.

My argument is that if he is generally unreliable on many points (Tregenza agrees), then we should be wary of relying on what he says about the engine.

Unreliable, does not mean he is lying. He is reliable about the main events and processes at Belzec. That is established by the corroborating evidence, which proves mass arrivals, gassings, mass graves and cremations. He is unreliable on details that many people are unreliable on, such as estimating the size of something.

You/HC are arguing here that Reder is especially reliable on the point of the engine type.

You made that up, I have not said that. Straw man.

You're saying that because Reder said gasoline, we can take that to the bank because he is so accurate. We should disregard all the other witnesses, including Gerstein, who say diesel, because Reder is so rock solid.

Wrong. Again. Both Reder and Gerstein made multiple mistakes when they recollected and described details, years later. That is perfectly normal. Gerstein made more mistakes than average, and Reder was not much better, which various historians have noted and commented on. For example, estimating the number of deaths. Documentary evidence proves it was lower than he estimated. As for the engine, science tells us that petrol, rather than diesel would make more sense, to generate CO, for gassings. There is also evidence of petrol being used, in particular from eyewitnesses who saw and worked on the engines, such as Erich Fuchs. That means in the case of the engine used, Reder was more accurate than Gerstein. Gerstein should not be disregarded because he got the fuel type wrong, as he did not instal or work on the engine, as Fuchs did. That makes Fuchs the most reliable source about the engine.

In terms of the overall processes that Reder and Gerstein described taking place in the camp, they are corroborated, and that is how we know they are accurate and truthful. I predict you will not understand, or ignore, or forget I said that and you make up another straw man that you attribute to me.

[Archie]

Unreliable, does not mean he is lying. He is reliable about the main events and processes at Belzec. That is established by the corroborating evidence, which proves mass arrivals, gassings, mass graves and cremations. He is unreliable on details that many people are unreliable on, such as estimating the size of something.

Reder IS a liar. However for purposes of this thread, it makes no difference whether he is a liar or merely incompetent.

You admit he is "unreliable on details," but why then do you take what he says about the engine type as absolute gospel?

[Nessie]

Unreliable, does not mean he is lying. He is reliable about the main events and processes at Belzec. That is established by the corroborating evidence, which proves mass arrivals, gassings, mass graves and cremations. He is unreliable on details that many people are unreliable on, such as estimating the size of something.

Reder IS a liar. However for purposes of this thread, it makes no difference whether he is a liar or merely incompetent.

You have failed to prove he lied. For the purposes of this thread, if someone has made an explainable mistake about the type of engine used, it makes a huge difference.

You admit he is "unreliable on details," but why then do you take what he says about the engine type as absolute gospel?

It take Reder as accurate about the type of engine, because of Fuchs and others who had direct knowledge of the engine used, who said it was petrol. That means in this instance Reder is corroborated and corroboration is the best test of accuracy, reliability and truthfulness.

[Archie]

Unreliable, does not mean he is lying. He is reliable about the main events and processes at Belzec. That is established by the corroborating evidence, which proves mass arrivals, gassings, mass graves and cremations. He is unreliable on details that many people are unreliable on, such as estimating the size of something.

Reder IS a liar. However for purposes of this thread, it makes no difference whether he is a liar or merely incompetent.

You have failed to prove he lied. For the purposes of this thread, if someone has made an explainable mistake about the type of engine used, it makes a huge difference.

You admit he is "unreliable on details," but why then do you take what he says about the engine type as absolute gospel?

It take Reder as accurate about the type of engine, because of Fuchs and others who had direct knowledge of the engine used, who said it was petrol. That means in this instance Reder is corroborated and corroboration is the best test of accuracy, reliability and truthfulness.

If there is some evidence that he was under the influence of powerful hallucinogens and/or had schizophrenia or some other severe mental illness, I would be willing to entertain those as alternative explanations. But barring that, the most likely explanation for his egregious errors is simply that he was telling tall tales.

Re: Fuchs. Fuchs is a Sobibor witness. Reder is "corroborated" in your opinion by a guy who saw some other engine at a completely different camp?

[Nessie]

Reder IS a liar. However for purposes of this thread, it makes no difference whether he is a liar or merely incompetent.

You have failed to prove he lied. For the purposes of this thread, if someone has made an explainable mistake about the type of engine used, it makes a huge difference.

You admit he is "unreliable on details," but why then do you take what he says about the engine type as absolute gospel?

It take Reder as accurate about the type of engine, because of Fuchs and others who had direct knowledge of the engine used, who said it was petrol. That means in this instance Reder is corroborated and corroboration is the best test of accuracy, reliability and truthfulness.

If there is some evidence that he was under the influence of powerful hallucinogens and/or had schizophrenia or some other severe mental illness, I would be willing to entertain those as alternative explanations. But barring that, the most likely explanation for his egregious errors is simply that he was telling tall tales.

In another thread where we discuss witness evidence, I provide you with multiple studies, explaining common issues where people get details wrong. That is the most likely explanation.

Re: Fuchs. Fuchs is a Sobibor witness. Reder is "corroborated" in your opinion by a guy who saw some other engine at a completely different camp?

Fuchs was at Sobibor and TII and stated petrol engines were used. It stands to reason that the other AR camp also used a petrol engine, which means on that detail, Reder is corroborated and accurate.