One argument put forward is that since producer gas is more poisonous, it would make more sense to use that instead of gasoline and especially diesel. Here is an article arguing this:
One objection I found really silly was that it wouldn't be good to use them in enclosed spaces. Well obviously if producer gas was used, the method used to administer it would be different. Another objection is that it is more explosive. This is Friedrich Berg's response:
As I have explained again and again, gasoline engine exhaust, in the good old days before catatytic converters, contained about 7% carbon monoxide. That percentage could be easily increased to 12% by misadjusting the carburetor.
Producer gas contained from 18% to as much as 35% carbon monoxide. If all one wanted to do was kill people, one need never actually fill a chamber completely with 35% CO--just let enough of the CO-rich producer gas blow into the chamber to achieve a level of about 10% average CO and then shutoff the flow from the generator. So long as the level of CO is below 12% (which is still extremely lethal) there will be NO danger of explosion.
I am not an expert on producer gas, but since Berg was knowledgeable on this, I figured his view may carry some weight. Hans in his article appears to agree with this as he cited a source claiming about the same thing. It may be objected that gasoline has around a 10-14% CO concentration, so there may be no difference between them after all if they did want to go below the explosion range. However, according to the Encyclopedia:
Therefore, when the so-called “Final Solution” was reaching its peak in 1942 and 1943, Germany had tens of thousands of engineers and mechanics familiar with this lethal-gas technology, hundreds of thousands of drivers capable of operating these devices, and an equal number of these poison-gas devices present literally everywhere, with no limitation on fuel.
So regardless of how much "safe CO" they would have used to avoid explosion, it would have made more sense to go with the method which they had more fuel for regardless. Also they could still reach the "safe non-explosive limit" faster than gasoline anyway.
Finally, there is the argument that it would be too long to start up, therefore it wouldn't be efficient to use. One objection to this is that they used it to a significant extent on the battlefield because of liquid fuel storage. On the battle field, you may need to react quickly. So it doesn't make any sense to say the slow startup is bad for extermination but just fine for the battlefield. Second, from what I have been able to see, it takes about 2-3 minutes to start up. That's what is said here on this forum post:
Here are videos of him starting up his wood gas car:
So yes, I'll concede it does take a little bit longer to start up than a gasoline engine, but it doesn't appear to be that much dramatically longer.
In conclusion, while the opposition has pointed out some legitimate drawbacks to producer gas, I don't think these drawbacks are nearly strong enough to outweigh how useful they would have been. The fact that producer gas was never claimed to be used despite its likely efficient use and significant amount of use elsewhere is evidence (although not 100% certain evidence) against the extermination claims.
Last edited by fireofice on Sat Dec 14, 2024 7:29 am, edited 2 times in total.
At majdanek it is said that carbon monoxide was used as an instrument of death in one of the 6, I mean, how many gas chambers are there at majdanek now? I forget.
This carbon monoxide was used from industrial gas canisters. As a display, 2 carbon dioxide canisters are mounted to the wall and tourists are told there is no blue staining in this gas chamber because carbon monoxide was used.
Now, I've read that 'all of the camp commanders were from the t4 program'
'The overwhelming majority of German camp personnel deployed at the Operation Reinhard camps came from Operation T4 (the Euthanasia Program). Operation T4 was the Nazis’ first secret program of mass murder in which institutionalized persons with disabilities were killed.'
So one of the many questions, for me, that come to mind is, why use an engine? Just pop a couple of cylinders of carbon monoxide on to the train and use the 'established' method of execution you are familiar with. Why reinvent the wheel? If we are to believe the story of the chamber at majdanek, the cylinders of carbon monoxide were already being delivered to the east, and being used for homicidal purposes. It's not a problem with documentation creating a paper trail or anything. If I believe the orthodox narrative, it was already being done in the east.
You don't have to bother with producer gas (although, that would be a cheap, efficient and difficult to establish instrument of death). Just use chemically pure carbon monoxide, delivered to the camp by the train load.
Of course, if we are talking about a cheap, efficient and effective instrument of mass murder, a guillotine come to mind. So does the gun, but, apparently a bullet wasn't cost effective. A hammer or bat to kill with blunt force would work. It doesn't have to be steam chambers or electric floors that open up to a roller coaster that uses buried tunnels to move bodies around between the camps so that they can be burned here or there.
If I need to cite source for the electric floors that open up and dump bodies into carts that run on rails in tunnels between the camps, I'll dig and find the 'eye witness' statements that say this. Currently I can't remember the names of the individuals, and looking it up on Google isn't exactly easy (or brave, or duck duck go, or bing or whatever).
The point I'm driving at is, if the 'nazis' were experienced genocidal scientists, I don't think a diesel submarine engine would be the first instrument to come to mind. I also don't think it would be accepted as the best instrument available.
If the 'nazis' were evil monsters, why didn't they just bash everyone to death with blunt instruments?
If they didn't want anybody to 'feel bad' about execution of these people, why didn't they just park the train cars on a spur and just leave them locked?
Is the question of why not producer gas valid? Sure. The orthodoxy will say 'we know that they used engines as the instrument of death because of the evidence'.
Personally, I'd like to see the evidence. I think the evidence is stronger for steam chambers, because that evidence was used to hang people by the neck until they were dead.
were to guess why no t4 personnel were chosen to perform gassing that had experience with gassing, it would be because THERE WERE NONE.
How does the argument that there was supposedly a more effective and efficient method to gas people, than the methods evidenced to have been used, work? The argument does not evidence anything, it is just an argument.
Nessie wrote: ↑Fri Dec 13, 2024 4:16 pm
How does the argument that there was supposedly a more effective and efficient method to gas people, than the methods evidenced to have been used, work? The argument does not evidence anything, it is just an argument.
It's a plausibility argument. When you can transport something cheaper, faster and with higher certainty, you will rather chose this mode of transportation than others. Not really difficult, I'd say.
Nessie wrote: ↑Fri Dec 13, 2024 4:16 pm
How does the argument that there was supposedly a more effective and efficient method to gas people, than the methods evidenced to have been used, work? The argument does not evidence anything, it is just an argument.
It's a plausibility argument. When you can transport something cheaper, faster and with higher certainty, you will rather chose this mode of transportation than others. Not really difficult, I'd say.
I see, it is an argument used as a substitute for evidence, to reinforce revisionist doubts about what is evidenced to have happened. The Nazis used Soviet engines to produce poisonous gas, revisionists think producer gas would be more plausible, therefore the claims about the use of the engines must be lies.
Since the rooms were hermetic, why not remove the roof, replace it with a mesh cage 4" or something below the top edge of the wall, and fill it with water?
Why not just hog tie the victims and cover them with earth?
Why not bash their heads in with stones?
We are told these were savage barbarians, cruel and absolutely devilish that would spend no end of time devising new ways to torture the condemned.
However, they settled on killing everyone in 'a few minute'
Bomba interview
Using exhaust from 'a motor', or being suffocated because the motor pumped the air out of the room, or the motor may have been used to deliver an exotic gas, or to produce electricity. Because all we have is eye witnesses and since we have counted out steam chamber witnesses and witnesses to ths various other methods, we are left with only witnesses for 'a motor', which is vague enough that it actually covers quite a bit.
Now, we can't argue about any of that because men were hung from the neck until they were dead, so, that's an established fact, because the court system, especially one as fair as what the allies put on, is not foulable.
Oh wait, that's the steam chambers. The motors are a fact though, the witnesses say so.
The orthodoxy says we can't argue an established fact. I think we'd have better luck arguing that 1,000,000 jews were killed in steam chambers than saying anything else. It is the only scenario that meets the same established burden of proof as 'a motor'.
were to guess why no t4 personnel were chosen to perform gassing that had experience with gassing, it would be because THERE WERE NONE.
1. CO in the high concentrations in producer gas poses an explosion risk
There is of course no reason that the concentration in the gas chamber needs to be the same than those of the generator. When the desired concentration has been reached, simply stop further influx. Note that the use of Zyklon B also poses an explosion risk - Holocaust affirmers certainly don't see it as a problem there.
2. The CO from a producer gas generator would also endanger its operators
Obviously, the very nature of toxic gases intended for killing makes them also a potential hazard to an operator, no matter how they are produced. So this is an argument for not using gassing as a method for mass killing in general, but not against producer gas generators in particular.
3. The operators of producer gas generators needed special training
You better provide good training to the operators of any device intended to produce toxic gases intended for mass killing. Given the fact that during WW2 nearly all civilian and many military vehicles were converted to producer gas, this training, as far as it concerned the specifics of the producer gas generator, seems pretty much doable.
4. Producer gas powered vehicles have less performance/can transport less load than gasoline/diesel powered ones
It is obviously difficult to exceed the maximum load of a truck, gas generator or not, only with passengers (If they are not already dead and you can stack them). And why should it matter that you can't drive as fast while killing the victims? This, of course, leads us to the question what purpose it serves to drive around while killing your victims in the first place - "gassing wagons" as a method for mass killing make even less sense than stationary gas chambers.
5. Producer gas technology is less convenient and more dangerous than gasoline/diesel and it is only because of the shortage of gasoline that it was used
Why should the shortage of gasoline be any less significant of an argument when it comes to gassing than for transportation? This even more so, as the greater danger because of the higher CO output is, in contrast to transportation where it is an unmitigated disadvantage, here actually an advantage.
6. A gasoline engine has a faster start up time than a producer gas generator (Note: this is actually steelmanning the argument, the actual scenario described was "During peak periods in the death camps, transports arrived continuously.". When operating continuously, start up times are obviously irrelevant)
It seems rather far fetched that the start up time - which can be as low as 2-3 minutes for vehicle use - for a producer gas generator would pose a notable disadvantage for gassing use. Also this is of course counteracted by the shorter time to reach a desired CO level because of the higher CO production. Here again a comparison to Zyklon B is appropriate - it also needs some 'startup time' to evaporate the hydrogen cyanide and to reach a lethal concentration, which is one of the reasons why it is not used in real existing execution gas chambers.
Last edited by PangaeaProxima on Fri Apr 11, 2025 10:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I had always assumed with producer gas you would just employ the vapor maker and not the combustion engine, why bother with running an engine? Just to move a bit more air around?
were to guess why no t4 personnel were chosen to perform gassing that had experience with gassing, it would be because THERE WERE NONE.
If I wanted to exterminate a people scattered across countries I control, I would simply attach poisonous gases or an efficient means of reaching the entire convoy such as electric currents to mass transit means such as trains so that they would all arrive dead at their destination and go straight to the blast furnaces. No graves, no train tracks as grates, no green wood, no women's fat as fuel and no ashes to dispose of, no bone remains to hammer or put back into the fire.
Would it be so difficult or even low IQ of the Nazis not to consider this?
Stubble wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 2:36 pm
I had always assumed with producer gas you would just employ the vapor maker and not the combustion engine, why bother with running an engine? Just to move a bit more air around?
Yes., for gassing purposes adding a combustion engine to the producer gas generator would be obviously counterproductive, you don't want to burn up that CO, you want to gas with it. Likely you would employ something like a small electric motor to pump the gas from the generator to the gas chamber.
Stubble wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 2:36 pm
I had always assumed with producer gas you would just employ the vapor maker and not the combustion engine, why bother with running an engine? Just to move a bit more air around?
Yes, for gassing purposes adding a combustion engine to the producer gas generator would be obviously counterproductive, you don't want to burn up that CO, you want to gas with it. Likely you would employ something like a small electric motor to pump the gas from the generator to the gas chamber.
Yes, and you would not need to do anything to properly meter the CO mixture into the gaschamber either, other than to use a venturi to blow the proper CO-air percentage in, and a vent at the top of the gaschamber to simultaneously remove the air continuously, so a constant flow of the precise air-gas mixture.
You would not need to mess with pressure-sealing the space like with the American diving bell-style gaschambers used for capital punishment ─ just shut an air-tight room with a substantial door or cage and pipe a gas-mixture in and vent it out simultaneously through a chimney. There would be zero chance of an explosion, and even if there was for some reason, the overpressure would go out the roof vent harmlessly.
American execution gas-chambers are designed with a different philosophy than fumigation, and there is a certain degree of "Medieval fortress theater" that is inherent in the design. The arrangement has to assure the execution witnesses that they are safe and that a certain broadly-humane and consistent excecution procedure is followed transparently.
That is one of the reasons that they use a pot of sulfuric acid and a cyanide salt to generate the lethal HCN gas for these kinds of American executions.
If there were a reliable supply of the highly-perishable Zyklon-B product today, it would be easy to design an execution chamber not unlike the ones used to fumigate clothing and equipment in Germany and the United States in the 1930s.
You would not use idiotic "Zyklon-B introduction columns" but simple systems that blow warm air through the Zyklon granules and recirculate the gas-air in the chamber. Columbia-educated engineer Friedrich Paul Berg argued that point for years.
It was simply not a good argument, conta Prof. Faurisson and Mr. Leuchter, that it was "impossible" (or nearly so) to gas people with Zyklon-B. This cyanide fumigation product actually simplifies the problem a lot, but you need to know what you are doing. It is not like the Vietnamese opening up a nail salon.
That is why the Degesch and American Cyanamid fumigation manuals are so important. Fumigation with Zyklon-B never involves explosive concentrations of the hydrocyanic acid gas ─ it says so right in the manuals ─ so that is irrelevant with any kind of homicidal gassing too.
Relatively recently, Leftists have tried to block the supply of medical-grade chemicals to discourage U.S. capital punishment, so many states have settled upon secondary execution methods ─ for example, the gaschamber in Arizona, and the firing squad in Idaho.
The state of Alabama has even experimented successfully (four times) with inert nitrogen gas, but their procedure still needs some work because in gassings, the condemned prisoners often mug for the horrified witnesses as though they are being tortured, and sometimes try to hold their breath, etc. Some of these creeps are quite the performance artists.
I'm not a fan of lethal injection for executions as they are frequently "botched." For example, in Idaho last year (Feb 2024) an execution by lethal injection was botched in that they failed to a-traumatically find the vein of some old creep who should have been dispatched long ago ─ and after screwing around for a long time they ended the unsuccessful execution process and the prisoner remains alive today. More than likely he will die of natural causes before anybody has the intestinal initiative to try to execute his death sentence again. The episode reminds me of an Austin Powers bit: never use shark-mounted lasers for murder when a simple cap in the head will do (LINK).
Hmmm, I doubt that a qualified paramedic would have failed to find the vein on an elderly patient on the way to the hospital, but this only highlights why lethal injection has traditionally been eschewed by medical professionals.
So anyway, Idaho also has the firing squad as a legal form of capital punishment, but apparently nobody in the state knows how to setup a few sandbags and a few volunteers with rifles. No "Medieval Theater" or costly fortress structures procedures have been budgeted or implemented.
A few years ago Arizona refurbished their penitentiary gas chamber, which was last used in 1999 to execute scumbag Walter LaGrand. His scumbag brother, Karl chose lethal injection for himself, but Walter was hoping to argue a "cruel and unusual punishment" angle for his case, which failed.
Anyway, with the boycotting of medical-grade chemicals by Commie pinkos, some states have used dodgy chemical substitutes for Lethal Injection, which is questionable.
Arizona just refurbished it HCN gas chamber and the consulted real engineers and not Fred Leuchter. He was ranting about how the next execution in Arizona will be "botched," a very loaded word.
The local Jews were whining about it as well. This the gas that the Natzees used.
Anyway, the bottom line is that German engineers could have easily designed basic homicidal gas chambers using Zyklon-B similar to the ones that were used in camps and railway cordons for fumigating clothing.
They also could have used producer gas to generate carbon monoxide in ample quantities from wood chips or coal. Many vehicles worldwide with the exception of the United States did exactly that during the wartime years and its immediate aftermath due to petroleum shortages.
Even the Swedish vacuum cleaner company Electrolux built wood-gas generator units for cars and trucks, and the neutral Swedish government studied chronic CO intoxication as a result and published papers on this as part of industrial medicine because there were so many cars and trucks like this on the road.
It might be practical to euthanize people using bottled carbon monoxide piped into a mask, but I have seen no proof that this was ever done in the German state hospitals. The initial claims said that municipal cooking gas ─ which until the 1960s had a huge amount of combustible carbon monoxide in it ─ was just piped into rooms somehow in state hospitals to mercifully gas the unfit. And no technical detail whatsoever. Pure B.S.
Sending bottles of CO gas to Death Camps doesn't make much sense logistically either in my opinion. CO has to be pressured to about 3000 psi like diver's oxygen tanks. Unlike CO2 used for firefighting and for propellants, etc., CO does not liquify at room temperature under pressure.
One camp where this might have been practical is Auschwitz, where the nearby I.G. Farben works where carbon monoxide is used as an industrial feed stock, could have setup a small bottling CO plant for camp executions. But Auschwitz-Birkenau is exactly where it is said that CO was not used for homicide.
The idea that medical personnel who had experience at German state hospitals ─ like SS-Sturmbannführer Christian Wirth, who was a police reservist and a hospital administrator before the war ─ is not really a "smoking gun" either because Revisionists have always asserted that the Reinhardt Camps were originally setup at the frontiers for hygienic purposes.
A disease Condon Sanitaire was setup during both World Wars and is why typhus was confined to Russian and the Balkans during the the First World War, and why the Allied relief expeditions had to expend so much energy fumigating and enforcing delousing in Poland in the Interwar period.
The fact that steam chambers, used for sterilization in both World Wars, were initally claimed to be used by the Nazis to mass-murder people at places like Treblinka (or environs) gives the game away in my opinion.
You can find steam autoclaves in many medical, industrial, and industrial settings today ─ and in the ruins of all sorts of Nazi camps, at border control stations like at El Paso, Texas, and ports-of-entry like at Ellis Island, New York or Manly Quarantine Station in Sydney, Australia.
There is an old joke about German microwave ovens "that seat fifty." Well, some of these Chinese-built industrial autoclaves are massive. I love this Zhengzhou Boiler Group promotional video.
A young General Napoleon Bonaparte gives the mob a "Whiff of Grapeshot" on the streets of Paris, and that "thing we specifically call French Revolution is blown into space by it."
~ Thomas Carlyle
PangaeaProxima, it is kind of ironic that you post ends up offering fuel for why producer gas was not used.
Sure, one can find measures to reduce explosion risk, one can provide special training, one can adjust procedures and ressources to cope with with higher maintenance, less performance, less load and longer start-up time (and hope no one gets ambushed by partisans in the meantime) etc.
But that’s exactly the point: all of these issues require additional effort, increased complexity, and elevated operational risk - problems that don’t exist or to much lesser extent when simply using a gasoline engine. Even acquiring and installing producer gas generators required additional efforts, and the Security Police were not prioritized for these systems.
From the perspective of those responsible for implementing mass murder, producer gas was simply the more difficult option. With hundreds of tons of gasoline available to the Security Police, there was no incentive not to go the easy way with gasoline engines.
And let’s not forget the strategic mindset of the time: when these decisions were being made, the Nazis - especially hardened ideologues within the Security Police - believed they were about to grab Caucasian oil fields with the next offensive. Fuel shortage was not keeping them up at night.
CO generator-gas was an ubiquitous reality in wartime Europe; it was an essential workaround for transportation logistics, even if subpar for tactical or combat vehicles.
One needed only to look for a bus in wartime Poland.
This wasn't rocket science, folks.
A young General Napoleon Bonaparte gives the mob a "Whiff of Grapeshot" on the streets of Paris, and that "thing we specifically call French Revolution is blown into space by it."
~ Thomas Carlyle
