Treblinka Perpetrators

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
Hecht
Member
Posts: 521
Joined: 17 Nov 2009 18:04
Location: from a mere

Re: Treblinka Perpetrators

Post by Hecht » 27 Jun 2011 21:11

trespasser07 wrote:Thanks Hecht i'm guessing that Kuttner wouldn have recieved a life sentence verdict.
Very likely.
I've noticed that very few were given life sentences while most of them got just few years and then released, like Muenzberger for istance.
I wonder why such sentences were that light, I mean, looks like they were actually tried for some pick-pocketing and not for murder of people...I would like to understand more about this.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8820
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Treblinka Perpetrators

Post by michael mills » 29 Jun 2011 13:34

I've noticed that very few were given life sentences while most of them got just few years and then released, like Muenzberger for istance.
I wonder why such sentences were that light, I mean, looks like they were actually tried for some pick-pocketing and not for murder of people...I would like to understand more about this.
Most of the former staff of the Globocnik camps who were tried in German courts were not found guilty of murder, only of being an accessory to muder, or "Beihilfe zum Mord", which attracts a lower sentence.

Under German law, a homicide is murder only if carried out "for base motive". If a subordinate obeys an order to kill, that is not a base motive, so the subordinate who kills pursuant to an order to kill is not guilty of murder. However, if the killing was illegal, the person who made the decision to kill, and gave the order to a subordinate, is guilty of murder, while the subordinate who carried out the command to kill is guilty of assisting murder.

Staff members of the Globocnik camps were only convicted of murder if they had been in staff positions, or if they had killed on their own volition, without having been ordered to.

User avatar
Eddy Marz
Member
Posts: 559
Joined: 12 Mar 2007 11:32
Location: France

Re: Treblinka Perpetrators

Post by Eddy Marz » 29 Jun 2011 13:57

If I remember correctly, Münzberger was 'accessory to murder' in so much as he was responsible for the Ukrainians operating the gas chambers but did not operate them himself. Also, this supervising task was accomplished under orders (either from Stangl or Wirth).

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8820
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Treblinka Perpetrators

Post by michael mills » 29 Jun 2011 14:03

Gerstein took a load of Zyklon-B for the purpose of delousing the large amounts of clothing and other property confiscated from the Jews who arrived at the camp, so as to render that material safe for redistribution to ethnic Germans and other recipients.

That was an appropriate function for Gerstein to perform, since he was the person responsible for procuring all supplies of Zyklon-B for the Waffen-SS. Any part of the Waffen-SS that required a supply of Zyklon-B needed to apply to Gerstein to procure it. Since the staff of the Belzec camp belonged officially to a Sonderkommando of the Waffen-SS, they needed to apply to Gerstein to obtain the Zyklon-B for carrying out the monumental delousing task.

It is possible that Gerstein also had the function of training the Belzec camp staff in the safe handling of Zyklon-B for delousing, amn operation requiring extreme care. Such training was probably necessary, since it is unlikely that any of the Belzec staff, who had been transferred from T-4, had any experience in the use of Zyklon-B.

The above historical facts have been obscured by the massive falsification Gerstein engaged in in his post-war confessions, for the purpose of minimising his own role. The main element of falsification is his claim that he was ordered to take the Zyklon-B to Lublin by an official of Eichmann's office.

That is nonsense. Gerstein had supreme control of the use of Zyklon-B by the Waffen-SS, and he did not take orders from anyone in relation to its distribution and use.

Furthermore, Eichmann's office had no connection with the death camps in the Lublin region, which were under the control of Globocnik, who took orders from no-one except Himmler himself.

It is most probable that a request came to Gerstein from Globocnik's office for the supply of Zyklon-B for the purpose of delousing the accumulated confiscated property, and Gerstein decided to go himself to ensure that the Zyklon-B was used properly by Globocnik's men.

Gerstein's claim that he buried the load of Zyklon-B he took to Belzec is also most probably a falsification, designed to portray him as resisting the use of Zyklon-B for homicidal purposes. It is far more probable that handed the load over to the staff at Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka to use for delousing, and may have instructed them in its use. In the course of that function, he witnessed the gassing of at least one incoming transport of Jews, perhaps more.

It is most probable that the question of using Zyklon-B for homicidal purposes at the Globocnik camps never arose during Gerstein's visit to those camps. The method of gassing with engine exhaust was working fine, and there was no need to change it. The only reason Globocnik's office would have ordered a supply of Zyklon-B was for delousing the confiscated property, which Gerstein himself gives as one of the reasons for his visit.

Gerstein had no authority to tell Globocnik what method of homicidal gassing to use. As stated, Globocnik was a law unto himself. Furthermore, Gerstein's function was only to control the supply of Zyklon-B; there is no evidence that he was ever personally involved in its homicidal use, and had the experience to set up a homicidal gassing installation..

trespasser07
Member
Posts: 584
Joined: 27 Nov 2010 13:34

Re: Treblinka Perpetrators

Post by trespasser07 » 29 Jun 2011 14:11

So that is the reason for life imprisonmnt for Franz but not for Munzberger as he was only following orders.
"We believe in what we do!" - written in Friedrich Rainer's Guestbook by Odilo Globocnik in April 1943.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8820
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Treblinka Perpetrators

Post by michael mills » 29 Jun 2011 14:17

I believe the Gerstein mission was organized by 4BIV of the RSHA because of a previous demand by Globocnik to set up a Hygiene Institute department in Lublin, without consulting Wirth.
Why on earth do you believe such a thing, which contradicts our historical knowledge?

Eichmann's office in the RSHA, IVB4, had the function of organising transports of Jews. It had no connection with matters of hygiene at all.

If Globocnik had wanted to set up a Hygine Institute in Lublin, then he would have gone directly to the men who were responsible for hygine within the Waffen-SS, ie Gerstein. It would have made no sense whatever to go to Eichmann's office.

User avatar
Eddy Marz
Member
Posts: 559
Joined: 12 Mar 2007 11:32
Location: France

Re: Treblinka Perpetrators

Post by Eddy Marz » 29 Jun 2011 18:05

michael mills wrote: Why on earth do you believe such a thing, which contradicts our historical knowledge?
Oh dear Mr Mills, here we go again… Everytime I say something about Gerstein, you come down on me like immaculate truth from Heaven. It wouldn’t be a problem in itself if it weren’t for the patronizing and obnoxious schoolmasterly tone you systematically revert to when in disagreement with someone. Let us make things clear from the start:
I don’t agree with practically anything you claim about Gerstein (as I already made clear in past posts). I am not contradicting 'our' historical 'knowledge' but simply expressing a point of view different from YOUR historical APPRECIATION. I have also been studying this case for a number of years now, been to Germany, met Gerstein’s wife before she passed on, worked ten years with one Gerstein biographer, seen all the documents (even heard Gerstein’s voice on a 33 rpm record he recorded for his children), and I can assure you that a great number of respected researchers don’t agree with you either. Which doesn’t make them, or me, 100% right – we just choose to follow our researcher hunches (the same way you probably do). But I find your empiric theories very creative too.
Eichmann's office in the RSHA, IVB4, had the function of organising transports of Jews. It had no connection with matters of hygiene at all.
On 8th June 1942, SS-Stubaf Rolf Günther from 4BIV ordered Gerstein to supply a quantity of Blausäure (either 100kg or 260kg). The visit took place at the Waffen-SS Institute for Hygiene in Berlin. Gerstein fetched the cargo in Kolin and then transported it to Lublin (and then to Belzec) two months later. The delay corresponds with Belzec’s period of temporary inactivity for improvement.
The above historical facts have been obscured by the massive falsification Gerstein engaged in in his post-war confessions, for the purpose of minimising his own role. The main element of falsification is his claim that he was ordered to take the Zyklon-B to Lublin by an official of Eichmann's office.
Oh really ? 'Massive falsification' ? I suspect you have delved too deeply into Roque's revisionist 'thesis'... Involvement of 4BIV, via Günther (who presented himself to Gerstein in civilian clothes), simply confirms that the essential preoccupation in this particular mission was not ‘hygiene’ but ‘extermination’ of Jews. You seem to selectively forget that many different services did work together (once confidentiality measures had been adopted) towards identified goals. Eichmann (who months earlier had traveled to Lublin, and probably Belzec where he met Wirth) services make sense; 4BIV is simply directed onto the Hygiene Institute to be supplied with a disinfection expert. It was a combined ‘disinfection’/’improvement of the killing method’ venture.
If Globocnik had wanted to set up a Hygine Institute in Lublin, then he would have gone directly to the men who were responsible for hygine within the Waffen-SS, ie Gerstein. It would have made no sense whatever to go to Eichmann's office.
A radio message between SS-Gruppenführer Grawitz and Globocnik was intercepted by the British secret service on 13th June 1942. The message was an answer to a previous message from Globocnik to the SS Health Service in Berlin requesting implementation of a Waffen-SS Hygiene Institute in Lublin (Public Record Office. Kew, UK: HW 16/19 /ZIP/GPDD 124, message 36/37, transmitted on 13 June 1942). The dates of both messages are close to the date of Günther’s visit to Gerstein. Although these messages don’t prove in any way a cause-to-effect link with Gerstein’s visit, they clearly demonstrate Globocnik’s preoccupation with health problems in ‘Lublin’ (and probably explain the presence of Pfannenstiel – the hygiene expert). It also proves he didn't go 'directly to the men who were responsible for hygine within the Waffen-SS, ie Gerstein' (who happened to be only an Untersturmführer at the time)... And all this 2 months prior to Gerstein’s visit.
It is most probable that the question of using Zyklon-B for homicidal purposes at the Globocnik camps never arose during Gerstein's visit to those camps. The method of gassing with engine exhaust was working fine, and there was no need to change it. The only reason Globocnik's office would have ordered a supply of Zyklon-B was for delousing the confiscated property, which Gerstein himself gives as one of the reasons for his visit.
In his report, Gerstein clearly states :
'The whole Spinnstoffsammlung has only been gathered in order to explain the origin of the clothing material for the Ostarbeiter etc, and to present it as an offering of the German nation. In reality the yield of our facilities is 10 - 20 times larger than that of the whole Spinnstoffsammlung. Thereafter I discussed with the most efficient companies the possibility of disinfecting such amounts of textiles - it consisted of an accumulated stock of approximately 40 million kgs = 60 complete freight trains - in the existing laundries and disinfection facilities. However it was absolutely impossible to place such huge orders. I used all these negotiations to make known in a skilful way or at least to intimate, the fact of the killing of the Jews. In the end it was sufficient for Globocnik that everything was sprinkled with a bit of Detenolin so that it at least smelled of disinfection. That was then carried out'.

So, it doesn’t really seem that Globocnik was all that preoccupied with delousing clothes and furniture. His real problem was killing speed, burials causing poisoning of the groundwater and large amount of insects (again Pfannenstiel). Of course I know that you don't believe Gerstein's report - but surely Michael, that's your problem, not mine. And your assumption that the report is a fabrication of a sort can in NO WAY constitute a historical proof. What are your sources ?
Gerstein's claim that he buried the load of Zyklon-B he took to Belzec is also most probably a falsification, designed to portray him as resisting the use of Zyklon-B for homicidal purposes. It is far more probable that handed the load over to the staff at Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka to use for delousing, and may have instructed them in its use.
It's 'far more probable' is it ? There are two witnesses to the burial of the Zyklon: SS-Hauptscharführer Robert Weigelt (driver of the van) whom Gerstein never mentioned by name to protect him but who was tracked down by french journalist Pierre Joffroy in Kassel (Hesse) in 1968, and Pfannenstiel.

Anyway, to conclude, I think we are irredeemably opposed in this matter and it's not very important per se. I sincerely think you are by far more knowledgeable than I am in matters relating to the III Reich, and that you know a good fair amount about Aktion Reinhard. But am I wrong in saying you don't know s**t about Gerstein ?

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8820
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Treblinka Perpetrators

Post by michael mills » 30 Jun 2011 02:32

Some years ago, I read the two books about Gerstein by Friedlaender and Joffroy. I had the impression that the book by Joffroy was a simple hagiography, whereas that by Fiedlaender was more measured.

The historical fact is that Gerstein was deeply implicated in the procuring of Zyklon-B for homicidal purposes, as well as for the normal hygienic use of the product. In 1943, he reached an agreement with the head of Degesch, Gerhard Peters, for the supply of Zyklon-B without the warning agent "under the table", bypassing the legal channel through the firm of Tesch & Stabenow, which held the monopoly for the distribution of Zyklon-B in all areas east of the Elbe.

The essential purpose of the various versions of the confessions he made soon after the end of the war to two Allied intelligence officers, one British and one American, was to minimise his own role in the use of Zyklon-B for homicidal purposes. To that end, he presented himself as an opponent of homicidal gassing, who used his position as procurer of Zyklon-B for the Waffen-SS to frustrate the homicidal gassing by disrupting the supply.

For example, he claimed that he made the Zyklon-B acquired "under the table" from Gerhard Peters "disappear" by ensuring that it was all used for disinfestation purposes and not for homicidal gassing. In fact, that would not have been hard to do, since as Pressac showed, less than 10% of the Zyklon-B provided to Auschwitz was used for homicidal gassing, the bulk of it being used for the normal delousing purpose.

In his confessions, it is always other people who are driving the homicidal gassing, who issue orders to Gerstein which he tries his best to frustrate. That is probably why he invented the story about being given an order from Eichmann's office.

However, Gerstein's efforts to exonerate himself did not succeed. He found out that he was going to be tried for war crimes, and that is why he committed suicide, knowing that his role in supplying Zyklon-B to Auschwitz for a homicidal purpose of which he was fully aware would get him a death sentence ( as was the fate of the principals of Tesch $ Stabenow, who were far less guilty).

I have no problem at all with the hypothesis that Globocnik wanted to set up an Institute of Hygiene in the Lublin District, which was the area he ruled over. That would explain why Gerstein took a load of Zyklon-B to Lublin, for the purpose of delousing the confiscated clothing of the exterminated Jews.

But what is the proof for Eichmann's office being involved in the process of organising an Institute of Hygiene in Lublin, and the conveying of materials toither for hygienic purposes, other than Gerstein's own claim?

Eichmann's office was part of the RSHA, and its function was to organise transports of Jews from Germany and the occupied countries to various destinations in the East, initially to ghettos and eventually to concentration camps. It had no involvement in the running of the ghettos or concentration camps to which the Jews were sent; the fate of the Jews on arrival at their destinations was controlled either by the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps or by the local German security organs, the equivalent of Globocnik in Lublin.

Accordingly, it is extremely unlikely that Eichmann's office would have had any involvement whatever in negotiations between Globocnik and the hygiene administration of the Waffen-SS in relation to hygienic measures to be undertaken in Lublin. That was entirely outside the purview of Eichmann's office, and indeed of the RSHA, which was a police and security force, not a medical authority.

It needs to be remembered that the two methodologies of homicidal gassing, the one by CO and the other by HCN, were entirely separate from each other, had different origins, and were administered by separate organisations. There was no one organisation overseeing all homicidal gassing.

Gassing with CO had its origin in the Euthanasia Program, and resulted from a recommendation by chemists of the Criminal Technical Institute of the RSHA, who had been asked by the T-4 administration to advise on methods of inflicting a painless death. On the recommendation of the chemists, pure manufactured CO was used.

The next step was the use of engine exhaust as the source of the CO for homicidal gassing. That was devised by the Criminal Technical Institute of the RSHA, and arose from the needs of the Security Police on the eastern front, where maqnufactured CO was hard to obtain. Since the Security Police was part of the RSHA, it was natural for the Criminal technical Institute to be involved in solving their problems; the gas van, using its own exhaust as the killing agent, was the result.

But the production of gas vans and their deployment on the eastern front was entirely separate from the Euthanasia Program in Germany run by T-4, which continued to use manufactured CO, and never used engine exhaust.

The third step was the introduction of gassing with engine exhaust at the Globocnik camps. Exactly how that came about remains uncertain, since the whole process whereby those camps came into existence is still a mystery. It is unknown where the idea of setting up extermination camps in the Lublin District originated, whether it was Globocnik's initiative, or whehter he was following an order from higher up.

It is most probable that Globocnik sought advice from the Criminal Technical Institute of the RSHA, and it was that body that suggested the use of engine exhaust, based on the successful operation of the gas vans on the eastern front. However, the role of the KTI was that of an expert consultant, since Globocnik was not under the control of the RSHA, and operated completlely independently.

The homicidal use of Zyklon-B had an entirely separate history. It was first used at Auschwitz by members of the camp sanitary service who had been trained in the use of Zyklon-B for delousing. The homicidal potential of Zyklon-B was suggested by a number of accidents in the delousing process, and experiemtns were carried out. Thereafter, homicidal gassing with Zyklon-B was used for the execution of Soviet POWs who had been selected as "dangerous Communists" and sent to Auschwitz for liquidation.

The homicidal use of Zyklon-B was then taken over by the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps which controlled its normal hygienic use, and then by the WVHA into which the Inspectorate was absorbed in April 1942. Homicidal gassing was then introduced into other WVHA camps, although on a much smaller scale than at Auschwitz.

But the crucial point is that homicidal gassing with Zytklon-B, under the control of the WVHA, was entirely sepoaraqte from the homicidal gassing with CO, which was controlled by T-4 in the Euthanasia Program, by the RSHA using gas vans on the eastern front, and by Globocnik's office in the camps under his control.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8820
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Treblinka Perpetrators

Post by michael mills » 30 Jun 2011 06:34

In order to understand Gerstein's functions, and determine what parts of his confessions are likely to be true and what parts falsified to some extent, it is necessary to understand the bureaucratic environment in which he was working, and the functions of the different parts of that bureaucracy.

While it is true that the different parts of the German bureaucracy worked together on common projects, they each contributed to a common project in accordance with their specific functions.

Therefore, when a claim is made that a member of one specific part of the bureaucracy was doing something totally unrelated to his proper function, the suspicion arises that the claim is false.

Now it is true that Eichmann, head of Amt IVB4 of the RSHA did have dealing with Globocnik, he did go to Lublin to meet Globocnik there, and he did visit one of Globocnik's camps under construction. But what was the purpose of those dealings?

Heydrich, as head of the RSHA, had sole responsibility for authorising "Sonderbehandlung", that is, the execution of a person or group of persons without any judicial process. Any person, any part of the Security Police or of the German bureaucracy that wanted authorisation to carry out a Sonderbehandlung had to make an application to Heydrich, identifying the person or group of persons to whom Sonderbehandlung was to be applied, and the reasons why Sonderbehandlung was necessary.

We have an example of that bureaucratic procedure in the actions of Artur Greiser, Reichstatthalter of Reichsgau Wartheland. In a letter dated 30 May 1942, Greiser asked Himmler for authorisation to give Sonderbehandlung to 50,000 Poles with infectious tuberculosis, the reason being that they posed a threat of infection. In that letter, Greiser referred to an earlier application made by him to Himmler and Heydrich for authorisation to give Sonderbehandlung to 100,000 Jews of Reichsgau Wartheland, and stated that the Sonderbehandlung operation would soon be completed. Historians believe that the authorisation requested by Greiser, and obviously granted by Himmler and Heydrich, represented the origin of the killing operation at Chelmno.

Eichmann, in his postwar interview with Sassen, stated that Heydrich had informed him that Globocnik was killing Jews in the Lublin District, and was sent there to find out what Globocnik was up to. He stated that on a subsequent occasion, he acted as a courier, taking to Lublin a message from Heydrich to Globocnik, giving the latter ex post facto authorisation to give Sonderbehandlung to 250,000 Jews. According to Eichmann, Globocnik locked that written authorisation in his safe.

The course of events may be interpreted as follows. Globocnik had started his operation of killing Jews without getting prior authorisation from Heydrich. When the latter got wind of what Globocnik was doing, he sent Eichmann to investigate and bring Globocnik into line. Subsequently, Heydrich issued an authorisation for the Jews he had already killed, and Eichmann couriered it to Lublin, where Globocnik took care to preserve it, presumably to cover himself from any accusation of acting without authorisation.

Eichmann says that on two further occasions, he carried authorisations to Globocnik for the Sonderbehandlung of further groups of Jews numbering more than 100,000 each. Globocnik must have learned his lesson, and sought appropriate authorisation in advance for the killings he was carrying out.

The function of Eichmann as a messenger between his superior Heydrich and Globocnik, somebody outside his organisation, was totally in accordance with his place in the bureaucracy. It related to the RSHA's monopoly of the right to authorise Sonderbehandlung, and Globocnik's infringement of that monopoly.

But Eichmann's office had no connection with the supply of hygienic products to anyone. If Globocnik had a requirement for such products, he would have applied directly to the part of the SS that dealt with such matters, namely the Institue of Hygiene. Obviously he made such an application, and that is how Gerstein came to travel to Lublin ferrying a load of Zyklon-B.

Nor did Eichmann's office have any connection with the methodology of carrying out Sonderbehandlung, either by Globocnik or anyone else. Once an authorisation for Sonderbehandlung was given to any German agency, it was a matter for that agency itself to determine how it was going to carry out the Sonderbehandlung; the existing documented examples of the operation of various agencies shows that where they did not themselves have the technical expertise, they applied to bodies such as the Criminal Technical Institute of the RSHA for advice.

Accordingly, since Eichmann's office did not have any responsibility for or expertise in either sanitary measures such as delos\using, or in various killing methodologies, it is extremely unlikely that anyone from Eichmann's office was involved in giving an order to Gerstein to travel to Lublin with a load of Zyklon-B. We may therefore conclude that Gerstein invented the story of being given an order by Rolf Guenther, Eichmann's deputy.

But why would Gerstein have made up such a story?

The answer is a function of the awareness within the German bureaucracy of Eichmann, his office within the RSHA, and its role.

In 1942, Eichmann was very much an obscure character, who sat in an office in Berlin organising transports of Jews. At the place of origin of the transports, the rounding up of the Jews to be deported was carried out by the local German security agencies, in response to orders issued by Eichmann's office, usually overseen by a liaison officer from that office.

Since in 1942 Gerstein was not involved with transports of Jews, but only with the work of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS, which did include the delousing of concentration camps, it is unlikely that he would have come into contact with any members of Eichmann's office. At that stage he probably did not even know who Eichmann was.

Eichmann did not become well known until 1944, when he was sent to Hungary with full powers to organise the deportation of Jews from that country. He was attached to the office of the German plenipotentiary in Hungary, Veesenmayer, and as such operated very much in the open, in the full glare of publicity.

As a result, Eichmann became well known throughout the German bureaucracy, and gained a reputation as the man who had total power in all matters relating to Jews. He was seen as the controller of the entire extermination operation, which in fact he was not; his role, albeit now public, was that of organising deportation, not the operations in the camps.

Thus, by 1945, Gerstein would have known very well who Eichmann was, and obviuously knew about his deputy, Rolf Guether, who represented him on may occasions. He probably shared the wide-spread view that Eichmann was in charge of all phases of the deportation and extermination of Jews, including the killings in the camps. Accordingly, when he came to compose his confession, including his account of witnessing the gassing of a transport of Jews at Belzec, he must have assumed that Eichmann's office had been involved in some way in what had seen, so it was natural for him to describe the person who had given him the order to take Zyklon-B to Lublin as someone from that office.

User avatar
Eddy Marz
Member
Posts: 559
Joined: 12 Mar 2007 11:32
Location: France

Re: Treblinka Perpetrators

Post by Eddy Marz » 01 Jul 2011 13:09

michael mills wrote:Some years ago, I read the two books about Gerstein by Friedlaender and Joffroy. I had the impression that the book by Joffroy was a simple hagiography, whereas that by Fiedlaender was more measured.
Most conventional historians have that impression because Joffroy (whom I knew very well) chose to write in an unconventional, journalistic, and sensitive manner – meaning the study of the character himself in order to reach an understanding of the events the data partially reveals; an endeavor these same historians, predictably (yawn), consider a ‘sentimental approach’. Character analysis is also an essential component of historical study, and it seems all the more relevant in the case of Gerstein’s complex personality and behavior. It certainly has nothing to do with hagiography, a title conveniently dumped on Joffroy because, despite the very real problems linked to Gerstein’s report, he believed (as I do) in the essential truth behind Gerstein’s motivations and acts. And so does Saul Friedländer, for that matter. Joffroy met all the witnesses: Hygiene Institute members, Waffen-SS colleagues, family, friends, foes, Baron Von Otter etc. and had therefore access to first hand testimony – contrary to Friedländer who was essentially working on second hand sources. His book – tightly knit but very conventional contains twice as less data and suffers, despite his essential endeavor, from a glaring absence of a point of view. The canon of professional historiography calls for the historian to exhaust all the sources (above all the primary sources) relating to his topic, but in Gerstein’s case (and in the state of present day research about him), this may no longer be possible. So what are we left with? Among serious historians who ‘know how to read’, does ‘serious’ mean ‘professional’? Yes, and no. The notion that serious – meaning ‘reliable’ – history can only be written by holders of a Ph.D. is an illusion. This is especially evident in Gerstein’s case where we find professional and nonacademic writers alike. No authors dealing with Gerstein have ventured otherwise than superficially into his personality (apart from Joffroy and Friedländer), and this, once more, for the simple fear of being considered ‘sentimentalists’ – a heresy in the closed world of professional history studies, but certainly not a universal truth. It’s quite obvious to me that ‘objective’ historiography is a mirage. I remain convinced that – in the absence of new or relevant evidence – the report’s ‘readability’ and credibility are not only dependant on parallel research but also intimately linked to a sensitive understanding of Gerstein as a person, of the circumstances of his experience, of his recounting of it, and ultimately of human behavior. I’ll add – and this is valid for honest historians as well as revisionists – that most critics or analysts of the report take Gerstein’s recorded numerical and anecdotic data at face value without taking into account the margin of error that true criticism requires in order to reach the 2nd degree of analysis: the one concerning subjective testimony on passed experiences, perception of time, space, and numbers, or even memory gaps which, particularly in the case of testimony written long after an event (3 years in this case), are often filled with personal fragments…
The case of Gerstein’s credibility cannot be decided solely on assumptions that such or such an event was ‘unlikely’ or that an officer from 4BIV ‘could not’ have met him. What we know is that intermingling of services for precise motives was possible and did happen. I am perfectly conscious of Gerstein’s ambivalence as a person. From his youth he had always been seeking recognition from others, he was a born actor, very rebellious, obsessively religious, eccentric, generous financially speaking, but also very egocentric. These negative and positive qualities don’t really set him apart from hundreds of millions of people, not enough at any rate to dismiss him as a fabricator; they may even have been the source of his resistance. There are vast quantities of letters written by Gerstein still available and, admittedly, their contents diverge on certain points – but they were addressed to different types of people, for different reasons, and in troubled times. As for his supposed ‘unbalance’ (such as described by Roques and his apostles), Gerstein suffered from severe hypoglycemia that caused him occasional fainting or ‘absences’ NOT hallucinations. As for his sudden change of character, all his friends agree that he started sinking into depression a few months after his visit to the AR camps.
I personally find no fundamental ‘ambiguity’ in Gerstein’s report. Clearly, it is not to be read as the precise minutes of what happened to him during his mission to Lublin, Belzec, and Treblinka, but as a composite account of his overall experience and impressions, written three years after the event.
The historical fact is that Gerstein was deeply implicated in the procuring of Zyklon-B for homicidal purposes, as well as for the normal hygienic use of the product.
It is true that Gerstein – on his own free will and under the illusion that he could do something to disrupt extermination on his own – was implicated in the procuring of Zyklon B for both homicidal/hygienic purposes in Auschwitz, but only from December 1943 or January 1944 onwards, and certainly not on his own: The SS had been regularly supplied with Zyklon B by the distributor companies themselves, both at Majdanek and Auschwitz, prior to that date. Zyklon B supply to any camp required three separate approvals from higher SS authorities: one sanitation-medical, one financial and one budgetary approval. It was only from July 1943 onwards that the distributor companies were no longer permitted to supply Zyklon B directly to the camps; the latter had to direct their requests to the Main Sanitation Office in Berlin-Lichtenberg (and not the Waffen-SS Institute in Charlottenburg) The basis for this change in supply procedure was the Reich Minister of Commerce’s Edict II L 120151/43, as well as Edict Rü A Rü I Nr. 15325/43, issued on July 22, 1943, by the Reich Minister of Arms and Ammunition about the expansion of central procurement of supplies for sanitation purposes.

I
n 1943, he reached an agreement with the head of Degesch, Gerhard Peters, for the supply of Zyklon-B without the warning agent "under the table", by passing the legal channel through the firm of Tesch & Stabenow, which held the monopoly for the distribution of Zyklon-B in all areas east of the Elbe.
Dr Gehrard’s testimony in court (1947) regarding the agreement is clear: Gerstein asked him to have the warning agent removed from the gas ‘as it caused increased suffering to the victims’. That may well be what Gerstein really thought, but I don’t think so. My hunch is that he had other motives – such as informing Peters directly of the homicidal use of his gas and obtaining warning agent removal as a pretext to retain handling control… He also asked Peters to have the invoices sent directly to him personally and not to the Institute (which they were, at the Leipzigerstrasse – his 3rd flat). Right or wrong, desperate, demented or ingenuous, Gerstein’s request cannot, one way or another, be discarded. Many others testified after the war that during the war Gerstein informed them about the gassings. They include not only Dr. Peters of Degesch, but also Pastor Rehling; Baron von Otter; Bishop Otto Dibelius; J.H. Ubbink (who transmitted to Cornelius Van der Hooft); Paul Hochstrasser the Swiss diplomat; Pastor Mochalsky; Dr. Hermann Ehlers, the architect Otto Völkers, Frau Alexandra Bälz; Herr and Frau Heinz Nebelthau; Egon Franz; SS-Rottenführer Horst Dickten, his assistant, Armin Peters… and many others. Dr. Mrugowsky also learned of Gerstein’s bad reaction to the AR camps mission from Gerstein himself, after the latter had attempted suicide in December 1942, 4 months after the visit (witnesses: Frau Virk and Fraulein Suzanne Dumont – both secretaries at the Waffen-SS Institute, and Horst Dickten). We also know from various witnesses within the Institute that Mrugowsky and Gerstein were playing a sort of double game with each other wherein Mrugowsky protected Gerstein from SS and NSDAP disciplinary measures at least twice.
The essential purpose of the various versions of the confessions he made soon after the end of the war to two Allied intelligence officers, one British and one American, was to minimise his own role in the use of Zyklon-B for homicidal purposes. To that end, he presented himself as an opponent of homicidal gassing, who used his position as procurer of Zyklon-B for the Waffen-SS to frustrate the homicidal gassing by disrupting the supply.
Gerstein’s testimony, is a report, not a ‘confession’ – this latter terminology is the one used by revisionists in general – and Henri Roques in particular. The notion that he gave colonel J.W. Haught (US) and Major D.C. Evans (UK) – both on assignment for C.I.O.S. to identify combat gas (Tabun, Sarin) plants – to minimize his own role is just speculation on your part. There is not a shred of evidence to support it. Gerstein gave them the report to denounce the crime and, at the same time, in the hope of becoming a star witness.
For example, he claimed that he made the Zyklon-B acquired "under the table" from Gerhard Peters "disappear" by ensuring that it was all used for disinfestation purposes and not for homicidal gassing. In fact, that would not have been hard to do, since as Pressac showed, less than 10% of the Zyklon-B provided to Auschwitz was used for homicidal gassing, the bulk of it being used for the normal delousing purpose.
Maybe not hard to do, as you say, but he was apparently the only one to give it a try – which also speaks for itself.
In his confessions, it is always other people who are driving the homicidal gassing, who issue orders to Gerstein which he tries his best to frustrate. That is probably why he invented the story about being given an order from Eichmann's office.
This is a gratuitous and personal extrapolation – and you’re mixing the ‘Günther order’ with later Auschwitz/Zyklon maneuvers. Are you suggesting the Belzec mission was launched on Gerstein’s decision and that he had to invent a culprit? Gerstein was only an Untersturmführer F at the time (and only recently head of the sanitary department). The mission order to Belzec must have come from above – it was addressed to him because he was a specialist, not a decision maker. Gerstein would only have needed to denounce the order giver… So why mention Günther? In his report, he mentions Pfannenstiel, Globocnik, Wirth, Oberhauser, why suddenly lie about Günther ?
However, Gerstein's efforts to exonerate himself did not succeed. He found out that he was going to be tried for war crimes, and that is why he committed suicide, knowing that his role in supplying Zyklon-B to Auschwitz for a homicidal purpose of which he was fully aware would get him a death sentence (as was the fate of the principals of Tesch $ Stabenow, who were far less guilty).
Very creative. We know from his wife, friends, and Waffen-SS colleagues that he attempted suicide at least twice before the end of the war. Gerstein was depressive, exhausted by hypoglycemia, had surrendered (not been captured) to the French, and wasn’t believed by Judge Matteï who, in any case, didn’t know anything about Aktion Reinhard. Accused of war crimes, ‘traitor’ to the SS, all attempts to get the killings publicized having failed (and therefore his whole implication misunderstood), away from his family (who had been kept in the dark)… There are enough reasons here for a suicide. No offence meant, when I read your messages, despite great knowledge, I sense a complete lack of insight and sensitivity in regards to human nature. You’re a dates, paper, and sources man.
I have no problem at all with the hypothesis that Globocnik wanted to set up an Institute of Hygiene in the Lublin District, which was the area he ruled over. That would explain why Gerstein took a load of Zyklon-B to Lublin, for the purpose of delousing the confiscated clothing of the exterminated Jews.
Wrong. Globocnik told him what the Zyklon was for : « Your other and far more important task is the changeover of our gas chambers which actually work with diesel exhaust fumes into a better and quicker system. I think especially of prussic acid » (Gerstein report)

And Pfannenstiel confirms : « I wanted to know in particular if this process of exterminating human beings was accompanied by any acts of cruelty. I found it especially cruel that death did not set in until eighteen minutes had passed. I told Globocnik so. He replied that this would go better with prussic acid, but, so far as I know, this acid was never used because Gerstein pointed out to him the dangers inherent in the use of gaseous prussic acid” (Pfannenstiel before Darmstadt Court, June 6, 1950).
But what is the proof for Eichmann's office being involved in the process of organising an Institute of Hygiene in Lublin, and the conveying of materials toither for hygienic purposes, other than Gerstein's own claim? Eichmann's office was part of the RSHA, and its function was to organise transports of Jews from Germany and the occupied countries to various destinations in the East, initially to ghettos and eventually to concentration camps. It had no involvement in the running of the ghettos or concentration camps to which the Jews were sent; the fate of the Jews on arrival at their destinations was controlled either by the Inspectorate of Concentration Camps or by the local German security organs, the equivalent of Globocnik in Lublin.
Accordingly, it is extremely unlikely that Eichmann's office would have had any involvement whatever in negotiations between Globocnik and the hygiene administration of the Waffen-SS in relation to hygienic measures to be undertaken in Lublin. That was entirely outside the purview of Eichmann's office, and indeed of the RSHA, which was a police and security force, not a medical authority. It needs to be remembered that the two methodologies of homicidal gassing, the one by CO and the other by HCN, were entirely separate from each other, had different origins, and were administered by separate organisations. There was no one organisation overseeing all homicidal gassing.Gassing with CO had its origin in the Euthanasia Program, and resulted from a recommendation by chemists of the Criminal Technical Institute of the RSHA, who had been asked by the T-4 administration to advise on methods of inflicting a painless death. On the recommendation of the chemists, pure manufactured CO was used.

The next step was the use of engine exhaust as the source of the CO for homicidal gassing. That was devised by the Criminal Technical Institute of the RSHA, and arose from the needs of the Security Police on the eastern front, where maqnufactured CO was hard to obtain. Since the Security Police was part of the RSHA, it was natural for the Criminal technical Institute to be involved in solving their problems; the gas van, using its own exhaust as the killing agent, was the result.
So there was service interaction after all (not that I had any doubts)...
But the production of gas vans and their deployment on the eastern front was entirely separate from the Euthanasia Program in Germany run by T-4, which continued to use manufactured CO, and never used engine exhaust. The third step was the introduction of gassing with engine exhaust at the Globocnik camps. Exactly how that came about remains uncertain, since the whole process whereby those camps came into existence is still a mystery. It is unknown where the idea of setting up extermination camps in the Lublin District originated, whether it was Globocnik's initiative, or whehter he was following an order from higher up.
Yes, a mystery. So how can you be so sure and in such peremptory manner?
It is most probable that Globocnik sought advice from the Criminal Technical Institute of the RSHA, and it was that body that suggested the use of engine exhaust, based on the successful operation of the gas vans on the eastern front. However, the role of the KTI was that of an expert consultant, since Globocnik was not under the control of the RSHA, and operated completlely independently.

In order to understand Gerstein's functions, and determine what parts of his confessions are likely to be true and what parts falsified to some extent, it is necessary to understand the bureaucratic environment in which he was working, and the functions of the different parts of that bureaucracy.
While it is true that the different parts of the German bureaucracy worked together on common projects, they each contributed to a common project in accordance with their specific functions.
Therefore, when a claim is made that a member of one specific part of the bureaucracy was doing something totally unrelated to his proper function, the suspicion arises that the claim is false.
Throughout this thread you rigidly invoke the sacrosanct argument that such or such service in the SS was like this or that and that therefore it could not happen. But that is wrong. Do you know for sure that the order didn’t come from Günther? Or do you just think it impossible? Organizations and services are people. People behave in all sorts of unpredictable manners and heads of organizations or services can decide exceptional measures whenever they see fit – as the history of the Holocaust demonstrates without a doubt.
In 1942, Eichmann was very much an obscure character, who sat in an office in Berlin organising transports of Jews. At the place of origin of the transports, the rounding up of the Jews to be deported was carried out by the local German security agencies, in response to orders issued by Eichmann's office, usually overseen by a liaison officer from that office.
Since in 1942 Gerstein was not involved with transports of Jews, but only with the work of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS, which did include the delousing of concentration camps, it is unlikely that he would have come into contact with any members of Eichmann's office. At that stage he probably did not even know who Eichmann was. Eichmann did not become well known until 1944, when he was sent to Hungary with full powers to organise the deportation of Jews from that country. He was attached to the office of the German plenipotentiary in Hungary, Veesenmayer, and as such operated very much in the open, in the full glare of publicity.
Nowhere does Gerstein make any mention of Eichmann; I don’t believe he knew who he was either – at the time of Günther’s visit. But he does clearly state that it was Rolf Günther (a pretty secretive character as well) who came in civilian clothes to order the Blausäure. Maybe is it ‘unlikely that he would have come into contact with any members of Eichmann's office’ but in no way impossible. One cannot shrug that statement off simply on the grounds that it was ‘unlikely’. Why would he have invented that name and service in particular seeing they were only involved in ‘transportation’? That would have been obviously counterproductive. Maybe you’re trying to find tortuous answers to refute an otherwise banal (albeit unusual) event. I see no ambiguity here, I’m sorry.
Accordingly, when he came to compose his confession, including his account of witnessing the gassing of a transport of Jews at Belzec, he must have assumed that Eichmann's office had been involved in some way in what had seen, so it was natural for him to describe the person who had given him the order to take Zyklon-B to Lublin as someone from that office.
So in fact, you’re assuming that Gerstein assumed?

There is no a single doubt in my mind that the ‘Belzec Mission’ of August 1942 was a highly organized affair. And we will probably never know the whole truth. Researchers seem to have focused so much on the discrepancies between Gerstein’s report and Pfannenstiel’s testimony that they have come to ignore his very dubious status in the whole affair. In my view, Pfannenstiel’s testimony is a desperate attempt to dissociate himself not only from Gerstein but also from Aktion Reinhard in which I believe he was far more involved than appears at first glance. His function as a Waffen-SS specialized adviser in hygiene and bacteriology (from 1939 onwards) included inspection of SS barracks but also of concentration camps on German soil. He was also involved in criminal medical experiments (high altitude) with Dr. Rascher. His 1950 claims that he was ordered to Lublin in August 1942 for urban sanitation operations (of which nothing is known), and that he travelled with Gerstein – therefore on a top-secret Aktion Reinhard mission – as a simple ‘passenger’, and ultimately that he ‘visited’ Belzec, witnessed a gassing (or gassings) as a simple ‘spectator’ (‘I asked to visit the camp’) invited by Globocnik, are obviously absurd. Pfannenstiel desperately tries to imply that he wasn’t part of the operation at all. All this is nonsense. On the contrary, everything indicates that Gerstein and Pfannenstiel were both individually appointed to Lublin, both with different tasks, within a single operation: deal with hygienic hazards in the Aktion Reinhard camps, and that, to a certain extent, their respective missions overlapped. It could also be argued that, at the beginning of the trip, each was ignorant of the exact detail of the other’s mission, or that Gerstein had a superficial knowledge of Pfannenstiel’s ‘official’ mission: urban sanitation. Yet, if Globocnik, in charge of a top-secret KdF operation, openly informed Pfannenstiel that ‘there was a camp at Belzec where Jews were killed’ it could only have been because the latter had been mandated there. As Pfannenstiel readily admits, he was not entrusted with clothes disinfection; that was Gerstein’s ‘official’ job: ‘Knowing that Dr. Gerstein was in charge of disinfection work’ (a claim confirmed in Gerstein’s German report: ‘Globocnik consulted me alone and said: ‘It is your task in particular to disinfect the extensive amounts of textiles’). So why was Pfannenstiel there? For what reason would an SS hygiene expert visit an extermination camp at a time when the groundwater was polluted and vermin-ridden due to mass burials other than to devise an efficient and hygienic corpse disposal method?

To conclude this tedious conversation, I’ll just add that I know I haven’t convinced you at all and that you probably consider me amateurish. But neither have you convinced me in any way either. I also find a good many of your arguments concerning Gerstein – the person – very close to revisionist argumentation from which you may have hand-picked only the extracts that suit your theory, and fitted them in your otherwise impeccable knowledge of RSHA functioning.

No hard feelings

little grey rabbit
Member
Posts: 745
Joined: 12 Mar 2010 04:26

Re: Treblinka Perpetrators

Post by little grey rabbit » 02 Jul 2011 11:11

There is no a single doubt in my mind that the ‘Belzec Mission’ of August 1942 was a highly organized affair. And we will probably never know the whole truth. Researchers seem to have focused so much on the discrepancies between Gerstein’s report and Pfannenstiel’s testimony that they have come to ignore his very dubious status in the whole affair.
Have you read The Confessions of Kurt Gerstein by Henri Rocques?

Is it documented that Himmler and Hitler visited Lublin on 15 August 1942

User avatar
Eddy Marz
Member
Posts: 559
Joined: 12 Mar 2007 11:32
Location: France

Re: Treblinka Perpetrators

Post by Eddy Marz » 02 Jul 2011 12:42

little grey rabbit wrote:Have you read The Confessions of Kurt Gerstein by Henri Rocques?
1.
Of course I've read H. Roque's so-called 'thesis'. But the real question is do you know who Henri Roques is ?
Roques was secretary-general for the Phalange Française ('French Phalanx'), a racist neo-nazi movement founded in the 50's and headed by Marcel Luca a close parent and colleague of Marcel Déat, the notorious french collaborationist. In 1962, Paul Rassinier, the 'Father of Revisionism' (well now, what a coincidence) dedicated his book, 'The Real Eichmann Trial' to Henri Roques with these words : 'I immediately put him to work'. Roques presented his so-called thesis in 1981 at the university of Lyon III in front of an illegally hand picked jury (thanks to 'inside neo-nazi sympathies' within the university itself) among which we find : J.C Rivière, a far-right activist from the Teachers' syndicate and ex member of the Europe-Action neo-nazi movement; Pierre Zind, a Marist friar and associate in Nouvelle Voix, a neo-nazi Alsatian gazette... etc.

- Roques didn't have the necessary diplomas entitling him to present a thesis
- His registration was illegally back-dated to fit with the university schedule
- The pages of the university log listing the commission members examining the 'thesis' presentation have vanished
- The signature of one of the commission members was falsified

When all this came to be known, a national scandal obviously broke-out. The thesis was annulled by the french Ministry of Education. Henri Roques is not a thesis holder, nor a doctor in History. He's a neo-nazi, his apostles, colleagues, editors, and associates are as well - and his thesis did not an any way intend to 'clarify the Gerstein report' for historical veracity but, on the contrary, attempted to invoke Gerstein's 'insanity' for the sole purpose of 'proving' that the AR gas chambers were a fiction.

Just as I said in my post to Michael, you guys dig selectively into revisionist (the real term is 'negationist' in this case) litterature, picking-out what is necessary to bend history to your theories, but cautiously omitting anything unsavory to political correctness.

2.
little grey rabbit wrote:Is it documented that Himmler and Hitler visited Lublin on 15 August 1942
Wrong. It is documented that Gerstein said that Globocnik said :
'Your other and far more important task is the changeover of our gas chambers which actually work with diesel exhaust fumes into a better and quicker system. I think especially of prussic acid. The day before yesterday the Führer and Himmler were here. On their order I have to personally take you there, I am not to issue written certificates and admittance cards to anybody!" Then Pfannenstiel asked: "What did the Führer say?" Glob.: "Quicker, carry out the whole action quicker."

There is absolutely no ambiguity as to who's talking... Every serious historian agrees that this was boasting on the part of Globocnik to give himself importance (and perfectly in line with what we know of his character - ref: Poprzeczny, Joseph. Odilo Globocnik ; Hitler’s man in the East). Adolf Hitler obviously never set foot in an extermination camp. But Himmler was in Lublin in mid-july 1942 (1 month before Gerstein's visit); it could perfectly well be that the Reichsführer gave the order regarding escorting of visiting personnel then, or even that a similar conversation took place.

You're going to have to do alot better than that I'm afraid
Last edited by Eddy Marz on 02 Jul 2011 13:14, edited 2 times in total.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8820
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Treblinka Perpetrators

Post by michael mills » 02 Jul 2011 13:11

Just as I said in my post to Michael, you guys dig selectively into revisionist (the real term is 'negationist' in this case) litterature, picking-out what is necessary to bend history to your theories, but cautiously omitting anything unsavory to political correctness.
When someone stoops to this sort of personal innuendo, it is both an indication of the weakness of his arguments and a reflection on his personal character.

It should be perfectly possible to critically analyse Gerstein's 1945 confessions for the purpose of determining what parts add to our historical knowledge and what parts must be discarded as dubious, without having one's motives impugned.

I think it likely that Gerstein's description of the conversation with Globocnik is largely fictional because of its implausibility.

If Globocnik had indeed been considering the replacement of the gassing methodology with one using prussic acid, then he would surely have turned for advice to the Auschwitz personnel who had experimented with Zyklon-B and had been using it homicidally for several months, and also to the architects who had designed and built the gas chambers in which prussic acid could be used safely. Neither Gerstein nor Pfannenstiel had had any experience in the efficient homicidal use of prussic acid, and obviously would not have been called upon to perform that alleged changeover.

Secondly, Globocnik is alleged to have referred to the existing gassing methodology using diesel exhaust. That seems to be a mistake made by Gerstein when he was composing his confession in 1945 ; historians appear to be in agreement that exhaust from gasoline engines was used, since it had a higher carbon monoxide content than diesel exhaust. Presumably Gesterin simply did not have the technical knowledge about the lethality of various types of exhaust, the sort of knowledge that the scientific staff at the Criminal Technical Institute had.

The only item in his confession of real historical value is his description of the gassing procedure at Belzec, which can be accepted as basically accurate, although overly melodramatic. Even then he got it wrong about the type of angine used; but was a hygiene professional, not a motor mechanic.

User avatar
Eddy Marz
Member
Posts: 559
Joined: 12 Mar 2007 11:32
Location: France

Re: Treblinka Perpetrators

Post by Eddy Marz » 02 Jul 2011 13:47

michael mills wrote: When someone stoops to this sort of personal innuendo, it is both an indication of the weakness of his arguments and a reflection on his personal character.
Then you should practice what you preach because you always come personal, my friend.
It should be perfectly possible to critically analyse Gerstein's 1945 confessions for the purpose of determining what parts add to our historical knowledge and what parts must be discarded as dubious, without having one's motives impugned.
And the same to you. You never say 'dubious'; you always claim 'fabrication' - only recently have you been using the term 'I assume'.
I think it likely that Gerstein's description of the conversation with Globocnik is largely fictional because of its implausibility.
A perfectly gratuitous and personal hypothesis. I find it perfectly plausible in the circumstances. No comment.
If Globocnik had indeed been considering the replacement of the gassing methodology with one using prussic acid, then he would surely have turned for advice to the Auschwitz personnel who had experimented with Zyklon-B and had been using it homicidally for several months, and also to the architects who had designed and built the gas chambers in which prussic acid could be used safely.
.
I agree, he certainly could have. But maybe he didn't. Maybe thinking this was something that could be done with some form of less administrative toxic expert presence. But again, you use 'surely'... It therefore remains a supposition.
Neither Gerstein nor Pfannenstiel had had any experience in the efficient homicidal use of prussic acid, and obviously would not have been called upon to perform that alleged changeover.
Pfannenstiel was a professor in Hygiene and had, so he claimed at his hearing in 1950, already been in contact with 'liquid' Blausäure; Gerstein was an expert in water purification and in toxic substances. He was selected by the Hygiene Institute as an authority in these matters - no more no less than Wirth as a C02 gasser although he was a policeman. Experiments with Zyklon B could perfectly well have been undertaken by trial and error as they had been with C02 by Wirth, Kallmeyer, and Hackenhold in Belzec's opening weeks.
Secondly, Globocnik is alleged to have referred to the existing gassing methodology using diesel exhaust. That seems to be a mistake made by Gerstein when he was composing his confession in 1945 ; historians appear to be in agreement that exhaust from gasoline engines was used, since it had a higher carbon monoxide content than diesel exhaust. Presumably Gesterin simply did not have the technical knowledge about the lethality of various types of exhaust, the sort of knowledge that the scientific staff at the Criminal Technical Institute had.
Yes, Gerstein doesn't seem to have been well acquainted with motor techniques. He wasn't the only one, apparently - and it doesn't change anything in any case : the victims were gassed with the exhaust fumes of some kind of motor - whether gasoline or diesel.
The only item in his confession of real historical value is his description of the gassing procedure at Belzec, which can be accepted as basically accurate, although overly melodramatic.


Overly melodramatic ?! I wonder how you would have reacted, round about 8 in the morning, to a gassing procedure: the human drama, the panic, the screaming, the prayers, the urine, the excrements, the maggots, the piles of dead bodies, the yanking out of teeth, the burials... Witnesses say he sank into depression and never got rid of it. What I find really overly disturbing - yet unsurprising - is your apparent total lack of sensitivity.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23254
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: Treblinka Perpetrators

Post by David Thompson » 02 Jul 2011 14:00

Let's drop the personal remarks about each other, gentlemen.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”