What kind of diesel engines where used???

[De Ruyter]

This is really interesting... gosh, I thought I knew a lot of things... you guys certainly take the prize in the knowledge game!

Diesel engines would have been the best engine type for killing people, since standard WW2 german gas masks, as I recall, were not very effektive against gasoline engine exaust fumes... Is this right or wrong, does anyone know???

I have a german gasmask from 1944, the directions imply that it is not to be used for the filtering of fumes from gasoline burning... that is why I guess that diesel would have been safer for camp personel... but, then again I have read that they never did the dirty work after gassings... hm... I guess the Ukrainians and Jews were not equiped with masks at all...

Have a nice evening!

[Scott Smith]

I always wondered why nobody is taking into account rise in temperature inside the chamber connected to the engine and consequtive catalitic shift.

The hotter the operating temperature of the engine the lower the NOx emissions, but they are not high enough anyway to kill sensitive animals for many hours of exposure to "painful" diesel fumes. The heat in the chamber would be a factor leading to dehydration and death but not in the amount of time it took for an alledged homicidal gassing.

[Scott Smith]

I was wondering what kind of diesel engines where used for extermination of people in for example the Belzec death camp??? If anyone knows what kind, I would be grateful for any replies or messages you would have time to post or send me!

If it was a diesel engine captured from a Soviet tank it would have to be a W-2, which was twelve-cylinders and water-cooled of about 38 liters displacement and about 500 brake-horsepower at 1500 rpm. These were used in all heavy Soviet tanks.

Diesel Engines (T-34 Tanks)

The first production-line models were fitted with V-2 diesel engines, but shortages meant that some of these early models were equipped with the older M-17 petrol engines.

Russian Tanks of World War II
Stalins Armored Might
Tim Bean & Will Fowler
MBI Publishing
2002
p. 100

Hi Chuck,

Read what I wrote above again. To make it easier for you I have bolded the operative phrase and the word diesel in red.

This means that if it were a diesel engine it had to have come from a Soviet tank or a German truck.

Actually, that's not what you said.

But I'll try to make it easy for you.

You claimed the engine was a W-2. You were wrong. The engine was a V-2.

Oh, Chuck. The W-2 is the V-2, if you prefer. It depends on how you transliterate Cyrillic letters into Roman. I prefer to do it the German way as W-2 so that it cannot be confused with the German words Versuchs-2 (version-2) used in German nomenclature for experimental equipment types, or Vergeltungswaffen-2, the V-2 retaliation rocket. Then there is a secret agent nomenclature called a V-Mann, as opposed to an S-Mann, which is a Schwindler (certainly characterizing some Holo-Defenders).

There is a further reason for avoiding the V nomenclature for this engine because the W-2 was a V-motor (no, not a secret agent's motor). A V-motor has its cylinders arranged in a V-pattern. The Ford V-8 was the first of these, IIRC. The number eight designates the number of cylinders. The W-2 was patterned after a French Hispano-Suiza gasoline aircraft engine but beefed-up for a heavier diesel--despite ample use of aluminum, a hefty 800 kilograms--and it had twelve cylinders, so it would therefore be a "V-12" engine in American parlance.

Since this is confusing for neophytes, who tend to think the number 2 refers to the number of cylinders, I prefer the German designation W-2 rather than V-2. I'm not sure which one is transliterated most correctly from Russian since I haven't seen any Russian text. Perhaps our Russian speakers like Oleg can shed some light on that. Btw, the W-4 (or V-4 if you prefer) had only six cylinders, half of the W-2 (V-2), which would therefore make it a "V-6" in American.

Hope that helps.

From time to time you might want to offer some sources for your claims, because the occasional spot check raises some questions.

I don't mind serious questions at all. Actually, I posted citations for two technical articles on the W-2/V-2 diesel motor when I was debating Roberto a couple of years ago. One was the wartime British technical evaluation of the engine and the other was the wartime German technical report from MTZ.

The Germans were very interested in this motor because it was an excellent one with a good power-to-weight ratio, and they had not imagined that the Russians were using any diesel engines whatever before the encountered the KV-1 and the T-34 in battle. Some of the parts were exact copies of Western components such as the German Bosch fuel-injection system.

Here are the citations for the two reports:

"Dieselmotor der sowjetischen Kampfwagen," Augustin, MTZ--Motortechnische Zeitschrift, 1943, Vol. 5, Nr. 4/5, pages 130-139 continued in Vol. 5, Nr. 6/7, pages 207-213.

"Russian Diesel engines for Tanks--Lightweight 600 b.h.p. 2000 rpm Type," The Oil Engine (British), December 1943, page 211.

We don't know exactly why the Germans never adopted diesel engines for their tanks, despite them being superior for these purposes. The fuel is cheaper, easier to refine, easier to make synthetically, less explosive; the mileage is better, engines last longer, etc. The two best reasons are that the W-2/V-2 produced only 600 horsepower at 2000 rpm. The Maybach engines for the heavy German tanks Panther and Tiger I and the super-heavy Tiger II produced 700 horsepower and were still grossly underpowered, especially in the case of the latter two. The second reason is that any change in production priorities causes delays, so if the Germans were working on an improvement to the W-2 it didn't get a high enough priority to justify a major retooling.

However, I have been able to find out why the U.S. Army did not go to diesels in their tanks despite the obvious superiority. They simply did not want to have two types of fuel for their motor vehicles and tanks since most of their trucks were gasoline and production was not a problem for them. The U.S. tank experiments determined that the ammunition was more of a hazard in the case of a hit than the type of fuel stowed. I can provide a source but I would have to make a trip to the library to get the citation. It was in the U.S. Army Historical Series green book on technical ordnance published by the U.S. Government Printing Office.

I also wanted the readers to know that the T-34 tank was not necessarily a diesel.

Rarely, and when the tank was being put into mass-production. I've cited the number of KV-1s and T-34s produced in 1941 in the past. Some 639 of the KV-1s were available to the Red Army in June, 1941 and at least that many T-34s.

The Russians tooled-up for producing 2000 of the W-2/V-2 diesel engines per year in 1940 but this was not actually possible until November, 1941, and still not met because the factories were then being relocated East. The online source I used before says that 750 gasoline T-34 tanks with the M17T engine were planned due to shortages of the diesel engines, but by the end of 1941 only 173 had been produced. By early 1942, T-34 production with the diesel engine took off.

Do you deny that deniers have claimed the T-34 was a diesel? The way you do below?

I'm not sure I get your point. It is the Believers with the "eyewitness testimony" that say diesel engines from a Soviet tank.

I have explained that the earlier Soviet tanks used gasoline engines. After 1941, all Soviet tanks were diesels and used the W-2/V-2 engine.

This is quarterly T-34 production from 1941-42:

I/1941: 385
II/1941: 450
III/1941: 695
IV/1941: 55

1941 Total: 1585

I/1942: 440
II/1942: 1380
III/1942: 1774
IV/1942: 2090

1942 Total: 5684

http://www.battlefield.ru/t34_76_2.html

I have always argued that finding a petrol engine would have been easier. A diesel would be more difficult but not impossible. Any wrecking yard would have a decent gasoline engine from a car or truck to use. Thus, why did those clever SS pick diesels?

Occam's Answer: Not because of mass-murder but to provide a powerplant to generate the camp's power.

POSTED Wed Dec 11, 2002 4:24 am Post subject: Re: SGT. FUCHS: I Know Something, Something...

By the way, I always thought that the Soviets used diesel engines in their tanks. I read that somewhere.

In the earlier part of the war the Soviets had a lot of lighter tanks like the T-24, so we could have eight-cylinder engines of either gasoline or diesel motors (more-usually gasoline) of about 200 or 300 horsepower.

The Soviet heavy tanks like the KV-1, T-34, and IS-2 all had a standard 500 brake-horsepower W-2 diesel powerplant. All Soviet tank production switched to heavier tanks and diesel engines, and they could have been salvaged to make camp powerplants if an electrical generator of about 1500 rpm were also available. (That is a lot of power, 373 mechanical kilowatts.)

Another denier canard bites the dust.

How do you figure that? A diesel engine is exactly what the Germans would have used for camp power. Auschwitz had several German diesel-electric plants for emergency power of about this size.

In any case, it is up to the accusers to give us the details of the murder weapon. So far the only credible details come from Fuchs (which was a gasoline engine from a truck) and his story is quite incomplete.


The venerable W-2/V-2 Soviet diesel engine.

[Scott Smith]

This is really interesting... gosh, I thought I knew a lot of things... you guys certainly take the prize in the knowledge game!

Diesel engines would have been the best engine type for killing people, since standard WW2 german gas masks, as I recall, were not very effektive against gasoline engine exaust fumes... Is this right or wrong, does anyone know???

Diesel exhaust is not deadly because there is almost never any carbon monoxide in it. This has nothing to do with the type of fuel used. This is because of the principle of ignition used by the motor--compression. A diesel engine ALWAYS operates by gulping excess air to compress in order to generate heat to ignite the fuel when it is sprayed into the cylinder by an injector. There is nothing that you can adjust on the motor that will change this fact.

A gasoline engine (whether carbureted or fuel-injected) uses spark-ignition. By adjusting the ignition timing and the carburetor you can easily make a gasoline engine put out copious quantities of carbon monoxide. Modern gasoline engines with computer-controlled ignitions and fuel-injection have far less carbon monoxide in their outputs (which has markedly reduced CO induced traffic accidents and other CO fatalities) but it still produces plenty of carbon monoxide.

Btw, if you have a diesel oil furnace, don't think that it won't produce plenty of carbon monoxide if it is poorly maintained. The only kind of furnaces that don't are electric or solar.

It is the type of engine not the type of fuel that determines the carbon monoxide content of the exhaust.

I have a german gasmask from 1944, the directions imply that it is not to be used for the filtering of fumes from gasoline burning... that is why I guess that diesel would have been safer for camp personel... but, then again I have read that they never did the dirty work after gassings... hm... I guess the Ukrainians and Jews were not equiped with masks at all...

It is easy to remove carbon monoxide from a closed space with simple ventilation. But a normal gasmask will not work for carbon monoxide filtration. This is why firemen carry bottled airtanks on their backs. It is possible to make a gasmask that will filter CO but it has to be a big cumbersome affair that must work very well because such small concentrations of CO can kill.

Have a nice evening!

You too, and I'm going to have a good Independence Day holiday weekend.

[Roberto]

In any case, it is up to the accusers to give us the details of the murder weapon. So far the only credible details come from Fuchs (which was a gasoline engine from a truck) and his story is quite incomplete.

By the standards of fuss-makers who think (or pretend to think) that Fuchs should have bored the court with a lengthy description of the gasoline engine he used or the court should of such a description have recorded more than the statements relevant to the case at hand.

I’d say it’s up to the "defenders" (interesting how openly "Revisionists" admit to being defenders of the Nazi regime against what they call "accusations", isn’t it?) to explain why the details of the murder weapon are supposed to have mattered to criminal investigation and historical research which assessed the evidence to large-scale mass murder and concluded that this crime was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. See my post of Wed Jul 02, 2003 11:28 am on this thread:

Indeed, it would have been easier for the SS mechanics to get a gasoline motor from a tank or a truck, so I asked long ago why they went out of their way to get a diesel engine for gassing? Well, obviously they didn't--as I have long argued.

If Smith had so argued, all these lengthy and boring diesel discussions would never have taken place.

The problem is that Smith's argument didn't go like "I don't think they used diesel engines. It is more probable that they used gasoline engines and that witnesses who spoke of diesel engines were somehow mistaken."

It went like: "It they had been serious about killing, they would have used gasoline engines rather than the diesel engines made up by hoaxing propagandists."

There's nothing wrong with pointing out the possibility of an inaccuracy regarding a certain detail, but questioning the occurrence of large-scale mass murder on account of such a possibility (assuming Smith’s "technical arguments" against diesel engines are pertinent, that is), despite all the evidence that renders it irrelevant, is an attitude that sucks.

They may have salvaged a diesel engine from a KV-1 or even a T-34 or a smaller one from a German truck to use as a powerplant to generate camp power and/or to pump water. I don't know where they got the electrical generator or pump equipment, however. This is an engineering problem that I could personally solve, but it wouldn't just happed because somebody willed it or siad so afterwards; there would be lots of details to iron out. My point is that those details as related are suspiciously thin considering we are talking about a novel mass-murder weapon here.

See, Smith, that's where you incur in a grievous flaw of reasoning (assuming you're not just parroting guru Berg, that is).

What on earth makes you think that historiography and criminal justice are or should be concerned with how a "novel mass-murder weapon" worked?

In the context of a criminal investigation, the details of the murder weapon, be it banal or "novel", matter only insofar as they provide hints about the identity of the murderer, like ballistics tracing the bullet found in the victim's body to a certain gun and the proverbial fingerprints linking that gun to a certain person.

In the context of a criminal trial, the details of the murder weapon only matter insofar as they are required to establish a defendant's individual deeds and guilt.

I don't see what delving into the exact construction and functioning of the gassing engine - assuming this was possible at all, which is rather questionable given that the SS completely dismantled the camps, most of the witnesses were not technical people and those from the ranks of the surviving inmates would understandably have been concerned with other things than the type and construction of the gassing engine, even if they ever got close enough to the engine room to observe it - could have contributed to either of the above during the investigations or at the trials related to the mass killings at the Aktion Reinhard(t) extermination camps, and although I have often asked you to explain to us why you think these details would have been relevant to the investigations and trials at hand, I have never seen anything even coming close to a convincing answer.

As to historiography, I don’t think this discipline sees it as it’s task to research the functioning of however "novel" murder weapons, concerned as it is with the events themselves and the question why they occurred. I don’t know of a historian who dedicated more than a few passing notes to the question whether this or that killing method was used and how exactly a given killing method functioned, in regard to any historical event. If, however, you can show us any or provide quotes from a treatise on the art and science of historiography that pronounce the investigation of such details to be an important component of historical research, feel free to do so.

To sum it up, your statement that a rather understandable lack of detail on a secondary issue is "suspicious" blinks at the realities and tasks of criminal investigation and historical research and betrays not scepticism, but a pathetic urge to grab any straw you can reach in order to question the occurrence of events inconvenient to your ideological articles of faith. The reason why you grab such straws is, quite obviously, your inability to answer questions like the following:

1. Court experts and historians who have assessed the documentary evidence concluded that all pertinent documents – correspondence among officials as well as train schedules, timetables and other transportation documents – clearly point to Belzec, Sobibor or Treblinka as the final destinations. There is not a single document, however detailed, that even hints at the Jews taken to these camps going any further. Why would this be so if the deportees "sifted through" these camps were being taken "to the Russian East", as was stated in the Korherr Report ?

2. The rail line leading to Treblinka was a side-track of the line going from Warsaw to Bialystok in Northeast Poland. Bialystok was the closest point to the Soviet Union, anyone from Treblinka being resettled in the Soviet occupied territory had to pass through there. Yet a German railroad table for Bialystok shows Jews being taken from there to Treblinka, with the empty cars returning to Bialystok. In other words, they were being moved away from the Soviet territories by being sent to Treblinka. Why was this so?

3. The resettlement of ca. 1.5 million people (the number of victims of the "Aktion Reinhard(t)" camps according to the Düsseldorf County Court’s judgement at the first Treblinka trial, 1965) in the occupied territories of the Soviet Union would have been a complex operation, requiring hundreds if not thousands of German officials to carry it out and at least as many people involved in building projects. Yet no one has ever come forward to testify about such a resettlement, even though this would have made an ideal defence at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial and subsequent trials. Former high-ranking transportation specialists in Germany during the war did not offer Soviet resettlement as a defence in post-war trials, even though they denied having known the real purpose of the train transport. No war crimes defendant actually offered resettlement as a defence, even those who denied knowledge of the genocide. Why was this so?

4. As becomes apparent from a number of documents regarding the "economic aspects" of "Operation Reinhard" (alternatively spelled "Reinhardt" or "Reinhart", I’ll use the "Reinhard" spelling for convenience in the following), the Jews taken to Belzec, Sobibor or Treblinka were stripped of all their belongings there, including their clothing. Why would that have been done if they were going to be resettled – unless "resettlement" was to be to a place where they would need no clothing anymore?

5. Why would the Nazis, concerned as they were about preserving their own resources and robbing the Jews of everything they had, have invested large sums of money – far more than the costs of the killing operation, which are exactly known from Globocnik’s correspondence with Himmler – into a resettlement project?

6. Why were there so many dead bodies at Treblinka in October of 1942 that they could not be sufficiently buried, thus creating a stench that befouled the air as far as Ostrow, 20 kilometers away, which led the local Wehrmacht commander to raise an official complaint about that stench?

7. How many whole bodies, and how many bodies reduced to ashes and other partial remains, fit into pits 7.5 meters deep (judging by the depth to which ashes, bone fragments and other partial human remains were detected) in the burial area more than 20,000 square meters long and wide that was found after the war by the Central Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland? Was there room enough for, say, the 713,555 Jews from the General Government taken to Treblinka until 31.12.1942, according to the Höfle's report to Heim of 11 January 1943, or was there not?

[Roberto]

This is really interesting... gosh, I thought I knew a lot of things... you guys certainly take the prize in the knowledge game!

Diesel engines would have been the best engine type for killing people, since standard WW2 german gas masks, as I recall, were not very effektive against gasoline engine exaust fumes... Is this right or wrong, does anyone know???

Diesel exhaust is not deadly because there is almost never any carbon monoxide in it.

Not that it matters, but ...

Article 14309 of alt.revisionism:
Path: oneb!hakatac!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!uunet!news.delphi.com!usenet
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Diesel A, B, C's and Scott Mullins
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 94 23:24:56 -0500
Organization: Delphi ([email protected] email, 800-695-4005 voice)
Lines: 24
Message-ID:
References: <2vt3du$[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bos1f.delphi.com
X-To: Friedrich Berg

Friedrich Berg writes:

>engine, Diesel engine and even the automobile. I can't really believe
>that Mullins can be that stupid--but, then again, perhaps he is?

I dont believe any useful purpose is served by calling people names. Why
cannot you keep this discussion at a professional level? If you are an
engineer that should not be too difficult.
I also happen to be a mechanical engineer with probably more years experience
that many of you have. I see nothing technically wrong in accepting that
a diesel engine exhausting into a closed room provided with an exhauster
would fill the room with a lethal gas. The percentage of CO is not only a
function of load but also of the air/fuel ratio. It is quite possible to
run a diesel engine "rich" at part-load as well as at full-load. It won't
be efficient but it would produce higher percentages of CO.
Apart from all of this people forced into a closed chamber filled with
exhaust gases would not only die from CO but would also be asphyxiated.
And finally, the argument about gas producers being a better source of
CO is technically correct but not practical because gas producers are
basically custom-built and certainly not as readily available during the
war at a camp near the war zones than diesel engines.

Let's try to cut out the emotions and keep this at a dispassionate
technical level.

Source of quote:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/ ... /berg.0794

There are similar assessments by Jamie McCarthy and our fellow poster Michael Mills, which I cannot reach at this moment but have been shown more than once on this forum.

And there’s Richard Miller’s thesis of “CO2 narcosis”, exhaustively discussed on the thread

Gassing Vans Revisited
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=20051

Maybe they are all wrong and Smith is right, but I haven’t yet seen him convincingly exclude any of the above hypotheses.

Let alone explain what the relevance of these discussions about a mere detail – and not exactly one of those that carry the devil inside – is supposed to be.

[Scott Smith]

Hardly much more than SPAM, Roberto. I would like to cross-examine Fuchs. Simple as that. We discussed some of these questions in the discussion I had with Sailor at Hannover's Memory Hole. As far as this CO2 thesis of Richard Miller, there is no support for it. And you still have to have the engine loaded to raise the CO2. Besides, Berg has already cited sources on respiration and carbon dioxide in his original paper. I have been looking in technical journals at the university library for anything supporting the idea of CO2 narcosis--which makes one wonder how U-boat crews survived extended submersion--so far I have found nothing. I'm combing through papers on space medicine and related topics. Also, if Michael Mills disagrees with me on diesels and carbon monoxide then he is free to discuss it with me. And if all this "doesn't matter," as you say, then how come you are so intent to address it? I may not have all the answers on Holo-questions, and don't claim to, but one becomes an expert by studying one aspect, which certainly doesn't mean that I have studied nothing else.

[Roberto]

Hardly much more than SPAM, Roberto.

SPAM, for the newcomers, is everything that doesn’t fit into Smith’s bubble and he hasn’t much to say against. And when he’s pissed as hell because his opponent won’t bend to his alleged wisdom, he SHOUTS it out in capital letters.

I would like to cross-examine Fuchs. Simple as that.

Yeah, sure. If Fuchs had said something about a diesel engine, Smith would gratefully grab his statements as something to make a fuss about. But it happens that Fuchs clearly described a gasoline engine and thus deprived Smith of this opportunity. So “Revisionist” faith dictates that there must be something wrong with Fuchs’ deposition, and as no incoherence can be derived from the man’s statements themselves, the crux must be that his technical description is not as detailed as by "Revisionist" standards it should be. And if it were, Smith would try to come up with some other objection, because "Revisionist" faith dictates that there’s something fishy about whatever is uncomfortable to that same faith. Ain't that so, old pal?

We discussed some of these questions in the discussion I had with Sailor at Hannover's Memory Hole.

And what’s the value of such a discussion supposed to be?

Wasn’t our discussion on the thread

Gassing Vans Revisited
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=20051

much more interesting (to the extent such discussions can be interesting at all, of course) ?

As far as this CO2 thesis of Richard Miller, there is no support for it.

Says Smith. I don’t know where Miller got his theory from, but I figure that, however sloppy his research may be otherwise, a "Revisionist" will make damn sure he knows what he’s talking about when speaking against his fellow true believers, as Miller did.

And you still have to have the engine loaded to raise the CO2.

No Sir. See our discussion on the thread mentioned above.

Besides, Berg has already cited sources on respiration and carbon dioxide in his original paper.

Is that so, Smith?

And what does he expect his faithful readers to believe these sources say?

I have been looking in technical journals at the university library for anything supporting the idea of CO2 narcosis--which makes one wonder how U-boat crews survived extended submersion

Were they exposed to CO2 concentrations higher than 7 % ?

--so far I have found nothing. I'm combing through papers on space medicine and related topics

What do we have here? A case of "he who badly wants to find nothing is not likely to find anything", or someone who in all seriousness goes into "papers on space medicine and related topics" to support a thesis that would mean a mistaken observation by one or the other eyewitness at worst ?

Also, if Michael Mills disagrees with me on diesels and carbon monoxide then he is free to discuss it with me.

I don’t think Mills, one of the more intelligent "Revisionists", is interested in such a discussion about the sex of the angels, for as he stated in his Usenet article, the alternative to the exhaust of a mistuned diesel engine being toxic enough to kill would be that gasoline engines were used and a number of witnesses were mistaken. Big deal.

And if all this "doesn't matter," as you say, then how come you are so intent to address it?

"So intent" is something of an exaggeration. If I address this irrelevant issue, it’s because I’m too fond of my good friend Smith to let him get away with any herring, however insignificant.

I may not have all the answers on Holo-questions,

To the questions that matter Smith actually has no answers at all. And even with his pointless "technical arguments" he has problems.

and don't claim to, but one becomes an expert by studying one aspect,

Small things worry small people’s minds, as I like to say in this context.

which certainly doesn't mean that I have studied nothing else.

By no means. As our former fellow poster Stephen once remarked:

[…]But, if you ever encounter a topic here that does not involve Jews, the Holocaust or Nazi atrocities then you will see that Scott can actually write well reasoned and researched posts and is capable of intelligent debate.[…]

[Scott Smith]

And you still have to have the engine loaded to raise the CO2.

No Sir. See our discussion on the thread mentioned above.

Sorry but that is wrong. See my graph again.

Besides, Berg has already cited sources on respiration and carbon dioxide in his original paper.

Is that so, Smith?

And what does he expect his faithful readers to believe these sources say?

Who cares? Anyone can check these sources out themselves.

I have been looking in technical journals at the university library for anything supporting the idea of CO2 narcosis--which makes one wonder how U-boat crews survived extended submersion

Were they exposed to CO2 concentrations higher than 7 % ?

Yes, although they had CO2 filtration masks to help them breathe.

--so far I have found nothing. I'm combing through papers on space medicine and related topics

What do we have here? A case of "he who badly wants to find nothing is not likely to find anything", or someone who in all seriousness goes into "papers on space medicine and related topics" to support a thesis that would mean a mistaken observation by one or the other eyewitness at worst ?

No, I've already dismissed the idea unless the diesel could be relied upon being heavily loaded somehow. I am just looking for evidence to satisfy your objections. Naturally it would behoove me to find something so I look. I trust you are not implying that if I found proof of the opposite I would withhold it from the purview of our dear readers, are you...

[Roberto]

And you still have to have the engine loaded to raise the CO2.

No Sir. See our discussion on the thread mentioned above.

Sorry but that is wrong. See my graph again.

Come on, Smith, you know what I’m talking about. Your friend Miller’s scenario works at B13 with no load at all, see my post Mon Apr 21, 2003 9:53 am on the thread

Gassing Vans Revisited
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=20051

Not that it matters, but let’s allow our audience to benefit from the knowledge of Smith’s peer Richard Miller. First of all, here’s a graphic representation of the data from the Holtz & Elliot experiments, more illustrative than Smith’s conveniently incomplete graph based thereon:

Experiment #; Power (load hp); Rpm; Fuel; volume gas; Fuel-Air ratio; CO2%; O2%; CO%; NOx (ppm); H2%:

B13; 00.0hp; 1400rpm; 04.56lbs/hr; 4500cf/hr; 0.013 (77:1); 02.7%; 17.14%; 0.041% (410ppm); 167ppm; 0.0%
B14; 08.8hp; 1410rpm; 06.89lbs/hr; 4460cf/hr; 0.020 (50:1); 04.2%; 15.13%; 0.028% (280ppm); 267ppm; 0.0%
B15; 17.5hp; 1400rpm; 09.56lbs/hr; 4180cf/hr; 0.029 (35:1); 06.2%; 12.20%; 0.024% (240ppm); 378ppm; 0.0%
B16; 24.6hp; 1410rpm; 12.45lbs/hr; 4050cf/hr; 0.039 (26:1); 08.4%; 09.26%; 0.027% (270ppm); 448ppm; 0.0%
B12; 37.8hp; 1400rpm; 18.12lbs/hr; 3950cf/hr; 0.056 (18:1); 12.4%; 03.44%; 0.058% (580ppm); 364ppm; 0.0%
B70; 40.2hp; 1400rpm; 21.29lbs/hr; 3700cf/hr; 0.070 (14:1); 13.8%; 00.80%; 0.700% (07kppm); 346ppm; 0.1%
B72; 41.0hp; 1400rpm; 24.41lbs/hr; 3650cf/hr; 0.084 (12:1); 12.1%; 00.30%; 3.500% (35kppm); 277ppm; 1.3%
B69; 40.6hp; 1400rpm; 29.63lbs/hr; 4050cf/hr; 0.094 (11:1); 10.2%; 00.30%; 6.000% (60kppm); 186ppm; 0.4%
In a discussion on the extinct Codoh forum,

Ambient air carries 21% O2, and any significant increase in CO2 results in a corresponding decrease in available O2. (Which can easily be seen on the chart.}This is a much different mechanism than CO poisoning, which can occur at very low levels due to its highly efficient displacement of O2 in the blood.
Unlike CO2, if you had CO levels high enough to significantly reduce ambient O2 levels, probably a single breath would kill you.
When the CO2 hits about 7% to 10% of your ambient air, you DO die. Even if the rest is O2. It is known as CO2 narcosis, and it shuts you down.[my emphasis]
5% CO2 is equivalent to about 40 Torr, which is your normal blood level. If you breath the 7-10% CO2, you go up to 80 Torr, enough to black you out unless you hyperventilate. If you double your minute volume (through rapid breathing) you can get down to 60 Torr, but you will feel ill. At 10% CO2 there's no way to keep below about 90 Torr, and (unless you're a chronic COPD patient who's used to high CO2's and you have a high bicarb rate and other compensatory mechanisms) you black out.
You then quit hyperventilating. Then quit breathing entirely.
Ultimately, hypoxia is the cause of death in either case, but death by CO poisoning wouldn't be called suffocation whereas death by CO2 (ie, lack of O2) would.
An increase in CO2 in the air would tend to increase the driving force for the CO2 to go into the blood. This causes a condition known as Acidosis (Your body PH becomes more acidic.) Metabolically, your body defends your pH by having the kidneys make more buffer (bicarbonate) over the course of a few days. The problem with CO2 in the air is that your body depends on the difference in CO2 pressure in the blood and CO2 pressure in the air, to get RID of it.
Ultimately, blood pH would drop again, once the buffer was overcome. The CO2 builds up in your blood and acts as a direct anesthetic. Eventually, you lose consciousness and respiratory drive, then you die.
A person in a 10 ft. X 10 ft. sealed room will increase the CO2 level by about 1% over a period of 24 hours, if he rests.
If he is active, this time can decrease to 8 hours.
Now if 200 scared, screaming people are placed in a sealed room (gas chamber) it would take a matter of minutes to elevate CO2 levels to the point where they would die. This, without any diesel, or Zyklon, or steam, or whatever.
The people, by simply hyperventilating would effectively kill themselves.[my emphasis][...]

Assuming Miller’s arithmetic is correct, let’s apply it to the gas chambers of Treblinka. Miller tells us that one person in a room 10 ft x 10 ft (roughly 3 x 3 meters or 9 square meters) will increase the CO2 level by about 1 % over a period of 24 hours if resting and over a period of a little as 8 hours if active. The people crammed into the Treblinka gas chambers were in the latter rather than in the former situation, so the latter value seems more appropriate than the former.

The Treblinka gas chambers newly constructed after the initial phase of extermination, according to the findings of the Düsseldorf County Court at the first Treblinka trial that ended in 1965, were at most 4 meters long by 8 wide and could take in 250 people each - a concentration of roughly 8 people per square meter. Now if, according to our above assumption, a concentration of 0.11 people (one-ninth) active people per square meter would increase the CO2 content by 1 % within 8 hours, a concentration of people more than 70 times higher can be expected to have achieved the same effect in one-seventieth of the time, i.e. the CO2 concentration would increase by 1 % every seven minutes. At this rate, a fatal concentration of 7 % would be reached after 7 * 7 = 49 minutes.

Now comes the gas. Let’s assume that it would take twenty minutes to fill the chamber and contain only 2.74 % CO2, as in experiment B-13 above. Thus from minute 21 onward the effect of the CO2 in the exhaust would add to the “natural” CO2 increase, leaving the people breathing air with 5,8 % CO2 in minute 21 and 7.12 % in minute thirty. After this, as mentioned by Miller, they would black out, quite hyperventilating, then quit breathing entirely.

The calculated time of death in the above scenario is compatible with the time it took the people to die in the Treblinka gas chambers according to some eyewitness testimonials - 30 to 45 minutes. No load or enhancement of exhaust toxicity by restriction of air intake and/or increase of fuel supply required.

The only thing the exhaust did, according to this theory, was to speed up the dying process. Which was important to the killers, however. With up to 15,000 people to dispatch within 24 hours, according to their depositions before West German courts, every minute counted.

Besides, Berg has already cited sources on respiration and carbon dioxide in his original paper.

Is that so, Smith?

And what does he expect his faithful readers to believe these sources say?

Who cares? Anyone can check these sources out themselves.

I certainly wouldn’t recommend anyone to rely on Berg’s rendering thereof.

I have been looking in technical journals at the university library for anything supporting the idea of CO2 narcosis--which makes one wonder how U-boat crews survived extended submersion

Were they exposed to CO2 concentrations higher than 7 % ?

Yes, although they had CO2 filtration masks to help them breathe.

Ach so, they had CO2 filtration masks. That explains a lot …

--so far I have found nothing. I'm combing through papers on space medicine and related topics

What do we have here? A case of "he who badly wants to find nothing is not likely to find anything", or someone who in all seriousness goes into "papers on space medicine and related topics" to support a thesis that would mean a mistaken observation by one or the other eyewitness at worst ?

No, I've already dismissed the idea unless the diesel could be relied upon being heavily loaded somehow.

A thesis that, if correct, would mean no more than a mistaken observation by one of the other eyewitness, as I said.

I am just looking for evidence to satisfy your objections.

Take your time, buddy. As you know, I consider this issue an absolute minor point.

Naturally it would behoove me to find something so I look. I trust you are not implying that if I found proof of the opposite I would withhold it from the purview of our dear readers, are you...

I appreciate your confidence, but do you really think that what you’ve shown of yourself warrants trusting your intellectual honesty?

[Scott Smith]

And you still have to have the engine loaded to raise the CO2.

No Sir. See our discussion on the thread mentioned above.

Sorry but that is wrong. See my graph again.

Come on, Smith, you know what I’m talking about. Your friend Miller’s scenario works at B13 with no load at all, see my post Mon Apr 21, 2003 9:53 am on the thread

Gassing Vans Revisited
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=20051

Oh, that's right. You are saying that 2.7% CO2 is lethal. Preposterous. And Berg told Mr. Miller so in a Codoh discussion. Mr. Miller did not supply any further evidence. Nor have you. I have been looking for information along those lines but I haven't found anything worthwhile yet.

Yes, although they [U-Boat crews] had CO2 filtration masks to help them breathe.

Ach so, they had CO2 filtration masks. That explains a lot …

Yes, it means that high concentrations of CO2 were uncomfortable but not lethal. A CO2 filtration mask helped one sleep without belabored breathing. And the more men sleeping the less oxygen consumed.

No, I've already dismissed the idea [of CO2 gassing] unless the diesel could be relied upon being heavily loaded somehow.

A thesis that, if correct, would mean no more than a mistaken observation by one of the other eyewitness, as I said.

Not without assuming the premise at the start that homicidal gassings of hundreds of thousands is a true fact. This is hardly following the evidence where it leads. Your demographic arguments could just as easily prove that flying-saucers were the murder-weapon as long as "eyewitnesses" believed those stories.

I am just looking for evidence to satisfy your objections.

Take your time, buddy. As you know, I consider this issue an absolute minor point.

I'm sure you do. That's why the fuss. I always take my time, in any case.

Naturally it would behoove me to find something so I look. I trust you are not implying that if I found proof of the opposite I would withhold it from the purview of our dear readers, are you...

I appreciate your confidence, but do you really think that what you’ve shown of yourself warrants trusting your intellectual honesty?

Blah, blah, blah. Of course your objections are valuable because it only strengthens my argument. Fritz Berg has already reworked parts of his essays to satisfy some of your objections. You should be proud.

[Roberto]

And you still have to have the engine loaded to raise the CO2.

No Sir. See our discussion on the thread mentioned above.

Sorry but that is wrong. See my graph again.

Come on, Smith, you know what I’m talking about. Your friend Miller’s scenario works at B13 with no load at all, see my post Mon Apr 21, 2003 9:53 am on the thread

Gassing Vans Revisited
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=20051

Oh, that's right. You are saying that 2.7% CO2 is lethal. Preposterous. And Berg told Mr. Miller so in a Codoh discussion. Mr. Miller did not supply any further evidence. Nor have you. I have been looking for information along those lines but I haven't found anything worthwhile yet.

Berg merely repeated his "load" sermon, if I remember correctly, but provided no substantial arguments against Miller’s scenario, assuming Miller is right about the "CO2 narcosis".

And Smith is rather obviously misrepresenting my statements, for I obviously didn’t say that 2.7 % CO2 is lethal. I said that the CO2 in the exhaust would add to the one produced by the victims’ breathing to bring about a lethal concentration earlier than the victims’ breathing alone would have done. Once again, so that our readers may have a glimpse at Smith’s intellectual dishonesty:

Assuming Miller’s arithmetic is correct, let’s apply it to the gas chambers of Treblinka. Miller tells us that one person in a room 10 ft x 10 ft (roughly 3 x 3 meters or 9 square meters) will increase the CO2 level by about 1 % over a period of 24 hours if resting and over a period of a little as 8 hours if active. The people crammed into the Treblinka gas chambers were in the latter rather than in the former situation, so the latter value seems more appropriate than the former.

The Treblinka gas chambers newly constructed after the initial phase of extermination, according to the findings of the Düsseldorf County Court at the first Treblinka trial that ended in 1965, were at most 4 meters long by 8 wide and could take in 250 people each - a concentration of roughly 8 people per square meter. Now if, according to our above assumption, a concentration of 0.11 people (one-ninth) active people per square meter would increase the CO2 content by 1 % within 8 hours, a concentration of people more than 70 times higher can be expected to have achieved the same effect in one-seventieth of the time, i.e. the CO2 concentration would increase by 1 % every seven minutes. At this rate, a fatal concentration of 7 % would be reached after 7 * 7 = 49 minutes.

Now comes the gas. Let’s assume that it would take twenty minutes to fill the chamber and contain only 2.74 % CO2, as in experiment B-13 above. Thus from minute 21 onward the effect of the CO2 in the exhaust would add to the “natural” CO2 increase, leaving the people breathing air with 5,8 % CO2 in minute 21 and 7.12 % in minute thirty. After this, as mentioned by Miller, they would black out, quite hyperventilating, then quit breathing entirely.

The calculated time of death in the above scenario is compatible with the time it took the people to die in the Treblinka gas chambers according to some eyewitness testimonials - 30 to 45 minutes. No load or enhancement of exhaust toxicity by restriction of air intake and/or increase of fuel supply required.

The only thing the exhaust did, according to this theory, was to speed up the dying process. Which was important to the killers, however. With up to 15,000 people to dispatch within 24 hours, according to their depositions before West German courts, every minute counted.

Yes, although they [U-Boat crews] had CO2 filtration masks to help them breathe.

Ach so, they had CO2 filtration masks. That explains a lot …

Yes, it means that high concentrations of CO2 were uncomfortable but not lethal. A CO2 filtration mask helped one sleep without belabored breathing. And the more men sleeping the less oxygen consumed.

Don’t beat about the bush, Smith. If the masks filtrated CO2, they probably kept the amount of CO2 taken in by the men from reaching a concentration at which their blood pressure would rise to "hyperventilation" levels, according to Miller’s theory. If CO2 filtration masks were conceived as a life-saving or life-prolonging device, this indicates that an excessive intake of CO2 had been recognized as life-threatening.

No, I've already dismissed the idea [of CO2 gassing] unless the diesel could be relied upon being heavily loaded somehow.

A thesis that, if correct, would mean no more than a mistaken observation by one of the other eyewitness, as I said.

Not without assuming the premise at the start that homicidal gassings of hundreds of thousands is a true fact.

No need to assume any premise. The evidence is clear enough. But thanks for displaying the denier, Smith.

This is hardly following the evidence where it leads.

Isn’t it?

Why, then I suppose that Smith has got some convincing, evidence backed answers to, say, the below questions of mine to offer. Let’s see.

1. Court experts and historians who have assessed the documentary evidence concluded that all pertinent documents – correspondence among officials as well as train schedules, timetables and other transportation documents – clearly point to Belzec, Sobibor or Treblinka as the final destinations. There is not a single document, however detailed, that even hints at the Jews taken to these camps going any further. Why would this be so if the deportees "sifted through" these camps were being taken "to the Russian East", as was stated in the Korherr Report ?

2. The rail line leading to Treblinka was a side-track of the line going from Warsaw to Bialystok in Northeast Poland. Bialystok was the closest point to the Soviet Union, anyone from Treblinka being resettled in the Soviet occupied territory had to pass through there. Yet a German railroad table for Bialystok shows Jews being taken from there to Treblinka, with the empty cars returning to Bialystok. In other words, they were being moved away from the Soviet territories by being sent to Treblinka. Why was this so?

3. The resettlement of ca. 1.5 million people (the number of victims of the "Aktion Reinhard(t)" camps according to the Düsseldorf County Court’s judgement at the first Treblinka trial, 1965) in the occupied territories of the Soviet Union would have been a complex operation, requiring hundreds if not thousands of German officials to carry it out and at least as many people involved in building projects. Yet no one has ever come forward to testify about such a resettlement, even though this would have made an ideal defence at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial and subsequent trials. Former high-ranking transportation specialists in Germany during the war did not offer Soviet resettlement as a defence in post-war trials, even though they denied having known the real purpose of the train transport. No war crimes defendant actually offered resettlement as a defence, even those who denied knowledge of the genocide. Why was this so?

4. As becomes apparent from a number of documents regarding the "economic aspects" of "Operation Reinhard" (alternatively spelled "Reinhardt" or "Reinhart", I’ll use the "Reinhard" spelling for convenience in the following), the Jews taken to Belzec, Sobibor or Treblinka were stripped of all their belongings there, including their clothing. Why would that have been done if they were going to be resettled – unless "resettlement" was to be to a place where they would need no clothing anymore?

5. Why would the Nazis, concerned as they were about preserving their own resources and robbing the Jews of everything they had, have invested large sums of money – far more than the costs of the killing operation, which are exactly known from Globocnik’s correspondence with Himmler – into a resettlement project?

6. Why were there so many dead bodies at Treblinka in October of 1942 that they could not be sufficiently buried, thus creating a stench that befouled the air as far as Ostrow, 20 kilometers away, which led the local Wehrmacht commander to raise an official complaint about that stench?

7. How many whole bodies, and how many bodies reduced to ashes and other partial remains, fit into pits 7.5 meters deep (judging by the depth to which ashes, bone fragments and other partial human remains were detected) in the burial area more than 20,000 square meters long and wide that was found after the war by the Central Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland? Was there room enough for, say, the 713,555 Jews from the General Government taken to Treblinka until 31.12.1942, according to the Höfle's report to Heim of 11 January 1943, or was there not?

Your demographic arguments could just as easily prove that flying-saucers were the murder-weapon as long as "eyewitnesses" believed those stories.

I wouldn’t call documentary and physical evidence "demographic arguments". And while flying saucers don’t exist, engines do, and at least a certain type of them produces lethal exhaust. So as long as he cannot trace the people who disappeared behind the gates of Treblinka and other camps to anywhere else than the mass graves where coincident documentary, physical and eyewitness evidence show them to have ended up, Smith is well advised to shut his trap. Unless he’s absolutely eager to keep making a bloody fool out of himself and show our readers what "Revisionist" lunacy is all about, that is.

I am just looking for evidence to satisfy your objections.

Take your time, buddy. As you know, I consider this issue an absolute minor point.

I'm sure you do. That's why the fuss.

You mean, that’s why you’re making a fuss?

As I told you, Smith, I’m so fond of you that I enjoy challenging your every red herring, however insignificant.

Regarding Miller's "CO2 narcosis", I suggest that whoever of us finds something about it posts it on this forum, to settle the issue once and for all.

Is that a deal, Smith?

Naturally it would behoove me to find something so I look. I trust you are not implying that if I found proof of the opposite I would withhold it from the purview of our dear readers, are you...

I appreciate your confidence, but do you really think that what you’ve shown of yourself warrants trusting your intellectual honesty?

Blah, blah, blah.

You know how lame you sound when you imitate my quips, Smith?

Of course your objections are valuable because it only strengthens my argument.

Read: "it shows me that I must make my herrings less obvious".

And then, a healthy capacity for wishful thinking has always been a hallmark of "Revisionism", hasn’t it?

Fritz Berg has already reworked parts of his essays to satisfy some of your objections.

From what I know of Berg, I’d say he has done exactly what I hinted at above: work his junk over to make his herrings less obvious. And unless he’s been struck by a sudden bolt of reason, I expect his writings to still be the same gibbering anti-Semitic, Nazi-apologetic mixture of falsehoods and irrelevancies. Has he made any attempt to answer relevant questions like those mentioned above, by the way, or is he still beating the diesel horse?

You should be proud.

I’m a modest fellow. The day Berg produces anything other than propaganda lies and nonsense, I may consider having achieved something. But from what I’ve seen of your guru and other true believers, I might as well expect the Pope to revoke the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Jesus Christ.

[Charles Bunch]

If it was a diesel engine captured from a Soviet tank it would have to be a W-2, which was twelve-cylinders and water-cooled of about 38 liters displacement and about 500 brake-horsepower at 1500 rpm. These were used in all heavy Soviet tanks.

Diesel Engines (T-34 Tanks)

The first production-line models were fitted with V-2 diesel engines, but shortages meant that some of these early models were equipped with the older M-17 petrol engines.

Russian Tanks of World War II
Stalins Armored Might
Tim Bean & Will Fowler
MBI Publishing
2002
p. 100

Hi Chuck,

Read what I wrote above again. To make it easier for you I have bolded the operative phrase and the word diesel in red.

This means that if it were a diesel engine it had to have come from a Soviet tank or a German truck.

Actually, that's not what you said.

But I'll try to make it easy for you.

You claimed the engine was a W-2. You were wrong. The engine was a V-2.

Oh, Chuck. The W-2 is the V-2, if you prefer.

I do, since that is what the literature I've read shows. If you have something to show otherwise, be my guest.

From time to time you might want to offer some sources for your claims, because the occasional spot check raises some questions.

I don't mind serious questions at all.

Well, we'll see that claim tested below!

I also wanted the readers to know that the T-34 tank was not necessarily a diesel.

Rarely, and when the tank was being put into mass-production. I've cited the number of KV-1s and T-34s produced in 1941 in the past. Some 639 of the KV-1s were available to the Red Army in June, 1941 and at least that many T-34s.

The Russians tooled-up for producing 2000 of the W-2/V-2 diesel engines per year in 1940 but this was not actually possible until November, 1941, and still not met because the factories were then being relocated East. The online source I used before says that 750 gasoline T-34 tanks with the M17T engine were planned due to shortages of the diesel engines, but by the end of 1941 only 173 had been produced. By early 1942, T-34 production with the diesel engine took off.

Which makes your response below even more disingenuous.

Do you deny that deniers have claimed the T-34 was a diesel? The way you do below?

I'm not sure I get your point. It is the Believers with the "eyewitness testimony" that say diesel engines from a Soviet tank.

Smith pretends not to understand plain English!!

It is Smith and other deniers who claim that the T-34 tank was only a diesel, and that therefore any testimony claiming the use of such a tank to gas Jews must be false.

I have just asked him if he denies that deniers do just this as he does below. As he often does, he feigns confusion and attempts to change the question.

I have explained that the earlier Soviet tanks used gasoline engines. After 1941, all Soviet tanks were diesels and used the W-2/V-2 engine.

That why do you make the claim below that you are trying desperately to avoid answering for?

POSTED Wed Dec 11, 2002 4:24 am Post subject: Re: SGT. FUCHS: I Know Something, Something...

By the way, I always thought that the Soviets used diesel engines in their tanks. I read that somewhere.

In the earlier part of the war the Soviets had a lot of lighter tanks like the T-24, so we could have eight-cylinder engines of either gasoline or diesel motors (more-usually gasoline) of about 200 or 300 horsepower.

The Soviet heavy tanks like the KV-1, T-34, and IS-2 all had a standard 500 brake-horsepower W-2 diesel powerplant. All Soviet tank production switched to heavier tanks and diesel engines, and they could have been salvaged to make camp powerplants if an electrical generator of about 1500 rpm were also available. (That is a lot of power, 373 mechanical kilowatts.)

Another denier canard bites the dust.

How do you figure that?

Oh come on Smith!

When cornered you admit that some T-34's were manufactured with gasoline engines. And yet in this referenced post_which you yourself reposted_ you claim, as many deniers do, that the T-34 tanks were all diesels.

The Soviet heavy tanks like the KV-1, T-34, and IS-2 all had a standard 500 brake-horsepower W-2 diesel powerplant

[Scott Smith]

Chuck you are just being an idiot. I posted sources and numbers.

[Scott Smith]

And Smith is rather obviously misrepresenting my statements, for I obviously didn’t say that 2.7 % CO2 is lethal. I said that the CO2 in the exhaust would add to the one produced by the victims’ breathing to bring about a lethal concentration earlier than the victims’ breathing alone would have done. Once again, so that our readers may have a glimpse at Smith’s intellectual dishonesty

Roberto, your stupidity does not become my "dishonesty." If the exhaust composition is 2.7% that is where it will remain once the air has been exchanged a few times by the engine respiration. This will actually put more oxygen into the chamber than would be the case with the engine swtiched OFF because O2 levels cannot become depleted and CO2 levels from human respiration rise.

Now, I am tired of your "dishonesty" bullshit. You know what you have to do to rectify that.