The Gas Vans: A Critical Investigation - Holocaust Handbooks

SANTIAGO ALVAREZ, THE GAS VANS 163
door was airtight, so any flow of air from the outside was absolutely
impossible. The vehicles were dark gray. The exhaust pipe was under
the vehicle and was placed in the middle of its length. The opening
of the exhaust pipe inside the vehicle was fitted with a perforated
sheet which prevented the tube from clogging. On the floor of the
vehicle was a wooden grate. The engine was probably from the Sauer
company. The driver’s cabin bore the inscription ‘Baujahr 1940 –
Berlin’ (built in 1940). Near the driver’s seat were gas masks.”
Here again we encounter the technically impossible claim of a hermetically
sealed cargo box. What is most interesting, though, is the
claim about the vehicle’s engine: a “Sauer.” This name cannot have
come from the truck found on the grounds of the Ostrowski factory, because
this was a Magirus truck which had engines by the Humboldt-
Deutz company. So where did the idea for the (misspelled) “Sauer”
come from?
On page 129 I have quoted from a deposition made in the context of
a Soviet show trial by a certain German defendant Fen[i]chel. This deposition
had been published by the Soviet government as early as 1943
(Embassy 1943, pp. 171f.) and was also introduced during the IMT
(vol. 7, pp. 572f.). In it Fen[i]chel had stated that the gas van’s engine
was a “Sauer” – the same typo, the same false claim that Saurer built
engines for other trucks, whereas Saurer was actually a truck manufacturer.
Here we have one more proof for cross-fertilization, running
down from the Soviet show trials through the Polish investigations into
the IMT trials. And here another interesting feature of Fenchel’s description
of the “hermetically closed van” just like Bednarz’ description:
“Inside [the truck] was lined with galvanized sheet iron; on the
floor, also covered with galvanized iron, was a wooden grating.”
In his book on the Chemno camp Bednarz summarized the claims
made by eight Polish mechanics who claim to have repaired a gas van at
one point or another, one of them the above-quoted Bronisaw Falborski.
However, the features Bednarz describes are restricted to the vans’
estimated dimensions and their loading capacity. Then he brings up the
fact that some witnesses reported about a disinfestation truck and elaborates
(Bednarz 1946c, pp. 23f.):
“Three vehicles operated at Chemno. […] Some witnesses also
spoke of a fourth vehicle. As for the possibility that there was a
fourth vehicle of a similar shape (which is currently in the former