The Gas Vans: A Critical Investigation - Holocaust Handbooks

SANTIAGO ALVAREZ, THE GAS VANS 203
3.7.4.2. LG Kiel, Verdict of 26 Nov. 1965
During this trial only one defendant was prosecuted for having been
a guard in the Chemno camp. The verdict only mentions the initial of
his last name (F). The defendant was sentenced to 13½ months imprisonment
for aiding and abetting mass murder. The term was considered
served with the jail time the defendant had spent prior to the trial. A gas
van is mentioned once in passing (p. 424) and described in more detail
later (p. 429):
“The gas van had a closed cargo box of ca. 4 m length and 2 m
width and looked like a moving van or a refrigerator van. […] It
contained 70 to 80 persons, as results from a memo of the Imperial
Security Main office of 5 June 1942 [Just letter] regarding technical
changes of the deployed special vehicles and those in production
[…]”
This is followed by a quote from the Just letter including the reference
to a packing density of 9 to 10 per m 2 . The verdict continues (p.
430):
“After all victims […] had been driven into the van, the airtight
doors were closed by the Polish helpers. Then a hose was screwed
onto the exhaust pipe, which led to an opening in the floor of the
cargo box. The opening was covered by a grate. […] Next the driver
of the gas van, that is the witness Laabs or the driver Hering, started
the gasoline engine of the vehicle and let it run at a certain rpm so
that as much carbon oxide was produced as possible. […] Only after
6 to 7 minutes the screams stopped, since the victims had become
unconscious. To be on the safe side, the gas van driver let the engine
of the stationary van run for some more 10 minutes, then removed
the hose from the exhaust pipe and drove to the forest camp.”
Hence, here as well the “truth” of the gas vans – for the court – had
been cast in stone from the outset by the content of the extant documents
produced during the Nuremberg trials, and everything else revolved
around it.
Purely technically speaking, if indeed a van with a gasoline engine
was used, then the scenario described was possible, since an airtight
door doesn’t mean that the cargo box itself was airtight as well (although
this may be assumed). We also have to ignore the minor detail of
a hose being screwed to an exhaust pipe, which is technical nonsense.
him, an outrageous claim the court gullibly rubber-stamped as true, p. 300.