The Gas Vans: A Critical Investigation - Holocaust Handbooks

SANTIAGO ALVAREZ, THE GAS VANS 209
In the verdict we read the following about the reason why “gas vans”
were invented in the first place (p. 615f.):
“The members of the Einsatz- and Sonderkommandos could not
bear the moral burden [of mass shootings]. Many of them were family
father themselves who had a particularly hard time shooting
women and children. Drinking excesses, insubordinations and serious
mental disorders are said to have occurred.”
About how they were devised, the verdict states (p. 616):
“At that time gas vans were already known and had been tested
in practice, because already during the so-called euthanasia action
mobile gas chambers had been deployed for the extermination of
mentally ill persons allegedly unworthy of living. These were trucks
with airtight cargo boxes, into which the sick persons were led and
where they were killed by means of chemically pure carbon monoxide
drawn from steel bottles. The gas vans subsequently planned
were to differ from that only by introducing into the vehicle the poisonous
engine exhaust gases containing carbon monoxide instead of
the chemically pure carbon monoxide from steel bottles. This had
the advantage that the expensive transport of the bottled gas could
be omitted, which would have encountered difficulties especially in
the spacious eastern territories.”
Allegedly asked by his superiors to solve the technical issues involved,
the defendant Wentritt is said to have responded (p. 617):
“The exhaust pipe merely has to be cut open and a T piece inserted.
Then it is possible without difficulties to introduce the gas
from the exhaust pipe into the van’s interior.”
Let us consider this for a moment. An exhaust pipe ends in the open.
In order to insert a T piece, the pipe would get cut off, the T piece inserted,
and then the cut-off piece would be re-attached to the other end
of the T piece. Technically seen, this is nonsense. If you want to have a
T piece at an exhaust pipe, just attach it to the end of the exhaust pipe,
not insert it. Furthermore, a simple T piece wouldn’t have done the
trick, as the gas, following the path of least resistance, would have escaped
from the tailpipe into the open rather than flowing into the cargo
box. Piping the gas into the box would have required the closure of the
other exit of the T piece.
This account resembles the nonsensical statement by witness Johann
Haßler (see p. 152). Both tried to sound convincing by describing a specific
technical detail, but neither seems to have realized the nonsense