The Gas Vans: A Critical Investigation - Holocaust Handbooks

218 SANTIAGO ALVAREZ, THE GAS VANS
There is another problem with the explosive story, an internal inconsistency
which the Stuttgart court itself pointed out (verdict p. 565):
“Because at that time gas vans were already known and fieldtested.
Already during the euthanasia action mobile gas chambers
which looked like company vans of Kaiser’s Coffee Shop were deployed
for the extermination of allegedly severely mentally sick persons
in the General Government in Poland. These were vans with an
airtight [sic!] cargo box, in which the sick persons placed in it were
killed by means of chemically pure carbon monoxide taken from
steel bottles”
If that is so, and if Dr. Widmann was as deeply involved into the development
of killing methods for the euthanasia action as is claimed,
why would he have seriously considered killing mentally sick people
with dynamite two years later?
Widmann also claimed that he did use those two exhaust hoses a little
later in the Belorussian town of Mogilev. For this they “sealed” a
room by walling up a window – yet a second window was left intact for
the victims to smash (?) – and then they added two openings into a wall.
After the victims had been locked up in the room, exhaust gas from a
gasoline car was piped in via one of the holes – with no success after 5
minutes. Then, in addition to the car, the tail pipe of a “transport vehicle
belonging to the regular police” was hooked up to the second hole – this
time with success after another 8 minutes (p. 482; verdict, pp. 562f.).
There is a problem with this story:
1) The car’s exhaust gases would have been swiftly lethal; if the police
vehicle was an Opel Blitz with a gasoline engine, its exhaust volume
could have sped up the process; if the vehicle had a Diesel engine,
the intended victims would have gotten tortured instead.
2) The second hole in the wall would have been needed for excess
gas to escape. Plugging it would have led to problems.
Widmann also spreads the lie that crematorium chimneys – in this
case of a hospital – can spew “5 m high flames” (p. 484). This legend
has been thoroughly debunked by C. Mattogno (2004c).
The verdict describes the gas vans as delivered by Gaubschat and the
changes allegedly made by Widmann in an almost identical way as the
verdict of the LG Hannover of 7 June 1966 (see previous chapter, pp.
212f.). Both verdicts obviously based their descriptions on the same
witness statements and declarations of the defendants, and from the
wording itself (p. 566) it seems that the Stuttgart judges even copied