The Gas Vans: A Critical Investigation - Holocaust Handbooks

SANTIAGO ALVAREZ, THE GAS VANS 77
Demanding a better protection of the lamps makes sense, although it
is not conceivable why the victims should have had an interest in damaging
the light, if they panicked “due to the eerie nature of darkness.” If
it was dark, how did they find the lamp in the first place? If the lamp
was on, it wasn’t dark, was it?
It is more likely that the victims would have tried to damage the observation
window, which, if not made of bullet-proof glass, could have
been destroyed with a mere stone that a victim could have grabbed just
before entering the truck. Hence, a suggestion of either securing or removing
the observation window completely should be expected here.
Although it is conceivable that the victims would have had the tendency
to “strive toward the door” after the doors had been closed, the
author’s explanation is nonsense that this movement toward the door
was due to “the load” striving “towards the light” when the ceiling lamp
had been turned on. Since the doors were allegedly “hermetically
sealed,” no light could have entered from it. Apart, the only natural light
entering the cargo box after the doors had been closed would have come
through the observation window. Hence if they did indeed strive toward
the light, the victims would have moved toward the window, particularly
after the commencement of the gassing, and if only in an attempt to
break the glass for the sake of getting fresh air. If they moved toward
the door, then only because they knew it was a door and hoped to get
out despite it being locked. Such a reaction would indeed be natural and
could actually become so intense in situations where crowds fear their
demise that they can break open even the most sturdy, locked doors
(while squeezing and trampling to death some unlucky fellows, for
sure).
7. Adding a retractable grate
Such a device is seemingly easy to design, but its installation and
operation would have caused great difficulties, because this grate needed
to be able to carry a heavy load, which would have caused leverage
forces when pulling out the grate.
In summary, this document makes a similar impression as the previous
one: Its technical improbabilities are no less frequent than those of
the former document. Especially the first requested change requires by
its nature that the vehicles could not have functioned in their original
design; this leads us to radically doubt the authenticity of this letter. As