Deceit & Misrepresentation Friedrich Berg Research: Holocaust Research Mailing List
This article discusses the errors and deceptions contained in
Friedrich Berg's
"proof"
[1]
that it would be nearly impossible to use diesel exhaust to kill people as described by the witnesses to the
Reinhard death camp
gassings. The case is given in nontechnical terms, however, there is an appendix
that reproduces the case with full details and references.
for those who want to wade through the detailed technical arguments.
People are encouraged to read all the details. One thing
"scientific" Holocaust deniers like Berg and
Fred Leuchter
count on is the fact that many non-scientists can't follow scientific debates, and assume that if it is dressed up in scientific terms, it must be right. But there are many other scientific debates we see today
- pollution, cancer, global warming, etc. - which enter into the
political arena. Some of these arguments are made to support a hidden
ideological agenda, and the science is dishonest. We hope that
following the full argument will help people realize that just because
something comes dressed up as "science" doesn't mean you
should stop thinking critically about what you're being told.
Berg's arguments boil down to the following:
Therefore (reasons Berg), contrary to the assertion of historians,
the victims were not killed by carbon monoxide.
Therefore (reasons Berg) they were not killed by asphyxiation either;
the whole affair is a hoax.
There is a core of truth to all of the five points. Point (2) above
is often true, though not always. However, as Berg failed to mention in
his paper, the witness, SS hygienist Dr.
Wilhelm Pfannenstiel,
explicitly mentioned asphyxiation as the cause of death
[2].
Point (1) is not so true as Berg believes, but given point (2), it is
quite possibly irrelevant.
Berg relies heavily on "psychological" arguments such as
points (3) and (5), the idea that the SS personnel in charge of the
death camps would have done things in better ways if they had really
wanted to kill people. For example, in Usenet alt.revisionism article
2vt3du$t0b@mary.iia.org, he wrote: "[Scott] Mullins should try to
run a heavily-loaded 150 HP engine, that is still small, with a
propeller or fan in a closed loop without making lots and lots of
noise."
Is Berg trying to argue that the Nazis wouldn't have committed mass
murder with diesels because they would have been too afraid of getting a ticket for violating noise ordinances?
In the same article, Berg also wrote, "Since the load of any fan or propeller varies non-linearly with RPM, it is still quite a trick to choose the right sized fan or propeller. Ivan with the big wrench won't know how."
Here Berg is actually arguing two contradictory things at once. If
this had been done, "Ivan," of course, wouldn't have done it. It was the Nazis who created the system, not the Russians or Ukranians.The Russians just built the original engine. The Nazis would have modified it.
Is Berg saying the Nazis wouldn't have known how to do this?
Is Berg saying the Germans had no competent engineers? On the otherhand, arguing that an unsophisticated "Ivan" was responsible for the idea and the modification damages points (3) and (5), that it wouldn't have been done because it wasn't a good idea technically.
An unsophisticated person would probably not realize that there's anything wrong with using a diesel engine to generate carbon monoxide. This sort of self-contradictory argument is one advanced by a defense lawyer, not a scientist.
Did you know... that only one of the 'Operation Reinhard' death
camps may have used a diesel engine? (At Belzec and Sobibor, petrol
engines were used.)
[
Index |
Next ]
Home ·
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Search
Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.
The Techniques of Holocaust Denial
& the Diesel Issue
Part 1 of 2
Writer: Michael P. Stein