This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Land vehicles / European / German / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Military land vehicles task force European military history task force German military history task force World War II task force Death Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Germany Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 8 sections are present.

Now that the moves and merges have settled down for a little bit, we should discuss the section ordering (which was an active dispute before the attempted split, which somewhat froze things because it was unsure how the page would end up.) By my reading the Nazi section had been stable in the first position for a while; looking over the history, it seems like the order was repeatedly swapped, often in edits that didn't mention they were doing so, and that it hasn't really been discussed much because the split drowned it out. In any case, I feel that the Nazi usage has far more sustained coverage and is far more central to the topic, and therefore ought to be listed first. The argument that they should be listed in timeline order doesn't make any sense, since none of the sources connect the two aspects in a timeline (in fact, even hinting at that points to dangerous WP:SYNTH concerns, ie. we absolutely cannot imply, even indirectly, that the Nazi usage was inspired or influenced by the Soviet usage in anyway, shape, or form, because we don't have any sources for that.) Additionally, most of the higher-quality coverage of the Soviet usage relates it to the Nazi usage in the sense of deriving notability from it as a point of comparison (ie. the Yevgenia Albats and Catherine A. Fitzpatrick quote makes no sense if we list the Soviet usage first); they clearly take the position of "here's an obscure bit of historical trivia related to the well-known, well-established use of gas vans by the Nazis." That sort of thing only makes sense when listed second. --Aquillion (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every source on the Soviet gas vans connect them directly. For example, according to the academic book by Albats, "Owing to the shortage of executioners, Chekists used trucks that were camouflaged as bread vans as mobile death chambers. Yes, the very same machinery made notorious by the Nazis - yes, these trucks were originally a Soviet invention, in use years before the ovens of the Auschwitz were built". Other sources (like Solzhenitsyn) say the same. Albats and others clearly do NOT take a position "here's an obscure bit of historical trivia..." (this is something you apparently do). They consider Soviet gas vans as something really notable. I think that the order of subsections should be simply chronological, just as on page Gas chamber. My very best wishes (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However, changing the order of sections does not change anything significantly. One would only have to adjust the lead of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure what was the reason for removal [1]. These sources are fine per WP:RS. My very best wishes (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You perfectly know why all of that was removed, its removal was discussed on the Gas chamber talk page, and you were a participant of that discussion. This WP:GASLIGHT tactics will not work, consider self-revert, otherwise that activity will be reported.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to discussion on the Gas chamber talk page, the sources are fine. However, I can make a version using only English sources for the page Gas chamber (not this page) later, as time allows. My very best wishes (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is false, and you perfectly know that. The removed fragment contained an extraordinary claim supported by few poor primary sources, which is a simultaneous violation of two core content policies. These arguments has been already presented at the Gas chamber talk page. If you are not going to self-revert, a discussion will continue at some different forum.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can submit an RfC, but I am not sure what it would be about. My very best wishes (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your original research, utilizing memoirs, i.e. primary sources, has been challenged over and over again. The removal was long overdue. As has been discussed elsewhere, Igal Halfin in Stalinist Confessions (University of Pittsburgh Press, 2009), p. 463, footnote 166 notes, that execution by gas is never mentioned in other Soviet sources and contradicts the Soviet practice of individualized executions. Halfin makes use of Shreider's memoirs, so your use of Shreider's memoirs directly contradicts Halfin's work.--Assayer (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you consider memoirs by Grigorenko and Shreider as primary sources, those are reliably published books by famous people and their usage on the page qualify per policy because we only cite directly what they say, without making any interpretations. Moreover, they are also cited in a couple of other secondary sources which we use on the page. I do not think there is a contradiction with Halfin, however even if you think there are any inconsistencies, this is precisely the reason for following WP:NPOV, i.e. using all reliably published sources on the subject. That is what I did. My very best wishes (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDFLAG applies. The claims by Grigorenko and Shreider are virtually absent from secondary sources on the Stalinist Great Terror and the assessment by Halfin is explicit.--Assayer (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Assayer: if we follow the (very dubious) approach and add everything that was reliably published, we have to be consistent. Let's see at full quotes:

• Shreider (p. 78): "...когда закрытая автомашина прибыла к месту расстрела, всех осужденных вытаскивали из машин чуть ли не в бессознательном состоянии. По дороге они были одурманены и почти отравлены выхлопными газами, специально отведенными по спецпроводу в закрытый кузов грузовика." "when the closed car arrived at the place of execution, all the convicts were dragged out of the cars almost in an unconscious state. On the way, they were stupefied and almost poisoned by exhaust fumes specially allocated through a special wire to a closed truck body.") Obviously, the vans described by Shreider were used for incapacitating victims, not for execution.
• Golovkova/Lipkov (google translated without modifications): "Mikhail Kirillin: The details of everything that happened here, we restored by talking with one person. There were no other survivors who would directly work in the zone. And now he is gone. This is the former commandant of the Moscow administration, who told all the details ...

Lydia Golovkova: He told the following: cars loaded with people walked through the forest, up to 50 people were stuffed into a truck. Muscovites have long called these cars "gas chambers." In the case of Berg, who took part in the executions, of which there is his signature, he was accused as the inventor of these murders.

Alexander Mikhailov: According to the driver of such a truck, this was due to the fact that it was necessary to somehow exclude the possibility of riot in the car. Naturally, in people who swallowed carbon monoxide, the will is to a certain extent suppressed, and many of them accepted death as deliverance from torment.

Lidia Golovkova: The exhaust pipe turned inside the van, and people came already half-conscious. Buses with half-dead people drove up from the side of the forest. There was a tower with a searchlight above the trees, the territory was surrounded by barbed wire, and there was a long wooden hut, where everyone was supposedly brought in for sanitation.

Mikhail Kirillin: A thorough reconciliation was carried out in this reception building: whether they brought it or sentenced it. There were so many namesakes that there were mistakes, and it happened that a person was sentenced to be shot, and they were shot after 3-4 weeks, because another was brought in instead. There was even a unique case when a person was written that he was a Pole, and he was able to prove that he was Russian. And the decision of the “troika” was canceled."

Clearly, (i) the vans were used for incapacitation, and the victims were executed after thorough identification, and (ii) Berg was accused of usage of gas vans by NKVD. Interestingly, he was also accused of being a trotskist spy, as well as other things. Should NKVD documents of that kind be trusted?

• Golovkova/Lipkov (ibid.) "Mikhail Kirillin: The law is a tricky thing. Full confirmation of certain actions is required. Did he hold a gun in his hands or not? He kept him because he wanted so much, or because he received an order? How does it relate to performers? And they had an order, from the performers. If he had not fulfilled it, what would have happened to him? Well, of course, what would happen to him. He and his victims would simply swap places. All must be proved. To prove all this today is impossible. And the testimony of Berg himself, no matter what he says about himself, is by no means evidence. Maybe they knocked them out of him in the same way as he knocked them out of others at one time. " That means the source casts a doubt on trustworthiness of Berg's confession (the only document Zhirnov's article is based upon).
• Grigorenko (google translated from the source with replacement of Russian punctuation):

""And you know, Pyotr Grigoryevich ... the duchegupkas were invented here ... for the so-called fists ... for the peasants.

And he told me such a story.

Once, in an Omsk prison, he was called to his cell by a window facing the courtyard of the prison. There was a “muzzle” on the window. But in this muzzle there was a gap through which the door to another prison building was visible.

“Observe with me,” said the cellmate.

After a while, the "black raven" came up. The door in the building opened, and the guards drove people into the open doors of the car. I counted 27 people - then I forgot to count, I wanted to understand what kind of people they were and why they were stuffed into the “funnel”, standing close to each other. Finally, they closed the doors, clutching their shoulders, and the car drove off. I wanted to move away, but the prisoner who called me said: “Wait. They will be back soon. ” And they really came back very quickly. When the doors were opened, black smoke poured out and corpses of people rained down. The guards pulled out those that didn’t fall out ... Then all the corpses were lowered into the basement hatch, which I had not noticed before. Almost a week we watched such a picture. That corps was called "kulak." Yes, and the clothes showed that they were peasants.

I listened to this story with horror and disgust. And all the time I saw among those peasant faces the face of Uncle Alexander. After all, according to the message I received, he “died” in the Omsk prison. It is possible that he died in the gas chamber."

Clearly, Grigorenko just reproduces another person's hearsay. It is not his own statement. Therefore, the only correct way to say that would be "In his memoirs, Grigorenko reproduces a story that was told do him by a person who claimed he had been a witness of usage of what he believed was a gas van".

By the way, you told you have an access to Kizny. Are you going to add this material to the article to replace Halaburda, who just reproduces Kizny, and, I assume, not accurately?

--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Grigorenko was making a statement of his own, his memoir is still a primary source and thus not to be pitted against secondary sources. I postponed the introduction of Kizny's work, because the article seemed to be unstable.--Assayer (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Paul, if so, then why did you remove the text? It was the following:

Gas vans were reportedly used also in the cities of Omsk and Ivanovo in the Soviet Union. According to high-ranking NKVD officer Mikhail Schreder, they were used in the city of Ivanovo similar to that in Moscow: "When a closed truck arrived at the place of execution, all convicts were dragged out of cars in an unconscious state. On the way, they were almost killed by exhaust fumes redirected through a special tube into the closed cargo compartment of the truck."^[1][2] Soviet dissident Petro Grigorenko described in his memoirs a story told by his close friend and former prisoner of Gulag Vasil Teslia. He described killings of "kulaks" in a prison in Omsk. According to him, more than 27 people were loaded to a truck, which moved away from the prison, but soon returned. "When the doors were opened, black smoke poured out and corpses of people rained down." The corpses were then placed into the basement. Teslia watched such executions during whole week.^[3][4]

Is not it a good summary of claims by the cited sources? Well, if you think it is not, could you please modify this text and suggest your version? My very best wishes (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe now you sincerely misunderstand my previous post. My post was that what the whole body of primary sources say is extremely confusing ((i)hearsay about hearsay, (ii) the vans that were allegedly used were intended for incapacitating, (iii) the claim about development of lethal gas van comes from an NKVD document, which should not be trusted) that if we cite all primary sources we get a total mess, which contradicts to very limited amount of reliable secondary sources. Therefore, it is a demonstration of a danger of usage of primary sources, because even if we quote them verbatim, we may create a totally misleading content. Moreover, if we quote just some of them (Sreider and Grigorenko, but not Lipkov), we thereby are engaged in POV pushing, because Lipkov presents testimonies that directly contradict to Zhirnov/Albats/Solzhenitsyn/et al: according to the testimonies, the vans used by Berg were not killing machines at all, because they were used just to suppress possible riots. Of course, citing only convenient primary sources is a severe violation of our policy, therefore, I expect we will not return to that question anymore. The next attempt to raise this question again will be interpreted as disruptive editing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what "this question" do you mean, but there is no really any contradiction in these sources. OK, I will return to this later. My very best wishes (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that the vans were intended for "incapacitating victims" would be ridiculous if it wasn't about such horrible events. You can't invent interpretation of NKVD intentions. Anyone who intentionally redirects exhaust fumes into a passenger section must be aware this can and will be lethal for people inside. The abundance of sources on the gas van usage by NKVD, both primary and secondary, fully justifies having it documented here on Wikipedia. The argument that NKVD victims were always "executed after thorough identification" on the other hand suggests cherry-picking or ignorance. Bolsheviks used any means available at given moment for mass executions, from chemical weapons used to suppress Tambov Rebellion, dumping 6000 people on an inhabited island and let them die (Nazino affair), to death marches and chaotic NKVD prisoner massacres when they were fleeing from German offensive. Cloud200 (talk) 16:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The argument "you can't invent interpretation of NKVD intentions" works in both ways. You cannot use primary sources (like Shreider's and Grigorenko's memoirs) to argue, that gas vans were used for execution in at least three different Soviet cities. There are secondary sources like Yuri Slezkine, The House of Government (2017) which describe the executions at Butova based on Lydia Golovkova's research and no gas vans are mentioned (pp.862f.). The Soviet use is documented on Wikipedia, but according to secondary sources.--Assayer (talk) 19:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we absolutely can use primary sources - just read WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD and WP:PSTS which explains precisely why secondary sources are preferred and under which conditions primary sources may be even better. In this case there are multiple primary and secondary testimonies on the use of gas vans in USSR. The fact that they aren't present in Western literature speaks primarily about the quality of Soviet studies in the West rather than disproves their existence. Nazino affair was also largely unknown in the West until Werth's book which was published only in 2006 and Wikipedia article was created only in 2009 even though first Russian publication on that subject was in 1993. That's unfortunately the reality about historiography of USSR and Russia - events are frequently hidden or distorted and the ultimate evidence is buried in FSB archives. Cloud200 (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to other arguments raised above:

• "because Lipkov presents testimonies that directly contradict to Zhirnov/Albats/Solzhenitsyn/et al: according to the testimonies, the vans used by Berg were not killing machines at all, because they were used just to suppress possible riots" - there's absolutely no contradiction here. Just write: NKVD was using vans with exhaust connected to the prisoner section. A, B, C described their usage as mobile gas chambers. D, E, F were claiming the purpose was "incapacitating" prisoners. This wording simply describes claims of witnesses and other involved parties and there is no POV here. We are not expected to average views presented in sources and build a single and "consistent" picture out of them (this would be WP:OR). We are expected to report what the sources report and present a synthesis of their claims, even if they are inconsistent.
• "the vans that were allegedly used were intended for incapacitating" - I cannot resist pointing once again the sheer stupidity of this excuse, which was probably the first thing that some Soviet clerk came up when asked about this practice. You can "incapacitate" prisoners using chains, ropes or whatever else is used at prisons. Connecting an exhaust pipe to a closed space with people cannot be interpreted in any other way than an intention to "incapacitate" them forever.
• "the claim about development of lethal gas van comes from an NKVD document, which should not be trusted" - NKVD documents must be treated cautiously but it doesn't mean they are always and completely false. Again, WP:PSTS to the help). NKVD produced plenty of internal reporting about number and methods of execution that could have been quite reliable. Before World War II they had no reasons to lie about usage of gas chambers, as this was just another method of execution they tried. Today it's definitely a controversial topic due to the obvious association with Nazi Germany.

Cloud200 (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To use primary sources to somehow correct secondary sources, i.e. Soviet studies, is original research. The sources in question are memoirs. They are not reliable sources for disputed and extraordinary claims. They are well known sources and have been used by scholars, but those particular claims have not been cited (except in a local Crimean newspaper). That's enough to raise WP:REDFLAG.--Assayer (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think the current version is an improvement, the last paragraph needs rewrite. In my opinion, the question of "priority" of invention of a gas van does not belong to the Soviet gas van section. The literature about Nazi gas van is abundant, and the story of its invention is covered in much more details, so Albats is hardly a really good expert in that. In my opinion, the mainstream view of gas van invention should be described in the Nazi gas van section (or in a separate section), and opinia of Albats, who believes that gas vans were invented in the USSR should be mentioned briefly as a minority viewpoint.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Historians of the Holocaust (Robert Gellateley being an exception) do not deal with Berg's gas vans. Writers dealing with Soviet gas vans often insist on Soviet innovation, however. But there is not much of a debate which could be paraphrased. Albats' view should still not be left unchallenged, precisely because it is a minority viepoint. The section on Nazi gas vans will ultimately be expanded. Then things might become clearer. But it should be clear already that the German development in no way relied on some Soviet predecessor. I could do very well without any reasoning about "invention" and do not think that a separate section would be legitimate.--Assayer (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, this pathetic place which used to be Wikipedia sees it fit to protect unsourced accusations of genocide performed my people? I am a Soviet person, who may have been Jewish before, but not anymore. As long as creatures like Albats' are. I'd really love to give her a ride in NKVD gas van, except that it should be blatantly obvious to anyone with any background in engineering or chem how this is BS. Only the picture of Magirus gas van is legit, but the description is not. You cannot suffocate a person by excess CO2 by pumping automotive exhaust into constricted volume! This chocks the engine first. Some automotive enthusiasts actually tried to sticking their heads directly into flared out exhaust pipes for a quickened version of gas van. The result is engine choking right away and enthusiast having a whole mouth full of soot. Youtube also used to have videos of rednecks trying to built a little imitation Ausswitz in their chicken shed, to legitimately off chickens for meat, only to find that they don't choke too.

Now, this how it really works. The can shaped device you see in the back of the van is known as

^[1]

The Nazis converted over a million vehicles to wood gas, because they had mad chemistry skills but very little fuels. The contraption produces synthesis gas, a combustible mixture rich in CO (carbon monoxide)which really is a deadly toxic gas. I wonder if Greta Tunberg, who can totally see the CO2 (which does nothing much), can also see or sniff monoxide? Because regular people don't see or smell anything before they die. Thus, great Greta should teach us see the difference between the two oxides, I reckon?

As you can see, the device doesn't even have an article in Russian. Thus, I nominate to christen it the "Albats' device"? So the good peoples of Russia know the bad Jewish-Russians who've been selling them out. Note that none of this constitutes any kind of Antisemitism, which is an issue related to various Semites hanging out over in Israel/Palestine, which is a place I've got zero interest in. This is between Russian-Jews. Hypothesis: being Jewish does not yet make one expert on gas chambers of Auschwitz? The only true source of expertise on dangerous gases is Greta Thunberg. How dare you! If she were to debate the operational principles of the gas van with Albats' of yours, she'll so crush her Muchandr (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The same claims in this article were discussed in Russian Wikipedia's article Газваген and they were promptly removed because the content doesn't quite pass the smell test, and I strongly recommend editors to remove the similar deceptions re-appearing on the English Wikipedia. The content is tied to a Komsomolskaya Pravda article published in 1992, a time when the Russian media was awash with sensationalist yellow journalism. I've searched Komsomolskaya Pravda to see if it published any articles in the 21st century related to these allegations, but I didn't come across anything at all, indicating that these allegations are not widely accepted or reported, not even by the very same newspaper in the 21st century. There's no reason why the Komsomolskaya Pravda of 1992 ought to supersede the same newspaper's reporting in the last 20 years, a period from which I did not locate a single story related to "Russians built gas vans". It's curious that the same people who decry the use of "Soviet propaganda", "Russian censored sources" for Wikipedia articles gleefully cite Komsomolskaya Pravda, as well as authors citing that source, when it furthers their goal of showing the Russian government in a negative manner.

This is primarily all I located in Komsomolskaya Reporting about gas vans published in the 21st century:

The Germans tested terrible vehicles on Krasnodar residents.

FSB published documents on how the Nazis buried 214 children in Yeysk

This is all I found in Russian scholarly journals related to gas vans:

"The main goals of the leadership of the GUPVI of the NKVD of the USSR were not the killing of prisoners of war by various methods, but their isolation, the creation of satisfactory living conditions for the representatives of the special contingent, the maximum use of the labor of these foreigners in industry, construction and even in agriculture, as well as the full-scale implementation of anti-fascist measures in detention centers disarmed military personnel of the enemy armies. In the Soviet camps, their leadership did not implement racist or nationalist theories; there were no crematoriums, gas chambers, or gas vans. No medical experiments were conducted on prisoners of war. Life in Udmurtia in particular and in Soviet captivity as a whole was not a complete horror or hell for former soldiers and officers of the Wehrmacht and its allied armies, as was often the case in Hitler's "death factories."Bulletin of Tomsk State University - 2017

From the Holocaust Museum entry on gas vans: After the June 1941 German invasion of the Soviet Union and Einsatzgruppe mass shootings of civilians, the Nazis experimented with gas vans for mass killing. Gas vans were hermetically sealed trucks with engine exhaust diverted to the interior compartment. Use of gas vans began after Einsatzgruppe members complained of battle fatigue and mental anguish caused by shooting large numbers of women and children. Gassing also proved to be less costly. Einsatzgruppen gassed hundreds of thousands of people, mostly Jews, Roma (Gypsies), and mentally ill people.

The article cites Robert Gellately in an effort to provide a bit of academic legitimacy to the "Russians built gas vans" allegations. However, Gellately specifically cited the aforementioned Komsomolskaya Pravda article, and I suspect that he did so after he came across the contents from another author, because the footnotes for the section of Gellately's book about Russia almost entirely consists of secondary sources from America/Britain's equivalent of the "La Leyenda Negra" type of historiography for Russia e.g. Richard Pipes and Orlando Figes. In regard to the sections in his book covering Russia, Gellately's source base does not include very many archival documents, primary sources and contemporary newspapers, and that's probably because he's a specialist on German history rather than Russian history.

I located a specific academic Maria Alexandrovna Solovey, identified as "Associate Professor, Department of Russian History" at Donetsk National University, author of more than 20 scientific publications and author of the monograph "Encyclopedia of Delusions: Third Reich", and she finds the allegations to be very much in doubt and even suggests that there's an anti-Semitic atmosphere surrounding the allegations that Isay Berg, who happened to be Jewish, built gas vans.

There is a misconception that the creator of the famous "gas van"... was the head of the administrative and economic department of the NKVD Directorate for the Moscow Region I.D. Berg. They say that it was he who first guessed that the transportation of the machines and their killing could be successfully combined. So to say, two in one bottle....Moreover, the emphasis is usually placed on the surname of the inventor, similar to German, but still not German, - Berg. The Soviet, or rather, expressed in the language of unfortunate nationalists, the "Jew-Bolshevik" trace in the creation of gas van appeared around the beginning the 1990s. In 1993, in the weekly “Arguments and Facts”, the words of Lieutenant Colonel of the Main Directorate of Security of the Russian Federation A. Oligov were published: “Indeed, the head of the administrative department was the father of the gas chamber - a specially equipped van of the Bread type with an exhaust pipe brought up to the body; Office of the NKVD in Moscow and the Moscow Region I. D. Berg. For its intended purpose - to destroy people - the gas chamber was first used in 1936. In 1939, Berg was shot. ” By the way, there is a version that in 1939 Berg was sentenced to death precisely for the invention of the gas van. The accused himself in court denied having been involved in inventing it. Later, when in 1956 the case of the gas van was reviewed, Berg’s involvement in the gas van was also not proved....We dare to suggest that the Soviet Union did not invent the gas vans. First of all, due to the technical backwardness of the Soviet Union. The fact is that building a mobile gas van is much more difficult than just taking an indoor wagon and bringing its exhaust pipe to it...In addition, diesel engines were used in gas vans, and in the Soviet Union, almost all vehicles were powered by gasoline. So do not be mistaken: if someone in the Soviet Union and made a mobile gas chamber in a particular bread van, then there is no reason to consider it as the “working model” of the murderer that is notorious for the whole world. The technical characteristics of a conventional, non-converted bread van with an exhaust pipe connected to the body do not allow us to consider it a mass execution tool. A truly "death machine" was invented and put on stream in the Third Reich.

A brief discussion about Isay Berg:[2]

The cited source is "Jews in the Soviet NKVD, 1936-1938", Mikhail Tumshis, Vadim Zolotarev. Tumshis is cited in this Oxford University Book: On NKVD clans, see, for example...M.Tumshis, VChk: Voina Klanov (Moscow: Eksmo, 2004) Tumshis is described as, "historian, archivist, independent researcher. Former employee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Samara. Research interests: history of Russian state security agencies, history of Russian police and police, history of the USSR. The author of 6 books, about 2 dozen articles. In 2003-2010 employee of the personnel department of the Samara branch of the Saratov Law Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia." He wrote:

The materials of the archival criminal case against I. D. Berg contain the following evidence: “... Berg was then the head of the task force to enforce the decisions of the three UNKVD MO. With his participation, vehicles were created, the so-called gas van. Those vehicles transported those arrested and sentenced to be shot, and on their way to the place of execution of sentences they were poisoned by gas. Berg admitted that he was organizing the execution of sentences using a motor vehicle (gas van), explaining that he was following the instructions of the leadership of the UNKVD MO and that without them it would be impossible to execute such a large number of executions, to which three of them were sentenced at the same time.

From Berg’s interrogations and from conversations that went on among the employees of the NKVD MO, it was known that the sentencing procedure organized by Berg was harsh: those arrested for execution were stripped naked, tied, gagged and thrown into a car. The property of those arrested under the leadership of Berg was plundered .

Later on, Berg did not confirm these testimonies. In the 1960s during rehabilitation, Berg’s testimonies and testimonies about the "gas van" were quite contradictory. Each of the witnesses provided his mutually exclusive version. So, for example, the executor for the enforcement of sentences Chesnokov said that Berg provided the economic needs of the operational group that carried out the sentences (food and clothing allowance) - that's all. The presence of "gas van" was denied by commandant of the NKVD in the Moscow region A.V. Sadovsky. Thus, the version of the existence of "gas van" was actively discussed both in 1956 and in 1962, but it remained unproven.

Further doubt about the allegations[3]

Witness Viktorov, who worked under Berg’s leadership at the Butovo training ground, testified:

“When executing the sentences, I performed the service of guarding the territory where the executions were carried out...The shooting was carried out by a special group. From this group I remember Shinin , CHESNOKOV and Ilyin...The executor for the enforcement of sentences Chesnokov said that Berg provided the economic needs of the operational group that carried out the sentences (food and clothing allowance) - that's all....To the investigator’s question about the “murders”, Chesnokov replied that he knew about special vehicles for delivering convicts to the place of execution. “These cars were equipped with plugs, with which it was possible to let gas into the body. This was done to ensure safety during the delivery of convicts to the place of execution, i.e. in case of a riot in the car. Whether this means was used to pacify the convicts, I do not know. ”

Chesnokov also did not know what relation Berg had to these cars.

Shinin said: “In the period 1936-1937. I had to work in a special zone where the sentence was carried out. I served as the security chief of this zone. In a number of cases, he himself participated in the execution of sentences. Regarding Berg, I can say that he visited our zone often, I saw him together with Semenov, obviously, he was aware of all the events with us ... What were Berg's responsibilities in our zone, I don’t know ... Sentenced people were often shot in the presence of a doctor and a prosecutor "and ..." as required by law "," there were no other means of extermination.

And about commandant Sadovsky also denied the existence of "gas vans" during his work at the Butovo training ground, that is, from January to the end of October 1937 (so the question of gas chambers, although discussed in 1956 and 1962, remained unproven; witnesses who were interested in this case expressed mutually exclusive versions on this subject.)

Waikapu (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response: (not intending to keep paragraphs readable) Conclusions of the analysis presented above are worth being mentioned in the article but it does not justify removal of existing information. In a controversial subject with opposing opinions, the role of Wikipedia is to report on the controversy rather than average it or take one side. We should definitely not follow the example of Russian Wikipedia of completely removing any trace of NKVD gas vans which has unfortunately happened. I agree that the existing paragraph should be shorter and reworded to indicate the existing controversy of the subject, but not removed. Once again, responding to specific arguments raised above:

• "The content is tied to a Komsomolskaya Pravda article published in 1992" - False. The KP article from 1992 is not the single source used in the article on the gas vans.
• "Shining said ... people were often shot in the presence of a doctor and a prosecutor ... there were no other means of extermination" - False. We know from many other documented cases (mentioned above) that people in NKVD custody were killed in a multitude of ways. The 4000 people who were starved to death on Nazino island were not technically "executed" or "pacified", yet they were effectively killed in NKVD custody. NKVD prisoner massacres also involved any means available to kill as many people as possible in shortest possible time. Any NKVD-organized deportation also resulted in thousands of people killed on the spot, frozen to death in trains or death marches etc etc.
• "Bulletin of Tomsk State Universit: The main goals of the leadership of the GUPVI of the NKVD of the USSR were not the killing of prisoners of war by various methods, but their isolation, the creation of satisfactory living conditions for the representatives of the special contingent" - Irrelevant. This claim is exclusively about "prisoners of war" and it cannot be generalised to the NKVD extermination of civilian prisoners. Otherwise a single example of mass operations of the NKVD where hundreds of thousands of people were executed is sufficient to falsify it.
• "Chesnokov replied that he knew about special vehicles for delivering convicts to the place of execution. “These cars were equipped with plugs, with which it was possible to let gas into the body. This was done to ensure safety during the delivery of convicts to the place of execution, i.e. in case of a riot in the car" - this essentially 'confirms existence of gas vans, just tries to divert their purpose. Once again, duck test applies here: if you connect vehicle's exhaust pipe to a passenger section you can't expect any other outcome than lethal.
• "Mikhail Tumshis, Vadim Zolotarev ... The materials of the archival criminal case against I. D. Berg contain the following evidence: ... Berg was then the head of the task force to enforce the decisions of the three UNKVD MO. With his participation, vehicles were created, the so-called gas van" - confirms the gas vans testimony in archival documents on the Berg criminal case.
• Maria Alexandrovna Solovey - she raises a number of interesting arguments, very typical for this debate:
  • "In 1993, in the weekly “Arguments and Facts”, the words of Lieutenant Colonel of the Main Directorate of Security of the Russian Federation A. Oligov" - confirms the claim of Oligov about the invention of gas van by Berg (which is still live online[4] on AiF website by the way). Then Solovey comes up with a number of "practical" arguments why she believes it was not feasible:
  • "First of all, due to the technical backwardness of the Soviet Union. The fact is that building a mobile gas van is much more difficult than just taking an indoor wagon and bringing its exhaust pipe to it..." - False. It actually is as easy as that which is the main reason why there are still hundreds of cases of carbon monoxide poisoning happening each year in the US alone[5], either accidental or intentional (suicide).
  • "In addition, diesel engines were used in gas vans, and in the Soviet Union, almost all vehicles were powered by gasoline." - False. Sounds smart and technical but has no relevance to the subject whatsoever. Carbon monoxide is produced by any hydrocarbon-powered combustion engine.
  • "if someone in the Soviet Union and made a mobile gas chamber in a particular bread van, then there is no reason to consider it as the “working model” of the murderer that is notorious for the whole world. The technical characteristics of a conventional, non-converted bread van with an exhaust pipe connected to the body do not allow us to consider it a mass execution tool. A truly "death machine" was invented and put on stream in the Third Reich." - False. This is a classic diversion. We're not judging a contest on who built a better, "truly working" or more effective gas chamber. Our job is to document their application, be it prototypes or mass scale usage.
• "Holocaust Museum" - Irrelevant. Discussion of German gas vans is not a proof of non-existence of Soviet gas vans.

Cloud200 (talk) 13:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a hoax and atrocity propaganda to me. If it’s included should be called Soviet gas van hoax. It’s very hard to regulate the amount of carbon monoxide to produce the desired result. I passed out once from CO poisoning from a gas heater. Diesel exhaust has nominal amounts of CO. Holocaust deniers use this argument against many testimonies of diesel gas chambers at Treblinka. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my opinion, this edit is simply a removal of sourced information about crimes by the Soviet secret police (NKVD), without any actual reason. Also note that the text was here for a couple of months. So you guys need a consensus to make these changes. My very best wishes (talk) 04:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ever since you introduced your sources on 21 October[6] the text has been challenged, including a discussion at WP:RSN[7], it has been discussed at length, lastly at Talk:Gas_van#Removal, and it has been repeatedly removed by different editors.[8][9][10]. The reasons given are WP:REDFLAG and WP:OR. How you conceptualized the the whole section is also a violation of WP:DUE. So there is no consensus to keep it as that. Ignorance is not an argument. With the title you chose for this talk section you also seem to suggest some cover up going on. Please clarify.--Assayer (talk) 15:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Administrator note if the content under contention has been challenged since the beginning of it having been added (sorry, I'm not sure about that, either way), then per WP:ONUS, it cannot be viewed as longstanding text. That is, the burden for retaining edits for either side actually rests on those wishing to add the material, not those wishing to see it removed. One, therefore, need to gain consensus for inclusion —unless, of course, that consensus existed at some point (again, not sure)— rather than gain the consensus for removal. This should provide a rough guide with respect to how an RfC question ought to be constructed. El_C 16:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I started an RfC below as suggested.My very best wishes (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me mention that for the following citation, the spelling of Massachusetts is incorrect.

Colton, Timothy J. (1995). Moscow: Governing the Socialist Metropolis. Cambridge, Massachussetts: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-58749-6.

Thanks KConWiki (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to alter the sentence "Instead of transporting the victims to the gas chambers, the gas chambers were transported to the victims." so it doesn't read as prose?

Perhaps changing "were transported to the victims" to "were brought to the victims"? This removes the repetition which reads more as narrative rather than factual writing AnonsysL (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]