They did. An SS officer installed the tank's engine to the gas chambers by running the exhaust pipe underground and into the chambers. That was more efficient for the Nazis than using engines from other vehicles as they did before to gas people. They eventually started constructing more chambers and used more engines, instead of one tank engine.
Thought I would have a bit more of a look at this and there seems to be a bit of confusion over the engines, according to this site http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ (who seem genuine) "According to Martin Gilbert in his book, Holocaust Journey, the gas chambers at Treblinka utilized carbon monoxide from diesel engines. Many writers say that these diesel engines were obtained from captured Russian submarines, but according to the Nizkor Project, they were large 500 BHP engines from captured Soviet T-34 tanks. At the Nuremberg trial of the Nazi war criminals, the American government charged that the Jews were murdered at Treblinka in "steam chambers," not gas chambers"
Here's one. As plausible as most of the others on here. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18844...oof-she-has-died-and-been-replaced-by-cyborg/
More conspiracy stuff around this with people arguing that diesel fumes don't suffocate you so that must be false.
T-26s had gasoline engines. T-34s were diesel. Most tanks during WW2 were gasoline with the exception of a few Soviet tanks but the one originally used at Treblinka was a T-26.
Fair enough that puts that one to bed , wonder why the confusion then, how do we know it was a T-26 engine?
The sources I've read just say a Russian tank but T-26s were the most common Soviet tanks. Plus, like you said, diesel engines wouldn't gas someone as they have like 20% oxygen.
Makes sense but then why the submarine engine /T-34/ steam stuff put forward by others. That to me makes it sound like we don't know at all.
Norman Finklestein lost family in the camps, and has direct experience of many of the issues, which makes his book, the holocaust industry, an interesting read.
You're right, we don't. History as a subject isn't so much about 'facts' or 'the past'; it's about interpreting those facts. History itself means knowledge by inquiry in Ancient Greek. World War II began on the 1st September 1939 when Germany invaded Poland; that's a fact. However, the context and interpretation is more important than the dates and statistics.
Yes history is very often about interpretation and I think that brings us round in a nice way to how we got here. The interpretation of Germany's action is now so heavily biased that we often lose our critical thinking skills when talking about that time.
Hitler wanted a war. He had told his Generals to prepare for a war. He signed a non aggression pact with Stalin to be free to invade Poland. He invaded Poland. So what interpretation of Hitler's actions do your critical thinking skills lead you to?
Glad you're enjoying it Below is another video. I'd just like to say that I don't necessarily believe everything in the videos I've posted so far. I also don't believe everything reported by the msm. I just like to look a bit deeper and ask questions. I will accept things being debunked if the evidence is there. I'll also stand by my belief to question when there are questions to be asked. In an ideal world, that world is perfect. But we all know this isn't an ideal world... *contains graphic images*
That he probably wanted to invade Poland, there are alternative narratives to that suggesting it was a defensive measure. Not sure I agree with that alternative narrative but it appears reasonable as a theory to me.
