Talk:Gas van

Section ordering
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Removal
I am not quite sure what was the reason for removal. These sources are fine per WP:RS. My very best wishes (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Paul, if so, then why did you remove the text? It was the following:


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Responding to other arguments raised above: Cloud200 (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "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.
 * 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)

Soviet gas van section
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)
 * 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)

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

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)

"Russians used gas vans" Hoax
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:

''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

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)

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 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, 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)


 * 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)

Removal of sourced information about crimes by the Soviet secret police
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)
 * Ever since you introduced your sources on 21 October the text has been challenged, including a discussion at WP:RSN, it has been discussed at length, lastly at Talk:Gas_van#Removal, and it has been repeatedly removed by different editors.. 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)

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

Request for comment
Should content sourced to books by Petro Grigorenko and Mikhail Schreider be included to this page, with explicit attribution to the authors, as something similar to last paragraph in this section? The book by the Soviet dissident Grigorenko ("One can meet only rats in the underground") was the first of many publications which revealed, among many other things, the existence of Soviet gas vans in 1930s. The book was published in 1981 in New York in Russian, translated to English as "Memoirs" and received many positive reviews:, ,. Here is some info about Schredier. My very best wishes (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. Importantly, both books were not used to support any "extraordinary" original claims, but only as supplementary materials to provide additional details on the subject that has been already described in a large number of RS, including scholarly books. These sources tell gas vans were used not only in Moscow. The reliably published book by Petro Grigorenko was also the first of many publications which revealed the existence of Soviet gas vans. My very best wishes (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * No, and prune Soviet content. As User:Raquel Baranow writes above, this sounds like atrocity propaganda or a hoax. The memoirs of anti-Soviet dissidents with an ax to grind are not authorities on history. MozeTak (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No - and it needs serious cutting back. This is way undue weight for an article about gas vans in general. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Some academic historiography of Stalinist terror has mentioned (often in passing) the use of gas vans in Moscow for a limited period of time in 1937/8. The extraordinary claim sourced to Grigorenko's memoirs is the claim that gas vans were also used in the city of Omsk during dekulakization, i.e. 1929-32. It is worth noting that Grigorenko does not claim to have witnessed this himself, but he is reporting hearsay from someone else long after the events. Despite that Grigorenko’s memoirs are well known and widely received this claim has not been cited by historians of Stalinist terror, including those who mention the use of gas vans in Moscow. Exceptions are revisionists and one Dmitry Sokolov in a local Crimean newspaper. The same problems apply to the claim that gas vans were used in Ivanovo, sourced to the Mikhail Shreider's memoirs. In his work Stalinist Confessions (University of Pittsburgh Press, 2009), p. 463, footnote 166 Igal Halfin notes, that execution by gas is never mentioned in other Soviet sources and contradicts the Soviet practice of individualized executions. For his book Halfin used Shreider's memoirs. This is a strong indication that Shreider’s memoirs are not to be considered reliable for this claim. Claims that are supported only by primary sources and which contradict the prevailing view within mainstream historiography are exceptional claims which require multiple high-quality sources. To use these primary sources is not in line with WP:NPOV, because it gives the matter a false balance. In fact, it amounts to original research.--Assayer (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, include. As explained above in the discussion, there is abundance of primary and secondary sources that independently mention the at least occasional use of gas vans by NKVD. The practice would be actually consistent with the practice of using any means available to conduct executions as seen in NKVD prisoner massacres, Nazino affair, mass operations of the NKVD and many others. While the paragraph could be carefully worded to recognize the controversial subject, Wikipedia cannot just pretend it didn't exist if it's documented in the following secondary sources. A much longer list of primary sources is also present in the article. Cloud200 (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yevgenia Albats, KGB: The State Within a State. 1994, p 101
 * Robert Gellately. Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe. Knopf, 2007 ISBN 1-4000-4005-1 p. 460
 * Catherine Merridale. Night of Stone: Death and Memory in Twentieth-Century Russia. Penguin Books, 2002 ISBN 0-14-200063-9 p. 200
 * Timothy J. Colton. Moscow: Governing the Socialist Metropolis. Belknap Press, 1998. ISBN 0-674-58749-9 p. 286
 * Nikita Petrov, Memorial from memorial society
 * Kommersant, 09.11.2009
 * "Argumenty i Fakty", 28.04.1993
 * Oppose. In connection to that, it is necessary to note that
 * The RfC was formulated in a highly misleading way: so called "numerous" publications are based on a single case when the vans were used by Berg's group. There are literally a couple of primary sources that tell about Berg's story, and virtually all secondary publications are based on this very limited set of primary sources, or on each other. Grirogenko's book briefly mentions a non-veriviable hearsay about alleged usage of gas vans in a different part of the USSR, and during a different moment of history (collectivisation). No other sources say about that, so the claim is really extraordinary.
 * The user who started this RfC is attempting to return to that issue after his proposal was rejected for many times at the talk page and other fora. That behaviour is disruptive, and it may be reported.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * being a new participant of the discussion, you are probably unaware that the sources listed by you are dealing with just a single NKVD document (Berg's interrogation record), so they tell about a single case. We have already demonstrated, and you can see it in one this talk page, that the allegedly independent sources are actually dependent sources. Argumenty i Facty are not good source at all, for, per WP:NEWSORG, that source is a good primary source only about Oligov's opinion, and it is not a reliable source for gas van invention at all. Editorial materials (Nikita Petrov and other newspaper articles) are also primary sources about the opinion of the authors, each of which are not historians, so there is no reason to conclude that their opinion is relevant. All these sources would be quite acceptable for some non-controversial subject, but, per WP:REDFLAG, they are insufficient to support this claim. In addition, we have an opinion of Steven Wheatcroft, a historian who specialises on history of Stalinism, who said that the Soviet gas van story is "sensational", and it needs further investigation. Therefore, REDFLAG is quite applicable here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you dig in the history of this article you will most likely find my edits from years ago so I'm not quite "new participant" here, although I am indeed for the first time seeing such as well organized action to get rid of any associations between USSR and gas chambers. You spent enormous amount of effort in an attempt to demonstrate that this information is either unsourced or unreliable, including completely disgusting arguments about "merely incapacitating prisoners", "proper executions in presence of a doctor", "low content of CO", "diesel engines" and other nonsense in order to achieve what? Deny that USSR was exterminating prisoners using any means available and it's absolutely likely that they did at least try gas vans too? Sorry, but you'd need to delete most of the NKVD articles on Wikipedia. You've got the Nazino affair article sourced mostly by a single book by Werth, highly controversial (cannibalism etc) and based on testimonies (!), NKVD documents (!) and single Memorial article (!) - go raise REDFLAG there too... NKVD prisoner massacres is also full of "contradictory testimonies" and "memoirs", another REDFLAG maybe? Unfortunately, the history of USSR is full of such events and we have to live with it until FSB opens their archives. While I believe the current size and wording of the Soviet section is excessive, the facts is that the information it is sourced sufficiently for inclusion. Cloud200 (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The statement "well organized action to get rid of any associations between USSR and gas chambers" is an accusation of bad faith, and I expect you to retract it and never return to such a language, otherwise that may inflict sanctions on you. Your personal attack is a demonstration that you haven't read thic discussion carefully: originally, I objected to making too much stress on some sources, which I believed were not too reliable. Thus, judging by a review on the Albats's book, and based on what I see in her other writings, I know that this author, despite being a very good liberal journalist, is very inaccurate in details, and, although her books are good in general, some details are blatantly wrong. However, during the discussion, Assayer and I came to a conclusion that all those "independent sources" are actually the same story told by one journalist based on a single NKVD document, and this document should be treated with great suspect (as Golovkova's collection says). Therefore, it is easy to see that I started this discussion with the goal to fix some minor problems, and during the discussion I came to a conclusion that the problem is much more severe: Wikipedia is contributing to a creation of another myth. In other words, to claim that I had some plan to remove something, and that I am pushing this plan by any means is blatantly wrong, and that is easy to confirm based on the talk page history. I suggest you to strike through your totally unjustified accusations and to switch to a polite and respectful discussion.
 * Sorry if you feel offended. This is not an accusation but merely an observation: as you're writing, we see a campaign of well coordinated demands to remove of significant parts of articles such as MH17 and Russian apartment bombings. Cloud200 (talk) 11:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You are accusing me, for the second time, of a serious misbehaviour. I think you must apologize and stop. Immediately. As your below comment demonstrates, you made your wrong assertion about my motives because you haven't bothered to read the whole talk page discussion. Read the discussion that took place in mid 2018.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Additional comments. Werth is a renown historian, and his books are high quality reliable sources, so this your analogy is totally incorrect.
 * "Deny that USSR was exterminating prisoners using any means available" - this argument is very shaky: you literally say that since evils Soviets were villains, all bad things about them should be trusted independent on whether the source is reliable or not. Actually, during different parts of Soviet history different means of extermination were used, or not used at all. With regards to the Great Purge, it is well known that it was very poorly prepared, and, for example, the perpetrators even had no time to find any serious evidences against the victims: sometimes, reports that could have been used as a solid evidences against victims were ignored, because it would require too much time to examine them. Instead, they just were picking victims totally randomly, based on some insignificant criteria. The same can be said about the technical aspects of the Great Purge: the perpetrators had no time for technical preparations, they had to improvise, and it is highly unlikely that, being technologically illiterate, NKVD staff could have developed gas vans. Most likely, as Golovkova says, Berg just took standard vans that were used for prisoner transportation and directed the exhaust pipe into a body. That is literally all what they could do, and that was a single well documented incident. That is logically consistent with what I know about the Great Purge, and, by the way, that does not whitewash the perpetrators, for "incapacitating gas vans" were probably more brutal than Nazi gas vans: people were literally executed twice.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "Berg just took standard vans that were used for prisoner transportation and directed the exhaust pipe into a body" - if you are ready to accept this claim in this or similar wording in the article, there's no disagreement between us. Cloud200 (talk) 11:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * From Golovkova's collection, I conclude that what really happened was as follows: Berg, a mid rank NKVD officer, was instructed to suppress exclamations like "Glory to Stalin" or something of that kind during executions, which was quite normal, for many victims were devoted Stalinists. To that end, he ordered to divert exhaust pipes into vans to make victims semi-conscious. Technically, that was not a gas van at all, but, in my opinion, that was probably even more cruel than just execution. After arrest, Berg was forced to sign some documents that later were discovered by Zhirnov, and these documents could contain some details added by Berg's interrogators, and there is no reason ti trust to everything what Berg's signed (at least, there were no reason to trust to them more that to the Bukharin's of Zinovyev's confessions). Anyway, the whole story is based on a very shaky ground, and the attempt of some Wikipedians to present it as a well documented story based on multiple independent studies just adds more sensationalism to it, and undermines credibility of Wikipedia. That means not only people will not trust to this story, they will stop trusting to real stories about well documented crimes of Stalinism. Therefore, the overall result of your activity is more harmful than useful.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "highly unlikely that, being technologically illiterate, NKVD staff could have developed gas vans" - in 30's NKVD was able to build country-wide network of informants and perform coordinated arrests of thousands of people at the same time. This demonstrates anything but "illiteracy" at least at the management level. The fact that they frequently resorted to alternative solutions for executions is result of pressure from the top to fulfill the execution plans - for example in Katyn, NKVD was challenged by a very simple technical problem of pistols overheating as result of the volume of executed prisoners. In prison massacres they were frequently running out of ammunition, so were resorting to axes and other similar tools. Connecting an exhaust pipe to the passenger section sounds like a solution that any NKVD soldier could have come up with to be honest. Cloud200 (talk) 11:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, lion's share of 1937 arrests and executions were performed not as a result of some "network of informants". It reality, people were arrested mostly not because they were reported by someone. Usually, the people were arrested just because they had already been on NKVD's radars: people with foreign surnames, so called "byvshiye" (former noble class persons, officers, enterpreneurs, priests, etc.). It seems you cannot understand that it could be physically impossible to seriously analyze about a million of reports from "informants": majority of people were picked literally randomly, based on some totally laughable pretext. In contrast, many people who were reported had not been arrested, because NKVDD staff had no time to analyze long reports, and after 1937 there were no reason to return to that anyy more. All aspects of the Great Purge was very poorly prepared, and one of the reasons was a desperate lack of time. It is totally impossible to expect that some program of gas van development ever existed. All of that was a pure improvisation.
 * If you think that sounds apologetical, that is your personal problem. There is no apology of Stalinism in my words.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * At the same time, while accusing My very best wishes of "disruptive behaviour", at the same time you reject a number of reliable publications based on your personal assessment that they are "dependent" on a single Berg trial archives and trying to invoke WP:REDFLAG for a case that is not a fringe theory, not a conflict of interest and the only category that would merely fit into is "supported purely by primary or self-published sources", which is again not the case here because the claim about Soviet gas vans is supported by a mix of primary and secondary sources. While you could demand better sources, once again - this request should be directed to FSB, who has just recently again extended the classification period for USSR documents by another half century. I absolutely agree that caution should be applied here, but caution can be applied using proper wording rather than complete removal of this information. Cloud200 (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not my "personal assessment": if you look at all these publications, you see that they cite the same tabloid article as a single source. However, I admit I can be wrong. In connection to that, please, demonstrate that these publications use different primary sources, and, therefore, they are independent.
 * In the rather lengthy discussion in October you haven't clearly demonstrated that they are indeed based on a single source, this is purely your speculation based on a chain of assumptions - aka WP:OR. A number of editors, including  then disagreed with you so there's absolutely no consensus here. Cloud200 (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * On 12th of June, 2018, 04:18, I wrote:
 * "My conclusion: all sources the NKVD part of the article is based on (including Albats) are derivatives of one single article written by Е. Жирнов in 1990 and published in Комсомольская правда. All other authors including Е. Жирнов himself tell the same story but compose different details. The only source is the document Е. Жирнов saw in 1990 and used for his article. That means this WP article just shows an evolution of some urban legend."
 * A consensus was achieved about that, and that consensus was broken in October 2019 without serious reasons. As you can see, this dispute has longer history.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I myself am concerned by recent tendency in some post-Soviet societies to return to glorification of some periods of their dark history, however, by transmitting various rumors we by no means achieve a declared goal. Your reference to malicious FSB looks like Russel's teapot: actually, your arguments are unbeatable because they are non-falsifiable. Indeed, following your approach, every source that contains some information about real or alleged crimes of NKVD should be accepted independent on whether it is good or not, because evil "KGBshniks" destroyed or falsified all documents, and not all documents are open, and this situation will last forever, because there is not technical possibility to establish if all existing documents are open, and how many of them are still classified. However, that approach undermines credibility of Wikipedia in general, and the well documented and quite justified criticism of Stalinist crimes in particular. I am 100% sure your intentions are good, but I am 100% sure the real results of your activity are detrimental to your declared goals.
 * With regard to "proper wording", again, if we use primary sources, then we should not use them selectively. Let's say all what they say, and Golovkova/Lipkov do say that Berg's confession should not be trusted, that gas vans were actually incapacitating vans, and the executions were performed after careful identification. Remember, if you start using primary sources selectively, how can you prevent your opponents from doing the same? --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * All these rather cynical excuses about "incapacitation" and "careful identification" should certainly be part of the article as they clearly demonstrate a very specific attitude of some Russian historians towards Soviet crimes. Cloud200 (talk) 11:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @Cloud200: Do you realize that this RfC is about the use of two specific sources for some specific claims rather than a general discussion whether the topic of Soviet gas vans should be included at all? --Assayer (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. This is an RfC about using two specific sources to support a specific claim. Perhaps these sources can be used on other pages or to support other claims. My very best wishes (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally I am, but the discussion seems to be drifting towards complete removal of any information all the time... Cloud200 (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * some people had already attempted to remove all information about Soviet gas van, and, if you checked the article's history, you probably noticed that it was me who re-added it back. I think the Berg's story is relatively well documented, and we definitely should tell in the article that Berg used something that looked like Nazi gas vans in 1937, that that was his own initiative, and that later he was arrested and executed, partially because he was using those gas vans. We should also add that some author (Wheatcroft) find this story "sensational", and they think it needs further confirmation. That is all what we should say about that. This story does belong to the article (I I will not allow it to be removed), but it should not be presented as a story about massive usage of gas vans during a long period of time in different parts of the USSR, which is allegedly supported by numerous independent sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect summary of sources. (a) The removed version on the page did NOT tell there was massive use of gas vans in the USSR. It quoted Gellately ("how extensive that was needs further investigation"); the scale of gas van usage in the USSR is actually unknown. (b) The sources do NOT tell it was "something that looked like Nazi gas vans". It quoted a scholarly book about KGB by Albats: "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 build", (c) Berg was not executed because he invented gas vans. (d) It remains unknown if Berg was the actual inventor or if it was indeed "his own initiative" or an order by his superiors. My very best wishes (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Given how contentious this has become, the section should be based on English-language scholarly sources to allow most editors to judge quality, relevance and weight. SarahSV (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do you think this is so contentious? Because Paul and Assayer do not like it? The book by Grigorenko was translated to English. Excluding sources just because they are not English is against the policy, such as WP:NONENG. It tells non-English RS can be used just fine, although "a translation into English should always accompany the quote" if requested.My very best wishes (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, include both books because that is what our main policy, WP:NPOV requires. I think the book by Grigorenko absolutely must be cited if for no other reason than being the first publication on the subject . The book was reliably published in New York in 1981, whereas the article in "Komsomolskaya Pravda" (one that Paul incorrectly claims to be the first) was published in 1990. Consider this real life example. While reviewing an original scientific article, I had to notice (as a reviewer) that authors failed to cite a couple of previous publications on the same subject where others did something rather similar. That was a reason for immediate rejection of this article by the editorial board. Here, this is not really a scientific priority matter, but still important for the coverage per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I included two reliably published books by highly notable people in the RfC because these people came from the opposite sides. One of them was famous Soviet dissident (Grigorenko), and another was a former NKVD officer who had actually committed these repressions (Schreider). And they are telling essentially the same, just as a lot of other sources! That is what really matters in terms of verifying information and following WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I agree it is very important to showcase Soviet crimes against humanity. The Soviets snuffed out many innocent lives in the USSR and later in countries behind the iron curtain. But using memoirs of anti-Soviet personas is not the way. Use history books. Kacper IV (talk) 08:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * But it is a history book. So, you believe that all writings by all Soviet dissidents should never be used for sourcing anywhere? Why? Do they have poor reputation "for fact-checking and accuracy"? Only that is relevant per WP:RS. According to published academic reviews, ,, this particular book by Grigorenko is a good source. Any "history book" would be lucky to receive such reviews. Same about writings by many other Soviet dissidents. My very best wishes (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop making stuff up. The reviews you linked to treat this as an "authentic and honest autobiography" by a "dissident and political prisoner", and I'm quoting Garthoff you linked. None of them treat this as a history book. It is reliable for what Grigorenko says and naught else. Kacper IV (talk) 08:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose: memoirs relaying second-hand accounts are not suitable sources, especially if they are the only texts that contain the information in question. With the topic as well studied as the Great Terror, better sources should be available. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * According to WP:RS, the book is not a |a questionable or self-published_source. It has been reliably published, translated to English, reliably re-published in English, and received a number of positive academic reviews. The author is a highly notable person, and we have a page about him. The book was the first publication which revealed the existence of Soviet gas vans, a claim that was supported later by a large number of other publications, including multiple scholarly books in English. The claim about the existence of the Soviet gas vans (or other claims that appear in the citation of the source) have never been disputed in any other RS. Hence the claims in the book are not WP:EXCEPTIONAL (please read what it means). My very best wishes (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I don't think the sourcing presented is strong enough for this particular claim. buidhe 09:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. These are reasonably shocking and WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims about history and should be cited to reliable secondary sources by historians, not to memoirs.  Simply adding "according to..." is not sufficient when the structure and framing of the section is plainly presenting their opinions as historical fact. It's particularly concerning to contrast such weak sourcing with the high-quality sourcing in the previous section, which essentially weighs the opinions in these memoirs as equal to established, mainstream historians. --Aquillion (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, as this is WP:PROFRINGE content pushing a false equivalence between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, even though virtually all academic experts agree that there were no death camps and no gas chambers in the latter. There would be no need to cite the memoirs of anti-Soviet dissidents if academic experts could be cited for these assertions instead. That academic experts generally ignore or dismiss such accusations without attempting to comprehensively refute them does not mean that the allegations are "un-refuted" and hence merit inclusion, it simply means that they are WP:FRINGE. In addition, I ask My very best wishes and Cloud200 to stop bludgeoning this thread by replying to every individual Oppose vote, and to continue the discussion in a separate "Discussion" section in accordance with the established RfC format if further responses are in order. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like Cloud200 has already stopped, so it would be correct if you modified your statement accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Stricken for now as activity on this thread has slowed down significantly, although I think that the warning is still appropriate and should be heeded by all contributors in the event that this RfC becomes the scene for more sustained commentary in the future.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, include It's not the majority consensus among scholars, but it's definitely a legitimate alternative viewpoint. Dozens of reputable scholars and pundits, many whose works have already been cited in this thread, do believe in or at least mention the possibility of gas vans. Obviously, we don't want to present this as an undisputed fact, but I really don't understand why we shouldn't include a section on the allegations. I'm troubled by how many people want to exclude the claims because they are cited to a memoir. Why not just instead cite one of the historians who views them as credible, such as Gellately, Albats, etc...? Maybe the mistake of the RFC was emphasizing that the claims originated in a memoir, when we could have instead emphasized the non-primary sources stating the same thing.Funtoedit1212 (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * just to clarify, "dozens" of sources (actually, less than a dozen) cite one case, whereas the two memoirs describe totally different cases that had never been documented or discussed in good secondary sources. Therefore, these memoirs do not provide additional detains to what reliable secondary sources say, instead they promote a totally different idea that gas vans were used in totally different parts of the USSR, and in different periods of its history.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh no, Grogorenko and Shreider made exactly the same claims as all other sources, and even coincide with them in minor details (like using the gas to allegedly subdue the prisoners), except that they are telling the vans were used not only in Moscow. The actual significance of the claims: they were made and reliably and independently published by two famous and highly informed people before publications in other (scholarly) sources, thus providing an additional independent corroboration of the story. It is shame that people are objecting to including this. I thought better about WP community. My very best wishes (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. Based on opinions so far, there is obviously no consensus for the content sourced to books by Petro Grigorenko and Mikhail Schreider be included to this page, with explicit attribution to the authors, as something similar to last paragraph in this section (that was the question I asked in the RfC), or perhaps there is a consensus do not include. OK, I can see it, and therefore will not re-include this specific claim by Grigorenko and Schreider to this page, unless the |the consensus will change. Obviously, not every claim belongs to the pages, no matter how reliably sourced. I still believe the book by Grigorenko must be cited on the page, but merely as the first publication on the subject, without using it to support any claims. My very best wishes (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Spelling error
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)

Rephrasing of a turn of phrase
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)