Critique of Truth and the Auschwitz-Lie *

by Germar Rudolf

In the summer of 1995 a paperback titled Wahrheit und Auschwitzlüge [Truth and the Auschwitz-Lie] was published in Austria. In this book several exterminationist spokespersons sought to defend their view of history against the scientific attacks of the revisionists.[1] Unfounded insinuations, ignoring of evidence, and naïve fallacies are typical of their modus operandi. This will be demonstrated in the following, using only a few of the many potential examples. Aside from the contributions discussed here, the book also contains chapters about other controversial historical topics such as, for example, what view should be taken of the German-Soviet war, as well as a detailed discussion of German and Austrian right-wing radicalism--i.e. extremism and some related, less interesting chapters.[2]

Even though the flawed nature of the sections discussing Holocaust Revisionism suggests that these other chapters are no less riddled with false claims, we have not dealt with them here, partly because we do not consider ourselves adequately versed in some of the topics,[3] but partly also because political suspicions and insinuations contribute nothing to the resolution of scientific disputes.[4] Since we do not care to debate whether the authors of the book at issue in this critique belong to the left-wing extremist or Communist scene in Germany and Austria, nor whether the supporters of Revisionism ought to be classed with the right-wing extremist or National Socialist camp, we leave these political topics to those who prefer to argue politically and polemically rather than scientifically.

Professor Wolfgang Benz, the Anti-Anti-Semite

Wolfgang Benz is Professor of Studies in Anti-Semitism at the Technical University of Berlin. At several points in his chapter "'Revisionismus' in Deutschland" ["'Revisionism' in Germany"] he resorts to negligent or even deliberate disinformation. On p. 43, for example, he mentions that the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) , having offered a reward of $50,000 for proof of the existence of the National Socialist execution gas chambers, had been sentenced to paying the Auschwitz survivor Mel Mermelstein this sum as well as an additional $40,000 in damages. As proof he cites a book by Deborah E. Lipstadt,[5] whose information is not, however, on pages 190ff., as Benz cites, but on pages 170ff. Mrs. Lipstadt writes (p. 174):

"Even before the Main Hearing, in the course of the various preliminary discussions, Judge Thomas T. Johnson ruled that the fact that Jews were gassed in Auschwitz would be judicially noticed; this 'is not reasonable subject to dispute', but 'is simply a fact'."[6]

Benz suggests that the judicial notice which the American court took of the gas chambers permits the conclusion that these proceedings scientifically proved the existence of execution gas chambers, but in doing so he also misrepresents the facts as they are set out by Mrs. Lipstadt. In fact, after the Court's ruling the IHR's lawyers gave in without any presentation of evidence, hoping to avert greater financial loss.

Since the IHR again attacked Mel Mermelstein after this trial in another publication,[7] he again sued the IHR, this time for 11 million dollars in damages. In the course of the 1991 trial the IHR was able to show with a great deal of evidence that Mermelstein was in fact a liar, so that this time it was Mermelstein who had to give in (September 19, 1991), which prompted a fairly strong media response at the time.[8] Mermelstein's appeal was refused on October 28, 1991.[9] This should suffice to demonstrate the value of any evidence submitted by Mermelstein in the capacity of survivor of the Auschwitz gas chambers. Benz does not mention this devastating defeat of Mermelstein's. Clearly Benz, though he pretends to work in an academically sound fashion, is not familiar with the primary sources, because otherwise the press reports of the time or the detailed accounts by the Institute for Historical Review would have made him more circumspect. Or perhaps he is aware of these sources, but deliberately keeps them from his readers. Benz only cites D. E. Lipstadt, who in turn, for whatever reasons, states incorrectly that the trial was still before the courts in May 1992.[10] So it appears that Wolfgang Benz is not prepared to acknowledge his opponents' arguments; a clear sign of unscholarly work.

That Wolfgang Benz's approach is not a scientific one is shown by his evaluation of Die Krematorien von Auschwitz,[11] French pharmacist Jean-Claude Pressac's book which was published in German in 1994. Benz, page 45:

"Concerning the Auschwitz crematoria, which according to the 'Revisionist' views did not exist, ie. whose capacity allegedly did not suffice for the mass murder, one man has gone to the trouble of meticulously compiling all the details: French pharmacist Pressac was initially a follower of Faurisson's and numbered among those who deny the reality of Auschwitz. He has spent years on the study of those technical aspects of the extermination that stand at the heart of the 'Revisionist' arguments. Dispensing with eyewitness accounts and historical connections, focusing on one single set of details, Pressac manages to bring all the proof necessary to refute the 'Revisionist' constructs. Documents of the SS-Bauleitung, bills and correspondence from the suppliers are set out and analyzed; technically founded doubts about the events of Auschwitz are no longer possible after reading Pressac's findings."

First of all, the point of the current debate is not to question anything which actually did happen. The point is to find facts in the first place and to separate them from doubtful matters of mere belief or faith. The issue is precisely to determine what the "events of Auschwitz" were exactly. Second, one must ask how a Professor of Studies in Anti-Semitism, one who lacks any and all training and experience in technical matters, can consider himself competent to judge whether or not an allegedly technical study "about the events of Auschwitz" leaves room for reasonable doubts. Third, one wonders how this Professor of Studies in Anti-Semitism can have such great confidence in the technical expertise of a pharmacist even though he knows that his highly esteemed pharmacist himself has no technical training or experience.

What is more, Benz's comments on Pressac's work are grossly incorrect: not only does Pressac not "dispense with eyewitness accounts" in his alleged proof of the execution gassings in Auschwitz; rather, the only evidence he is able to give for the (actual or alleged) gassing of human beings is in fact eyewitness testimony.[12] Further, Pressac does not take notice of any of the Revisionist critiques and arguments, so that it is a mystery how his work could serve to "refute the 'Revisionist' constructs". But the decisive factor is that in his book Pressac does not cite even one single source from the subject literature about the technology of the crematoria. He does not take so much as one technical look at the (actual or alleged) machinery of death at Auschwitz, does not make even a single calculation of its technical efficiency and capacity. The chronological listing and the at times contradictory interpretation of documents regarding the construction history of Auschwitz, and the fleshing-out of this skeleton by Pressac's imagination or that of alleged eyewitnesses, is not exactly what one could call a technical and scientific work refuting Revisionist arguments.[13] That Professor Benz is not willing or able to perceive this, says much about his scholarly qualities.

Brigitte Bailer-Galanda - Profession: Disinformation

The fact that Pressac serves the Exterminationists as universal genius for the proof of their theories is demonstrated not only by Benz but also by the citing habits of Mrs. Bailer-Galanda, who uses Pressac's book as the main supporting pillar for her arguments in her chapter "Die Verbrechen von Auschwitz" ["The Crimes of Auschwitz"], pp. 68-76.[14]

Like Benz, Brigitte Bailer-Galanda uses false information to mislead her readers. For example, in her chapter "'Revisionismus' - pseudowissenschaftliche Propaganda des Rechtsextremismus" ["'Revisionism' - Pseudo-Scientific Propaganda of the Right-Wing Extremists"], she does not by chance offer counter-arguments against the professional air photo interpreter John Clive Ball's expositions about the falsifications which the Americans perpetrated on air photos of the concentration camp Auschwitz; she merely attempts to destroy Ball's credibility. Towards this end she employs a trick: she implies that Ball alleged things he never did (p. 25):

"He [Ball] surrounds this claim [re. the falsification] with a graphic account of his research in the National Archives in Washington, where these photos, he claims, are now locked away for all time because he had proved that they were falsified. He withholds from his readers the fact that these same photos may be viewed in the State Museum of Auschwitz and that a great many other photos document the happenings in Auschwitz-Birkenau in many ways.(36)"

In her footnote (36), author Brigitte Bailer-Galanda refers to Ball's chapter in Gauss's anthology. But here we read[15]:

"After realizing these facts of the matter [ie. the forgery], I went to the National Archives and requested to see the originals, since the photos given to me as originals had clearly been altered. And in fact I was then given air photos which I was assured were the originals. These were indeed of better quality than the negatives I had been given first: due to the better focus, the work of the forgers was considerably more clearly apparent at the same places on the photos. When I pointed this out to the Archives staff, I was told that these were the negatives which the National Archives had received from the CIA in 1979, and that they had always believed that they were in the precise state in which they had been taken out of the reconnaissance planes in 1944. Now they would be returned to the archives forever, to be handed out only at the request of government agencies such as the CIA."

The fact is that the originals of the air photos which the American reconnaissance fliers took of Auschwitz can exist only once, and these originals, which Ball refers to here, are kept in the National Archives in Washington. All others are copies, even the pictures which visitors to the National Archives are usually shown. That hundreds of copies of these originals exist in all parts of the world is a fact which no-one has disputed, especially since the Revisionists themselves have many of them. But photos, which Mrs. Bailer-Galanda speaks of, are normally taken to be positive prints of the negatives. These are characterized by such a decrease in quality that they are of very little interest to anyone anyhow. Ball never spoke of prints in this context - he expressly spoke of negatives. Only the original negatives are suited for exact interpretation regarding potential falsifications. Whether the information John Ball was given at the time in question is correct - ie. whether the originals at the National Archives are still being made available to private individuals or not - may remain an open question. The fact is that this information provided by the National Archives personnel speaks volumes, as does Mrs. Bailer-Galanda's incompetence in these matters (or is it malice?).

Bailer-Galanda's claim that "a great many other photos document the happenings in Auschwitz-Birkenau in many ways" is also in no way correct, for there is not even one single photo of a functional or functioning gas chamber, or of a gassing in progress, or similar.

In her chapter "Leuchter und seine Epigonen" ["Leuchter and his Imitators"], Mrs. Bailer-Galanda disseminates further false claims on page 92, where she writes:

"In June of 1993 Rudolf was dismissed by the Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research in Stuttgart, and he also lost the Labor Board proceedings he had initiated afterwards."

In her footnote she cites the science magazine Nature (368/1994) where, however, we read on p. 483:

"The Max Planck Society has reached an out of court settlement with a former graduate student whom it sacked last summer for producing research which 'proved' that gassing of prisoners at Auschwitz concentration camp never happened."

An out-of-court settlement is not exactly what one calls losing one's case, Mrs. Bailer-Galanda!

Bailer-Galanda then turns her attention to the Rudolf Report. She thinks that the passages quoted there from Pressac's book are in fact partially to be found on other pages; however, since she does not give any examples, we shall not spend any more time on this. As we have seen before, in the case of Professor Wolfgang Benz, this can happen to the best of housewives, and while it is a human shortcoming, it certainly is no violation of academic principles.

Bailer-Galanda then implies that Rudolf twisted Pressac's meaning. She quotes a passage from the Rudolf Report where Pressac is quoted to the effect that Höss had been in Auschwitz without actually seeing the gassings ("He was present without seeing"). Pressac cites this as the reason why Höss made so many involuntary errors in his post-War notes (what, by the way, would voluntary errors be? Wouldn't these be lies?). Rudolf explains this accordingly, but calls Höss's errors "gross mistakes and factual impossibilities".[16] The only difference between the two authors lies in their evaluation of the errors, which upsets Mrs. Bailer-Galanda, who feels that in this way Rudolf tries to instrumentalize Pressac for what Bailer-Galanda calls his own "outrageous" theories. Anyone familiar with Rudolf's Report knows that Rudolf emphasizes time and again that he is precisely not of the same opinion as Pressac. He repeatedly attacks Pressac sharply but objectively, and in no way gives the impression that Pressac's theories are even remotely like his own.[17] So it seems that the purpose of all of Mrs. Bailer-Galanda's fussing will remain her own little secret.

In the following, however - on pages 92f. - Mrs. Bailer-Galanda alleges that Rudolf had suppressed all those criminal traces which Pressac had found and which go against his own theories,

"such as, for example, the ordering and installation of gas-proof doors and suitable ventilation facilities, or indisputable written 'blunders' on the part of civilian employees referring to work done in the 'gas chamber'."

In this context, let us simply see what the Rudolf Report actually says.

Regarding gas-proof doors and windows, we read:

"The description 'gas-proof', as used in contemporaneous documents to describe hatches or doors, generally referred to wooden doors and hatches, some of which were sealed with a felt gasket all around. In no way does this term refer to heavy steel doors and hatches that sealed hermetically." (p. 9)

"One document shows that gas-proof doors measuring 100 x 192 cm were ordered for Mortuaries I (the 'gas chamber') of Crematoria II and III [36]. But on the opening plan, ie. the final blueprint of Crematorium II, the size of the door is given as 190 x 200 cm, just as it had been on all previous plans [37]. To this day it ought to be possible to tell from the ruins whether the door was perhaps narrowed later on, and whether traces of the door frame are present. However, this would require excavation." (p. 21)

"The outside walls of all these rooms [of Crematoria IV and V which were, or were allegedly, used for gassing] are said to have had hatches about 2 m up the wall, 30 x 40 cm in size and allegedly gas-proof, for purposes of throwing in the Zyklon B [58]." (p. 30)[18]

Regarding the problem of ventilation, Rudolf wrote:

"In terms of size, outfitting and manner of construction, these crematoria [II and III] are comparable with other facilities built in the Reich at that time, as well as with modern-day facilities [29]." (p. 20)

"Then, as today, a specially segregated mortuary with better ventilation served as storage room for the victims of epidemics (mortuary for infectious bodies)." (p. 20)

"The cross-section of Mortuary I shows ventilation channels in the top and bottom of the walls. According to Pressac these were intended as ventilation channels for mortuaries [38]. At left and on the right of the blueprint one can see the course of the channels from and to the building's main wing. The lower channel was used for moving the used air out. This is also said to have remained this way for the alleged gassings later on. According to Pressac all the basement rooms of Crematoria II and III had a similarly efficient ventilation system, as did the furnace room [39], but only Mortuary I [the 'gas chamber'] had an air intake. For each room, Pressac states the capacity of the exhauster motors, data which he allegedly found among the correspondence of the camp's Site Office. Mortuary I (the 'gas chamber') allegedly had a 3.5 hp electric motor (2.5 kW). The capacity of the motor, however, says only little about the efficiency of ventilation [40]. The openings of the air input vent of Mortuary I (the 'gas chamber'), measuring 5 x 10 cm (50 of them in Crematorium II, 95 in Crematorium III), were covered with diaphragms with some 110 holes of 3.5 mm diameter each. [41]" (p. 21)

In Section, "Lüftungsgeschwindigkeit der 'Gaskammern'" ["Speed of Ventilation of the 'Gas Chambers'"], pp. 70-74, Rudolf discusses the capacity of the ventilation facilities of Crematoria II and III in detail. Due to the length of this discussion, it cannot be quoted here.

Regarding the "indisputable written 'blunders' on the part of civilian employees referring to work done in the 'gas chamber'," Rudolf wrote:

"Pressac thus assumes a 'criminal intent' for the Crematoria [IV and V] [62]. Aside from the gas-proof hatches, one piece of evidence for this, he says, are documents from a civilian construction firm which mention work done in a 'gas chamber' [63]. As shall be seen in the section about delousing chambers for material objects, 'gas chamber' was the term usually applied in those days to disinfestation facilities for material objects. A study questioning the authenticity of these documents has pointed out striking irregularities and unusual characteristics. Aside from many odd spelling mistakes and factually incorrect form entries, the documents are marked with a cropped rubber stamp. The seventh and last point listed here and in two other, similar daily reports is 'Ordnungsdienst Unterkunft', a task allegedly the rule only in military and paramilitary units. [64]" (p. 31)

So when Bailer-Galanda then falsely alleges that by omitting contrary arguments, publications and documents, Rudolf demonstrates precisely that kind of academically unsound work that he charged Pressac with in a letter to the editor in the August 26, 1994 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the charge of unscholarly work in fact falls back on Mrs. Bailer-Galanda herself. She has either not read these parts of the Rudolf Report and thus presumes to comment on things she has no knowledge or understanding of,[19] or she writes what she does despite knowing better - but that would be difficult to believe.

Bailer-Galanda demonstrates her own inadequate critical faculties on page 93, where she refers to an extremely blue-tinted reproduction of a photo of the (actual or alleged) gas chamber of Crematorium II in Birkenau in order to refute Rudolf's statement that the (actual or alleged) gas chambers of Auschwitz-Birkenau exhibit no blue discoloration of the walls.[20] This is grist to her mill for presenting Rudolf's statements as "absurd". Mrs. Bailer-Galanda seems never to have visited the facilities in question herself and thus is not familiar with the site, which does indeed not reveal any blue discoloration in "real life". Further, she seems not to know that it is always a problem in the four-color printing process to reproduce color photos exactly as they are in the original, particularly when the remaining three color photos reproduced on the same page, showing walls with blue discoloration, tempt the printer to "turn up the blue", so that instead of sabotage this is in fact a case of "too much of a good thing".

In any case, this little slip-up in Gauss's book does not demonstrate the absurdity of Revisionist claims, but rather the shallowness of the Exterminationist mode of argumentation.

The way in which Mrs. Bailer-Galanda then philosophizes about the nature of the blue patches in the delousing chambers of Auschwitz does prompt rather a bit of amazement in anyone familiar with the subject:

"The absurdity of this claim [that the blue patches originated with the Zyklon B disinfestation of material objects] becomes apparent when one takes a closer look at the patches there. They are on the outside of the building and only at the surface of the bricks; where pieces of brick have chipped off, the bricks show the usual red tint. The [blue] color uniformly coats a wide range of materials: brick, mortar, even plastered patches and parts of a wooden door frame are coated with blue paint which sometimes even has a paintbrush-like structure. Rudolf's arguments lose steam when he tries to explain why even inside walls that were added later exhibit a blue tint.[227]"

Bailer-Galanda's claim that the blue color "uniformly coats a wide range of materials" is wrong and misleading. The color appears with absolute irregularity, patchy and in a wide range of shades from a pale greenish-blue hue to light, medium and dark blue right down to patches that are such a deep dark blue as to look almost black. And it is precisely the fact that this irregular discoloration also appears in some irregular patches on the outside walls that clearly disproves the theory that the patches are in fact paint. Who would paint an unplastered brick outside wall a patchy blue? Rather, the patchy characteristic shows clearly that soluble cyanide compounds have slowly migrated through the brickwork to the outside surface, where the weathering process converted them to the pigment known as Prussian Blue.[21] Rudolf has already explained in great detail why the delousing chambers in Auschwitz manifest which color and which cyanide content at which place, so that we shall dispense with a repeat here.[22]

Mrs. Bailer-Galanda's claim that the blue discoloration sometimes has a paintbrush-like structure is also incorrect. In fact, the chamber walls had been whitewashed at that time, and it is this layer of whitewash - but never the blue stains themselves! - which has a brushed-on texture, likely caused by the paintbrush that was used for whitewashing. Furthermore, the outside walls show no sign of having ever been painted, yet they bear blue patches nevertheless.

Bailer-Galanda's next sentence about Rudolf's alleged lack of convincing arguments in the face of walls that were added later but are also blue suggests the exact opposite of what Rudolf actually wrote. On pages 88ff. of the Rudolf Report, which Bailer-Galanda cites in her footnote [227] as documentation for her claim, we read:

"As one would expect, the inside walls that were added later to these same rooms, ie. those forming part of the hot-air delousing chambers (cf. Ill. 19, p. 33), do not show any signs of blue discoloration." (p. 88)

In other words, Mrs. Bailer-Galanda has taken Rudolf's findings, namely that the walls added later show no blue discoloration, and twisted them into their opposite in order to support her claim of the absurdity of Rudolf's theory. Or perhaps the section of the Rudolf Report to which she refers is in fact the following:

"The samples taken from the walls that were added when the facilities were renovated to serve as hot-air disinfection chamber should not contain any cyanide residue. Interestingly enough, Sample 10, taken from the inside wall that was added later, also shows noticeable cyanide content [3.6 mg/kg], even though this wall was not added until the facilities were renovated for hot-air disinfection purposes. Sample 21 came from the mortar between the bricks of the wall added later, 1 cm to 5 cm into the brickwork. At this point the brickwork of the inside wall is cracked. For this inside wall as well, chemical analysis returned minimal traces of cyanide [0.3 mg/kg]. This finding may indicate a delousing performed in these rooms after they were renovated for hot-air disinfection purposes - if the very small amounts found even have any significance at all, which the control analyses of other samples would indicate is not the case." (pp. 89f.)

To this quotation we have added [data in brackets] the results of chemical analysis of the samples that were taken from the walls built later. Perhaps Bailer-Galanda mistakenly took the detection of minor traces of cyanide in these added walls to indicate the presence of blue discoloration, even though Rudolf had made this matter perfectly clear. In the above passage Rudolf dispensed with a repeated juxtaposition of the values given in his Table 15 (pp. 84f.), which clearly shows the quantitative incomparability of the results of analyses of samples from walls that were present originally and had been exposed to Zyklon B, and such walls as had been added later. These vast differences show that Mrs. Bailer-Galanda's claim that Rudolf's arguments lack substance is ridiculous:

Results of analyses of samples from original walls: 1,035.0 to 13,500.0 mg/kg

Results of analyses of samples from walls added later: 0.3 to 3.6 mg/kg

Drawing on the results of control analyses, Rudolf has shown that readings indicating only a few milligrams of cyanide per kilogram of material-- quantities which, incidentally, are also detectable in other, entirely neutral buildings-- are so uncertain as to be statistically insignificant.[23] This means that the results of analyses pertaining to the walls added later are not only in no way comparable with those of samples from walls originally present, but that the extremely low values returned by the analyses of samples from the walls added later may be considered as null. Mrs. Bailer-Galanda has now no doubt lost quite a bit of "steam" of her own.

What Mrs. Bailer-Galanda comes up with regarding Walter Lüftl, the former President of the Federal Austrian Chamber of Engineers, is also mostly wrong. In the spring of 1992, Lüftl had announced his doubts as to the technical feasibility of the processes attested to for the mass murder of Auschwitz. After these doubts had reached the public, Lüftl was forced by certain circles to "pack his bags."[24] On page 97 Bailer-Galanda declares Lüftl's criticism of the Jagschitz Report[25] to be unfounded. She writes:

"For example, according to Rademacher Lüftl claims that Jagschitz had incorrectly ranked the SS-physician Dr. Horst Fischer as physician, since Fischer allegedly appears without a medical degree in a listing of the Waffen-SS. Lüftl seems not to have checked closely enough. Fischer is named as SS-physician with a medical degree both in an SS-listing as well as during the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial."

In her corresponding footnote [241], Fischer's particulars are given in the way they also appear in the July 1, 1944 Dienstaltersliste der Waffen-SS which Rademacher had quoted-- but Bailer-Galanda does not cite her source, and adds one difference: while Fischer is in fact listed without a medical degree in the Dienstaltersliste, Bailer-Galanda adds one. She claims to have found the degree in a different list, but neglects to tell us which list that might be. That Fischer did have a medical degree after the War, as Langbein's documentation of the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial indicates[26], may well be so, but does not change the fact that it is Bailer-Galanda, not Lüftl, who provides the incomplete or false information here.

Further, on page 98 Mrs. Bailer-Galanda claims that Lüftl had doubted "the authenticity of an order for '10 gas detectors' from the firm of Topf & Sons... because he thought that this company only sold crematorium ovens and nothing else." In fact, Lüftl precisely did not do this. He considers the order for gas detectors to be perfectly authentic, and also logical, considering the addressee. What he questions is merely the interpretation of the term "gas detector" as being a device to detect hydrocyanic acid residue, i.e. as being circumstantial evidence for mass murder with hydrocyanic acid in the crematoria of Auschwitz, since in the subject literature of that time the term "gas detectors" meant devices for analyzing combustion gas in coke-fired furnaces. Such devices would have been supplied by the company Topf & Sons, but devices for detecting hydrocyanic acid residue would not. The document which Lüftl considers a forgery is in fact a letter from Topf & Sons, confirming the cabled order from the Central Construction Management of Auschwitz, since, first of all, in those days order telegrams three lines in length were not answered with 20-line confirmatory letters, and since, second, this confirmatory letter suddenly and nonsensically turns the "gas detectors" of the order into "indicators of hydrocyanic acid residue."[27]

To support her arguments, Bailer-Galanda quotes Jean-Claude Pressac's new book, which fails to contribute anything to the debate about the authenticity of this "document" for the simple reason that the doubts about its authenticity were not raised until after the first-ever publication of the document, in Pressac's said new book.[28] In other words, Bailer-Galanda alleges that Lüftl claimed things he never did, then proceeds to "refute" this false allegation with the aid of the universal genius Pressac, who says nothing whatsoever about the matter! There is nothing academically sound about this kind of argumentation.

Mrs. Bailer-Galanda's predilection for this kind of approach becomes apparent in yet another chapter, namely in her "proof" that the so-called Lachout Document is a fake (pp. 137-146). Bailer-Galanda begins by stating that Lachout had falsely claimed that the abandonment of preliminary proceedings conducted against him for document forgery had proved the authenticity of the document:

"Instead, Lachout placed a paid advertisement in the official 'Wiener Zeitung' in which he claimed that the Court had 'confirmed the authenticity of these documents', since the trial for document forgery had been abandoned on technical grounds. The Federal Ministry of Justice then stated that of course the Justice Department had given no 'confirmation of authenticity' of the Lachout 'documents'."

In the aforementioned advertisement Lachout had written:

"Since 1987 various books and publications have described LACHOUT documents (Circular of the Military Police Service, No. 31/48 of October 1, 1948, official BKA confirmation of October 18, 1955, Zl. 508.191-1/Pers/55 etc.) as forgeries. A court investigation has confirmed the authenticity of these documents (official attest of May 24, 1994, LGStr. Vienna 26 e Vr 7477/90, prev. 26 b Vr 13108/87 etc.). Allegations of forgery are slander and constitute an indictable offense. Engineer Emil Lachout, Vienna."

So Lachout did not claim that the proceedings against him for document forgery had been abandoned on technical grounds. In fact the trial was abandoned under §109(1) of the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure, which states:

"Preliminary proceedings are to be abandoned by order of the trial Judge if the plaintiff withdraws his request for prosecution, or declares that he sees no grounds for continued prosecution (§112)."

In light of the prosecution mania that drives Austrian public prosecutors no less than German ones when it comes to combating Revisionists, the grounds for abandonment of the proceedings can only lie in a lack of evidence for document forgery. Since one can never prove that a document is genuine, but can only ever determine whether i.e. that it is forged, this abandonment is sufficient proof of the fact that until and unless the opposite is proved, the Lachout Document must be considered genuine.

This also appears to be the view of the Provincial High Court and Court of Appeal of Vienna, which stated in its Reasons for acquitting Mrs. Bailer-Galanda of the charge of slander:

"[...] that this document was used to deny the National Socialist crimes in general, which must be considered to come within the endeavors prohibited by §3 lit.g. Taking steps against such neo-Nazi activities is not only the right, it is the duty of an official whose responsibilities include detecting efforts at reviving Nazi ideology."

In other words, the Court does not speak of an "alleged 'document'" or a forgery, but accepts the document as genuine. What is more, Bailer-Galanda was not acquitted because her allegations of forgery were correct, but because the steps she took lent themselves to combating neo-Nazi activities. Clearly the justice system feels that even unprovable and possibly slanderous claims are permissible as long as they are directed against the proper object. This is how justice is commonly served in Germany as well.

The diligence with which Mrs. Bailer-Galanda devotes herself to document criticism in her chapter is something that one can only wish the historians of the Establishment would also display in the context of "incriminating" documents for a change - for example with respect to the Wannsee Protocol. However, her arguments have one drawback: they are not tenable. Emil Lachout has proved, with an abundance of arguments, documents and references to pertinent literature, that he certainly was an officer at the end of the War, and that a Military Police Service, Allied Commissions of Inquiry, and a Guard Battalion of Vienna did exist. Furthermore, during the trial of Ernst Zündel he submitted an original copy of the Lachout document to the Canadian court.[29]

One of the decisive points, however, is that the content of the Lachout Document, dated October 1, 1948, reflects the historical events of that time. It states:

"1. So far, the Allied Commissions of Inquiry have established that no people were killed by poison gas in the following concentration camps: Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau, Flossenbürg, Gross-Rosen, Mauthausen and its satellite camps, Natzweiler, Neuengamme, Niederhagen (Wewelsburg), Ravensbrück, Sachsenhausen, Stutthof, Theresienstadt.

"In these cases it was proven that confessions had been extracted by tortures and that testimonies were false.

"This must be taken into account when conducting investigations and interrogations with respect to war crimes.

"The result of this investigation should be brought to the cognizance of former concentration camp inmates who at the time of the hearings testified on the murder of people, especially Jews, with poison gas in those concentration camps. Should they insist on their statements, charges are to be brought against them for making false statements."

In fact, no historians today dispute that no-one had ever been gassed in the camps Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau, Flossenbürg, Gross-Rosen, Neuengamme, Niederhagen (Wewelsburg), Ravensbrück, Sachsenhausen, Stutthof or Theresienstadt, and that statements to the contrary are false for a number of reasons. Mauthausen and Natzweiler (and to some degree Dachau) are the only cases where there is still disagreement about whether people were gassed there or not, even though in these cases the fact that many false statements were obtained through torture is also undisputed. As Manfred Köhler has shown in his summary of the trial conditions prevailing in the Allied post-War tribunals, torture of defendants and the systematic procuring of false statements was in fact quite common in those days, which resulted in the Allied Commissions of Inquiry and caused quite a commotion, particularly in the American media.[30] The content of the Lachout Document thus fits the historical context precisely, and the fact that the Exterminationists get so upset about the existence of this document is really quite incomprehensible.[31]

Dr. Bailer's Ignorance of Chemistry

Mrs. Bailer-Galanda's husband, Dr. Josef Bailer, proceeds no less improperly in his chapter "Die 'Revisionisten' und die Chemie" ["'Revisionists' and Chemistry"]. On page 100, referring to the ability of diesel engines to kill people with their exhaust gas, he addresses the question of whether one could let the engine of a diesel-powered passenger car run in a closed garage without endangering one's health:

"Common sense says no. The sign on the garage door says no. The mechanic says no. Accredited engineer Walter Lüftl says yes."

The reader is no doubt impressed by the scientific profundity of this line of argument... Neither common sense nor the sign on the door-- both of which are geared towards the exhaust fumes of gasoline engines, which certainly are poisonous-- constitute a probative answer to the question at hand. We would be very interested to learn which mechanic might have given Dr. Bailer the information specified, but unfortunately he withholds this source. If he should be able to give us a name after all, it would be interesting to find out on what sorts of studies the mechanic based his conclusions. At any rate they cannot be the same as the ones which F. P. Berg used for his analysis, for these agree with Lüftl.[32] To date we have seen no others.

That the matter of rapid and certain death effected through diesel exhaust is so exceedingly important for Holocaust historiography stems from the fact that the eyewitness testimony pertaining to the (actual or alleged) extermination camps Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor tell of one or several diesel engines as having been the murder weapon. The engineer Fritz Berg in particular has proven repeatedly that a diesel engine is not suitable as a means for mass murder, which of course is a confounded nuisance for Dr. Bailer.

Dr. Bailer continues (pp. 100f.):

"Lüftl postulates a reasonable average concentration of 0.1% [carbon monoxide, CO]. This quantity is not fatal within half an hour, at least not in every case, but neither is it harmless. 30% Hb•CO[33] in the blood represents a moderately severe case of poisoning [249] which is marked by disturbances of consciousness and by the danger of permanent damage and delayed consequences, and which does not result only in a slight headache and dizziness, as Lüftl trivializes it."

In footnote [249] we read:

"eg.: Dietrich Henschler, 'Wichtige Gifte und Vergiftungen', in: Wolfgang Forth, Dietrich Henschler, Walter Rummel (eds.), Allgemeine und spezielle Pharmakologie, Mannheim/Vienna/Zurich, 1977, pp. 579f. The value '30% Hb•CO' is Lüftl's own data and may be accepted as a crude guideline."

In the book cited by Dr. Bailer we read:[34]

"Even the relatively high concentration of 0.1% CO by volume effects only about 30% Hb•CO in 1 hour, and the fatal concentration is attained in 5 hours."

In his article[35] Lüftl wrote:

"At 2000 rpm, diesel engines from the type of automobile specified put out exhaust gas of roughly the following composition: 16% O2, 3.5% CO2, 0.1% NO2, 77% N2, 3.5% H2O and 0.1% CO. Given 2000 rpm and a cubic capacity of 3000 cm2, the entire air volume in the garage will have passed once through the engine in 30 minutes. With that, the air, which contained about 21% O2 and some 79% N2 before, is now roughly equal in composition to the above. [...]

"At 16%, the oxygen content is greater than that of exhaled air, which contains only 15% oxygen. Since unconscious people can be safely given artificial respiration mouth-to-mouth, ie. with exhaled air, the reduced oxygen content does not pose any danger.

"The CO content is 0.1%. This concentration would not result in death until after 5-6 hours' exposure. Theoretically, half-an-hour's exposure (allowing for about 30% Hb•CO) causes headache and dizziness, but in practical terms, due to the initial concentration being zero, it causes only a slight headache."

Clearly Lüftl, in writing his article, referred to the source excerpted above, but incorrectly applied the value of 30% Hb•CO after one hour to his own half hour, while correctly citing "headache and dizziness" from the corresponding table in this source in setting out the effects of half-an-hour's exposure to 0.1% CO. To be correct, Lüftl would have had to cite a concentration of 15-20% Hb•CO in brackets. From the accompanying illustration provided by the toxicologists it is clear that a concentration of 0.1% CO by volume for half (!) an hour indeed results in nothing more than "headache and dizziness," since the Hb•CO content is still well below 30%. Further, Lüftl stated correctly that the assumption that a diesel engine running in idle produces 0.1% CO was absolutely on the safe side, since as a rule an idling diesel engine in fact produces far less CO.

Dr. Bailer has falsified two issues here. First, Lüftl did not speak of 0.1% as a "reasonable average concentration," but as an extreme value at the end of the gassing under the most unfavorable conditions possible. Given a CO content of 0.1% in the exhaust, the average concentration would in fact be 0.05% CO, and even less given the realistic concentrations of 0.05% to 0.08% CO in the exhaust gas generated in idle.[36] Second, according to the toxicologists cited above, a half-hour's exposure to 0.1% CO does not produce a concentration of 30% Hb•CO, as Dr. Bailer would suggest in his footnote [249] by reference to the toxicology book, but in fact produces only about 15%.[37] It does Dr. Bailer no good to exploit the value that Lüftl had mistakenly put in brackets; this value is no "crude guideline", it is a crude error. If Dr. Bailer presumes to correct Lüftl's faulty (as he would have it) statements by contrasting them with those of the toxicology experts, then he cannot in all decency take advantage of the only mistake Lüftl actually made, which was to cite a grossly inflated Hb•CO concentration in brackets, and use this incorrect value to support his own opposing theory. The only correction which Lüftl's statements require in fact confirms his theory! Dr. Bailer here misleads his readers in full awareness of what he is doing.

Dr. Bailer also tries by means of false claims to put a wrong complexion on the chapter by Friedrich Paul Berg. On page 105 he writes:

"For example, a chapter by Friedrich Paul Berg discussing the mass murder with engine exhaust gas-- the chapter is also contained in the abovementioned publication--completely misjudges the action and effects of carbon monoxide and forcibly turns the precepts of toxicology upside down.[259]"

Footnote [259] then states:

"Friedrich Paul Berg, 'Die Diesel-Gaskammern: Mythos im Mythos', in: Gauss (ed.), pp. 325ff. Even though Berg quotes modern toxicology handbooks elsewhere, to assess the toxicity of carbon monoxide he refers to poison indexes from the 1920s and 1940s which were intended to prevent danger posed by engine exhaust gas in tunnels and mines. He extrapolates the low values given there into toxicologically relevant ranges and thus arrives at correspondingly uncertain data which, moreover, contradict data given in modern works on toxicology."

Dr. Bailer does not reveal which data in which works on toxicology allegedly contradict Berg's extrapolations. Therefore we shall take a closer look at Berg's chapter, and compare his information with that given in toxicological reference works. In his chapter F. P. Berg cites various sources for the effects of different concentrations of CO on human health. In his Table 2, which falls back on a source from 1943[38], he states:

"0.15-0.20% CO by vol.

dangerous concentration after 1 hour exposure

0.4 and more

fatal in less than 1 hour."

Therefore, in order to kill or to attain a dangerous concentration of CO in less than half an hour, the double concentration is required in each case. In Graph 1 he then shows a complex diagram giving the effects on man of various concentrations of CO after a given time, based on a publication from 1970. He has extrapolated the values in the toxicologically relevant range (>0.06%). For 30 and 60 minutes' exposure this indicates the effects reproduced in Table 1.

Table 1: Effects on Health

CO, % by vol.

after 30 mins. exposure

after 60 mins. exposure



none to slight headache


slight headache

slight to severe headache


slight to severe headache

btw. severe headache, vomiting and collapse


btw. severe headache, vomiting and collapse

deep coma


circulatory collapse, unconsciousness



deep coma to death





Subsequently, Berg assumes a minimum concentration of 0.4% as required to kill in half an hour. As we have already quoted, the toxicological handbook by Wolfgang Forth cited by Dr. Bailer shows that one hour's exposure to 0.1% CO results in about 30% Hb•CO in the blood. Table 7 in this handbook [39] describes the effects of 30% Hb•CO as follows:

"20 - 30%

dizziness, diminished consciousness, slackness and paralysis of limbs

30 - 40%

pink skin, unconsciousness, respiration shallow, circulatory collapse."

For the concentration of 30% Hb•CO, falling between the two ranges, one would thus expect the more severe consequences of the first range and the lesser of the second, in other words, a diminishment of consciousness and even unconsciousness. This corresponds precisely to what Friedrich Paul Berg stated in his Graph 1, where the concentration in question also falls between the two ranges (severe headache and vomiting / collapse).

If Wolfgang Forth indicate that death is to be expected after five hours' exposure to 0.1% CO, this means that to reduce the time in which death occurs to one-fifth of this time, ie. to within one hour, the five-fold concentration of CO is necessary: 0.5%. The critical threshold which Friedrich Paul Berg gives -- >0.4% CO for less than one hour's exposure -- is thus completely in agreement with today's toxicological findings.

The bottom line of this is that what Dr. Bailer alleges against Fritz Berg is untrue in every respect: Berg uses not only old but also current sources for his extrapolations which, furthermore, agree entirely with the toxicological reference works of our time. So the only one who turns the toxicology of carbon monoxide upside-down is Dr. Bailer himself. This fact becomes even more apparent in other passages, where Dr. Bailer states with respect to the different effects of different concentrations of CO:

"However, these values hold true only for healthy, well-fed people at rest. Even slight exertion would halve the chances for survival, and hard labor would reduce them to a quarter at best." (p. 101)

Dr. Bailer follows up on this passage by suggesting that panic has the same effects as hard labor and that exhaustion, the flu or anemia also serve to decrease the chances for survival.

First of all, a look at Illustration 9 in the book by Forth would have shown that moderately hard work in the presence of 0.1% for half an hour would have increased the Hb•CO content of the blood to about 27%, and hard labor to about 36%, instead of approximately 17% as for a person at rest. This means that even with hard labor a serious danger to health would not have occurred until after approximately 4 hours, i.e. a less-than-healthy person's chances for survival would have been halved, not reduced to a quarter as Dr. Bailer claims.

Further, he suggests that "a Russian wartime tank, possibly still running on Polish pre-War diesel," would have produced "not 0.1% carbon monoxide, but many times as much" (p. 101), so that the National Socialist gas chamber murders of "hungry, exhausted and panicking" people would in fact have worked (p. 107). He speculates impressively but fails to document: did the Russian diesel engines have worse exhaust gas characteristics than those on which Walter Lüftl or F. P. Berg based their work?[40] Did using Polish diesel fuel result in higher concentrations of CO in the exhaust gas?[41] Do exhausted people really die more rapidly?[42]

In this context it is interesting that Dr. Bailer claims that, according to a report by Kurt Gerstein, the people had "waited in panic for almost three hours in the gas chambers [of the concentration camp Belzec]" (p. 106). Gerstein, however, said nothing about panic; he said that the people had simply waited. They obviously were even calm enough that families managed to gather together in the chambers and stayed in groups, holding hands, until death.[43] In other words, Bailer is improvising in order to lend at least a touch of realism to his unfounded speculations.

What the National Socialists (actually or allegedly) wanted to achieve with their carbon monoxide gas chambers is called by toxicologists the "LD100", the lethal dose for killing 100% of the victims. The concrete implications of this can be seen from the statistical analysis of a study of 100 deaths caused by carbon monoxide poisoning. Table 2 shows the Hb•CO-levels of carbon monoxide victims from the 1950s.

Table 2: Hemoglobin-Carbon Monoxide Level of CO-Victims[44]

Age of Victims [years]

Hb·CO [%]






















































In the literature of toxicology, 60% Hb•CO is generally cited as the fatal level. According to Table 2, more than 1/4 of all people would be dead at this concentration. Almost another 50% die at levels up to 70% Hb•CO, and the last quarter not until the concentration has increased up to 80% Hb•CO. So if one wanted to build an effective CO execution gas chamber which, in keeping with eyewitness testimony, kills everyone concerned - even the young, healthy people with good nerves-- then this chamber would have to reliably induce a Hb•CO-level of 80%. An average CO content of 0.4% by volume in the gas chamber air would be the absolute minimum required. But since, in a gassing scenario, the CO level would in fact only rise gradually as the room became filled with the exhaust gas,[45] the exhaust would need to contain at least 0.8% CO by volume. We shall see in the following whether this level can be provided by a diesel engine. Table 3 shows the highest-ever known CO output of a diesel engine, for various load ranges. Since the oxygen content of the exhaust decreases as the load increases, this must also be considered to reflect that a halved concentration of oxygen at a constant level of CO has the same physiological effect as a doubled concentration of CO at a normal oxygen level. The relationship between the O2 content of the exhaust and the normal oxygen content of the air (21%) thus produces the factor FO2 which must be multiplied by the CO content to obtain the CO content that would have the same effect (COeff) at 21% O2 content.

Table 3: Effective CO-Content of Diesel Exhaust[46]

Load range

Air : fuel ratio

O2 -content

COmax-content [%]


COeff [%] at 21% O2

Full load











Heavy load











Partial Load











Light Load












It is thus clear that the desired, high, effective concentration of CO that guarantees the death of all the victims can only be achieved in the full load range.[47] But a 550hp tank diesel engine such as eyewitness testimony alleges was used for the executions cannot be operated at full load without expensive auxiliary equipment. Also, any reduction of the air supply to artificially lower the air-fuel ratio is limited to the point at which the insufficient oxygen supply interferes with the firing of the engine. And even in this extreme range, testing on animals showed that it took 3 hours and 20 minutes to kill 40 mice, 4 rabbits and 10 guinea pigs and that the concentration of CO in the chamber could not be increased beyond the 0.22% level.[48]

In his study of the problem, Dr. Bailer does exactly the opposite of what is required to determine the LD100 value: he sketches the effects of a diesel gassing on the weakest conceivable victim, ie. one that already dies at 30% Hb•CO, which corresponds to an LD1, the lethal dose for 1% of a target group, and he then projects this onto the whole of all possible victims. A toxicologist can only shake his head in astonishment.

Friedrich Paul Berg, for example, has never denied that in principle a diesel engine is able to kill people. However, it is obviously a very unreliable method as well as being very costly and time-consuming, so that anyone with a whit of reason and common sense would have taken a different approach. For example, there would have been the tried and proven method of euthanasia, where CO in pressure cylinders had been used between 1939 and 1941. It would also have been an obvious thing to use city gas, which was still being produced in great quantities in those days. In any case, however, if it simply had to be engines that were used for killing, then gasoline engines would have been the logical choice instead. And all of this is entirely apart from the fact that at this time the National Socialists had at their disposal the wood-gas generators, which were an extremely cheap, simple, maintenance-free, effective source of poison gas, common and widespread-- i.e. also known to Hitler and the SS and Wehrmacht leaders-- and available everywhere and at all times, for killing purposes too, if only someone had wanted. But of course Dr. Bailer carefully skirts Friedrich Paul Berg's overview of the problems of "gassing with carbon monoxide" because otherwise his arguments would be pretty dead in the water.

Dr. Bailer is no less ignorant and high-handed in his treatment of the chemical arguments set out in the Rudolf Report. One notices first of all that in his critique of Rudolf Dr. Bailer dispenses with any reference to subject literature of his own. In other words: he backs up none of his claims and criticism. Nevertheless we shall do Dr. Bailer the honor of dealing with his perambulations.

On page 112 Dr. Bailer claims that the walls of the Birkenau delousing chamber show not only blue, but also yellow and red patches. This is quite a newsflash. He does not reveal where these patches might be; perhaps he could show us some color photos of them?

On pages 113f. Dr. Bailer becomes rather confused:

"But he [Rudolf] fails to notice that he then does not proceed to prove that hydrogen cyanide was ever used-- he only proves that a soaking wet wall was exposed to gas, because regardless of however the hexacyanoferrate may continue to react, the decisive factor is the water content of the wall, not the quantity of hydrocyanic acid."

In his Report, Rudolf showed, with documentation from relevant subject literature, that a wall's ability to adsorb hydrogen cyanide in the presence of a constant concentration of hydrogen cyanide in the air is proportional to the moisture content of the wall. He never said that only soaking-wet walls would absorb hydrogen cyanide and convert it to stable compounds, as Bailer smugly implies. But what Dr. Bailer holds back at this point is the fact that it was precisely the (actual or alleged) execution gas chambers of Crematoria II and III, in contrast to the delousing chambers, which were soaking wet and thus virtually predestined to produce Prussian Blue in their walls - so that Dr. Bailer's statements should make one think that what he suggests is that Prussian Blue would have to have formed in the execution gas chambers. Since this will not in fact be the case, it once again proves that Dr. Bailer either has no understanding of this subject or else deliberately tries to mislead the reader.

Aside from the fact that a high moisture content promotes the conversion of the hydrocyanic acid adsorbed by a wall to stable compounds (hexacyanoferrates), Rudolf shows on the basis of various sources from the subject literature than an excess of hydrocyanic acid in the brickwork promotes the conversion of the hexacyanoferrates to the extremely stable compound Prussian Blue.[49] In light of these findings, how Dr. Bailer can say that it is solely the wall's water content that determines the further reaction of the hexacyanoferrate ("however" this reaction may proceed) is a mystery. And he does not even try to solve it for us, he does not offer any documentation to back his claims but seems to expect us to accept them as axioms.

The next sections on page 114 show that Dr. Bailer's grasp of chemistry is none too good:

"Normal chemical common sense would predict that the hexacyanoferrate (III) in the wall will end not with a bang, but a whimper. Just as the compound from the hydroxide was formed by the step-by-step replacement of the OH- groups, the CN- groups are replaced one by one with other groups available in the wall, until at last what is formed is again Fe(OH)3 and, when the wall dries out, Fe2O3.[291]

"Rudolf, on the other hand, believes that in the presence of cyanide the iron (III) would reduce to iron (II) without any further help, thus preparing the way for the formation of Prussian Blue. Yet many a chemistry student has already mixed iron (III) and cyanide in a test tube; in shaking up the mixture, he may have produced all sorts of prussiates [hexacyanoferric acid salts], but he will have waited in vain for Prussian Blue to form."

First of all Dr. Bailer's ideas about the chemical processes in construction materials are incorrect. Fe(OH)3 cannot be converted to Fe2O3 just like that, merely by air-drying the wall, as Dr. Bailer claims. Rather, the iron (III) is present in the brick, which is still high in moisture even in an air-dried state, in the form of various mixed oxides that are roughly characterized by the formula.

This is not a triviality, since the iron (III) is considerably more reactive in this form than if it were bound as Fe2O3 (ie. haematite). Converting the ferric oxide-hydroxide-hydrates in construction materials to Fe2O3 requires more than drying at room temperature - for example a firing process such as that used in the manufacture of bricks.

In his next passage Dr. Bailer again impresses his readers immensely with his profound and scientifically sound line of argument. To prove his allegation of the incorrectness of Rudolf's statement that hexacyanoferrate (III) allowed for the formation of Prussian Blue in the presence of excess cyanide, he cites his undocumented, test-tube-shaking students. He suppresses the fact that Rudolf can support his claim with many and varied references to subject literature which attest to precisely this process. Said process, however, does not take place in the few minutes after which the none-too-probative chemistry students will no doubt have grown tired of shaking their test tubes; rather, it takes several hours to days. But the matter becomes downright mortifying when Dr. Bailer writes in his footnote [291]:

"Prussian Blue can also form in places which are damp and contain iron (II). This may be the case, for example, in the immediate vicinity of rusty water pipes. As example of the formation of blue patches as consequence of a fumigation with Zyklon, Ernst Gauss mentions an instance of construction damage in a church: Ernst Gauss, 'Holzschutz durch Blausäure-Begasung', in: Gauss (ed.), pp. 401ff."

Precisely this instance of construction damage, discovered by Rudolf, proves irrefutably that blue discoloration on walls is already made possible by even one single fumigation of the bricks, without the presence of iron (II) and over a space of a few months![50] Or is Dr. Bailer suggesting that the walls of this medieval church were gridworked with iron water pipes? Obviously the "chemical common sense" with which Dr. Bailer seeks to refute Rudolf's report does not suffice to do justice to a complex subject.

In his footnote Bailer then adds that Gauss, too, is obviously of the opinion that the formation of blue patches after fumigation is more the exception than the rule. If this were not so, he suggests, then there would be no need for the current debate, since the lack of blue patches in the (actual or alleged) execution gas chambers would then make the situation quite clear. Bailer's conclusion, that the absence of blue patches therefore does not prove that a room was not fumigated, may be correct. But the onus is not on us to disprove the alleged crime. It is up to Dr. Bailer and his cronies to prove the alleged crime if it is to be accepted as fact. And a wall without noticeable cyanide residue simply does not yield any proof of fumigation with hydrogen cyanide!

It is important to realize that, to date, the Second World War has been the only time where Zyklon B was ever used repeatedly and massively in the same facilities. Delousing was a necessary procedure everywhere, both before and after the War, but individual facilities were fumigated only sporadically, at intervals of perhaps several years. To find any Prussian Blue here does require unusual circumstances, as were the case in the example of building damage cited by Gauss and Rudolf. Continuous use of Zyklon B in the same delousing rooms, and over the space of years, was only ever the case during the Second World War, in the prisoner-of-war and concentration camps. Only very few of these facilities are still available for examination today. There is nothing at all left of the German prisoner-of-war camps, and most of the German concentration camps were also levelled entirely or at least to a large extent. Thus, Dr. Bailer's statement that modern-day civilian fumigations using Zyklon B hardly ever leave traces has no relevance to the massive application of those days, whether for the undisputed fumigations of material objects or the alleged gassings of humans.

So it is not so easy to determine what is ultimately the truth about the (actual or alleged) gas chambers of Auschwitz, which exhibit neither patchy-blue discoloration nor noticeable cyanide residue. It was precisely Rudolf's aim to draw some solid conclusions about this! The mistaken conclusion, that the absence of blue patches and of noticeable cyanide residue automatically meant that the facilities in question had never been used to gas human beings, was Leuchter's error, not Rudolf's. Rudolf's concern is precisely to correct this error, so that Dr. Bailer's objections are actually beside the point.

That it is in fact Dr. Bailer's wish to mislead his readers is shown by the following excerpt from page 114:

"Rudolf himself exposed a brick to massive quantities of hydrocyanic acid gas and - quote: 'The results of analysis are surprising in that they appear to present a paradox' - no blue discoloration was obtained, and no Prussian Blue was found."

Dr. Bailer then charges that even the results of chemical analysis fail to convince Rudolf to give up his preconceived notion that fumigations must produce Prussian Blue. However, the corresponding section of Rudolf's report does not even deal with the formation of blue discoloration or of Prussian Blue at all! Dr. Bailer's above quotation is a prime example of how an actual statement can be distorted by taking parts of sentences out of their proper context. Rudolf actually wrote:

"The results of analysis of the brick samples (Table 15, p. 84, Samples 25 and 26) are surprising in that they appear to present a paradox: unlike the non-fumigated sample, the fumigated sample contains no traces of cyanide." (p. 92)

What had happened? Rudolf had taken a brick sample from a dilapidated Bavarian farmhouse prior to a fumigation of the same, and took a similar sample afterwards. Whereas the brick sample that had been taken prior to the fumigation was reproducibly shown to contain a cyanide level of just under 10 mg/kg, the fumigated sample showed no cyanide content at all. Rudolf's comment that the results appeared paradoxical thus did not refer to his not having found any fresh cyanides, as Dr. Bailer implies, but rather to the fact that the cyanides present before had apparently disappeared during fumigation, which is difficult to explain. Rudolf did offer an explanation elsewhere, in the book Vorlesungen über Zeitgeschichte,[51] where he speculates that perhaps the institute performing the analysis had not cleaned its sample mill well enough before homogenizing the samples, thus allowing for contamination with cyanide residue from previous grindings. Since this thoroughly plausible explanation cannot be proven, Rudolf did not include it in his report in order to prevent potential legal conflict with the analytical lab. In his footnote [294], pages 114f., Dr. Bailer sneers that Rudolf had expunged this passage in his contribution to Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte, but this deletion was the effect of space constraints which necessitated the shortening of the original report to about one-quarter of its initial length for book publication.

What Dr. Bailer also withholds is Rudolf's no less plausible explanation of why intact bricks are not suited to the formation of stable cyanide compounds and why analytical results showing extremely low cyanide levels are thus not at all surprising: the sintering process in firing the bricks transforms the ferric oxides into chemically and physically all but inert modifications.[52] It takes aggressive environmental processes working on the brick's surface to reactivate the iron.[53]

Dr. Bailer also withholds the fact that Rudolf's one-time fumigation of plaster and mortar samples certainly did result in noticeable cyanide residue,[54] since the iron in these materials is in a chemically and physically reactive form.[55] That the noticeable traces of cyanide found therein did not result in blue discoloration after test fumigation can surprise only a layperson, for the small amounts of cyanide (0.01% and less of the total sample material), distributed evenly throughout the mortar, would not overwhelm the gray base color even if they were entirely in the form of Prussian Blue.[56]

Subsequent to these false allegations against Rudolf, Dr. Bailer once again drags in his old theory that the blue patches in the delousing chambers of Auschwitz stem from wall paint (p. 115).[57] This paint, he says, was later coated over with white paint and is only now gradually coming through the white. Even though Rudolf has repeatedly disproved this theory[58], Dr. Bailer does not devote so much as a single word to these arguments, preferring instead to do as the allegorical three monkeys do. Since it would be just as effective to talk to a wall, we shall not repeat Rudolf's arguments here. The interested reader is referred to the publications mentioned. Instead, we shall add a few new thoughts of our own.

On p. 112 Dr. Bailer writes:

"On the other hand, a room that was intended for the regular use of Zyklon-- a delousing chamber-- will at least have received a somewhat gas-proof paint job, so that the poison gas could not have penetrated deeper into the wall. A gas-proof and washable finish to the walls of a delousing chamber makes working in it considerably cleaner, safer and more economic. It would be most unprofessional to do without such measures in a fumigation room. [...[59]]

"The poor quality of outfitting of these rooms is also partly responsible for the presence of residue. The SS at Auschwitz was obviously ignorant enough to operate even the delousing facilities for material objects in an unsafe, unclean and uneconomic fashion, in violation of the guidelines in force in those days."

Dr. Bailer is quite correct here: in Birkenau the SS thoughtlessly built some buildings as quickly and cheaply as possible, intending to use some rooms in them for delousing purposes. In contrast to this we have, for example, the delousing chambers in the concentration camp Dachau, which all have a solid, sealing, protective wall coating.

According to Dr. Bailer's theory the walls of the Birkenau delousing chambers received a non-white (ie. Prussian blue) porous paint job rather than the protective seal that was the norm. Why should the SS, in their hurry and their wish to keep costs to a minimum, do such a thing? All the walls in the brick buildings of the camp are merely whitewashed. And only for the delousing rooms of Hygiene Buildings 5a and 5b, where no-one could admire the paint job and where it served absolutely no purpose-- only for these rooms, the SS bought Prussian Blue paint?

Incidentally, the situation is similar in the concentration camp Majdanek, which Dr. Bailer carefully avoids mentioning. Some buildings there are still in their original condition, and some of their rooms are said to have served as execution gas chambers. In some of them the killing was allegedly done with Zyklon B. On the original building plans these rooms are identified as delousing rooms. They too are merely whitewashed, thus being "unsafe, unclean and uneconomic" to operate. Here, too, the walls and ceiling exhibit those blue patches which we are already familiar with from the delousing chambers of Auschwitz.[60] Just like in the delousing chambers of Auschwitz, these blue patches stem from delousings, not from the gassing of human beings, of which none were ever alleged for Majdanek. The mere fact that the original doors of these (actual or alleged) execution gas chambers all open inward makes the rooms useless for execution purposes, as the hypothetical victims inside could not have been removed, since suffocating persons tend to crowd towards the doors and, in doing so, block them with their bodies when they die.

Aside from Auschwitz and the example of construction damage mentioned earlier, therefore, we now have a third instance of patchy blue walls subsequent to Zyklon B use. It seems as though the exception is becoming the rule. And if this is not enough, a recent survey of subject literature[61] has shown that there have been plenty of reports of walls turning blue after rooms with damp plaster high in iron content were fumigated with hydrocyanic acid.

How does Dr. Bailer explain these patches in Majdanek? Are they also caused by a blue paint-job that was later covered up with white paint and is now slowly beginning to show through? In other words, was a room which he believes to have been used to gas human beings painted blue here, while all the other facilities in the Majdanek concentration camp remained white? Was the sporadic blue painting of delousing or execution gas chambers part of the black (or blue?) magic of the National Socialists, or can Dr. Bailer think of a better reason to paint only these rooms blue?

And how does Dr. Bailer explain that the cyanide residue in the delousing chambers of Auschwitz-Birkenau are also present in the deepest layers of the walls? Was all the mortar laced with cyanide compounds when these buildings were built? Or does Dr. Bailer expect us to believe that these compounds migrated into the deeper layers of the mortar after the fact, even though dampness rising up the walls from the ground water is only ever able to transport soluble salts to the outer layers of the wall, never inward? Or, to put it more graphically: does water flow uphill for Dr. Bailer?

How about Dr. Bailer at least trying to prove his theory by exposing the layer of blue paint which he postulates is underneath the more recent, white surface layer? Doing so would, of course, be the end of his theory, for there is no older, covered-up paint to be found.

A few pages further on (p. 117), Dr. Bailer falls victim to his own obsession with this blue paint. He calculates the mean of the cyanide levels that Rudolf found in the delousing chambers as 5,090 mg/kg. Of course, such a calculation would make sense only if the walls of the delousing chambers actually had been covered with a more or less uniform coating of paint and if one could therefore expect somewhat uniform values. Since Rudolf found levels varying by a factor of ten (roughly between 1,000 and 13,000 mg/kg), Dr. Bailer concludes:

"The standard deviation is 4,100 mg/kg, in other words, Rudolf ought to give the hydrogen cyanide content of the walls as 5,100 ± 4,100 mg/kg - and it's rather disgraceful when the range of the data is inexplicably almost as great as the reading itself. A statistical certainty of at least three standard deviations is usually required for court expert reports. This means that a level of Prussian Blue in the range from 0.0 to 17,400 mg/kg does not differ (with the degree of significance required for court expert reports) from the values Rudolf measured in the delousing chambers for material objects. And with that, the entire report collapses, for not a single measured level is outside this range. This statistical approach is not a matter of nitpicking-- it is proof that the samples are not uniform. From this it follows that either there are other causes for the occurrence of the Prussian Blue which must be investigated first, or the samples were poorly taken. In either case the significance of the analyses is null. This was to be expected, since the Prussian Blue does not come from the poison gas."

Rudolf never claimed that his samples were uniform. On the contrary, he states clearly that he took samples from very different locations with expectedly different tendencies to form Prussian Blue, precisely in order to study the dependence of the formation of Prussian Blue on the conditions given in each case, ie. to understand which conditions effect which results.[62] Dr. Bailer's calculation of means and standard deviations indeed make sense only for cases where similar samples were taken and analyzed, such as different water samples from a stream at the same location and time-- or, to stay with our topic, the taking of one brick sample and its division into several sub-samples for individual analysis. Dr. Bailer's theory of the blue paint would also result in more or less consistent cyanide values, provided that the paint had been applied uniformly and had uniformly survived the time up to the present. In the case of a fumigation, however, there are so many different factors that may influence the cyanide content of a wall[63] that it simply makes no sense to lump together, into one statistical pot, two samples taken from completely different locations or even from different buildings. The wide range of the results of the chemical results which is 'inexplicable' to Dr. Bailer is thus anything but inexplicable if one looks for the cause of the formation of the residue in Zyklon B fumigations. The fluctuations would admittedly be inexplicable if one postulates that the cyanides stem from a uniform application of paint. In this respect it is precisely the wide fluctuations of the readings which refute Dr. Bailer's theory of the cyanide's paint origin.

Dr. Bailer's statistical exhibitionism is thus nothing more than dealing from the bottom of the deck. A layperson inexperienced in statistical questions may be taken in by this sleight of hand. For a scientist, however, it is enough to curl one's hair, to see the brazen intentions that must be behind Dr. Bailer's transparent maneuver!

The embarrassment deepens even further on that same page, where Dr. Bailer writes:

"About 5 g/kg in a wall is an unbelievably high level of residue from pesticide. To judge from this, the walls, the floor and the false ceilings which Rudolf postulates, would have to contain a total of about 1.5 tons of Prussian Blue. Even[64] if one assumes a 10% deposition rate, which is a very high proportion for reactions of this kind, it would have taken about 10 tons of pure hydrocyanic acid for 1.5 tons of Prussian Blue to form in the manner suggested by Rudolf, which corresponds to 30-40 tons of Zyklon. To form such quantities of Prussian Blue as Germar Rudolf and Fred Leuchter found, 40 tons would have had to deposit uselessly in the walls of these delousing facilities alone. This is absurd. 40 tons is the order of magnitude that the camp used in the entire time of its operation, and there were other delousing facilities there as well. The results from even just the control samples prove that the analyses are entirely worthless and that the Prussian Blue cannot originate with the Zyklon."

Since it is quite nonsensical, as shown in the previous, to calculate a mean value for the results of Rudolf's analyses (for such a calculation to have any meaning at all, one would have to take perhaps several hundred samples from all layers of the entire brick structure), it is already very risky to postulate 5 g/kg as such a mean value. But let us accept this value for the moment. Dr. Bailer is speaking of the delousing rooms of Buildings 5a and 5b in Birkenau, with walls measuring 11m in length, 13m in breadth, 3m in height, and 15cm thickness. There was no false ceiling such as Rudolf speculated on in the first draft of his Report. Together with a floor of similar thickness, one arrives at just over 43m3 of brickwork which, given a density of about 1.6 g/cm3, weights just under 69 tons. 1% of this, for the cyanide content, are 690 kg, about 1.25 tons of hydrocyanic acid, i.e. a little less (due to the missing ceiling) than the quantity which Dr. Bailer states might be expected in the brickwork according to Rudolf's theory. What Dr. Bailer suppresses, however, is the fact, ascertained by Rudolf, that intact bricks do not absorb hydrocyanic acid and to this day contain cyanides only in their outer layers which are exposed to weathering.[65] In other words, the remainder of the whole bricks in the brickwork there are all but cyanide-free. Since Rudolf took hardly any brick samples for this very reason, the mean value given by Dr. Bailer reflects that of the mortar and plaster which comprise at most 20% of the overall mass of the brickwork. And with that, a maximum of 140 kg remains of the above 690 kg cyanide, and it is only these 140 kg which, according to Rudolf, one might expect to find in the walls there.

The 10% deposition rate of hydrocyanic acid which Dr. Bailer considers to be a very high rate for the conversion into stable compounds in the brickwork is by no means unrealistic. In his test fumigations, Rudolf found that of the total hydrocyanic acid he had used, almost exactly 10% remained in his sample materials - after several months of storage under dry, warm conditions! [66]

Then Dr. Bailer commits a decisive error. The 10 tons of pure hydrocyanic acid which he deems necessary, given the 10% deposition rate (and which our calculations have already reduced to 1.4 tons), Dr. Bailer equates with 30 to 40 tons of Zyklon B - with the total quantity that was delivered to the Auschwitz camp. Evidently he does not know that the quantity specified in Zyklon B deliveries always did and still does refer to the pure hydrocyanic acid content.[67] In other words, the 40 tons of Zyklon B which the Auschwitz camp received refer to 40 tons of pure hydrocyanic acid. The 2 x 140 kg of cyanide which, according to Rudolf's theory, may be found today in the two delousing buildings thus correspond to just over half a percent of the total quantity that was supplied to the camp. Since these two buildings were the main site of Zyklon B use, compared with the many other smaller facilities in the camp, this shows that Rudolf's theory is anything but unfounded.

The only thing Bailer's theories prove is that even PhDs in chemistry are capable of naïve fallacies.

Polemics and Nothing But: Wolfgang Neugebauer

A particularly unacademic kind of treatment of opposing theories is that displayed by Wolfgang Neugebauer in his chapter "'Revisionistische' Manipulationen der Zahl der Holocaustopfer" ["'Revisionist' Manipulations of the Number of Holocaust Victims"]. On pp. 149f. he attacks Rudolf's comparison (published in the book Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte [68]) of two demographic studies of the numbers of Jewish casualties under the National Socialist regime, but he specifies neither where Rudolf's statements are to be found, nor of what nature they are. Neugebauer writes:

"And finally, Germar Rudolf - an accredited chemist whom the 'Revisionist' scene has evidently promoted from expert on technical matters to historian and Holocaust statistician - has come up with the figure of '300,000 victims', the latest installment of the 'Revisionist' practice of juggling with figures."

First of all, Germar Rudolf compared and contrasted two demographic works in his chapter and did not conduct any statistical studies of his own, so that the allegation that he made claims on matters in which he has no competence is beside the point. Besides, one might wonder with what right the researcher in anti-Semitism, Wolfgang Benz, whose book Rudolf critiques[69] - and, along with him, a goodly number of co-authors - presume to publish an anthology about demographic issues even though they themselves also lack qualifications in this area. Furthermore, the claim that Rudolf had "come up with the figure of 300,000 victims" is just simply not true, for Rudolf does not commit himself to any specific number. In his chapter[70] we read:

"Like Benz, Sanning commits the error of placing too much faith in those statistics which are available. In actual fact, the fluctuations in the data preclude any definite answer to the question of how many hundreds of thousands of Jews lost their lives in the German sphere of influence. These figures are lost in the fluctuations characterizing the statistical material."

Just like Benz[71], Neugebauer describes Sanning's arguments[72] as "speculations and manipulations," but he fails to document this allegation despite Rudolf's challenge to this effect.[73] Further, Neugebauer alleges that Rudolf turned "2.89 million Jewish victims" (which Benz claims for the territory of the USSR) into "15,000 missing persons," which is also not true because while Rudolf does cite this figure from Sanning's book[74] in a table compiled by himself, he does not arrive at any statistics of his own regarding Jewish losses in the territory of the former USSR, since he feels that the statistical data originating with the USSR i.e. Russia are extremely inadequate. Regarding the number of Jews who survived the Second World War on Soviet soil, the data fluctuated by several million (!). In any case, Rudolf says, the realistic figure was significantly greater than that given by Benz[75], so that Rudolf felt justified in reducing Benz's number of victims by at least 1.5 million.[76] This would turn 2.89 million victims into 1.39 million victims, not into 15,000 missing persons, as Neugebauer claims.

Neugebauer's allegation that one section of Rudolf's chapter about the exodus of the Jews from Europe "suggests that the 'missing persons' turned up after 1945 in Palestine/Israel and other countries" is also nothing more than distractionist fireworks, since Rudolf simply points out that no refutation of Sanning's arguments regarding the world-wide Jewish population shifts appears to be possible, especially since Wolfgang Benz, the anti-anti-Semite who has mysteriously advanced to the status of expert on statistical matters, obviously has not managed to come up with any such refutation despite eight years of brooding.[77] Neugebauer's charge that Rudolf "suggests" something which he actually presents as an unrefuted and solidly documented argument on Sanning's part merely serves to distract the reader from Neugebauer's own lack of arguments. His chapter, consisting of fully 3 (three!) pages, is conspicuous for loads of polemics, not even one single source reference, and not so much as one factual argument. Neugebauer thus does not even try to contribute anything to the issue.


In his report Germar Rudolf discussed in detail the fact that the roof of the (actual or alleged) gas chamber of Crematorium II in Birkenau has no input holes for Zyklon B, so no gassings with Zyklon B can have taken place in these rooms in the manner in which such gassings have been described by witnesses.[78] Along with his chemical analyses, this argument is the main supporting pillar on which his conclusions rest.[79] The co-authors of the book at issue in the present critique clearly could not think of any counter-arguments to this fact, so that they saw themselves forced to pretend that the issue does not exist.

The co-authors of Wahrheit und Auschwitzlüge [Truth and the Auschwitz-Lie] also seem to be at a loss when it comes to the hundreds of arguments in the book Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte that refute the Exterminationist claims. They come up with absolutely nothing to address:

The book Wahrheit und Auschwitzlüge [Truth and the Auschwitz-Lie] is splendid proof that other than the 'silent treatment' for entire issues and the parrot-like repetition of false claims that have long been disproved, and other than empty phrases, cheap polemics, unjustified allegations and false claims, the opponents of the Auschwitz-Truth have nothing left with which to defend their fallacious theories.

*hitherto unpub.; trans. Victor Diodon.

  1. Brigitte Bailer-Galanda, Wolfgang Benz, Wolfgang Neugebauer (eds.), Wahrheit und Auschwitzlüge, Vienna: Deuticke, 1995.
  2. Such as: "Gab es einen schriftlichen Hitlerbefehl zur Judenvernichtung?", "Die sogenannte 'Wiedergutmachung'", "Die österreichische Rechtslage", "Endlich geregelt? Zur Ahndung der Holocaust-Leugnung".
  3. This goes for the following chapters:
  4. This goes for the chapters "'Revisionismus' - pseudowissenschaftliche Propaganda", "'Revisionismus' in Deutschland", "Methoden rechtsextremer Tendenzgeschichtsschreibung und Propaganda", "'Revisionistische' Propaganda in Österreich", "Das 'Thule-Netzwerk'".
  5. Deborah E. Lipstadt, Betrifft: Leugnen des Holocaust, Zurich: Rio-Verlag, 1994.
  6. In the original: "Under Evidence Code Section 452(h), this court does take judicial notice of the fact that Jews were gassed to death at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp in Poland during the summer of 1944 [...] It is not reasonable subject to dispute, and it is capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy. It is simply a fact." From: IHR Newsletter, no. 82, Oct. 1991.
  7. Bradley Smith, IHR Newsletter, Sept. 1985; cf. IHR Special Background Report, Sept. 1991.
  8. Mark I. Pinsky, "Doubters of Holocaust Win a Round in Court", Los Angeles Times (Orange County Edition), Sept. 25, 1991, p. B9; cf. also IHR Newsletter, no. 82, Oct. 1991.
  9. Theodore J. O'Keefe, "'Best Witness': Mel Mermelstein, Auschwitz and the IHR", in: The Journal of Historical Review 14(1) (1994): 25-32.
  10. Deborah E. Lipstadt, op. cit. (Note 5), p. 174, and footnote 14, p. 300. Here she mentions a May 4, 1992 appeal of Mermelstein's, even though the Appeals Court of California had already rejected his appeal on Oct. 28, 1991. The IHR is not aware of any further legal action by Mermelstein after 1991; pers. comm., Mark Weber, Institute for Historical Review, July 25, 1995.
  11. Jean-Claude Pressac, Les Crématoires d'Auschwitz, la Machinerie du meurtre de masse, Paris: CNRS, 1993; German: Die Krematorien des Massenmordes, Munich: Piper, 1994.
  12. For example, Pressac (ibid.) cites the testimony of Pery S. Broad (p. 22), Rudolf Höss (pp. 51, 61, 73, 74, 98, 103), Henryk Tauber (pp. 85, 93), and repeatedly refers to witness statements from Danuta Czech's Auschwitz Chronicle, 1939-1945 (New York: Henry Holt, 1989), pp. 17f., 23, 28-29, 65-66, 68-69, 88-89, 150-159, as well as to a book riddled with testimony: Hermann Langbein, Der Auschwitz-Prozeß, Vienna: Europa-Verlag, 1965 (p. 117).
  13. Regarding the scientific value of this book, cf. also: Carlo Mattogno, Franco Deana, "Die Krematorien von Auschwitz-Birkenau", in: Ernst Gauss (ed.), "Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte", Tübingen: Grabert, 1994, pp. 281-320; Herbert Verbeke (ed.), "Auschwitz: Nackte Fakten. Eine Erwiderung an Jean-Claude Pressac," Vrij Historisch Onderzoek, Postbus 46, B-2600 Berchem, 1995; Pierre Guillaume, De la misère intellectuelle en milieu universitaire, B. P. 9805, 75224 Paris cedex 05, 1995.
  14. The same goes for Mrs. Bailer-Galanda's American counterpart, Professor Deborah E. Lipstadt, op. cit. (Note 6), footnotes pp. 305, 311.
  15. John Clive Ball, "Luftbildbeweise", in: Ernst Gauss (ed.), op. cit. (Note 14), p. 245.
  16. Rüdiger Kammerer, Armin Solms (eds.), Das Rudolf-Gutachten, London: Cromwell Press, 1993 (now: P. O. Box 62, Uckfield/East Sussex, TN22 1ZY, Great Britain), p. 16. With reference to Jean-Claude Pressac, "Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers", New York: Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, 1989, p. 129. In discussions of the Rudolf Report it would be fitting to confine oneself to this edition of the report, which is the only one published with Rudolf's authorization.
  17. ibid., pp. 20, 31, 82, 101-103.
  18. The source reference [58] refers to information in Pressac's book, "Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers", op. cit. (Note 16), pp. 46-49, 384, 425-428, 486, 500.
  19. Her artificial outrage at the interpretation of Rudolf Höss's statements would suggest that she did not read past page 16.
  20. With reference to Germar Rudolf, Ernst Gauss, "Die 'Gaskammern' von Auschwitz und Majdanek", in: Ernst Gauss (ed.), op. cit. (Note 14), p. 257.
  21. Rüdiger Kammerer, Armin Solms (eds.), op. cit. (Note 16), pp. 87f.
  22. ibid., pp. 87-91.
  23. ibid., p. 80, 86, 94.
  24. cf. Süddeutsche Zeitung, March 14, 1992.
  25. Outlined by Werner Rademacher, "Der Fall Lüftl, oder: Die Justiz zur Zeitgeschichte", in: Ernst Gauss (ed.), op. cit. (Note 13), pp. 41-60, here p. 49.
  26. Mrs. Bailer-Galanda cites Hermann Langbein, op. cit. (Note 12)
  27. Werner Rademacher, op. cit. (Note 25), pp. 55ff.
  28. Jean-Claude Pressac, Die Krematorien von Auschwitz, op. cit. (Note 11), Document 28.
  29. E. Lachout, "1.-5. Stellungnahmen zur Ausführung des Wahrheitsbeweises des DÖW über die Kriegsdienstzeit..., 16.-30.1.1990"; available, with various supplements, from: Engineer E. Lachout, Max-Mauermann-Gasse 25/1, A-1100 Vienna. The extensive documentary material on this subject for the most part still reposes in archives, awaiting evaluation by a competent person willing to spend the time required.
  30. M. Köhler, "Der Wert von Aussagen und Geständnissen zum Holocaust", in: E. Gauss (ed.), op. cit. (Note 13), pp. 65-75.
  31. Just as it is difficult to understand why the Revisionists trouble themselves about whether the diary of Anne Frank was forged or falsified; after all, it only describes an undisputed historical process.
  32. Friedrich Paul Berg, "Die Diesel-Gaskammern: Mythos im Mythos", in: Ernst Gauss (ed.), op. cit. (Note 13), p. 325-345.
  33. Hb•CO - hemoglobin-carbon monoxide compound, the compound formed by CO and blood, whereby the oxygen (HbXO2, oxyhemoglobin) becomes displaced.
  34. We are referring to the 3rd and 4th editions, of Wolfgang Forth, Dietrich Henschler, Walter Rummel (eds.), Allgemeine und spezielle Pharmakologie und Toxikologie, Mannheim: Wissenschaftsverlag, 1980/1983, pp. 581/643f.
  35. Walter Lüftl, "Sollen Lügen künftig Pflicht sein?", in: Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart 41(1) (1995): 13f.
  36. cf. Friedrich Paul Berg, op. cit. (Note 32), Graph 3, p. 330.
  37. Wolfgang Forth, op. cit. (Note 34), 4th ed., p. 643.
  38. Friedrich Paul Berg, op. cit. (Note 32), p. 326.
  39. Wolfgang Forth, op. cit. (Note 34), 4th ed., p. 643.
  40. Since Russian diesel engines were manufactured under American license, this will not be the case, as F. P. Berg based his work on the worst characteristics of American diesel engines that he could find.
  41. In 1942 and after, when the gassings were allegedly in progress, there will certainly have been no pre-War diesel left in Poland. Therefore, Dr. Bailer's "fuel of questionable origin" (p. 107) is purely speculative. Aside from that, diesel of inferior quality is marked primarily by a higher sulphur content, certainly not by an increased tendency to give off CO.
  42. Wolfgang Forth, op. cit. (Note 34), 4th ed., p. 644, state that certain illnesses (such as anemia), and infections in general, increase susceptibility to CO poisoning. What can we conclude from this? Allegedly the Polish Jews were taken from their towns and sent immediately to the gas chambers via fairly short transport routes, so that there was no time for extended periods of starvation, just as diseases could not have spread due to a lengthy stay in the camp. One would therefore perforce have expected that a goodly proportion of the people to be killed would be healthy and fit.
  43. cf. André Chelain, Faut il fussiller Henri Roques?, Paris: Ogmios Diffusion, 1986; German (abridged): Henri Roques, Die Geständnisse des Kurt Gerstein, Berg am Starnberger See: Druffel, 1986; cf. also F. P. Berg, op. cit. (Note 32), pp. 323f.
  44. Keith Simpson (ed.), Taylor's Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, London: J. & A. Churchill, 1965, pp. 366f.
  45. cf. Friedrich Paul Berg's calculations regarding the gas chambers attested to for Treblinka: ibid., pp. 336f.
  46. Based on the data from Graphs 3 and 4 by F. P. Berg, op. cit. (Note 32), pp. 330 and 334.
  47. Also pointed out by F. P. Berg, ibid., pp. 335, 337.
  48. ibid., p. 333. The literature did not specify the corresponding oxygen content of the exhaust when the air inflow was cut back. If it were as high as at full load (6%), then 0.22% CO would correspond to an effective CO content, COeff, of 0.77%, which obviously did not nearly suffice to kill the animals within half an hour. It is important to note, however, that the results of experiments on animals, even when such experiments are conducted on species of similar sensitivity, can never be extrapolated fully onto human beings.
  49. Rüdiger Kammerer, Armin Solms (eds.), op. cit. (Note 16), pp. 39f.
  50. Significantly enough, Dr. Bailer's wife writes (p. 93): "The keystone of Rudolf's 'Report' is the (unprovable) assumption that exposure to Zyklon B results in a blue discoloration of the brickwork. [226]" In footnote [226] she then cites her husband's chapter. Well, duh!
  51. Ernst Gauss, Vorlesungen über Zeitgeschichte, Tübingen: Grabert, 1993, p. 196.
  52. Rüdiger Kammerer, Armin Solms (eds.), op. cit. (Note 16), pp. 50, 52.
  53. ibid., pp. 50, 93.
  54. ibid., pp. 92f.
  55. ibid., pp. 50-52.
  56. ibid., p. 91.
  57. Advanced first in: Josef Bailer, "Der Leuchter-Bericht aus der Sicht eines Chemikers", in: Dokumentationsarchiv des österreichischen Widerstandes, Bundesministerium für Unterricht und Kultur (ed.), Amoklauf gegen die Wirklichkeit, Vienna, 1991, pp. 47-52.
  58. Rüdiger Kammerer, Armin Solms (eds.), op. cit. (Note 16), p. 91; Ernst Gauss, op. cit. (Note 16), pp. 292f.; Germar Rudolf, Ernst Gauss, op. cit. (Note 51), p. 272.
  59. Here Dr. Bailer refers to Polish studies recently published, critiqued elsewhere, cf.: Germar Rudolf, "Leuchter-Gegengutachten: Ein wissenschaftlicher Betrug?", in: Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart 43 (1) (1995): 22-26; G. Rudolf, J. Markiewicz, W. Gubala, J. Labedz, "Briefwechsel mit dem Jan-Sehn-Institut Krakau", in: Sleipnir, Verlag der Freunde, Postfach 350264, 10211 Berlin, issue 3, 1995, pp. 29-33.
  60. Germar Rudolf, Ernst Gauss, op. cit. (Note 20), pp. 257, 277ff.
  61. E. Emmerling, in: M. Petzet (ed.), Holzschädlingsbekämpfung durch Begasung, Arbeitshefte des Bayerischen Landesamtes für Denkmalpflege, v. 75, Munich: Lipp-Verlag, 1995, pp. 43-56.
  62. Rüdiger Kammerer, Armin Solms (eds.), op. cit. (Note 16), p. 83; Ernst Gauss, op. cit. (Note 51), p. 189.
  63. Including: place of origin of the sample (outside, inside, at the surface, from deeper brick layers), moisture of the wall at the time of fumigation (the building's ground water level, weathering [wind direction, exposure to rain], water conductivity of the wall both overall and at the specific sampling location, also temperature conductivity), dampness and weathering in the intervening years between then and the present, consistency of the sample material at time of fumigation (iron content, alkalinity, dampness, physical composition, possibly the sintering state of bricks), etc. etc.
  64. Error in the original.
  65. Aside from Note , cf. also Rüdiger Kammerer, Armin Solms (eds.), op. cit. (Note 16), p. 87.
  66. ibid., p. 92.
  67. ibid., p. 60, footnote 31.
  68. Germar Rudolf, "Statistisches über die Holocaust-Opfer. W. Benz und W. N. Sanning im Vergleich", in: E. Gauss (ed.), op. cit. (Note 13), pp. 141-168.
  69. Wolfgang Benz (ed.), Dimension des Völkermords, Munich: Oldenbourg, 1991.
  70. ibid., pp. 167f.
  71. ibid., p. 558, footnote 396.
  72. Walter N. Sanning, The Dissolution of the Eastern European Jewry, Newport Beach, CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1983; Ger.: Die Auflösung des osteuropäischen Judentums, Tübingen: Grabert, 1983.
  73. Ernst Gauss, op. cit. (Note 51), p. 154; Germar Rudolf, op. cit. (Note 68), pp. 156, 167.
  74. Germar Rudolf, ibid., p. 158.
  75. ibid., pp. 156f.
  76. ibid., p. 162.
  77. ibid., pp. 161f.
  78. Rüdiger Kammerer, Armin Solms (eds.), op. cit. (Note 16), pp. 22-29.
  79. ibid., p. 98.

next chapter
previous chapter
back to table of contents