Holocaust or Hoax?

The Arguments

by Jürgen Graf

CHAPTER XI

AUSCHWITZ: SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF THE CRIME SCENE

The Leuchter Report

During Ernst Zuendel's appeal trial (1988) Zuendel and Faurisson assigned the US gas chamber specialist Fred Leuchter, responsible for the construction of the gas chambers for the execution of criminals as used in several states, to write a report on the areas designated as gas chambers in Auschwitz I, Auschwitz-Birkenau, and Majdanek. Leuchter flew to Poland with a small crew in February 1988, and made the necessary examinations in the former concentration camps. He then drew up the Leuchter Report, the first forensic report on the murder weapon in the "greatest mass murder of history" (1). The conclusions were divided into three principal sections:

- the "gas chambers" were never planned as such, and could not be used as such due to its features of technical construction;

- the capacity of the crematoria would have been insufficient to cremate more than a small fraction of the alleged victims;

- the analysis of mortar samples taken from the walls of the "gas chambers" (and analysed, not by Leuchter, but by an independent laboratory chemist named James Roth) showed no significant quantities, or insignificantly small quantities, of cyanide residue; the findings of the analysis did however indicate an enormously high cyanide content in a sample taken from a delousing chamber at Birkenau, a chamber which is acknowledged to have been simply a delousing chamber.

The Leuchter report does have undeniable weak points; for example, he erroneously states that the "gas chambers" possessed no ventilation system, and his data on the crematory capacity is faulty, since he had no competence in that field. The exterminationists could have exploited these weaknesses in the Leuchter Report, but neglected to do so due to a lack of competence on their part. They therefore directed their attacks chiefly against Leuchter personally.

Although the Leuchter report is out of date, its effectiveness as an ice-breaker can hardly be overestimated, since it inspired the later, much more detailed, report by Germar Rudolf.

The Rudolf Report

Germar Rudolf, a certified chemist employed at the Max-Planck Institut, has verified the Leuchter Report in a detailed report of his own (2). He came to the conclusion that the alleged mass gassings in Auschwitz could not have occurred due to technical construction features and chemistry.

a) A study of the technical construction features

Examinations of the technical construction are principally concerned with the alleged Zyklon B introduction holes in the areas designated as "execution chambers" in Krematorium I (main camp) as well as II and III (Birkenau) of Auschwitz. Pressac assumes that the crematoria were originally designed without criminal intent, i.e., planned only for the cremation of corpses, particularly the victims of epidemic disease. The gas chambers are alleged to have been installed there only later, by piercing Zyklon introduction holes in the roofs of the morgues. As usual, the" proof" of these assertions consisted of the usual contradictory eyewitness testimonies.

In the autumn of 1944, after having been put out of operation in July 1943, Krematorium I of the main camp was converted into an air raid shelter through the installation of a few partitions. The Zyklon B introduction holes are supposed to have been sealed at that time. After the end of the war, the officials of the Auschwitz Museum attempted to "recreate" the original conditions, but in so doing, they made so many mistakes that the French magazine L'Express (25 January 1995) commented angrily that "everything in it is a fake". For example, the washrooms adjoining the original morgue ("gas chamber") were incorporated into the new, reconstructed museum "gas chamber", presumably to make it bigger and more terrifying. During the reconstruction, the "Zyklon B introduction holes" visible today were also broken through the roof, but not in the original locations, which are alleged to be unknown. If any other openings had ever existed in the reinforced concrete ceiling, there would have been visible damage to the concrete structure of the unplastered ceiling at the corresponding locations. No such previously existing, but now sealed, Zyklon B introduction holes exist. The "Zyklon B introduction ports" testified to by "eyewitnesses" never existed; therefore Zyklon B poison gas could not have been introduced in the manner described.

Allied air photos are often produced as evidence of the existence of Zyklon B introduction holes in the roofs of morgue I of Krematoria II and III at Birkenau -- the buildings containing the alleged "gas chambers". But to the critical observer, it is obvious that the "shadows" on the roofs of morgues I of both crematoria could not have been caused by Zyklon B introduction holes:

- the alignment of the shadows is not consistent with the alignment of the shadows of the crematory chimneys;

- on a picture taken on 13 September 1944, the spots on Krematorium III retain their initial direction and shape, although the sun has changed position;

- in the same picture, the spots on the morgue I of Krema III are missing;

- the length of the shadows indicate that they were thrown by objects 3 to 4 metres higher than the roof and 1.5 metres wide, i.e., that they are the shadows of large chimneys; they are not, however, the shadows of the Zyklon B introduction ports with lids existing at the present time, which are approximately 50 cm high;

- the only two holes to be found in the ceiling of morgue I of Krema II are entirely different, in both location and size.

Both the above mentioned holes bear visible chisel marks along the edges, an indication that the holes were broken through the roof at a later time. Furthermore, one of the holes is completely intact, although it should have been totally destroyed when the building was blown up by the SS in early 1945. In addition, the reinforcement rods running through the hole have not been removed, so that their use as Zyklon introduction ports is impossible. It is absolutely certain that these holes were made after the end of the war, to create the illusion of Zyklon B introduction holes.

To summarize, it is therefore established that there was no way to introduce the poison gas into the alleged gas chambers of Krematoria I and II and III at Auschwitz and Birkenau in the manner described by the witnesses. Faurisson is right when he says, "No holes, no Holocaust." All other considerations relating to the chemistry of the alleged "mass murders with poison gas" are, therefore, simply theoretical exercises.

b) The chemical analyses

First a few remarks on hydrocyanic acid. Hydrocyanic acid must be used in high concentrations (1 % by volume) for several hours' application time to kill the most resistant lice, larvae and eggs with certainty and without special technology. If, however, special technology (circulation procedure) is utilized, enabling the gas to penetrate the minutest cracks and borders of the clothing to be fumigated, the process can be performed in considerably shorter periods of time and with lower concentrations (0.5% by volume and one hour exposure).

This is the only procedure comparable to the gassing of human beings. Human beings are warm-blooded, and more susceptible to hydrocyanic acid gas than insects, in addition to which the hydrocyanic acid gas reaches the victims in an execution gas chamber immediately. Executions in the USA have showed that the victim may take more than 15 minutes to die (The News and Observer, Raleigh, North Carolina, 19 June 1994).

Zyklon B insecticide releases its gas slowly, especially when the ambient air is saturated with humidity, as it must have been if the room was cram-packed with human beings. In such cases, the preparation would only have given off 5 - 10% of its content after 10 minutes, 20 - 30% after half an hour, and 50% of its content after one hour (see, in this regard, R. Irmscher, Zeitschrift fuer hygienische Zoologie und Schaelingsbekaempfung, 1942, p. 36). To kill the victims in a few minutes in accordance with the eyewitness testimonies would have required ridiculously large quantities of Zyklon. Under these circumstances, the area would have been exposed to very high concentrations of hydrocyanic acid, comparable to those of a delousing chamber. Furthermore, a ventilation of the chambers could only have taken place many hours after complete release of all the gas. Thus, the exposure times and contact concentrations between the poison gas and the walls of the chamber would have corresponded to those of the delousing chamber.

Hydrocyanic acid forms a extremely stable pigment (ferric-ferrocyanide) with the iron-bearing components of the masonry itself. This pigment decomposes over time, but in a period comparable to the decomposition of the masonry itself, as shown by long-term experiments over decades. High concentrations of cyanide compounds can still be found in the delousing chambers of Birkenau and Majdanek. Cases in which extensive damage has been caused by these ferric-ferrocyanide compounds during gassings with hydrocyanic acid gas to destroy vermin are reported in the technical literature (for example, G. Zimmermann, Bauschaeden Sammlung, Band 4, Forum-Verlag, Suttgart 1981, p. 120 ff.).

Analyses of samples from the alleged gas chambers, professional delousing chambers, and other buildings at Auschwitz have shown that the delousing chambers are the only structures to exhibit significant, or even extremely high, residues of hydrocyanide compounds.

It therefore appears certain that, due to the technical construction features of the alleged "execution gas chambers", especially Krematoria II and III -- (humid, cool cellar areas; entry into operation shortly after construction; alkaline, highly-absorbant cement plaster; mediocre ventilation), as well as the conditions described by eyewitnesses (use of very high cyanide concentrations) -- that cyanide residues similar to those found in the delousing chambers should have formed precisely in the areas designated as "homicidal gas chambers", if mass gassings had really taken place. But no significant residues are found there.

This leads to the inescapable conclusion that no mass gassings of human beings ever took place in the areas in question.

So much for Rudolf's conclusions. While the exterminationists have never even attempted to examine Rudolf's arguments relating to technical construction features, they have made all sorts of clumsy attempts to counter his chemical demonstrations. Their favourite argument is that the victims inhaled the entire quantity of hydrocyanic acid before they died (3). The Third Reich must obviously have possessed remote-controlled, heat-seeking hydrocyanic acid molecules which shot directly into the mouths and nostrils of the victims upon orders from the SS, and never even came into contact with the walls of the chamber (4). Moreover, the granulate, as noted above, continues to release its poisonous vapour for at least two hours; but according to the eyewitnesses, all the victims were dead after half an hour at most. Did the corpses continue to inhale the gas for another hour and a half?

The objections raised against Rudolf's expert report by a chemist named Dr. Josef Bailer (5) were answered by Rudolf personally (6), so that interested persons may compare the arguments on both sides.

In the absence of any conclusive arguments, the exploiters of the gas chamber legend could only resort to a personal vendetta against Rudolf. On the order of the Central Jewish Council, he was fired from the Max-Planck Institut and sentenced to 14 months imprisonment for insulting Jews, slandering the dead, incitement to racial hatred, and other Kafkaesque points of the indictment (7). On the prior history of the trial, see the brochure by Wilhelm Schlesinger (8), as well as Rudolf's own account, published two years later (9); both accounts show how "free democracy" deals with independent thinkers with critical minds.

In May 1996, Rudolf received a summons to appear for another trial, against the publishers and authors of the Grabert anthology Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte. But Rudolf had already turned his back on the "freest state in German history".

External link to an excerpt of the Rudolf Report

c) Carlo Mattogno and Franco Deana: the crematoria

The last large gap in technical holocaust research was filled by the Italian researcher Carlo Mattogno.

Mattogno studied the following:

- the real maximum capacity of the crematoria in view of the operating time periods (due to technical defects, the installations were in constant need of overhaul, so that all five crematoria never functioned simultaneously at any time);

- the coke deliveries to the Auschwitz crematoria; the quantities of coke delivered are known with absolute certainty for most of the camp's existence; since we know the average coke required for the cremation of one body, the maximum number of cremations may be calculated for any given period;

- the fact that the fire-resistant refractory brick masonry in the crematory ovens was never replaced, which would have been necessary after 3,000 cremations at the most.

- the technical impossibility of mass cremation of corpses in ditches as described by eyewitnesses.

Mattogno comes to the conclusion that the crematoria could have cremated 162,000 bodies at most. When we consider that Mattogno estimates the number of Auschwitz victims, based on the available documents, at approximately 170,000 (11), and that many thousands of typhus victims were doubtlessly burned in the open (on pyres, not in ditches), the picture is complete.

These studies are conclusive. An anti-revisionist anthology entitled Wahrheit und Auschwitzluege published in 1995 by Simon Wiesenthal, Wolfgang Benz, Wolfgang Neugebauer, Josef Bailer, Brigitte Bailer-Galanda and others, fails to mention these studies with so much as a single line. Only that corpses in Auschwitz burnt "all by themselves", as testified by that incredible Holocaust survivor, Henryk Tauber.

John Ball's Evaluation of the air photos

From December 1943, the Auschwitz camp complex was photographed repeatedly by Allied reconnaissance planes (doubtless due to its economic significance: Monowitz camp, east of the main camp, was the location of branches of numerous firms, of which IG Farben was the most well-known). Several of these photos fall into time periods during which, according to the eyewitnesses, mass murders were being carried on. The most important photo is dated 31 March 1944 (Fig. XXX).

At that time, the extermination of Hungarian Jews was supposed to be running full tilt: 400,000 people are supposed to have been gassed between May and July and, for the most part, burnt in the open. None of the events reported by eyewitnesses is visible in the photo. There are no lines of people waiting before the crematoria; no gigantic, blazing fires; no smoke-blackened sky. There is no sign of the gigantic piles of wood and coke which would have been necessary for the cremation of 400,000 corpses in less than two months.

The Canadian air photo specialist John Ball has worked on the evaluation of the photos (13). His studies administer the coup de grace to a focal point of the Auschwitz legend, the alleged extermination of the Hungarian Jews.


Notes:

1) Fred Leuchter, The Leuchter Report, Focal Point Publications, 1989, available from Samisdat Publishers, 206 Carlton St. Toronto, Canada, An abridged German translation appeared in Heft 36 of the Historische Tatsachen, but was prohibited by the "freest state in German history".

2) Rudolf, Gutachten... An abridged version appeared in the Gauss-anthology Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte.

3) This nonsense, among other things, was delivered by Klara Obermueller in her introduction to a talk by Deborah Lipstadt on Holocaust denial" at the University of Zuerich on 1 June 1994.

4) Faurisson speaks of "molecules with heat-seeking warheads".

5) Brigitte Bailer-Galanda, Wolfgang Benz and Wolfgang Neugebauer (publishers, Wahrheit und Auschwitzluege, Deuticke, Vienna 1995).

6) Herbert Verbeke (publisher), Kardinalfragen zur Zeitgeschichte, Vrij Historisch Onderzoek, Postbus 60, B-2600 Berchem-2, Belgium, 1996, p. 93 ff.

7) Trial of Germar Rudolf in Stuttgart 1994/1995, Atkenzeichen 17 KLs 83/94.

8) Wilhelm Schlesinger, Der Fall Rudolf, Cromwell Press, 1994.

9) Kardinalfragen... (see note 6).

10) Mattogno/Deana in Gauss, Grundlagen... op. cit.

11) ibid, p. 305/307.

12) see note 5.

13) John Ball, Air photo evidence, Ball Resources Service, 1992, available from Samisdat Publishers, (see note 1).


Back to table of contents
To the next chapter
To previous chapter
Back to archive