Editorial Note

Germar Rudolf is the author of the 458 pages book with the title The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the "Gas Chambers" of Auschwitz. In the conclusion of his book Rudolf writes, among other things (2nd ed., The Barnes Review, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 277f.):

On physical-chemical grounds, the mass gassings with hydrogen cyanide (Zyklon B) in the supposed "gas chambers" of Auschwitz claimed by witnesses did not take place. […]

The procedures of mass-gassing as attested to by witnesses during their interrogation before various courts of law, as cited in judicial rulings, and as described in scientific and literary publications, in any building of Auschwitz whatsoever, are inconsistent with documentary evidence, technical necessities, and natural scientific law.

Needless to say that these conclusions, being diametrically opposed to the prevailing notions about what happened at Auschwitz, triggered quite some acerbic, if not vitriolic reactions. Instead of proving him wrong, though, most reactions either merely vilified Rudolf or enganged in his persecution and even criminal prosecution. While on trial in Germany for his research, he was forbidden under threat of more prosecutions to prove that his controversial findings are correct. He ultimately languished in a German prison for 44 months for his research results. (This, too, is described in the appendix of his book.)

Only one person – Richard J. Green – cared to address some of Rudolf's technical, chemical and toxicological arguments, although he, too, resorted to all kinds of insults and political insinuations against Rudolf.

Over the years, Germar Rudolf has responded with a number of papers to Richard J. Green's attacks, which the interested reader might find worth perusing:

The current edition of The Rudolf Report can be downloaded as a free PDF file here. If you want to learn more about Germar Rudolf, feel free to visit his personal homepage.

Character assassins

By Dipl.-Chemist Germar Rudolf

Previous article about this dispute
Next article about this dispute


He who smears his opponents politically, cannot have scientific motivations for so doing. In a lengthy article intended to refute the scientifically orientated Rudolf Report about the alleged Gas Chambers of Auschwitz, Dr. Richard J. Green and Jamie McCarthy waste roughly a third of their text to attack me with mere political insinuations. Originally I intended to refuse to lower myself to their gutter-level argumentation, but after considering that staying silent might be wrongly interpreted as a confession of "guilt," I decided to speak out.

But before doing so, let me first make one thing absolutely clear: The opponents of Revisionism always claim that the real motivation behind Revisionists' activities is not their search for the truth but some political motives like strengthening the political right wing or resurrecting National Socialism by whitewashing Hitler and the Third Reich. I am not in a position to refute such a claim simply because I do not know the intentions of all Revisionists. This is so not only because I do not know all Revisionists, but also because I do not want to know their intentions. And this because any revelation of any political motivation would be disappointing for me, as I love to live with the illusion that those who are struggling with me have merely idealistic and unselfish intentions. Because I fear that any knowledge about a political intention of a Revisionist makes me judge his work not according to its scientific content and value, as one should as a scientist, but somehow be influenced by knowledge about the author's mindset and political views, I prefer not to know. I just want to stick to facts and scientific arguments. That might give the reader an idea about my own motives. If my work was determined by a certain political viewpoint, wouldn't it be likely that I would welcome seeing similar motivation in co-revisionists?

We should, on the other hand, never forget that science's duty is primarily to find out the facts, even in historiography. A moral evaluation of these facts, if one considers them to be necessary, has to follow afterwards. Thus, a moral judgment must never influence our search for facts. That being so, how can people insist that certain eras and personalities of history have to be given a certain moral value, and that any facts or arguments that are revealed or brought forward by a scientist, which could lead to a reassessment of this very moral value, are unacceptable? Could there possibly be a scientific motivation behind such a demand? The answer to that is clearly no. Such a demand is always driven by political intentions. In plain English: Those who blame the Revisionists for intending to whitewash Hitler, or as having similar intentions, cannot prove their claims rigorously. But when arguing that way, they do prove rigorously that their intention is to prevent Hitler from being whitewashed, or in general that our moral evaluation of his person and era is being changed. Hence, their way of arguing does not reveal revisionist intentions, but their own. And neither motivation is scientific: Neither to whitewash Hitler nor to "blacken" him.

Dr. Green and McCarthy are two opponents of Revisionism who, by arguing in this way, reveal their own political biases, when referring to Revisionists in general as:

"those who wish to whitewash the Nazi regime."

In assuming that Jamie McCarthy is responsible for the first -- political -- part of the paper discussed here, I shall address him directly, whereas I shall address Dr. Green when the second, chemical part is being dealt with.


First let me correct some inaccuracies in the article discussed here, caused by referring to articles which are factually erroneous.

"In 1993, 'to make a little extra money on the side,'[5] Germar Rudolf wrote the 'Rudolf Report'"

McCarthy is referring here to a Z-Gram from April 18, 1999, written by Dr. Ingrid Rimland. She wrote this without asking me and without having any information about how my Report came into being. Fact is that I never received a single penny for my report, nor did there exist an agreement which would entitle me to receive any. All I got back were the expenses I had for making some photo-copies. The bills for the analyses and for the first journey to Auschwitz were paid by a third party, thus enabling me to do this research. As a matter of fact, all the other expenses -- time invested, photo-copies of literature made, preparation and realization of experiments, travels to certain places all over Germany for research, a second series of analyses, all this was paid by myself, sometimes supported by third parties.


Jamie McCarthy quotes Dr. Ingrid Rimland and David Irving proof that Revisionists say chemistry is a science to prove or disprove the existence of homicidal gas chambers rigorously. He than quotes paragraphs of the conclusions of my report as published on the net which include chemical arguments, while omitting those that include technical and architectural arguments. Later he quotes the conclusions as I had written them in a paper presented roughly a year ago in Adelaide. He then constructs a contradiction between both conclusions by indicating that, in the latter conclusion, the word chemistry does not even exist:

"What he calls his summary of his own report no longer even includes mention of his work in chemistry, except to downplay it."

This is dishonest. In my response to Dr. Richard Green's first article about my report, I addressed his demand for a rigorous proof for the chemical question alone. McCarthy now makes the reader believe that in my report I had claimed to having found such a rigorous proof leading me to the conclusions quoted, which is not true. In fact, I refused to see my report used and published in 1990/91 without having included a proper technical and architectural part in it, knowing already then about the limited value of the chemical argument. Hence, in 1991 to 1992 I contacted engineers and architects in order to receive more information about the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz rather than relying on chemical arguments only. In fact, the conclusions made in my report include chemical questions only in one part, the other dealing with technical and architectural facts. Those facts taken together lead me to the conclusions as they can be found in my report, and that is exactly what I wrote in my response to Dr. Green, without repeating the entire wording of my original conclusions (which I did not amend, by the way):

"We have several circumstantial evidences which, especially together with all the other evidence, allow us to come to the conclusion that the homicidal mass gassings as stated by the eye witnesses can not have taken place."

All my arguments before and after this sentence were about chemistry. So how can one consider McCarthy to be honest when he picks out this sentence and gloats over the fact that my work in chemistry is not even mentioned therein?


McCarthy insists that there cannot be a real debate between his kin and Revisionists because there

"cannot be a real debate between those who seek to understand history and those who seek to obfuscate it"


"that accurate information must be presented so that the gullible will not be taken in by those who wish to whitewash the Nazi regime"

Obviously, for McCarthy it is clear right from the start where the truth lies and that somebody is obfuscating something and who this is. Would he be open-minded and scientifically independent, he should leave this question open until the contest between revisionist and exterminationist arguments has come to an end. The final judgment about who is obfuscating what and where the truth lies, should definitely be made by independent scientists in a century when emotions have cooled down, but certainly not by one who is emotionally heavily engaged in this fight. All in all this is another indicator for the biased approach of McCarthy and Dr. Green to this topic.

I do not know if they do this deliberately in order to obfuscate something (note: that distinguishes me from them, who claim that they do know!), but I do know that this is clearly showing unscientific prejudice.

The same goes for the second part of this sentence. Accurate information must not be presented so that the gullible will not be taken in by those who wish to whitewash the Nazi regime, but it must be presented so that everybody, the gullible as well as the well-informed, knows the facts and can judge for himself the moral value of what ever ideology and personality in history and present. Here both authors say openly that the purpose of historiography in their eyes is to prevent that the moral evaluation of a certain ideology or personality of history is being altered. What more evidence is required to prove their bias?

Again, McCarthy is labelling me a 'Holocaust denier'. But I can only deny something that I know did happen or is real. Otherwise, all scientists who oppose certain theses -- in historiography or elsewhere -- would have to be called "deniers" of competing theses. That would really be ridiculous. So, please, let us first find out in a convincing way what really happened, and if that succeeds, then those of us still sticking to a version of history they themselves have admitted to be wrong may be called "deniers." Anything else is polemical.

McCarthy claims that I have partly accepted that Fred Leuchter once had claimed qualifications he did not have, and McCarthy doesn't understand why I insist he shouldn't refer to this because it is not a scientific argument. McCarthy now says:

"The argument in question was not presented as a scientific argument"

But that is exactly what I rebuked: Why do Green and McCarthy always fall back on non-scientific arguments? What ever reputation and qualifications Leuchter might have had, that does not at all affect the validity or invalidity of his arguments. Although I did say that the accusations against Leuchter for his alleged unlawful claims for certain qualification were "not completely true," i.e. that they could be partly true -- because at this time I myself was not sure what had been going on in the late '80s when the American Engineering Board sued Leuchter for allegedly unlawfully using a title -- today I do know better. The fact is, that Leuchter never unlawfully claimed to having had a qualification he did not have, so Green's and McCarthy's insinuations are simply wrong and libellous. Leuchter himself explained the case recently as follows (letter from 4/5/99):

"The Massachusetts Court refused to interpret the law publicly, although it did privately, and forced both parties, i.e. The Commonwealth and Leuchter, into a settlement as a trial would not be beneficial to either. Leuchter entered into an agreement with the Engineering Board to do none of the things that he never did in the first place and not to recant or change anything he ever did or said, in return for the board's dropping of the complaint. Leuchter agreed in a pretrial mutual promise with the Commonwealth that in return for the Commonwealth dropping its illegal prosecution of him he would not break the law by saying things or doing things he had never done or said in the first place. Leuchter never admitted to any wrong doing or ever did any wrong. He simply agreed to be a law abiding citizen (which he had been all his life) for 2 years more. Even after the 2 years he still has not broken the law."

So here is the central question: Why are McCarthy, Dr. Green and their associates forever bringing forward false accusations against Leuchter in order to malign him? Is it because they want to distract attention from the scientific arguments?

Quoting Pen Names

McCarthy argues that every time I quote a work I have written using a pen name without expressively stating that this is me, I do so in order to use these authors' works "as authorities to bolster" my own arguments. That is untrue.

  1. If I revealed a pen name every time I quoted it, what would be the use of pen names? If McCarthy agrees that using pen names is an acceptable measure to avoid social persecution and political prosecution, why then should it be dishonest not to reveal the pen name?
  2. From time to time I indeed have indicated who is hiding behind certain pen names. Once you start doing so, you would have to do it always. But by doing so, I would have to expose others as well, who are hiding behind pen names and who would then immediately be exposed to heavy criminal prosecution in Europe. Does McCarthy want me to be responsible that people are being sent to prison because I have to be always honest and tell everybody the truth about every pen name? Would he have demanded this from dissident in the former USSR? Why is he demanding it from dissidents in the present People's Republic of Continental Europe?
  3. Frequently I get chided for revealing my own pen names, simply because people think I should not give my readers the impression that I want to impress the public with the amount and importance of work that I am doing. So I stopped it. I don't want to appear arrogant.
  4. In all cases when I refer to my own works written under a pen name, I never do it to say: "look, this expert has the same opinion as I have", but rather to say "this fact or argument was proven and published there."
  5. Quoting works in science follows a certain formal procedure, as McCarthy and Dr. Green should know. The background of it is to enable the reader to find the quoted source. That means in our case that you refer to the author's name as it is to be found in the libraries' database. Giving a possible real name for a pen name that is not included in the library data is not additional data that enables anybody to find the work quoted better than without the real name given.

Trademark Pen Names

Yes, I used to use a pen name similar to one used by a German journalist as part of his smear campaigns against those he hates. Anton Maegerle, alias Gernot Moderi, is one of the most evil journalistic promoters of political prosecution and censorship in Germany. He is one of those journalists who incite the public to take all sorts of illegal measures against those who are deemed to be "right wingers." To be clear: I am not attacking him for his own political views. I am attacking him for promoting the deterioration of human rights in Germany.

I wrote an article in a name similar to his, in which I described the illegal censorship in Germany and its effects on the German society, i.e. I did argue from the opposite position as Maegerle alias Gernot Moderi is doing. I wanted to tease him, the fighter against human rights, by linking him to a work in favor of human rights. I read in McCarthy's work that I succeeded. Moderi had to explain and defend himself, he had to make clear to his friends and allies that he is still fighting against human rights. I love to see that my small revenge succeeded. But the moral buck is always passed to those who fight against human rights, i.e. for censorship and vilification. Because there is no trademark protection for pen names, I cannot see why anybody could be offended by this. Exposing Gernot Moderi morally is pure fun.

Phony Doctorates

The first revisionist publication I was involved in was a brochure with the title "Die Zeit lügt!," published in October 1992. It was a reply to two lengthy articles of a certain Till Bastian published in summer 1991 in the German weekly Die Zeit (no. 39, Sept. 18, 1992, p. 104, and no. 40, Sept. 25, 1992, p. 90). This is the fairest article about the Holocaust controversy that has appeared so far, simply for the reason that both articles of Bastian were reprinted in their entirety, and discussed afterwards. The reader always had the means to check both point of views. Nobody else has ever done that before or since -- on either side of this discussion.

Nowhere in that brochure is reference made to the special expertise and qualifications of the authors given (H. K. Westphal, Dipl.-Ingenieur, Dr. W. Kretschmer, Jurist, Dr. Ch. Konrad, Historiker, Dr. R. Scholz, Chemiker und Pharmakologe), nor would the claims and arguments brought forward in this brochure require the qualifications of these experts. Though it was certainly incorrect to do this, I would like to explain why it was done, as it was certainly not done in order to claim qualifications that are actually not present. Let me therefore be a bit more detailed.

In spring and summer 1992 I was called by several defence lawyers as an expert witness in several trials imposed on Revisionists in Germany (see footnote 103 of the brochure mentioned). In these trials -- as in all trials against Revisionists -- the judges refused to accept any evidence presented by the defence, including all expert witnesses. I had to learn that a chemist (me) was being refused because he was neither a toxicologist nor a historian, an engineer (Leuchter) being refused because he was neither a chemist nor a historian, a historian (Prof. Haverbeck) being refused because he was neither a chemist nor an engineer. My conclusions were that one obviously had to be at the same time an engineer, a chemist, a toxicologist, a historian and a perhaps even an barrister to be accepted as an expert witness at a German court. The legal process being so perverted in Germany, we decided to mock it by inventing a person with all these features, but then we realized that this would be a bit unrealistic, so we split that person into many. That is the background.

Ad Hominem Arguments

What follows after the escapades about pen names, is a huge amount of slandering, libelling and character assassination.

In my first reply to Green, I attacked him for wrongly claiming without any proof that Remer is my hero, and that free speech would be lost if

"people like [sic] Rudolf and his hero Remer ever to come to power here."

Being unable to refute that he is wrong, he or McCarthy simply refer to my links to individuals and organisations generally referred to as belonging to the political right wing. Having done so, he writes:

"Rudolf's credentials as a non-dogmatic and objective seeker of truth must be called into question."

  1. These links to certain persons and organisations neither prove that Remer is my hero nor that free speech would be lost if I ever came to power.
  2. How can my relationship to certain individuals, my membership in certain organisations, and articles of mine having been published in certain periodicals call my scientific credentials into question? No doubt I have political convictions, as everybody else has. But what is it that makes my convictions a threat to my credentials? What do Green and McCarthy know about my convictions? Tell me who you are dealing with and I tell you what your convictions and thus your credentials are? Don't play with the political underdogs, because that damages your credentials? Is that what Green and McCarthy are arguing? What else is this but political insinuation, character assassination and distraction from scientific questions? How about self-revelations by both Dr. Green and McCarthy concerning persons with whom they are in contact, and which organisations they joined?

Membership in Political Organisations

Now let me say a few words about my political activities in the 80s. In 1983 I joined a Catholic student fraternity which is politically independent, but according to its political self-image close to Germany's biggest political Party, the Christian Democratic Union, in whose youth organisation I have been a member for a short while (this party is perhaps comparable to the Republicans in the USA or the Tories in UK). My student fraternity was a member of Europe's largest and renowned Association of Academics.

In that fraternity I learned more about German history than I ever did at school, and I got interested in my own family's history as well. At the end of WWII, my father and his family were expelled from Eastern Germany (Silesia), loosing all their property, but otherwise being mostly unaffected by the Polish and Russian Holocaust directed against 15 Million East-Germans, of which some 2-3 million did not survive. My mother and her family survived the Allied bombing Holocaust of civilians in German cities, where some 600.000 to one million Germans were burned alive or gassed to death by the carbon monoxide developed by the resulting fire-storms. My grandpa fortunately survived several of the Allied extermination camps built in Europe and Asia after the war to starve some 2,5 million Germans to death, most of them young German men. So I consider myself to be the son of two families of Holocaust survivors. Considering that the world up to today did not even recognize this genocide against my own people -- not even in Germany is this subject dealt with in a way that could be called satisfying -- I believed it to be a moral imperative to make sure that the knowledge of my people and of the entire world about these events should be improved. That was the main reason for all my historical and political dedication in the eighties, inter alia within the Schlesische Jugend (Silesian Youth, youth organisation of the Germans expelled from Silesia), the social-patriotic party Die Republikaner, a party splintered off from the Christlich-Soziale Union in 1983, which itself is a Bavarian subsection of the already mentioned Christian Democratic Union, as well as the short-term involvement in the editing of the Junge Freiheit, in those years a tiny monthly newspaper sympathetic to Die Republikaner. The reader might judge for themselves what possibly could be wrong with these organisation that could lead to the destruction of my credentials.

If my commitment for a fight against forgetting, or ignorance of, the genocide committed against the German people is an indication of bias which calls into question my credentials as a non-dogmatic and objective seeker of truth, as McCarthy and Dr. Green imply, then their commitment to fight against forgetting, or ignorance of, the (alleged) genocide committed against the Jewish people is an indication of bias which calls their credentials as non-dogmatic and objective seekers of truth into question, too.

You can't have it either way.

And finally: All the articles of mine that were published in several periodicals McCarthy doesn't like should be judged by their content and not by the (alleged) political views other authors or the editors of these journals might have. Because there is no way for me to get anything I write published in those journals Green and McCarthy like -- their friends and allies simply refuse to accept them -- I have no choice but to stick to those journals which do accept my articles. And by the way: I am sure that Dr. Green and McCarthy don't like the journal I am editing, either. Does the fact that I publish my articles in my own journal destroy my reputation as well? Does my reputation destroy my reputation? The absurdity of this should make everybody see that the way McCarthy argues here is unacceptable.

Personal Acquaintances

One of the least desirable features of most human beings is that they quit any connection and relation to other fellow human beings -- be they friends or just acquaintances -- and even deny ever having had any connection or relations -- as soon as those fellow human beings are attacked by influential or renowned people, media or organisations. There is a German saying which hits the nail on the head:

Daß ich den Hund so lieb,
sagst Du, oh Mensch, sei Sünde.
Der Hund bleibt mir im Sturme treu,
der Mensch nicht mal im Winde.

That I love the dog so much,
you say, oh man, is a sin.
The dogs stays loyal in a storm,
the man not even in the wind.

It was extremely shocking for me to see how the judges during the trial against me at the Stuttgart District Court in 1994/95 tried to prove my allegedly evil political intention by linking me to people whose (alleged) political views they thought can be exposed easily. Because they couldn't prove that I had committed the thought crime they accused me of (having written some comments to one version of my report), they went the indirect way: By showing that apart from totally "normal" friends I additionally have had friends and acquaintances who were having allegedly evil political views, they concluded that I have similar views. That being "proved", they concluded that I was morally inferior and thus capable of committing the thought crime as the prosecutions claimed I had. Having "proved" that, they concluded that I did commit the crime.

The message is clear: Never get in touch with people whose alleged political views are considered to be evil by the German political judges, because otherwise they could incarcerate you for that. They did it in my case. Dr. Green and McCarthy use the same techniques to "outlaw" me. There is no human behaviour which is more odious.

In order to fight against that sort of moral degeneration, I do announce that I shall never distance myself from anyone I am somehow related to, just because some people think they are bad company -- no matter what their political views are. I am the only one who decides who is my friend and who not, and that is being done according to my personal preferences, and not according to Dr. Green's, McCarthy's or other inquisitors' preferences. Furthermore, it is an outright lie to impute that it is possible to conclude from somebody's political views about his friends' views.

The reader might remember the witch-hunt atmosphere in the USA shortly after the war, when Senator Joseph McCarthy and his allies were seeking to reveal all communist spies and their friends and supporters in order to destroy the (alleged) "Bolshevik danger". In these days people were persecuted and prosecuted just because they had friends which were communists or socialists. Today, Jamie McCarthy and his associates are doing exactly the same. That is nothing but a new form of McCarthyism.

Most of the people McCarthy is attacking me for having (had) relations with simply gave me an opportunity to do things I wanted to do or gave me shelter, aid and refuge in times when I was socially persecuted and legally prosecuted. I would rather die than betray those friends, what ever political convictions they might have, because it is not the political view that makes the quality (including the credentials) of a human being, but its virtues: wisdom, justice, bravery, moderation, selflessness, loyalty, honesty ...


In my first reply I have attacked Green for being polemic when claiming that Revisionists are "pseudoscientific," spreading false propaganda in order to spread a bit of confusion to obfuscate the truth, that they are lying. What is McCarthy's reply to it? First, he claims that I am pursuing a rhetorical point. Then he insists that we have no right to have our point taken seriously and that

"One has to earn such a right by demonstrating that one's point of view is worthy of serious discussion."

Why does McCarthy fail to address the point? I know myself that nobody has a right of being heard, and I did not claim this. I said that it is unfair, polemical, libellous and unscientific to claim that an opponent is lying, obfuscating the truth, spreading false propaganda etc. without proving this.

Though there can always be a discussion between people having completely different views about a certain topic, there cannot be a discussion if one side is permanently slandering the other side and accusing it of having bad intentions, without any proof.

Hate Speech and Censorship

In the next chapter, McCarthy again misses the point when addressing my accusation that Dr. Green is spreading hate. McCarthy writes:

"And what exactly is 'real hate speech?' It seems it is hate speech to label someone's speech 'hate speech.' If that is the case, he engages in hate speech by his own definition. If labeling speech 'hate speech' is the equivalent of censorship, then Rudolf is a censor."

This is pure nonsense, because first of all I would never support any censorship, even if it is about "hate speech". Second, I did not call Dr. Green's speech "hate speech" because he was labelling other's speech as "hate speech," but because he is claiming that we Revisionists are morally inferior as we allegedly are using all sorts of evil techniques in order to rehabilitate what he in his first article called the ideology of hate. Dr. Green:

"The people who write these reports are motivated by a desire to rehabilitate Nazism, an ideology of hate."

Do they ever consider what they are doing when claiming this? National Socialism and its exponents are today considered by nearly everybody to be the most odious things in the world. McCarthy and Green cannot and did not prove that I or other Revisionists do want to rehabilitate the reign of hate. They are just claiming it, and by doing so, they expose us to the utmost hate of the world. They are inciting the hate of the world against us. That is what I call hate speech: A speech with unfounded and wrong claims that results in the world hating something or somebody. If I would say:

"All Jews are lying and obfuscating the truth in order to establish the world dominance of Zionism."

I assume both Dr. Green and McCarthy would agree with me that this is hate speech. But if one writes:

"All Revisionists are lying and obfuscating the truth in order to establish the world dominance of National Socialism."

then this is supposed to be appropriate. How come?


In my article about censorship in Germany I briefly described that both heavy prison terms and psychiatric examinations of Revisionists are nowadays quite common in German speaking Europe, and arson against Revisionist and right wing publishers are getting more and more common as well, caused by those people who incite the world against Revisionists and everything that is supposed to be politically at the far right. McCarthy labels this as "unwarranted melodrama." Easy talk. He is not a victim in this case. [In the past when the subject of McCarthy's sexual preference was mentioned in passing in a discussion of Holocaust claims, McCarthy howled as if he was being egregiously persecuted. From this example, it would appear that for him, the actual repression of Revisionists around the world are of no consequence, while an imagined slight about his homosexuality elicited an immediate and hysterical response. To be clear: I don't care about McCarthy's sexual orientation. I have a homosexual acquaintance myself, and I don't care about it as long as those people don't bother me with their inverted sexual desires.]


In his first article, Dr. Green says that the assumption that there have been no homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz is "untenable," because one knows about their existence by eyewitness accounts. In criticizing Dr. Green, I referred to the impossibility to refute "findings of the exact sciences with eyewitness accounts" and showed that Dr. Green's allegation

"clearly shows that Green will never accept any proof of exact science which refutes what he believes is true. It shows that it is impossible to change Green's opinion about this matter, i.e. his opinion is not a scientific one, but a dogmatic one."

McCarthy ignores this revelation of Dr. Green's preoccupation and then artificially builds up a contradiction between my reference to "exact sciences" and my confirmation that

"chemistry is not the science which can prove or refute any allegations about the Holocaust "rigorously""

which he quickly converts to chemistry being an "inexact science." This term is deceptive in itself. When reference is being made to the "exact sciences", then one is generally talking about natural sciences as well as technical sciences, in opposition to the social sciences like historiography, sociology etc. This term does not imply that all conclusions being made by the "exact sciences" are necessarily exact in a mathematical sense.

Air Photos

Having no expertise in the realm of photo interpretation, as McCarthy and/or Dr. Green state, is a bad excuse not to discuss my arguments. But here we go ...


Because it is really boring to repeat chemical arguments again and again, I shall restrict myself to just a brief listing of obvious shortcomings in Dr. Green's critique of my work. More detailed remarks are going to be found in the new version of my report due in 2000.


I cannot see a single reference in Dr. Green's refutation addressing the only real data we have about the HCN-concentration and time required to kill people, i.e. the executions in the USA.

Dr. Green has ignored the fact that the evaporation of HCN from the carrier of Zyklon B is slowed down massively (besonders stark) in the case of high relative humidity in the air as would have been the case in an assumed homicidal gassing. This would have led to a higher amount of Zyklon B to be applied in order to achieve a similar release of HCN in the same period of time.


It is not Carlo Mattogno who has misrepresented the figures of the performance of the ventilation system built in into the morgue 1 of Krematorium II and III in Birkenau, but Pressac who did so. He wrote about a performance of 8.000 m³/h by referring to a document that is not with a single word talking about any performance. [1] In contrary to that, Carlo Mattogno quoted the final invoices for the ventilation systems which exactly give their performance: 4.800 m³/h. [2] Is it possible that Dr. Green hasn't seen the documents he is talking about?

My original calculations of the performance of the ventilation system, heavily attacked by Dr. Green, were basing on the very restricted data I received from Pressac's first book (Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers), and calculations basing on them. After having access to better information due to the opening of the Moscow archives, these statements are now obviously outdated. Because other information will affect many parts of my report, I stopped updating it, as a major revision of my report is now due.

When talking about "air exchanges," Dr. Green attacks me by claiming that because I am presumably using this word in different contexts with a different meaning, this reveals an attempt of "intentional deception" on my behalf. I would like to ask Dr. Green to read the relevant passages in the German original which would clarify that I did not use the same term in different contexts but that the translation he is referring to, which must have been prepared by an unskilled translator, is simply wrong.


Dr. Green contradicts my assertion that, contrary to the lime mortar used in the Auschwitz delousing chambers, the cement mortar and concrete found in the alleged homicidal gas chambers have a high pH value (alkaline medium) for quite a long time, making the formation of Iron Blue or Prussian Blue much more likely than in the delousing chambers, as a high pH value is favourable for the accumulation of cyanides and thus for the later forming of Prussian Blue. He writes:

"[In 1993] The IFRC [Institute for Forensic Research, Cracow], on the other hand measured the pH [of mortar samples from the alleged gas chambers] to be between 6 and 7 [i.e. neutral]."

In order to expose Dr. Green's way of arguing, let me say it in a parable:

By referring to a couple of Italian expert pizza baking instructions, I showed that a pizza, when taken out of the oven, is hot or warm for quite a while (one hour). Now, Dr. Green comes along claiming that I am wrong because a Polish friend of him has just now measured the temperature of a pizza which was baked a week ago, and which has been lying around somewhere since. And the Poles found out that this pizza was indeed cold right now.

I refuse to take Dr. Green serious. That sort of argument is childish, really.

Dr. Green criticizes my suggestions about the mechanism for the formation of Iron or Prussian Blue in lengthy detail, but eventually admits:

"that Rudolf is correct or nearly correct regarding the formation of blue staining in the delousing chambers."

At least we got this far. Dr. Green could have spared the reader nearly a third of his "refutation," which is merely a confirmation. It is just the alleged human gas chambers where he disagrees:

"it is exceedingly unlikely that the same process would have taken place to any great extent in the gas chambers used for mass murder."

My position is just the opposite. In order not to bore anybody be repeating myself again and again, I shall very briefly repeat all the arguments in a table which are consistently ignored by Dr. Green, and refer the reader to my original report, my first reply to Dr. Green's "refutation," and the coming issue of my report for more details. In the following table I have listed the factors affecting the formation of Prussian Blue both for an interior wall of the delousing chamber of building 5a in Birkenau (left), and of the alleged homicidal gas chamber of Krematorium II in Birkenau (right). The first data row gives the actual result of the analyses for total cyanide of samples taken from these walls. The right column shows approximate factors linking both premises' tendency to form Prussian Blue. The resulting factor in fact indicates that similar amounts of Prussian Blue should be expected in both locations. Dr Green gets to his differing results mainly by

  1. ignoring that concentrations of HCN similar to delousing procedures would have been necessary to kill the alleged victims in the time as testified by all "witnesses", basing mainly on the data we can get from capital punishment in the USA;
  2. ignoring that the tendency of the cool, wet and alkaline medium in the walls of alleged gas chambers would roughly compensate the reduced time the walls of these premises would have been exposed to HCN compared to delousing procedures.

Cyanide Residues to be Expected

Inner Wall
of delousing chamber
"Bauwerk 5a" in Birkenau

Walls of alleged
homicidal gas chamber
in Krematorium II in Birkenau


analysis result: 3,000 mg/kg

analysis result: 0-7 mg/kg,
not reproducible


Properties which were similar in both facilities

1. time period of operation


3/4 year

11/2 year


2. frequency of operation


daily (280 times)

nearly daily (400 × 1.000 people)


3. applied concentration of HCN


10 g/m3

10 g/m3


4. time gap between completion and start of operation


a few days or weeks

a few weeks


Properties which were advantageous for the formation of Iron Blue in the delousing chambers


average gassing time, leading to a saturation of the wall with HCN of


30% - 100%

5% - 20%


Properties which were advantageous for the formation of Iron Blue in the alleged homicidal gas chambers


1. Humidity of the walls


warm, dry wall

8-10 times higher than warm, dry walls


2. Sort of material


lime plaster

concrete and cement plaster


resulting factor:



In my critique of the counter-expertise presented by the Institute for Forensic Research, Cracow, I accused these Poles of a scientific fraud. The Poles claimed of not having understood how Prussian Blue could possibly form in walls as a result of them being exposed to HCN gas. Hence, they did assume that the Prussian Blue in the walls of the delousing chambers must have a different origin, e.g. stemming from paint. Although they knew about my well-founded suggestions for the mechanism involved when Prussian Blue is being formed in walls as a result of gassings with HCN, and they knew of my arguments refuting claims that the Prussian Blue could stem from any sort of paint, they decided to ignore them. Hence, they chose a method of analysis which excluded the detection of Prussian Blue compounds, and which eventually ended in analyses results presumably proving a similar cyanide content in both the delousing chambers and the alleged human gas chambers, which allegedly proves the reality of the claims of mass gassing of human beings in homicidal gas chambers in Auschwitz.

Because I acknowledge that the formation of Prussian Blue in walls is not necessarily a result of a gassing with HCN, Dr. Green argues that it shouldn't be criticized that the Poles chose a method of analysis which is unable to detect Prussian Blue compounds. Hence, Dr. Green supports the behaviour of the Poles.

Now let me be straight: Dr. Green agrees that the Prussian Blue found in delousing chambers is the result of gassings with HCN. Hence he disagrees with the opinion of the Poles that the Prussian Blue has its origin for different reasons. Henceforth he should refuse the approach of the Poles to exclude Prussian Blue from the analysis, because this would most likely exclude the major parts of the cyanide residues formed by gassing with HCN in general (not just in case of delousing chambers). As a consequence he should furthermore criticize the Poles as I did. Additionally and more generally, he should say that the Polish scientists did neither try to understand what they claimed not to have understood, nor did they discuss the attempts to understand made by others, which were known to them. No matter which results the Poles produced and what their scientific opinion might have been: their behaviour is extremely unscientific, as the most important task of a scientist is to try to understand what hasn't been understood so far, and to discuss the attempts of other to make understandable. The Poles just did the opposite: they decided to ignore and exclude what they didn't understand. Finally, in their article as well as in a letter to me, the Poles themselves stated that the purpose of their paper was to refute the "Holocaust Deniers" and to prevent Hitler and National Socialism from being whitewashed, i.e. their purpose was not to find out the truth! Thus, they used unscientific methods in order to produce desired results for the purpose of achieving certain political goals. Hence, they are scientific frauds.

Dr. Green supports them. He is attacking me for my accusations against the Poles, but he is omitting all the reasons I gave for doing so. He is then attacking me as follows:

"Anyone who questions the honesty of the deniers is accused of engaging in political polemics rather than science, but the deniers feel free to call any document a fraud and any researcher a liar if they do not like what they hear."

The opposite is true: I did not call the Poles frauds because of the arguments they have or because of their conclusions. That is the difference between me and Dr. Green.

I did call the Poles frauds because of the evidently unscientific approach they made and for the political bias they themselves admitted. This is not a matter of content or opinion, but a matter of scientific principle. Scientist who intentionally ignore arguments and who choose to ignore immensely important things because they presumably haven't understood, and who are at once admitting that the motivation for so doing is a political one, are frauds, no matter if revisionist or exterminationist.

To crown this, Dr. Green continues:

"Rudolf complains that Markiewicz et al. have not responded to his queries. Why should they do so? What credibility does Rudolf have, that demands they answer his every objection no matter how ill-founded?"

  1. Persecute, prosecute, and sentence people because they are having a different opinion.
  2. Thus, destroy the social existence and the reputation of people because they are having different opinions.
  3. Call people liars, obfuscators and haters because they have different opinions (like Dr. Green and McCarthy are doing).
  4. Then, when having succeeded, refuse to discuss with them, because now they have no longer any credibility.

Consequently, Dr. Green's opinion is that there is no need to discuss anything with people having a different opinion. He instead loves to show solidarity with scientific frauds.

There is apparently no common base for any further communication.


In his conclusions, Dr. Richard J. Green and Jamie McCarthy call me a "parrot of Faurisson and Ball" without even having addressed the arguments brought forward by me about topics which are only related to works done by Faurisson and Ball (alleged Zyklon-B introduction holes and air photos). One unfounded libel more.

Time will show whose scientific arguments will prevail at the end. But the moral judgment appears to be quite clear already.

© 30.8.99


[1] J.-C. Pressac, together with Robert van Pelt in: Yisrael Gutman, Michael Berenbaum (ed.), Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, Indiana Universty Press, Bloomington 1994, p. 210, 232; cf. the Moscow documents 502-1-312, p. 69 and 502-1-312, pp. 65-68
[2] Rechnung Nr. 729, Mai 27, 1943. Archive of the Museum of Auschwitz, D-Z/Bau, nr. inw. 1967, pp. 246f.; ibid., 231f.: Rechnung Nr. 171, February 22, 1943 for Krematorium II. Moscow archival no.: 502-1-327, p. 25 + 25R; 502-1-327, p. 16 +16R

Previous article about this dispute
Next article about this dispute