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.

Dr. Richard Green's Evasions

By Dipl.-Chemist Germar Rudolf

Previous article about this dispute

Once more, Dr. R. Green evaded the real issue in an article with the title "Postscript to Chemistry is not the Science: Rudolf's Character Suicide." In it, he claims that I have not refuted his work in my article "Character Assassins". The funny thing is that he then attacks me for having addressed the ad hominem attacks he and McCarthy made in their prior article "Chemistry is not the Science." He calls them rhetorical and even a "war of attrition." So if I defend myself against false personal accusations, I am the one to blame? Some of my remarks are, however, not rhetorical at all, but a matter of scientific methods. But the reader may judge this for himself.

Also, before again being attacked to avoid some of Green's issues or for not properly addressing them, I will state right away that the reader ought to read my Expert Report, the real issue of this dispute completely before entering in this exchange. I cannot and will not repeat myself over and over again. 

I want to address only a few points raised by Green in his response. He claims:

"Rudolf is not willing to call Nazis evil."

Dr. Green has apparently not understood the western system of justice: A person is evil in a legal sense only if found guilty for a crime, and then only in the context of this crime. Not all National Socialists and those supporting them -- the vast majority of all Germans between 1933 and 1945 -- have committed crimes nor were they in average any more evil than other humans anywhere else. Not even Green can claim that, or does he? Thus, a sweeping argument of "Nazis are evil" exposes his tendency to jump to prejudiced conclusions and for collective responsibility and punishment. I do indeed refuse to make any such sweeping statements, be it "Nazis are evil", "Communists are evil", "Jews are evil," "Witches are evil," or what have you. That Green apparently thinks I have to do that in order to protect my integrity is his problem. But he then cannot argue morally against people saying "Jews are evil," because those people, too, can come up with arguments to support such theses. While certain aspects of Nation Socialism -- ideologically and historically -- might justly be described as evil -- as is the fact for Communism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and many other ideologies -- this does not justify any sweeping statement.

With his first scientific point, Green argues I had not read, understood, or that I misrepresented his work by claiming that Green ignores the fact 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"

and that Green  is

"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;"

However, in "Chemistry is not the science," Green states:

"There is not a clear consensus on how much Zyklon B was actually used in the gas chambers, but most sources seem to put that number in the same order of magnitude as was used for delousing. […] As we shall see, the actual concentration reached [during homicidal gassings] is significantly lower [than during delousing procedures]"

Thus, what Green did say is that the AMOUNT of Zyklon B (per volume and gassing) used for both delousing and (alleged) homicidal gassings was similar, whereas I speak of the actual "concentrations of HCN [...]  necessary to kill the alleged victims in the time as testified by all 'witnesses.'" These are two different things! Green says it would have been significantly lower, and I showed that it had to be in the same order of magnitude, "basing mainly on the data we can get from capital punishment in the USA." It is these data we have about homicidal gassing -- the only reliable ones that exist -- which is what Green ignores. So I have not misrepresented or misunderstood anything. It is Green who overlooked the difference between applied amount and effective concentration.

Next, Green argues regarding the ventilation of the gas chamber:

"Regarding the performance of the ventilation system, it simply does not matter."


"The time before it was safe for the Sonderkommando to enter the gas chamber without a mask and with no ill effects ranges from 20 to 40 minutes, again within a range that does not contradict testimony."

I laid out my calculation about the ventilation of a hypothetical gas chamber in my Report, most recently in English. My figures disagree with Green's for several reasons:

  1. I assume the necessity of having roughly 10 g/m³ of HCN in the gas chamber after 10 min.
  2. I assume that the Zyklon B keep releasing HCN, because it can be ruled out for several reasons that any "Zyklon B introduction device" was ever installed at this location (see my subchapter "Zyklob B Introduction Holes and Columns"), thus Zyklon B introduced into that location could not have been removed. (Though I calculated the other case as well, see tables 11 and 12)
  3. The inefficiency of the ventilation system, which did not exchange the air in a laminar, but in a turbulent manner, with an "air short circuit," and only very slowly between the assumed pile of corpses, who would have slowed down any air flow by probably at least an order of magnitude (see the chapter on the ventilation in my Report).

Green accuses me that I:

"must realize that as [I] avoid discussing the issue."

I merely refrained from repeating myself, as it was already discussed in my expert report, German version of 1993.

Furthermore, Green claims that I did not demonstrate that the "cool, wet and alkaline medium" of "the walls of alleged gas chambers" would have had a tendency to accumulate more HCN then the dry walls of the delousing chambers. I did of course quote literature showing exactly these points (mainly in "Influence of various Building Materials"). The same issue comes up again shortly thereafter when Green states regarding the pH value of building materials:

"Unfortunately we cannot go back in time and measure the pH. Notwithstanding that fact, our conclusions about Prussian blue formation simply do not hinge on the pH."

I strongly recommend that Green finally consults some literature on building materials -- as I did in preparation of my report -- so he can find out for himself that my claims about considerably higher and longer lasting pH values in cement mortars as compared to lime mortars are true. There is no need to "go back in time". Just stop ignoring the facts, my quoted literature, and start going to a library! Also, it might well be that his argument does not hinge on the pH value, but that is only because his argument is flawed, as the pH value strongly influences the equilibrium concentration of cyanide ions in aqueous solutions (see my subchapter "pH Value," and especially Graph 5). I therefore have to repeat that Green keeps ignoring the most important facts. As a matter of fact: lime plaster older than several weeks (pH of ca. 6.5-7, delousing chambers) accumulates a concentration of cyanide 10,000 to 100,000 times lower than of a cement plaster of several weeks (pH 11-12, all in equilibrium and at the same temperature). How can anybody claim that this issue does not hinge on the pH value?

The next of Green's accusation is one of alleged dishonesty by omission:

"Rudolf shows the table of his Bavarian church without commenting on the fact that the fumigators involved found the case to be anomolous [sic]."

Green himself indicates that I re-published the entire article about this Bavarian church, which includes the statement about the anomaly. So what is his point? Apart from that, in my expert report ("Instances of Damages to Buildings"), I addressed the anomaly issue in length.

"Most importantly, Rudolf ignores the central points of our argument. […] 1 ) the short gassing time, and 2) the washing of the walls with water after gassings […]."

Not so, Mr. Green, see my expert report "Limits of the Chemical Method":

"Furthermore, the opinion is occasionally expressed that the homicidal 'gas chamber' was sprayed with a water hose after every gassing. This assertion forgets that it would have lasted many hours until the 'gas chamber' could have been cleared of bodies (they had to be cremated, which is time-consuming, after all) that the hydrogen cyanide does not merely sit on the surface of the wall, but rather, due to its extremely high diffusion capacity, penetrates deeply into the wall within a few hours, and that a water hose would be of no assistance in this regard, quite apart from the fact that such an action would have had the effect of causing the consequently extremely damp walls to adsorb even more hydrogen cyanide during the next hypothetical gassing. In addition, the samples taken from the ceiling, which was certainly not hosed down, likewise show no reproducible cyanide concentrations."

Green summarizes:

"The fact that Rudolf ignores the central arguments of our article [...]."

The opposite is true: Green keeps ignoring:

  1. That the actual concentration in homicidal gas chambers after a few minutes had to be as high as it was in the delousing chambers after an hour or more.
  2. The many factors which rendered the ventilation system quite inept of clearing the chamber for re-entry for 3-4 hours.
  3. The strong influence of temperature, pH value, and moisture on the accumulation of cyanide in building material.
  4. His unacceptable justification of the fraudulent Krakow scientists. For a summary of my critique, see "The Moon is made of Pizza" in my Expert Report.

Germar Rudolf
October 8, 2003

Previous article about this dispute