…by Jonas E. Alexis
Michael Shermer, quoting Carl Sagan’s essay “The Burden of Skepticism,” writes at the beginning of Why People Believe Weird Things:
“If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you. You never learn anything new. You become a crotchety old person convinced that nonsense is ruling the world. (There is, of course, much data to support you.)
“But every now and then, maybe once in a hundred cases, a new idea turns out to be on the mark, valid and wonderful. If you are too much in the habit of being skeptical about everything, you are going to miss or resent it, and either way you will be standing in the way of understanding and progress.
“On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful as from the worthless ones. If all ideas have equal validity then you are lost, because then, it seems to me, no ideas have any validity at all.”
So far, so good. Yet when it comes to questioning the claims that have been made by the Holocaust establishment, Shermer attacks those who use their skeptical skills, particularly the very people he called “Holocaust deniers.”
Shermer still believes that the Jewish soap story was probably done on a small scale, even though the claim has been completely abandoned by Jewish historians themselves.
It is safe to say that Michael Shermer only applies skepticism when it does not challenge his ideological substratum. He seems to be skeptical about UFO and what he calls “other confusions of our time,” but Shermer is not skeptical about the soap story, even though he provides not a single substantial evidence for it.
Shermer and Grobman write, “There is some evidence that at a site near the camp at Stutthof (about twenty-miles east of Gdansk [Danzig]) the Nazis may have manufactured soap from human remains.” The evidence?
Listen very carefully: “Cakes are on display at the museum there and witnesses have testified that soap was made at Stutthof from the fat of dead persons. At the war crime Sigmund Mazur, laboratory assistant at the Danzig Atomic Institute, testified that the institute conducted experiments in producing soap from human bodies.”
If Cakes are on display, therefore it must be true. And if Sigmund Mazur testified, there must be some truth to the story.
Shermer and his co-author certainly ought to talk to Yehuda Bauer and other leading Jewish historians on this issue. This is probably the only way that will help them kick their soap-story addiction. As David Irving puts it, “Why the Nazis should have wanted to rub their faces in the boiled-down detritus of their sworn enemies remains an imponderable mystery.”
Irving, on the other hand, pursues the skeptical enquiry to its historical limit.
For example, when Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs by Albert Speer was published, it was Irving who sat down with the author and asked him key questions deep questions. Irving quickly discovered that the “memoirs” were heavily influenced by outside forces. Irving writes:
“Albert Speer’s memoir Inside the Third Reich made him a personal fortune after the West Berlin firm of Propyläen published the book in 1969. The volume earned him wide respect for his disavowal of Hitler. Some critics were however puzzled that the American edition differed substantially from the German original Erinnerungen and the British edition. I learned the truth from the horse’s mouth, being one of the first writers to interview Speer after his release from Spandau prison in 1966.
“The former Reichsminister spent an afternoon reading out loud to me from his draft memoirs. The book subsequently published was very different, having been written, he explained, by my own in-house editor at the Ullstein publishing house (Annette Engel née Etienne), by their chief editor Wolf-Jobst Siedler, and by historian Joachim Fest, editor of the prestigious Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Miss Etienne confirmed this.
“When I challenged Speer in private at a Frankfurt publishing dinner in October 1979 to publish his original memoirs, he replied rather wistfully that he wished he could: ‘That would be impossible. That manuscript was quite out of keeping with the modern nuances. Even the captions to the chapters would have caused difficulties.’
“A courageous Berlin author, Matthias Schmidt, later published a book exposing the Speer legend and the ‘memoirs’; but it is the latter volume which the lazy gentlemen of my profession have in their libraries, not Schmidt’s…
“It was symptomatic of Speer’s truthfulness to history that while he was in Spandau he paid for the entire wartime diaries of his office (Dienststelle) to be retyped, omitting the more unfortunate passages, and donated these faked documents to the Bundesarchiv in Koblenz.
“My comparison of the 1943 volume, housed in the original in British Cabinet Office archives, with the Bundesarchiv copy made this plain, and Matthias Schmidt also reveals the forgery.”
After more than twenty years of digging in the archives, asking important questions, talking to people who knew Hitler personally, and even reading the diaries of those close to Hitler, Irving admits that Hitler is still a puzzle.
Yet Irving persuasively argues that contemporary history is not going to solve that puzzle if it keeps positing extraordinary claims without documentation and evidence, based solely on what contemporary historians wished had happened or what political correctness will accept.
Whatever Irving may believe in private, one has to judge his books on the basis of historical accuracy, consistency, and honesty. His methodology is far more historically rigorous and intellectually satisfying than quoting an opinion without robust evidence; this methodology was even acknowledged by historians such as Dennis E. Showalter when Hitler’s War was first published in 1977.
If Irving’s critics want to take him seriously, they have to debunk him through counterevidence from what Irving claims to know best—documented accounts from primary sources. If they cannot do that, then Irving will continue to justify his claim that conformist historians—or “traditional enemy of the truth”—are not interested in finding out what Nazi Germany was all about.
For example, to debunk Irving’s claim that the archives suggest Hitler did not know about this alleged “Final Solution,” Michael Shermer summons Raul Hilberg to say that Irving was completely wrong. Were Hilberg and Shermer able to prove this point from the archives? No.
Shermer could have proved Irving wrong by going through the archives since Irving, throughout Hitler’s War, gives the exact location of his sources, but Shermer took the easy route by talking to like-minded people like Hilberg.
Shermer could have done better: he could have asked Hilberg to cite archival documents proving his conclusion. Shermer did not go that far. Hilberg said it, and Shermer, the skeptic, believed him. (This same question was posed to Hilberg in court but he was unable to prove his point. More on that later in a future article.)
Historians, when they want to be honest and consistent, cannot dismiss Irving too quickly. Even Richard J. Evans knows this. As previously suggested, before the Irving-Lipstadt trial, Evans wrote that Irving
“knows an enormous amount about Hitler and his entourage and his immediate circle in the second world war and their conduct of military affairs, and over the years he’s dug up through contacts and through sheer energy and diligence enormous amounts of new documentation of varying interest and importance, but some of it is undeniably important.”
So if some of Irving’s documents are “undeniably important,” how is it that everything he ever published is now “worthless”? I contacted Evans and pointed this obvious contradiction to him, but he stood by the latter position.
It is safe to say that Evans is motivated by an ideology when it comes to examining serious issues about Nazi Germany. Evans, Christopher Browning, among other historians, were paid thousands upon thousands of dollars to testify in court that Irving is a fraud.
It is stunning to read that on a theoretical level, on many occasions Evans abides by the historical method. He writes,
“In teaching undergraduates and graduate students alike, university historians’ primary aim is to get them to adopt a critical and questioning attitude to the books and articles they read, including their own.”
“Historical writing as well as teaching makes a point of conveying the provisional and uncertain nature of interpretation and the need to test it constantly against the source materials used as evidence in its favor.” Evans also implies that primary sources are important.
Why shouldn’t that method be applied to key aspects of Nazi Germany? Evans is right in line with historical inquiry by saying that “the past does impose its reality through the sources in a basic way. At the most elementary level, one cannot simply read into documents words that are not there.”
Evans moves on to say (and this is very important): “It is highly dangerous to make objectivity in this sense dependent on the existence of the scholarly community. There was, after all, a scholarly community in Germany in the 1920s which remained in existence, largely unaltered in personnel and ideology, under Hitler’s Third Reich.”
Whether he likes it or not, Evans is on the same page with Irving here. Irving for years has been saying that the historical community needs to stop quoting itself to back up its extraordinary claims; instead, it needs to start digging into the archives for reliable sources.
In writing Hitler’s War, Irving did what professional historians should have done: he dug into military records and archives; gained the confidence of Hitler’s close associates; read original manuscripts and memoirs; read the memoirs of Hitler’s manservants such as Karl Wilhelm Krause; read the handwritten memoirs of Himmler’s intelligence chief, Walter Schellenberg; and read unpublished diaries and private letters of dozens of people around Hitler.
Irving even learned German in order to decode those documents. Irving has done his homework. After years of research, Irving saw that many claims made about Nazi Germany are either propaganda or completely false.
What was astonishing to Irving was that many historians who wrote lengthy biographies of Hitler do not even check the archives to see what they actually reveal. Joachim Fest is a classic example. The National Archives in Washington “houses by far the largest collection of records relating to recent European history,” but Fest admitted that he has never been there.
Let me say in passing that Evans’ In Defense of History is a good read and needs to be recognized as such. Yet he does not want to apply what he writes to real history, because political expediency does not allow the archives to speak for themselves.
In that sense, many historians become popular because they abandon what historiographical research requires. As Irving puts it, “A historian has no duty to be popular. It is difficult sometimes to be true to the historical record and popular at the same time.” This is right in line with what the Greek rhetorician and satirist Lucian said about history. It is pertinent to cite him one more time,
“Well, my historian should be like that: fearless, incorruptible, frank, a friend of free speech and the truth, determined, as the comic poet puts it, to call figs figs and a tub a tub, indulging neither hatred nor friendship, sparing nobody, not showing pity or shame or diffidence, an unbiased judge, kindly to everyone up to the point of not allowing one side more than it deserves, a stranger without a stake in his writings, independent, serving no king, not taking into account what any man will think, but simply saying what happened.”
Some historians choose the easy route, while Irving refuses to do so. This has cost him a great deal, even prison time, and he has been denied entrance to countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Italy, and South Africa.
Groups have pressured libraries to take Irving’s books off the shelves, and some students in Europe have been penalized in academic papers for citing Irving’s works.
In other words, since historical inquiry, discussion, and research do not help the Holocaust establishment in Europe, the best method is to get rid of those books and put their author in prison.
Irving, of course, cannot be placed behind bars in America because of our freedom of expression. But the best way to dismiss him is to denigrate his work. Aaron Breitbart of the Simon Wiesenthal Center declares that people like Irving “murder history.”
Foundations of the Holocaust Establishment
Michael Shermer argues that Holocaust historians base their arguments on key foundations: a convergence of evidence made by eyewitnesses, documents, photographs, and physical evidence. Totally flimsy.
There was a “convergence of evidence” showing that people were gassed at Belsen, Dachau, and other places; there was a “convergence of evidence” showing that the Nazis used Jewish fat to make soap. Alleged eyewitnesses were summoned, supposed documents were used, photographs were forged, and physical evidence was fabricated.
Those claims were made by a wide range of Jewish organizations, including Simon Wiesenthal. These stories, particularly the soap story, spread like wildfire in Poland, Slovakia, and even Germany. Walter Laqueur himself declares that the story was so popular that “by July 1942 rumours were rife all over Eastern Europe that Jews were killed in great numbers and ‘boiled into soap.’”
Yet it took Jewish historian Walter Laqueur years to declare that the soap story was demonstrably false. And Laqueur could never tell us how the story turned out to be false. He simply says that “It emerged after the war that the story was in fact untrue.”
We see the same methodology in Shermer and Grobman’s Denying History. They declare that “most historians do not believe [the soap story]. Deniers exploit this confusion, claiming it is a clear example of Holocaust myth-making, the unreliability of eyewitness testimony, and poor historiography.”
Shermer knows very well that “Holocaust deniers” are not the only ones to say that eyewitness testimony in this case is not enough to establish an extraordinary claim. As we saw in a previous article, it is also the position of many experts in the field.
Shermer could never tell us how most historians came to dismiss the soap story. Moreover, if the soap story is not a historical fact, could it be called a myth or a story that has no historical backup? We also have already seen the inconsistencies among alleged eyewitnesses.
No serious Holocaust historian believes that there is a “convergence of evidence” among eyewitnesses anymore. Yes, there is a convergence of contradictory evidence, as we saw in the case of Frank Walus.
Consider Paul Rassinier, a French anti-Nazi history and geography teacher who smuggled Jewish refugees into Switzerland. Rassinier was captured by the Nazis in 1943 and sent to Buchenwald. When the war was over, he was released and returned to France, where he was awarded the highest decoration from the French government.
Rassinier, however, was appalled at some of the claims being propagated. Although he hated the Nazi policies, he knew that there was no evidence showing that people were being gassed. He figured that he had to dispel many of the sweeping statements which were being made about the concentration camps.
Christopher Hitchens Defended David Irving
When David Irving was arrested in Austria, it was the late Christopher Hitchens stood up to defend him. Arresting Irving, Hitchens declares in the Wall Street Journal, is a “disgrace.” Hitchens pointed out that it is perfectly rational and legitimate to criticize religious belief and historical events, and one should not be placed in a cell for doing so.
Not only that, Hitchens wrote that Irving “is in fact not a ‘denier,’ but a revisionist, and much-hated by the full-dress ‘denial’ faction. The pages on Goebbels, as in his books on Dresden, Churchill and Hitler, contain some highly important and damning findings from his work in the archives of the Third Reich.”
Perhaps Hitchens should have debated those issues with Shermer and Lipstadt.
Hitchens, writing in 2001 in the Los Angeles Times, declared that “the Holocaust has become a secular religion, with state support in the form of a national museum.”
It seems that saying things like these would invoke cries of anti-Semitism, but Hitchens moves on to say that his mother’s family was of German and Polish Jewish descent and his wife’s family produced an Auschwitz survivor. Foreseeing that this preface would ease his statements, Hitchens further declared, “I look forward to a time when I won’t feel any need to mention this.”
Hitchens continued, implying that it was “revisionists” who first made it clear that 1) there were no gas chambers at Belsen or Dachau or Buchenwald; 2) the Nazis did not turn Jews into soap; and 3) Rudolf Hoess’ “confession” “was extracted by force.”
If a person wants to remain a serious historian, he has to abide by these historical facts now recognized by a wide range of World War II historians. This, according to Hitchens, leads to the conclusion that much of the “eyewitness” testimony is propaganda. “Eyewitness” testimony was also responsible for propagating the idea that John Demjanjuk was at Treblinka, but an Israeli court found that claim untrue.
Moroever, Hitchens said, “much of the evidence presented and accepted at Nuremburg was spurious.” For example, during the trial, the Nazis were blamed by the Soviet and Allied judges for the massacre that happened at Katyn in Poland, but all reputable historians know by now that Stalin was responsible for this.
Yet because the United States was right in line with Stalin during World War II, the U.S. knew very well about the incident in Katyn, but hid the evidence until it was revealed in 2012 in documents stored at the National Archives.
Hitchens said that Irving has a “sneaking sympathy for fascism,” but states that “his work on the bombing of Dresden, on the inner functioning of the Churchill government and on the mentality of the Nazi generals was invaluable. He changed sides on the issue of the Hitler diaries, but his intervention was crucial to their exposure as a pro-Nazi fabrication. His knowledge of the German language was the envy of his rivals.”
Although Hitchens believes that Irving’s work, like other historians, is not flawless, and faults Irving on many occasions, he concluded, “1st Amendment. This culture has assumed several great responsibilities. It sponsored the Nuremberg trials, with all their peaks and troughs of evidence. It has elevated the Holocaust into a universal moral example.” Princeton Jewish historian Arno J. Mayer said something similar.
I disagree with Hitchens on many issues, but he was more open-minded here than Shermer and Lipstadt.
My final View on Irving
I have said for years that Irving made a cardinal mistake when he sued Lipstadt, for there was no way he would have come out victorious, particularly when organized Jewry was pouring millions of dollars on the case. Even Hollywood mogul Steven Spielberg donated thousands of dollars. (Jim W. Dean told me that Irving did admit that it was indeed a mistake to sue Lipstadt.)
Lipstadt admits that when Rabbi Herbert Friedman heard about the case, he pulled Lipstadt aside and said, “It’s time to get organized. Irving set his sights on you, but it’s the entire Jewish community and historical truth that he is aiming at.”
In a similar vein, Leslie Wexner, chairman and CEO of Limited Brands, declared, “This is not Deborah’s issue. It’s our issue.” Lipstadt declared that Wexner “then relayed a message to me that I was not to worry about funds…All this was done quietly and without any publicity or fanfare.”
In my opinion, Irving should have written a book disproving the major edifice of Lipstadt’s accusation and the Holocaust establishment. This would have been more intellectually rigorous and historically detrimental to Lipstadt than going to court.
This article was first published in the summer of 2013.
-  Michael Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstitions, and Other Confusions of our Time (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2002), no page number.
-  Ibid., 115.
-  Keep in mind that after the Soviets took over Germany, people were tortured almost to death in order to make false confession
-  For further details on this, see Mark Weber, “Jewish Soap,” http://www.whale.to/b/weber11.html.
-  David Irving, Nuremberg: The Last Battle (London: Focal Points, 1996), 132.
-  David Irving, Hitler’s War (London: Focal Point Publications, 2000), xv-xvi.
-  Ibid., xxxi.
-  Dennis E. Showalter, “Book Review—David Irving, Hitler’s War,” American Historical Review, Vol. 82, Nov. 5, December 1977: 1281.
-  Michael Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of our Time (New York: Henry Holt & Company, 2002), 217.
-  http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/trial/Evans_lied160104.html.
-  http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/experts/payments.html.
-  Richard Evans, In Defense of History (New York: Norton, 1999), 93.
-  Ibid., 94; emphasis added.
-  Ibid., 94-95, 98, 99-100.
-  Ibid., 99.
-  Irving, Hitler’s War, xiv, xxi.
-  Ibid., xiv-xvii.
-  Ibid., xviii.
-  David Irving, Apocalypse 1945: The Destruction of Dresden (London: Focal Point Publications, 2007), xi.
-  http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/06/02/what-is-history/.
-  Irving, Hitler’s War, viii.
-  “Australian Dr. Frederick Toben Arrested for ‘Holocaust Denial,’” European Union Times, April 18, 2009.
-  Quoted in Shermer, Denying History, 12.
-  Walter Laqueur, The Terrible Secret: Suppression of the Truth about Hitler’s “Final Solution” (New York: Henry Holt, 1998), 145.
-  Ibid., 82.
-  Ibid.
-  Shermer and Grobman, Denying History, 115.
-  http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/19/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-holocaust-industry/.
-  Ibid.
-  See Paul Rassinier, The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses: A Study of the Nazi Concentration Camps and the Alleged Extermination of European Jewry (Newport Beach, CA: Noontide Press, 1977).
-  Christopher Hitchens, “Free Speech Uber Alles (Even for David Irving),” The Wall Street Journal, February 23, 2006.
-  Ibid.
-  Christopher Hitchens, “The Strange Case of David Irving,” LA Times, May 20, 2001.
-  Ibid.
-  Ibid.
-  Ibid.
-  John Hudson, “The Most Damning Evidence of a U.S. Coverup of Soviet War Crimes,” Atlantic, September 10, 2012; Jacob Heilbrunn, “The Katyn Massacre Cover-Up,” National Interest, September 12, 2012; “WWII Massacre: Memos Show US Cover-Up of Stalin’s Katyn Slaughter,” Russia Today, September 10, 2012.
-  Hitchens, “The Strange Case of David Irving,” LA Times.
-  Ibid.
-  Deborah E. Lipstadt, History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier (New York, HarperCollins, 2005), 37-38.
-  Ibid., 38.
-  Ibid.
-  Ibid.
Auschwitz Chemistry: How Science Proves The ‘Final Solution’ Was Systematically Gassing Lice Infested Clothing To Save Lives
By John Wear
Above: “Gassing Clothing”. Left: Healthy inmates at work sterilizing clothing. Right: Healthy prisoners at Auschwitz working in one of the larger clothing disinfestation chambers in the camp.
Above: The Auschwitz camp employed a number of delousing stations, which used steam and Zyklon-B to kill lice in prisoner clothing. This picture shows autoclave number 2, seen from the “dirty” clothing side. Infected clothing was put on hangers attached to a trolley and pushed inside the chamber. Dirty clothes were put on hangers on a trolley which was pushed into the chamber on two short rails. The disinfection stations were constructed with double doors so that the infected and cleaned clothes would not be mixed together. This picture was taken while the camp was operational.
The Chemistry of Auschwitz/Birkenau
Defenders of the Holocaust story have attempted to discredit scientific reports which disprove the existence of homicidal gas chambers at German camps during World War II. For example, Deborah Lipstadt’s defense attorney, Richard Rampton, referred in court to The Leuchter Report as “…a piece of so-called research which is not worth the paper it is written on…”
Dr. Richard Green states about Germar Rudolf:
Owing to the fact that he actually has some understanding of chemistry, many of his deceptions are more sophisticated than other Holocaust deniers…Ultimately, he engages in the same deceptions and specious arguments as [Fred] Leuchter and [Walter] Lüftl , but the case he makes for those deceptions and arguments involves more difficult chemistry.”
This article will discuss attempts by chemists to discredit scientific reports which disprove the existence of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz/Birkenau during World War II.
In 1988, the Canadian government put Ernst Zündel on trial a second time for the criminal offense of knowingly disseminating false news about “the Holocaust.” As part of his defense in this trial, Zündel commissioned the American gas-chamber expert Fred Leuchter to make a scientific examination of the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek. The resulting Leuchter Report is the first scientific study of the alleged German homicidal gas chambers.
In addition to reporting that the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek were structurally unsuitable for gassing, Leuchter researched the chemical properties of the Zyklon B fumigant. Leuchter found that Zyklon B is a highly toxic compound that releases deadly hydrogen cyanide gas. The released hydrogen cyanide gas clings to surfaces and reacts chemically with materials containing iron, forming ferrocyanide compounds that have a distinctive blue color called Prussian Blue. Since building materials normally contain a certain amount of rust (iron oxide, usually between one and four percent), repeated exposure to hydrogen cyanide gas would result in Prussian Blue staining on the walls of the alleged gas chambers.
Leuchter took forensic samples from the alleged gas chambers at the visited sites and a control sample from the delousing facility at Birkenau. The samples were analyzed by an independent laboratory in the United States. The laboratory found no significant ferrocyanide compound traces in the samples taken from the alleged homicidal gas chambers, but the sample from a wall of the Birkenau delousing facility had heavy concentrations of the ferrocyanide compounds. Leuchter concluded that this result would be impossible if the alleged homicidal gas chambers had been repeatedly exposed to hydrogen cyanide gas.
Germar Rudolf, a certified chemist, expanded on Leuchter’s work by writing the Rudolf Report in the spring of 1992. The Rudolf Report, which has been updated and revised several times, focused on engineering and chemical aspects of the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz and Birkenau. Rudolf observed in his on-site examinations that all of the delousing facilities at Auschwitz, Birkenau, Stutthof and Majdanek have one thing in common: their walls are permeated with Prussian Blue. Not only the inner surfaces, but also the outside walls and the mortar between the bricks of the delousing facilities have Prussian Blue staining. Nothing of this sort can be observed in any of the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz and Birkenau.
Rudolf also took samples from the alleged homicidal gas chambers and the delousing facilities at Auschwitz and Birkenau. Similar to Leuchter’s samples, the alleged homicidal gas chambers exhibit only insignificant traces of ferrocyanide residue on the same order of magnitude found in any other building. The samples from the delousing chambers, however, all showed very high ferrocyanide residues. Rudolf determined that, if mass execution gassings with hydrocyanic acid had taken place in the alleged homicidal gas chambers, the rooms in the alleged homicidal gas chambers would exhibit similar ferrocyanide residue as the delousing chambers. Therefore, Rudolf concluded that mass gassings with Zyklon B did not occur in the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz and Birkenau.
Kraków Institute of Forensic Research
The Kraków Institute of Forensic Research published results in 1994 that attempted to refute the Leuchter Report. The team from this forensic institute led by Dr. Jan Markiewicz claims not to have understood how it was possible for Prussian Blue to have formed in walls as a result of their being exposed to hydrogen cyanide gas. The researchers therefore excluded Prussian Blue and similar iron cyanide compounds from their analyses, resulting in much lower cyanide traces for the delousing chambers. Their analysis made it practically impossible to distinguish between rooms massively exposed to hydrogen cyanide and those which were not: all would have a cyanide residue of close to zero. The Kraków researchers concluded from their analysis that since the gas chambers and delousing facilities all had the same amount of cyanide residues, humans were gassed in the gas chambers.
Germar Rudolf gave the Kraków researchers irrefutable proof that Prussian Blue can be formed in walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide gas, citing a case document in expert literature. The authors of the Kraków report refused to change their report and admit they made a mistake. Rudolf writes:
The only ‘scientific’ attempt to refute Frederick A. Leuchter’s most intriguing thesis turns out to be one of the biggest scientific frauds of the 20th century. How desperate must they be—those who try to defend the established version of the Holocaust, i.e., the alleged systematic extermination of Jews in homicidal ‘gas chambers’, that they resort to such obviously fraudulent methods?”
British science historian Dr. Nicholas Kollerstrom also refuted the Kraków Institute of Forensic Research report, as succinctly summarized by the retired professor of the philosophy of science Dr. James H. Fetzer:
When the Auschwitz museum was confronted with the fact that the innocuous delousing chambers at Auschwitz have blue walls–due to being saturated with blue iron cyanide compounds–but the alleged homicidal gas chambers have not, they commissioned their own chemical research. Instead of testing wall samples for the chemicals that had caused the blue stains, the researchers they commissioned simply excluded those chemicals from their analysis by employing a procedure that could not detect them. They justified this measure with the claim that they did not understand exactly how these compounds could form and that they might therefore be mere artifacts. Researchers who don’t understand what they are investigating have no business becoming involved. In this case, however, it appears to be deliberate. They have deliberately ignored an obvious explanation–that Zyklon B was only used for delousing–which would have remedied their lack of comprehension. As a result of this failure to adhere to the principles of science, they produced a report of no scientific value, which they used to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.
Dr. Arthur Robert Butz writes in regard to the Kraków Institute of Forensic Research report:
The argument, to the extent that it was intelligible enough to be summarized at all, was that they did not understand how the iron-cyanide compounds got to be there, so they decided to ignore them in reaching their conclusions. I don’t understand how the moon got there, so I will ignore all effects associated with it, such as tides. I hope I don’t drown.”
Dr. James Roth
Dr. James Roth testified at the 1988 Ernst Zündel trial that he received samples from Fred Leuchter in his capacity as an Analytical Chemist at Alpha Analytical Laboratories. The purpose of the tests was to determine the total iron and cyanide content in the samples. Dr. Roth testified that the Prussian Blue produced by a reaction of the iron and hydrogen cyanide could penetrate deeply in porous materials such as brick and iron.
Dr. Roth later changed his testimony in a documentary movie titled Mr. Deathproduced by Errol Morris. Dr. Roth states in this movie:
Cyanide is a surface reaction. It’s probably not going to penetrate more than 10 microns. Human hair is 100 microns in diameter. Crush this sample up, I have just diluted that sample 10,000; 100,000 times. If you’re going to go looking for it, you’re going to look on the surface only. There’s no reason to go deep, because it’s not going to be there.
Dr. Nicholas Kollerstrom writes that Dr. Roth’s statements in Mr. Death are wrong:
The 1999 film about Leuchter features an interview with the chemist [Dr. James Roth] who had done the analysis of his wall-samples back in 1988. He had done this “blind,” i.e. with no knowledge of where they had come from, which was correct scientific procedure. During the second Zündel trial in Toronto in 1988 he testified under oath concerning the method used and what Leuchter had sent him. He said back then that hydrogen cyanide can easily penetrate into brick and mortar. But then, when he was interviewed again by Morris for his documentary, he suddenly stated that the results were quite meaningless, because the cyanide could only have soaked a few microns into the brickwork. Wow, that was quite a whopper. Mortar and brickwork are highly porous to hydrogen cyanide, obviously so because the delousing chambers were more or less equally blue inside and out, it had soaked right through. But you can watch him on video explaining this, as if he were confusing brick and mortar with rock. The latter will only absorb cyanide to a few microns of its surface.
Germar Rudolf writes in regard to Dr. Roth’s statements in Mr. Death: “It can be shown that Prof. Dr. James Roth is wrong for the following reasons:
- It is a fact that the walls of the disinfestation chambers in Auschwitz, Birkenau, Stutthof, and Majdanek are saturated with cyanide compounds, and this not only superficially, but into the depth of the masonry, as I have demonstrated by taking samples from different depths of the wall. Compare in this regard my mortar and plaster Sample Pairs 9 & 11, 12 & 13, 19a & b…, which were each taken at the same spot but at different depths, as well as Sample 17, taken from below the overlying lime plaster (which is thus similar to 19b). These values prove that hydrogen cyanide can rather easily reach deep layers of plaster and mortar. But even the other samples taken from the surface prove that Prof. Roth’s allegation is wrong: Provided that most of the cyanide detectable today is present in the form of iron cyanide (Iron Blue and other cyanoferrates), as Prof. Roth assumes himself, his thesis would mean that 10% to 75% of the iron content of these samples are located in the upper 10 micrometers thin layer of the samples (0.010 mm), i.e., they are located in less than 1% of the entire sample mass. The rest of the samples, however, would have been massively deprived of iron. How this migration of a major portion of iron to a thin surface layer would have happened is inexplicable to me. Fact is that this simply could not happen.
- Furthermore, expert literature is detailed about the following:
- Hydrogen cyanide is an extremely mobile chemical compound with physical properties comparable to water…
- Water vapor can quite easily penetrate masonry material, and thus also hydrogen cyanide…
- Hydrogen cyanide can easily penetrate thick, porous layers like walls…
- In addition, it is generally known that cement and lime mortar are highly porous materials, comparable for instance to sponges. In such materials, there does not exist anything like a defined layer of 0.01 mm beyond which hydrogen cyanide could not diffuse, as there can also be no reason, why water could not penetrate a sponge deeper than a millimeter. Steam, for example, which behaves physically comparable to hydrogen cyanide, can very easily penetrate walls.
- Finally, the massive discolorations of the outside of the walls of the disinfestation chambers in Birkenau and Stutthof, as shown in this expert report, are clearly visible and conclusive evidence for the fact of how easily hydrogen cyanide and its soluble derivatives can and do penetrate such walls.
As a professor of analytical chemistry, Prof. Roth must know this, so one can only wonder why he spreads such outrageous nonsense. That Prof. Roth is indeed a competent chemist can be seen from what he said during his testimony under oath as an expert witness during the above mentioned Zündel trial..: ‘In porous materials such as brick or mortar, the Prussian blue [hydrogen cyanide] could go fairly deep as long as the surface stayed open, but as the Prussian blue formed, it was possible that it would seal the porous material and stop the penetration.’
…It is also revealing that Prof. Roth mentioned during this interview that, if he had known where Leuchter’s samples originated from, his analytical results would have been different. Does that mean that Prof. Roth manipulates his result according to whether or not he likes the origin of certain samples? Such an attitude is exactly the reason why one should never tell an ‘independent’ laboratory about the origin of the samples to be analyzed, simply because ‘independence’ is a very flexible term when it comes to controversial topics. What Prof. Dr. Roth has demonstrated here is only his lack of professional honesty.”
Dr. Richard Green
Dr. Richard Green, who has a Ph.D. in Chemistry from Stanford University, agrees with Germar Rudolf that the Prussian Blue found in the delousing chambers is the result of gassings with hydrogen cyanide. However, Dr. Green offers a possible alternative explanation for why the outside walls of the delousing chambers having blue staining. Green writes: “…the discoloration on the outside of walls [of the delousing chambers], ought to make one consider what possible processes could have taken place outside of the delousing chambers. For example, is it possible that materials that had been soaked with aqueous solutions of HCN were leaned against the outside of the buildings? Not enough is known, but it is premature to conclude that the staining on the outside of buildings owes its origins to processes that took place within those buildings.”
Dr. Green’s speculation is absurd. Why would the Germans lean materials that had been soaked with aqueous solutions of HCN against the outside walls of the delousing chambers? Dr. Green is desperate to find an alternative reason for the heavy blue staining on the outside walls of the delousing chambers.
Germar Rudolf writes in regard to Dr. Green’s speculation:
One major rule of science is that it is impermissible to immunize a theory against refutation, here in particular by inventing untenable auxiliary hypotheses to shore up an otherwise shaky thesis…This is exactly what Dr. Green is doing: coming up with a ludicrous attempt at explaining a fact which does not fit into his theory. Yet instead of fixing his theory, he tries to bend reality.”
Dr. Green also challenges the possibility of formation of any noticeable quantities of Prussian Blue in the alleged homicidal gas chambers. Dr. Green writes: “The difference in total cyanides (Prussian blue + non-Prussian blue) owes to the fact that Prussian blue formed efficiently in the case of the delousing chambers but not in the homicidal gas chambers, and Prussian blue once formed is likely to remain.”
Dr. Green is not able to provide any convincing evidence why Prussian Blue would not form efficiently in the homicidal gas chambers. For example, Dr. Green states that masonry in the alleged homicidal gas chambers has a neutral pH value which does not allow for the formation of cyanide salts. Germar Rudolf writes: “But if that were true, how come huge amounts of cyanides did accumulate in the walls of the disinfestation chambers?”
Rudolf has documented with expert literature on the chemistry of building materials that the cement mortars and concretes used in the alleged homicidal gas chambers are noticeably alkaline for many weeks, months, or even years. These walls would have been very much inclined to accumulate cyanide salts and to form Prussian Blue, even more so than the lime plaster of the disinfestation chambers.
The alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz/Birkenau could not have been used to exterminate hundreds of thousands of people as described in pro-Holocaust literature for numerous reasons: 1) they did not have escape-proof doors and windows; 2) they did not have panic-proof equipment; 3) they did not have technically gastight doors and shutters; 4) they had no provision to quickly release and distribute the poison gas; and 5) they had no effective device to ventilate or otherwise render ineffective the poison gas after the execution.
By contrast, Germany built highly sophisticated and expensive disinfestation facilities at Auschwitz/Birkenau to kill lice and save inmate lives. By one estimate, the SS at Auschwitz spent almost $1 billion in today’s values to bring the typhus epidemics raging there under control. An enormous amount of information exists concerning these German delousing facilities, but no similar information exists regarding the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz/Birkenau.
The roof of the semi-underground Morgue #1 of Crematorium II at Birkenau, which is said to have been the building’s homicidal gas chamber, remains intact to some degree today. Contrary to eyewitness testimony, that roof has no Zyklon-B-introduction holes. This has been acknowledged by pro-Holocaust researcher Robert Jan van Pelt. Since it is impossible to close holes measuring 70 x 70 cm from a concrete roof without leaving clearly visible traces, it is certain that no Zyklon-B-introduction holes ever existed at Crematorium II. Consequently, Zyklon B could not have been introduced through the roof at this morgue as alleged by pro-Holocaust supporters.
As documented in this article, chemists adhering to the orthodox Holocaust narrative have failed to explain why the walls of the delousing facilities at Auschwitz/ Birkenau are permeated with Prussian Blue, while nothing of this sort can be observed in any of the alleged homicidal gas chambers. The only reasonable explanation is that Zyklon B was never used in the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz/Birkenau. Nicholas Kollerstrom writes:
…for any alleged human gas chamber found in a German World War II labour camp let us merely measure cyanide in the walls: if it’s not there, it didn’thappen.”
 Van Pelt, Robert Jan, The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence From the Irving Trial, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2002, pp. 137, 435.
 Richard J. Green, “The Chemistry of Auschwitz,” 10 May 1998, http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/.
 Rudolf, Germar, “Some Technical and Chemical Considerations about the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz and Birkenau,” in Gauss, Ernst (ed.), Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique of Truth and Memory, Capshaw, AL: Thesis and Dissertations Press, 2000, p. 337. See the currently available edition of Leuchter’s report: Fred A. Leuchter, Robert Faurisson, Germar Rudolf, The Leuchter Reports: Critical Edition, 4th ed., Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, 2015.
 Rudolf, Germar, “A Brief History of Forensic Examinations of Auschwitz,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 20, No. 2, March/April 2001, p. 7.
 Leuchter, Fred A., “The Leuchter Report: The How and the Why,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 9, No. 2, Summer 1989, pp. 138-139.
 Rudolf, Germar, “Some Technical and Chemical Considerations about the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz and Birkenau,” in Gauss, Ernst (ed.), Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique of Truth and Memory, Capshaw, AL: Thesis and Dissertations Press, 2000, pp. 363-371.
 Rudolf, Germar, “A Brief History of Forensic Examinations of Auschwitz,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 20, No. 2, March/April 2001, p. 9.
 Rudolf, Germar, “Some Technical and Chemical Considerations about the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz and Birkenau,” in Gauss, Ernst (ed.), Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique of Truth and Memory, Capshaw, AL: Thesis and Dissertations Press, 2000, p. 369.
 Preface to: Kollerstrom, Nicholas, Breaking the Spell: The Holocaust, Myth and Reality, Uckfeld, Great Britain: Castle Hill Publishers, 2015, pp. 12-13.
 Butz, Arthur R., “Historical Past vs. Political Present,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 19, No. 6, Nov./Dec. 2000, p. 15.
 Kulaszka, Barbara, (ed.), Did Six Million Really Die: Report of Evidence in theCanadian “False News” Trial of Ernst Zündel, Toronto: Samisdat Publishers Ltd., 1992, pp. 362-363.
 https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mr._Death; Richard J. Green, “Report of Richard J. Green”, introduced in evidence during the libel case before the Queen’s Bench Division, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, David John Caldwell Irving vs. (1) Penguin Books Limited, (2) Deborah E. Lipstadt, ref. 1996 I. No. 1113, 2001, p. 16; http://www.phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/irving-david/rudolf/affweb.pdf,
 Kollerstrom, Nicholas, Breaking the Spell: The Holocaust, Myth and Reality, Uckfeld, Great Britain: Castle Hill Publishers, 2015, p. 66.
 Rudolf, Germar, The Chemistry of Auschwitz: The Technology and Toxicology of Zyklon B and the Gas Chambers—A Crime-Scene Investigation, Uckfield, Great Britain: Castle Hill Publishers, 2017, pp. 342-345.
 Richard J. Green, “Report of Richard J. Green”, op. cit. (note 12), pp. 18, 36, 41.
 Rudolf, Germar, The Chemistry of Auschwitz: The Technology and Toxicology of Zyklon B and the Gas Chambers—A Crime-Scene Investigation, Uckfield, Great Britain: Castle Hill Publishers, 2017, pp. 347-349.
 Ibid., p. 348.
 Richard J. Green, “Report of Richard J. Green”, op. cit. (note 12), p. 51.
 Rudolf, Germar, The Chemistry of Auschwitz: The Technology and Toxicology of Zyklon B and the Gas Chambers—A Crime-Scene Investigation, Uckfield, Great Britain: Castle Hill Publishers, 2017, p. 345.
 Ibid., pp. 345-346.
 Ibid., pp. 174-175.
 Ibid., pp. 175, 293.
 Rudolf, Germar, The Chemistry of Auschwitz: The Technology and Toxicology of Zyklon B and the Gas Chambers—A Crime-Scene Investigation, Uckfield, Great Britain: Castle Hill Publishers, 2017, p. 114.
 Ibid., pp. 143-147.
 Kollerstrom, Nicholas, Breaking the Spell: The Holocaust, Myth and Reality, Uckfeld, Great Britain: Castle Hill Publishers, 2015, p. 70.
Ernst and Ingrid Zündel. Never forgotten, always cherished. Their contribution to #Justice4Germans is immeasurable: The Desperate Measures To Enforce Belief In One & ONLY One Historical Event Are Escalating In Absurdity: Old Ladies Get Jail, Rapists Go Free</a