The Rudolph Report

The Rudolf Report Chemical Analysis Gas Chambers

the-rudolfreportexpertreportonchemicalandtechnicalaspectsofthegaschambersofauswitzgermarrudolf-1-638 (1)

This book is banned by Amazon!! In 1988, Fred Leuchter, an American expert for execution technologies, investigated the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz and Majdanek and concluded that they could not have functioned as claimed. Ever since, Leuchter’s claims have been massively criticized. In 1993, Germar Rudolf & Wolfgang Lambrecht, researchers from the prestigious German Max-Planck-Institute, published a…

via eBOOK: The Rudolf Report – Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the Gas Chambers of Auschwitz — ZIONIST REPORT

  1. RUDOLF REPORT EXPERT REPORT ON CHEMICAL & TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE ‘GAS CHAMBERS’ OF AUSCHWITZ GERMAR RUDOLF • DR. WOLFGANG LAMBRECHT 2 TBR Manufactured in the U.S.A. THE BARNES REVIEW P.O. Box 15877 Washington, D.C. 20003 www.BarnesReview.org 1-877-773-9077 toll free THERUDOLFREPORTRUDOLF&LAMBRECHT THE RUDOLF REPORT EXPERT REPORT ON CHEMICAL & TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE ‘GAS CHAMBERS’ OF AUSCHWITZ N ew second expanded and revised edition by Germar Rudolf and Dr. Wolfgang Lambrecht. In 1988, Fred Leuchter, American expert for ex- ecution technologies, investigated the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz and Majdanek and concluded that they could not have functioned as claimed. Ever since, Leuchter’s claims have been attacked. In 1993, Rudolf, a researcher from the prestigious Max Planck Institute, published a thorough forensic study about the “gas chambers” of Auschwitz. His report irons out the deficiencies and discrepancies of “The Leuchter Report.” The Rudolf Report was the first English edition of this sensational scientific work. This new edition analyzes all existing evidence on the Auschwitz gas chambers and offers even more evidence. The conclusions are startling. Appendix describes Rudolf’s unique persecution—this brilliant scientist was so feared by the mainstream holocaust establishment that they banned him from writing about or research- ing the subject as terms of his release from prison! Here’s what just one scholar had to say about this book: “I am extraordinar- ily impressed. To my knowledge, you are the first expert in Germany who has addressed this particular topic in a scholarly impeccable and well-founded way. It is not for me to attribute an ice-breaker function to your expert report. It is easy to see which political-historical effects will originate from it, though its entire dimension cannot yet be estimated.” —Prof. Dr. Hellmut Diwald, 1992 THE RUDOLF REPORT (softcover, 457 pages, indexed, illustrated, #378, $33 minus 10% for TBR subscribers) can be ordered from TBR BOOK CLUB, P.O. Box 15877, Washington, D.C. 20003. Inside U.S. add $5 S&H. Outside U.S. email TBRca@aol.com for best S&H to your nation. To charge a copy to Visa, Mas- terCard, AmEx or Discover, call TBR toll free at 1-877-773-9077. Bulk prices available: Email TBRca@aol.com. See more at www.barnesreview.com.
  2. 2. THE RUDOLF REPORT EXPERT REPORT ON CHEMICAL AND TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE ‘GAS CHAMBERS’ OF AUSCHWITZ 2ND REVISED AND EXPANDED EDITION EDITED BY DR. WOLFGANG LAMBRECHT
  3. 3. Dedicated to the unknown thousands of Germans now suffering political persecution in their own country.
  4. 4. BY GERMAR RUDOLF THE RUDOLF REPORT EXPERT REPORT ON CHEMICAL AND TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE ‘GAS CHAMBERS’ OF AUSCHWITZ 2ND REVISED AND EXPANDED EDITION EDITED BY DR. WOLFGANG LAMBRECHT PUBLISHED BY THE BARNES REVIEW P.O. BOX 15877 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20003
  5. 5. HOLOCAUST HANDBOOK SERIES—VOLUME 2: The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Techinical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’of Auschwitz’ Revised and Expanded Second Edition By GERMAR RUDOLF Second revised and expanded edition edited by Dr. Wolfgang Lambrecht. First edition translated from German by Carlos Porter, Michael Humphrey, James Damon and the author. Revised second edition by THE BARNES REVIEW: August 2011 First edition published in 2003 by Theses & Dissertations Press ISBN: 978-0-9846312-7-8 ISSN: 1529-7748 Published by THE BARNES REVIEW Copyright 2011 by THE BARNES REVIEW Manufactured in the United States of America Distribution USA/America: THE BARNES REVIEW, P.O. Box 15877 Washington, D.C. 20003, USA 1-877-773-9077 toll free charge line Distribution Europe/Africa: Castle Hill Publishers P.O. Box 243 Uckfield, TN22 9AW, UK Distribution Australia/Asia: Peace Books, P.O. Box 3300, Norwood, 5067, Australia www.BarnesReview.com • www.HolocaustHandbooks.com If these sites are inaccessible, try it with anonymizer services. Set in Times New Roman ON THE COVER: Various photos show chemist Germar Rudolf during his on-site inves- tigation on existing structures at theAuschwitz labor camp.This book is the result of his ex- tensive scientific analysis of the data he gathered there.
  6. 6. GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT 5 Table of Contents Page Part I: Science…………………………………………………………………………..9 1. Prelude……………………………………………………………………………..11 1.1. Slow Death in U.S. Gas Chambers ……………………………………. 11 1.2. Hydrogen Cyanide – a Dangerous Poison…………………………… 14 1.3. The Acid that Causes Blue Stains……………………………………… 19 2. The Coup………………………………………………………………………….23 2.1. Fred Leuchter on Auschwitz and Majdanek ……………………….. 23 2.2. Damage Control……………………………………………………………… 26 3. The Origins……………………………………………………………………….29 3.1. On the Problem ………………………………………………………………. 31 3.2. On Politics……………………………………………………………………… 35 4. A Brief History of Forensic Examinations of Auschwitz…………39 4.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………. 39 4.2. The Moral Obligation of Forensic Examination ………………….. 39 4.3. A Definition of Forensic Science………………………………………. 41 4.4. Forensic Science and Auschwitz……………………………………….. 42 4.4.1. Forensics in the Courts……………………………………………………42 4.4.1.1. The 1946 Krakow Auschwitz Trial………………………………… 42 4.4.1.2. The 1964-1966 Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial ……………………… 44 4.4.1.3. The 1972 Vienna Auschwitz Trial…………………………………. 45 4.4.2. Forensics Outside the Courts……………………………………………45 4.4.2.1. In Search of Mass Graves …………………………………………….. 45 4.4.2.2. Faurisson and the Consequences……………………………………. 46 5. Auschwitz…………………………………………………………………………47 5.1. On the History of the Camp ……………………………………………… 47 5.2. Epidemics and the Defense Against Them …………………………. 54 5.2.1. Danger of Epidemics………………………………………………………54 5.2.2. Epidemic Control with Zyklon B……………………………………..55 5.2.3. Epidemic Control in Auschwitz ……………………………………….60 5.2.3.1. Terminology Used and Responsibilities …………………………. 60 5.2.3.2. Procedures Used …………………………………………………………. 62 5.2.3.3. Results ………………………………………………………………………. 63 5.2.3.4. Basic Policy Decisions…………………………………………………. 63 5.2.3.5. The Army Medical Officer …………………………………………… 64 5.2.3.6. Short-Wave Delousing Facility……………………………………… 67 5.2.4. Disinfestation Installations BW 5a und 5b…………………………68 5.3. “Gas Chamber” in the Auschwitz I Main Camp………………….. 72 5.4. “Gas Chambers” in the Birkenau Camp……………………………… 82 5.4.1. Crematoria II and III ………………………………………………………82 5.4.1.1. Point of Departure……………………………………………………….. 82 5.4.1.2. The Obsessive Search for “Criminal Traces”………………….. 87 5.4.1.2.1. New Cellars Stairways……………………………………………….. 88 5.4.1.2.2. Gassing Cellar, Undressing Room, and Showers……………. 90 5.4.1.2.3. “Gas-tight Doors” for Crematorium II …………………………. 93 5.4.1.2.4. Ventilation Installations……………………………………………… 97 5.4.1.2.5. Pre-heated Morgues…………………………………………………… 99
  7. 7. 6 GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT 5.4.1.2.6. “Cremation with Simultaneous Special Treatment“………… 99 5.4.1.2.7. “Gas Testers” and “Indicator Devices for HCN Residues”………………………………………………………………. 101 5.4.1.2.8. Zyklon B Introduction Holes and Columns …………………. 104 5.4.1.2.9. Conclusions ……………………………………………………………. 122 5.4.2. Crematoria IV and V…………………………………………………….123 5.4.3. Farmhouses 1 and 2………………………………………………………127 5.4.4. The Drainage System in Birkenau…………………………………..129 5.4.4.1. Background: Eyewitness Accounts………………………………. 129 5.4.4.2. The Ground Water Table in Birkenau…………………………… 130 5.4.4.3. Open-Air Incineration in Pits………………………………………. 132 5.5. Construction Conclusions ………………………………………………. 133 6. Formation and Stability of Iron Blue…………………………………..139 6.1. Introduction………………………………………………………………….. 139 6.2. Instances of Damage to Buildings……………………………………. 140 6.3. Properties of Hydrogen Cyanide, HCN…………………………….. 143 6.4. Composition of Iron Blue ………………………………………………. 145 6.4.1. Overview…………………………………………………………………….145 6.4.2. Excursus……………………………………………………………………..145 6.5. Formation of Iron Blue ………………………………………………….. 147 6.5.1. Overview…………………………………………………………………….147 6.5.2. Water Content ……………………………………………………………..148 6.5.2.1. Overview………………………………………………………………….. 148 6.5.2.2. Excursus…………………………………………………………………… 148 6.5.3. Reactivity of Trivalent Iron……………………………………………150 6.5.3.1. Overview………………………………………………………………….. 150 6.5.3.2. Excursus…………………………………………………………………… 150 6.5.4. Temperature ………………………………………………………………..151 6.5.4.1. Overview………………………………………………………………….. 151 6.5.4.2. Excursus…………………………………………………………………… 153 6.5.5. Alkalinity…………………………………………………………………….154 6.5.6. Carbon Dioxide……………………………………………………………155 6.5.7. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………..158 6.6. Stability of Iron Blue……………………………………………………… 159 6.6.1. pH Sensitivity………………………………………………………………159 6.6.2. Solubility…………………………………………………………………….160 6.6.2.1. Overview………………………………………………………………….. 160 6.6.2.2. Excursus…………………………………………………………………… 161 6.6.3. Excursus: Competing Ligands………………………………………..164 6.6.4. Effects of Light ……………………………………………………………164 6.6.4.1. Overview………………………………………………………………….. 164 6.6.4.2. Excursus…………………………………………………………………… 165 6.6.5. Long-Term Test …………………………………………………………..166 6.7. Influence of Various Building Materials…………………………… 168 6.7.1. Brick…………………………………………………………………………..168 6.7.1.1. Overview………………………………………………………………….. 168 6.7.1.2. Excursus…………………………………………………………………… 169 6.7.2. Cement Mortar and Concrete …………………………………………169 6.7.2.1. Overview………………………………………………………………….. 169 6.7.2.2. Excursus…………………………………………………………………… 171
  8. 8. GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT 7 6.7.3. Lime Mortar ………………………………………………………………..173 6.7.4. Effects upon the Formation of Iron Blue………………………….173 7. Zyklon B for the Killing of Human Beings………………………….179 7.1. Toxicological Effect of HCN………………………………………….. 179 7.2. Evaporation Characteristics of Zyklon B………………………….. 182 7.3. The Gassing of Human Beings ……………………………………….. 185 7.3.1. Eyewitness Testimonies ………………………………………………..185 7.3.1.1. Boundary Conditions …………………………………………………. 185 7.3.1.2. Eyewitness Fantasies …………………………………………………. 185 7.3.1.3. Quantities of Poison Gas…………………………………………….. 193 7.3.1.3.1. Overview ……………………………………………………………….. 193 7.3.1.3.2. Excursus 1: Poisoning or Suffocation? ……………………….. 196 7.3.1.3.3. Excursus 2: HCN Loss due to Adsorption …………………… 201 7.3.2. Critique of the Eyewitness Descriptions ………………………….203 7.3.2.1. Theatre of the Absurd ………………………………………………… 203 7.3.2.1.1. Necessity of Cooperation………………………………………….. 203 7.3.2.1.2. Failure to Separate the Sexes …………………………………….. 204 7.3.2.1.3. Towel and Soap ………………………………………………………. 205 7.3.2.2. Speed of Ventilation of the “Gas Chambers”…………………. 205 7.3.2.2.1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………. 205 7.3.2.2.2. Excursus…………………………………………………………………. 206 7.3.2.2.3. Ventilation of the Morgues of Crematorium II and III…… 208 7.3.2.3. Simulation Calculations……………………………………………… 212 7.3.2.4. Excursus: Capacity of Protective Filters……………………….. 215 7.3.3. Evaluation of Eyewitnesses……………………………………………218 7.3.4. An Expert on Cyanide Speaks Out………………………………….223 7.3.5. Why, Precisely, Zyklon B?…………………………………………….226 8. Evaluation of Chemical Analyses ………………………………………230 8.1. Test Sample Taking and Description ……………………………….. 230 8.2. Analytical Methods……………………………………………………….. 231 8.3. Evaluation of Analytical Results……………………………………… 232 8.3.1. F.A. Leuchter/Alpha Analytic Laboratories……………………..232 8.3.2. Institute for Forensic Research, Krakow………………………….235 8.3.3. G. Rudolf/Fresenius Institute …………………………………………238 8.3.3.1. Samples 1-4: Crematorium II, Morgue 1 ………………………. 243 8.3.3.2. Samples 5 to 8 and 23, 24: Inmate Barracks………………….. 244 8.3.3.3. Samples 9 to 22: Disinfestation Building………………………. 244 8.3.3.4. Samples 25-30: Tests…………………………………………………. 250 8.3.4. John C. Ball…………………………………………………………………253 8.4. Discussion of the Analysis Results ………………………………….. 254 8.4.1. Blue Wall Paint? ………………………………………………………….254 8.4.2. False Method of Analysis………………………………………………256 8.4.3. The Memory Hole………………………………………………………..259 8.4.4. The Moon is Made of Pizza …………………………………………..262 8.4.5. Wikipedia – Wiki-Lies………………………………………………….267 8.4.6. Anticipated Values……………………………………………………….267 8.4.7. Limits of the Chemical Method………………………………………272 9. Conclusions …………………………………………………………………….275 10. Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………..279
  9. 9. 8 GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT Part II: Persecution: Hunting Germar Rudolf ………………………..283 1. What Makes Revisionists? ………………………………………………..285 2. The Naiveté of a Young Revisionist …………………………………..303 3. Fleeing from England……………………………………………………….316 4. Flaws of a State under the Rule of Law ………………………………355 5. Rudolf’s “Thought Crimes” ………………………………………………369 5.1. The First Crime: Remer’s Commentary……………………………. 369 5.2. The Second Crime: A Scientific Anthology ……………………… 391 5.3. More Thought Crimes…………………………………………………… 393 6. The Media and the Case of Germar Rudolf………………………….399 7. Outlawed in Germany ………………………………………………………419 8. Biographical Notes on the Author………………………………………437 Appendices ……………………………………………………………………………439 Lists…………………………………………………………………………………..441 1. List of Tables ………………………………………………………………….. 441 2. List of Illustrations…………………………………………………………… 442 3. List of Graphs …………………………………………………………………. 446 4. List of Abbreviations ……………………………………………………….. 447 Index………………………………………………………………………………….449 * * * Caveat Internet: Most of the revisionist literature quoted in this book can be downloaded free of charge from the Internet. The corresponding addresses have been given in the footnotes in some cases, all accessed in July 2010. Due to the evanescent nature of many Internet sources, however, there is no guaran- tee that the sources will still be at the same location when the reader tries to access them. In that case please use common sense and search engines to relo- cate them or to find similar sources about the issues they are meant to under- gird. Most revisionist books and papers published in a revisionist periodical do not have an online address listed for space reasons, although many, if not most, are available online. In that case, please check whether the respective online file can be found at one of the two major revisionist online archives storing hundreds of revisionist books and periodicals1 in html, pdf and ZIP format: www.vho.org and www.vho.org/aaargh (mirrored at www.aaargh.codoh.com). For a list of writings by Prof. R. Faurisson see at www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/archFaur/archFaurc.html. 1 Akribeia, Annales d’Histoire Revisionniste, Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart, The Journal of Historical Review, The Revisionist, Revue d’Histoire Révisionniste, Smith’s Report, Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung.
  10. 10. Part I: Science
  11. 11. GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT 11 1. Prelude 1.1. Slow Death in U.S. Gas Chambers On June 15, 1994, dramatic events unfolded during the execution of capital punishment. David Lawson, sentenced to death for a capital felony, was scheduled to be killed by hydrogen cyanide in the gas chamber located in the state prison of Raleigh, North Carolina – but the prisoner refused to assist his executioners.2 Lawson repeatedly held his breath for as long as possible and took only short breaths in between.3 Lawson exhibited enormous willpower, calling out to both executioners and witnesses throughout his execution: “I am human.” At first his cry was clearly audible, but as the minutes went by he became less and less understandable and finally, more than ten minutes into the execution, there was just a mutter. He was declared dead only after eighteen minutes. The witnesses to the execution were horrified. 2 A detailed description of this execution can be found at: Bill Krueger, “Lawson’s Final Mo- ments,” The News & Observer, Raleigh, North Carolina, June 19, 1994, p. A1. 3 “Killing Me Cruelly,” Newsweek, November 8, 1993, p. 73; The New York Times, October 6, 1994, p. A20; ibid., June 16, 1994, p. A23. Fig. 1: Schematic drawing of the U.S. execution gas chamber in North Carolina. 5
  12. 12. 12 GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT The warden of the prison who had also supervised the execution was so shaken that he resigned. Because of this execution fiasco, executions with poison gas have been abandoned for a short period of time in the USA and replaced with lethal injections. In early March 1999, however, this horror had already been forgot- ten. This time, the victim was a German national. Despite intervention by the German government, Walter LaGrand was executed in the state prison at Florence, Arizona. LaGrand’s death struggle against lethal cyanide gas lasted eighteen minutes. Thirty witnesses peered through a bulletproof window as the confessed, convicted murderer died horribly behind an armor-reinforced door.4 It is now clear to the experts, and especially to those still waiting on death row, that a quick and painless execution by gas requires the coop- eration of the intended victim. Prisoners about to be gassed were usual- ly encouraged to inhale deeply as soon as the cyanide was released in order to make their deaths come easily. However, if an intended victim was uncooperative, the execution could easily become a fiasco. By simply refusing to take the deep breaths needed to quickly inhale a le- thal dose of cyanide, the agony could last for more than eighteen mi- nutes, even under ideal conditions. Publications in the United States reveal that executions lasting from 10 to 14 minutes are the rule, rather than the exception. Amnesty International calls them “botched execu- tions.”5-8 The method used in American execution gas chambers was intro- duced in 1924, and has since been improved to technical perfection. The expense to kill just one single person is tremendously high, since nei- ther the witnesses, nor the prison personnel or the environment may be endangered by the poison gas released for such an execution. Re- 4 Bettina Freitag, “Henker warten nicht,” New Yorker Staats-Zeitung, March 13-19, 1999, p. 3. 5 The News & Observer, Raleigh (NC), June 11, 1994, p. 14A (according to the prison warden, normally 10-14 min.). 6 C.T. Duffy, 88 Men and 2 Women, Doubleday, New York 1962, p. 101 (13-15 min.); C.T. Duffy was warden of San Quentin Prison for almost 12 years, during which time he ordered the execution of 88 men and 2 women, many of them executed in the local gas chamber. 7 Stephen Trombley, The Execution Protocol, Crown Publishers, New York 1992, p. 13 (approx- imately 10 minutes or more.); Amnesty International, Botched Executions, Fact Sheet Decem- ber 1996, distributed by Amnesty International USA, 322 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10001-4808 (more than 7 min). See also more recently: Scott Christianson, The Last Gasp. The Rise and Fall of the American Gas Chamber, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 2010. 8 These paragraphs are based on an article by Conrad Grieb, “The Self-assisted Holocaust Hoax” (www.vho.org/GB/c/FPB/SelfAssisted.html); Ger.: “Der selbstassistierte Holocaust- Schwindel,” Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung, 1(1) (1997), pp. 6ff. (subsequent- ly abbreviated as VffG).
  13. 13. GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT 13 inforced-glass windows, massive, heavy, hermetically-sealed steel doors, powerful ventilation systems with a device to burn the evacuated poisonous gases, and a chemical treatment of the chamber interior to neutralize all remaining traces of the poison make this execution me- thod the most cumbersome of all.9 During the last two decades of the 20th century, the only technical expert in the United States able to build and maintain this equipment was Frederick A. Leuchter Jr., sometimes referred to in the media as “Mr. Death,”10 since his profession was the design, construction and maintenance of various kinds of execution devices.11 A feature article in The Atlantic Monthly (Feb. 1990), for example, factually described Leuchter as “the nation’s only commercial supplier of execution equipment. […] A trained and accomplished engineer, he is versed in all types of execution equipment. He makes lethal-injection machines, gas chambers, and gal- lows, as well as electrocution systems […]” Similarly, a lengthy New York Times article (October 13, 1990), complete with a front-page photo of Leuchter, called him “The nation’s leading adviser on capital punishment.” In his book about “America’s Capital Punishment Industry,” Ste- phen Trombley confirms that Leuchter is, in fact,12 “America’s first and foremost supplier of execution hardware. His products include electric chairs, gas chambers, gallows, and lethal injec- tion machines. He offers design, construction, installation, staff training and maintenance.” Killing someone in a gas chamber is very dangerous for those who carry out the execution, above all because the body of the dead prisoner is saturated with lethal gas. After the execution, explains Leuchter:13 “You go in. The inmate has to be completely washed down with chlo- rine bleach or with ammonia. The poison exudes right out through his skin. 9 Re. the technical proceedings cf.: F.A. Leuchter, “The Third Leuchter Report,” in: F.A. Leuch- ter, R. Faurisson, G. Rudolf, The Leuchter Reports. Critical Edition, 2nd ed., The Barnes Re- view, Washington, DC, 2010, pp. 183-212. 10 Such is the title of a documentary movie directed by Errol Morris about Fred Leuchter, shown at the Sundance Film Festival in Park City (Utah, USA) on January 27, 1999: Errol Morris, Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr., Fourth Floor Productions, May 12, 1999; VHS: Universal Studios 2001; DVD: Lions Gate Home Entertainment, 2003(www.video.google.com/videoplay?docid=654178281151939378). The original version first shown on Jan. 27, 1999, during the Sundance Film Festivals in Park City (Utah) has been reworked after protests. 11 The following paragraphs were adapted from taken the paper “Probing Look at ‘Capital Pu- nishment Industry’ Affirms Expertise of Auschwitz Investigator Leuchter,” The Journal of His- torical Review 17(2) (1998), pp. 34ff. (subsequently abbreviated as JHR) 12 Stephen Trombley, op. cit. (note 7), p. 8. 13 Ibid., p. 98.
  14. 14. 14 GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT And if you gave the body to an undertaker, you’d kill the undertaker. You’ve got to go in, you’ve got to completely wash the body.” Bill Armontrout, warden of the Missouri State Penitentiary in Jeffer- son City, confirms the danger:14 “One of the things that cyanide gas does, it goes in the pores of your skin. You hose the body down, see. You have to use rubber gloves, and you hose the body down to decontaminate it before you do anything [else]” In Leuchter’s opinion, gas chamber use should be discontinued, not just because of the cruelty of this method of execution, but because of his beliefs relating to gas chambers as such:15 “They’re dangerous. They’re dangerous to the people who have to use them, and they’re dangerous for the witnesses. They ought to take all of them and cut them in half with a chain saw and get rid of them.” With a career built on the motto “Capital punishment, not capital tor- ture,” Leuchter takes pride in his work. He is glad to be able to ensure that condemned prisoners die painlessly, that the personnel who carry out executions are not endangered, and that taxpayer dollars are saved. 1.2. Hydrogen Cyanide – a Dangerous Poison Hydrogen cyanide, is not, of course, utilized solely for the purpose of executions in American gas chambers, but for much more construc- tive purposes as well. Since approximately the end of WWI, hydrogen cyanide, or HCN, has been used to exterminate vermin such as bedbugs, lice, corn weevils, termites, cockroaches, and other pests. It is, of course, important to be extremely cautious while applying hydrogen cyanide in order to avoid disaster, because it is in many ways a highly dangerous poison. The residents of a house in Los Angeles, California, had to learn this in a quite painful way shortly before Christmas 1947. They had hired the Guarantee Fumigation Company to destroy the termites which threatened to eat up the wooden structure. The pest controllers, howev- er, were apparently not very competent, because when using a container of pressurized HCN to fill the house, which had been wrapped up like a Christmas present, they exceeded safe limits and pumped in too much gas. (Fig. 2, p. 16).16 Due to unknown reasons, the mixture of air and HCN, which can be highly explosive under certain circumstances, ig- 14 Ibid., p. 102 15 Ibid., p. 13. 16 A gassing requires 1-2% by volume, while an explosion requires 6% by volume or more; see, in this regard, chapter 6.3.
  15. 15. GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT 15 nited during the fumigation. The resulting explosion destroyed the en- tire dwelling.17 However, hydrogen cyanide has yet another insidious characteristic: it is highly mobile. This mobility is highly welcome when it comes to killing vermin: Wherever fleas and bugs try to hide, the gas will still reach them! Unfortunately, hydrogen cyanide does not restrict itself to attack vermin. Rather, it indiscriminately seeps into the smallest cracks and even penetrates porous substances such as felt sealing materials and thin walls, thereby leaking into areas where it is not welcome. The fail- ure on the part of disinfestors to ensure that all places to be fumigated are adequately sealed off have been described in toxicological litera- ture:18 “Example: J.M., a 21 year old female home decorator, was working in the cellar of the house, the second floor of which was being treated for vermin with cyanide gas. Due to insufficient sealing during fumigation, the gas penetrated the corridors, where it poisoned the disinfestor, and reached the cellar through air shafts. Mrs. M. suddenly experienced an intense itch- ing sensation in her throat followed by headache and dizziness. Her two fellow workers noticed the same symptoms and they all left the cellar. After half an hour, Mrs. M. returned to the cellar whereupon she suddenly col- lapsed and fell unconscious. Mrs. M. was taken to a hospital together with the unconscious exterminator. Mrs. M. recovered and was released. The ex- terminator, by contrast, was pronounced dead on arrival.” But the dangers of this type of poison gas are not merely restricted to persons in the same house in which fumigation is taking place. Large quantities of gas may penetrate the open air and endanger the entire neighborhood, as shown by an accident in the fall of 1995 in a Croatian holiday resort:19 “That failed profoundly. Three local residents suffering from symptoms of poisoning and a number of surviving woodworms were the results of the botched action against vermin in a church in the Croatian holiday resort Lovran, close to Rijeka. The exterminator’s clumsy work necessitated the evacuation of several hundred residents of the locality. 17 “How to get rid of termites,” Life, Dec. 22, 1947, p. 31; see also Liberty Bell, 12/1994, pp. 36f. 18 Sven Moeschlin, Klinik und Therapie der Vergiftung, Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart 1986, p. 300. 19 DPA, “Dilettantische Kammerjäger,” Kreiszeitung – Böblinger Bote, Nov. 16, 1995, p. 7. Research has failed to determine which toxic gas was involved. Since hydrogen cyanide is one of the most poisonous and most rapidly diffusing of all gases used in disinfestation, the re- ported damage would have been at least as great if caused by hydrogen cyanide, even if hydro- gen cyanide was not in fact involved in this accident. A number of additional examples are described by K. Naumann: “Die Blausäurevergiftung bei der Schädlingsbekämpfung,” Zeitschrift für hygienische Zoologie und Schädlingsbekämpfung, 1941, pp. 36-45.
  16. 16. 16 GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT The exterminators tried to treat the Church of the Holy Juraj for wood- worm during the night, using the highly toxic gas. But since they failed to seal off the church appropriately, the gas seeped into surrounding houses in which people were already asleep. ‘Fortunately, the people woke up im- mediately because of sudden attacks of nausea – that’s what saved them from certain death,’ wrote the newspaper, ‘Vecernji List.’ Three residents nevertheless suffered severe intoxication. The mayor decided to evacuate the center of the town. The exterminators were arrested. The woodworms survived. DPA“ But that is still not all: on top of this, hydrogen cyanide is also a te- nacious poison. It adheres wherever it is utilized, especially in a moist environment. Deadly cyanide gas continues to evaporate slowly from moist objects for hours and days, involving a permanent environmental hazard where sufficient ventilation cannot be assured. This is empha- sized by an especially dramatic and simultaneously macabre accident in the United States in the fall of 1998: Fig. 2: How to get rid of termites: Larger photo: Before. Smaller photo: After.
  17. 17. GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT 17 Oct. 13, 1998 | STEVE BALL, TIMES STAFF WRITER 9 Hurt After Student’s Apparent Suicide by Cyanide Toxic fumes produced when a college student from Orange County died of an apparent suicide Monday forced the evacuation of an Iowa dormitory and the hospitalization of nine people, au- thorities said. Carl T. Grimm, 20, a sophomore from Placentia, ingested po- tassium cyanide about 7:30 a.m. in his dormitory room at Grinnell College, a private liberal arts school about 50 miles east of Des Moines, Iowa, Grinnell Fire Chief Jerry Barns said. Four paramedics who responded to the call at Younkers Hall came in contact with fumes from the poison, as did two college staff members and three other students. Grimm was taken to Grinnell Regional Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead. […] The others who became ill on the Iowa campus were treated and released from the hospital. […] Firefighters sent to the dormitory evacuated the three-story structure until the Des Moines Hazardous Materials Unit arrived to ventilate the building. Authorities could not say immediately where or how Grimm acquired the potassium cyanide. [20] Another case, which occurred somewhat differently, nevertheless led to an accident which was no less tragic. Salts of cyanide, which release cyanide gas in the presence of moisture, are used for the separation of gold and silver during the processing of precious metals. In the case in question, a company was engaged in the processing of the cyanide-rich residues of such chemical reactions contained in large tanks, which is not without risk. The employer directed the workers, who were not equipped with gas masks or protective clothing, to go into the tanks which were still releasing cyanide gas. The consequences were tragic: 20 http://articles.latimes.com/1998/oct/13/local/me-32064
  18. 18. 18 GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT Department of Justice National News Release MONDAY, MAY 10, 1999 On May 7, the jury in Pocatello, ID, found that Allan Elias or- dered employees of Evergreen Resources, a fertilizer manufactur- ing company he owned, to enter and clean out a 25,000-gallon sto- rage tank containing cyanide without taking required precautions to protect his employees. Occupational Safety and Health Admin- istration inspectors repeatedly had warned Elias about the dan- gers of cyanide and explained the precautions he must take before sending his employees into the tank, such as testing for hazardous materials and giving workers protective gear. Scott Dominguez, an Evergreen Resources employee, was over- come by hydrogen cyanide gas while cleaning the tank and sus- tained permanent brain damage as a result of cyanide poison- ing.[…] Over a period of two days in August 1996, Elias directed his employees – wearing only jeans and T-shirts – to enter an 11-foot- high, 36-foot-long storage tank and clean out cyanide waste from a mining operation he owned. Elias did not first test the material in- side the tank for its toxicity, nor did he determine the amount of toxic gases present. After the first day of working inside the tank, several employees met with Elias and told him that working in the tank was giving them sore throats, which is an early symptom of exposure to hydrogen cyanide gas. The employees asked Elias to test the air in the tank for toxic gases and bring them protective gear – which is required by OSHA and which was available to the defendant free of charge in this case. Elias did not provide the protective gear, and he ordered the employees to go back into the tank, falsely assuring them that he would get them the equipment they sought. Later that morning, Dominguez collapsed inside the tank. And he could not be rescued for nearly an hour because Elias also had not given employees the required rescue equipment.[21] 21 Occupational Safety & Health Administration, news release, May 10, 1999; Allan Elias was sentenced to 17 years imprisonment on April 28, 2000, www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2000/April/239enrd.htm; an entire book has been written about the case: Joseph Hilldorfer, Robert Dugoni, The Cyanide Canary, Simon & Schuster, New York 2004. The cyanide-contaminated sludge in the tank also contained phosphoric acid, resulting in the release of cyanide gas.
  19. 19. GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT 19 Even this example fails to convey the full scope of the insidious na- ture of cyanide gas, since it does not just kill by means of inhalation; even a gas mask may prove insufficient, especially if a person is sweat- ing heavily. Hydrogen cyanide is dissolved most readily on moist sur- faces, and it easily penetrates the skin. This was proven by a dramatic accident in 1995 in a cave in the French city of Montérolier:22 “The death of nine persons on June 21, 1995, in the cave of Montérolier (Seine-Maritime) was said to have been caused by the release of cyanide gas originating from the poison gas used during First World War, the so- called Vincennite. This was announced Wednesday by former Professor of Physical Chemistry, Louis Soulié. […] At a press conference in Buchy, he said that ‘neither the children nor the firemen rushing to the rescue – one of whom wore a gas mask – died of carbon monoxide poisoning.’ […] ‘Even six days after their deaths, a cyanide concentration twice as high as the fatal dose was still observed in the victims’ blood.’ According to the professor’s remarks, the three children lit a fire in the cave and threw a Vincennite bomb found in the cave into the fire. The bomb exploded. The gas caused the deaths of three children, four firemen, the fa- ther of one of the children and an amateur spelunker. According to Prof. Soulié, the deaths of the firemen looking for the children in the cave, including the fireman wearing a gas mask, were due to the fact that hydrogen cyanide dissolves in the sweat and penetrates the body through the skin, where it causes poisoning.” 1.3. The Acid that Causes Blue Stains Great excitement was caused by a strange occurrence in a Protestant church at Wiesenfeld, Lower Bavaria, Germany, in the spring and summer of 1977. The congregation had renovated the deteriorating church at great expense during the previous year, but now they faced a disaster. Huge blue stains were found to have formed in all parts of the plastered interior of the church. The experts having renovated the church were now called in for consultation, and found themselves con- fronted by a riddle which was only solved by a chemical analysis of the stained portions of the walls. The entire interior surface of the church was impregnated by Iron Blue.23 No explanation could be found for this 22 “Un expert évoque la présence de gaz mortel dans la grotte,” Le Quotidien de la Réunion, June 25, 1998. 23 Iron Blue is the ISO designation (ISO 2495) for iron cyanide blue pigments of various compo- sition, which are also known as Berlin Blue, Turnbull’s Blue, Prussian Blue, Vossen Blue® , Mi- lori Blue, Paris Blue, French Blue, China Blue, Bronze Blue, Steel Blue, Ink Blue, among oth- ers, and as ferric ferrocyanide.
  20. 20. 20 GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT in the literature. It nevertheless proved possible to reconstruct the sequence of events. A few weeks after the re- plastering of the church with a water-resistant cement mortar, the entire church had been fumigated with Zyklon B (hy- drogen cyanide) to exterminate woodworm in the choir stalls. The hydrogen cyanide, re- leased by the Zyklon B, did not just kill woodworm: it also reacted chemically with the plaster. The hydrogen cyanide contained in the Zyklon reacted with the iron oxides contained in quantities of 1-2% in all plasters, thus forming Iron Blue, a highly stable com- pound well know for centu- ries.24 Another case had occurred five years earlier in 1972 in the Catholic church of St. Michael in Untergriesbach, also in Bavaria. Here, too, the church had been recently refurbished with fresh plaster, which turned blue after the church had been gassed with Zyklon B to combat woodworms, just as it would happen in Wiesenfeld five years later.25 Reports of blue pigmentation of walls resulting from fumigation with hydrogen cyanide for the destruction of vermin in areas with moist, ferrous plaster are not unknown in technical literature, as shown by a recent survey.26 The necessary prerequisite for this reaction ap- 24 G. Zimmermann (ed.), Bauschäden Sammlung, vol. 4, Forum-Verlag, Stuttgart 1981, pp. 120f., relating to the case of building damage occurring in August 1976 in the Protestant church at D- 96484 Meeder-Wiesenfeld. We wish to thank Mr. W. Lüftl, Vienna, for discovering this infor- mation, as well as Mr. K. Fischer, Hochstadt am Main, who was held liable for damages as re- sponsible architect, and who supplied me with further details. Reproduced from: G. Rudolf, “Wood Preservation through Fumigation with Hydrogen Cyanide: Blue Discoloration of Lime- and Cement-Based Interior Plaster,” in: G. Rudolf (ed.), Dissecting the Holocaust, 2nd ed., Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago 2003, pp. 557-561. 25 www.pfarrei-untergriesbach.de/pfarrbrief11.htm. 26 E. Emmerling, in: M. Petzet (ed.), Holzschädlingsbekämpfung durch Begasung, Arbeitshefte des Bayerischen Landesamtes für Denkmalpflege (Working Notebooks of the Bavarian State Fig. 3: In August 1976, the Protestant church at D-96484 Meeder-Wiesenfeld was fumigated with Zyklon B. Subsequently, blue-colored stains appeared all over the plaster (see Fig. 4).
  21. 21. GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT 21 pears to be that the fumigated plaster must be new and must exhibit high humidity. In other cases, there was also damage to the structure and interior installations, but no blue stains, perhaps because the plaster was old and had already set.27 Office for Monument Maintenance), vol. 75, Lipp-Verlag, Munich 1995, pp. 43-56. Whether the examples cited in the paper may perhaps refer to the above mentioned case only in a round- about way, must remain open for the time being. Carl Hermann Christmann reports the case of a farm building belonging to an 18th century monastery; the farm building was sold to a farmer following secularization, and the farmer then used it as a barn. Approximately 20 years ago, an investor converted the beautiful Baroque building into a luxury holiday restaurant. The existing interior plaster was repaired and painted white. After some time, blue stains appeared in the white paint; the stains were identified by a consulting expert as Iron Blue. The expert assumed that the former owner must have fumigated the building with hydrogen cyanide between 1920 and 1940, which then caused the stains 40-50 years later. Personal communication from C.H. Christmann according to his recollection on July 13, 1999; Mr. Christmann was unfortunately unable to find the source of the information. I would be extremely grateful for any references to passages in the literature in relation to this case. 27 In one case, the fumigation of a church freshly painted with iron-free lime paint led to dark stains caused by the polymerization of hydrogen cyanide: D. Grosser, E. Roßmann, “Blausäu- regas als bekämpfendes Holzschutzmittel für Kunstobjekte,” Holz als Roh- und Werkstoff, 32 (1974), pp. 108-114. Fig. 4: Inky blue stains on the plaster of a church fumigated with hydrogen cyanide.
  22. 22. GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT 23 2. The Coup 2.1. Fred Leuchter on Auschwitz and Majdanek On February 3, 1988, Fred Leuchter received an unexpected visitor at his home in Boston, Massachusetts. A professor of French, Greek and Latin, as well as critic of testimonies, texts and documents, from the University of Lyon II – Dr. Robert Faurisson – had an unusual assign- ment in mind: He wanted to persuade Leuchter, in his capacity as an expert in execution technology, to prepare a professional opinion to be used in a criminal trial then taking place in Toronto, Canada.28 More precisely, Dr. Faurisson wanted to convince Leuchter to determine whether or not the generally alleged mass exterminations with hydrogen cyanide gas in the concentration camps of the Third Reich were techni- cally possible. Until that time, Leuchter had never questioned the exis- tence of German homicidal gas chambers. When Prof. Faurisson showed him some mostly technical documents, however, Leuchter be- gan to have doubts about the technical feasibility of the alleged homi- cidal gassings and agreed to come to Toronto to view additional docu- mentation. After this meeting and on the assignment of defense counsel, he then traveled to Poland with his wife (who was also his secretary), his draftsman, a video cameraman and a translator, to make a technical examination of the concentration camps at Auschwitz, Auschwitz- Birkenau and Majdanek for the above trial. He returned to the United States and wrote a 192-page report (including appendices). He also brought 32 test samples taken from the masonry in the crematoria at Auschwitz and Birkenau, the locations where the alleged gassings are said to have taken place, as well as from a delousing gas chamber. The background of these samples is as follows: Almost all the concentration camps of the Third Reich contained fa- cilities for the disinfestation of lice carried by inmate clothing. Various methods were used to accomplish this objective: hot air, hot steam, several different poison gases, and towards the end of the war even microwaves. Delousing was urgently needed in particular because lice 28 Re. background and course of the criminal proceedings cf.: R. Lenski, The Holocaust on Trial, Reporter Press, Decatur, Alabama 1990, abridged transcript of the trial against Ernst Zündel in Toronto 1988; a lengthy compilation of the entire trial: Barbara Kulaszka (ed.), Did Six Million Really Die? Report on the Evidence in the Canadian “False News” Trial of Ernst Zündel – 1988, Samisdat Publishers Ltd., Toronto 1992.
  23. 23. 24 GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT carry epidemic typhus, a disease with a history of repeated outbreaks in eastern and central Europe. Epidemic typhus appeared again during WWII where it claimed hundreds of thousands of victims, not only in the concentration camps and prisoner-of-war camps, but among soldiers at the front. Since WWI, the most effective and the most widely used means for the extermination of lice and other pests, was hydrogen cya- nide, marketed under the trade-name Zyklon B. It has been known for decades that the walls within the buildings in which Zyklon B is proved to have been used to delouse inmate clothing exhibit massive, blotchy, bluish discoloration. This blue discoloration is due to a chemical substance known as Iron Blue which, under the right conditions, is formed in a chemical reaction by hydrogen cyanide with 29 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Schädlingsbekämpung (German Society for Pest Control), a subsidi- ary of the I.G. Farbenindustrie AG. Fig. 5: Single door to an execution gas chamber for one single person per gassing procedure (Baltimore, USA, 1954, technology from the 1930s). The execution of a single person with hydrogen cyanide is inevitably far more complicated and dangerous to the environment than the fumigation of clothing (even in a Degesch 29 circulation chamber). Fig. 6: One of three doors from an alleged National Socialist gas cham- ber for the execution of hundreds of persons simultaneously, using Zyklon B (hydrogen cyanide) (Crematorium I, Auschwitz, Poland, early 1940s). This door is neither of sturdy construction, nor is it air-tight (note the keyhole). It is partly glazed and opens inwards i.e., into the room, where corpses were allegedly piling up.
  24. 24. GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT 25 certain components of mason- ry. This substance can still be observed in surviving delous- ing facilities today. It is ob- viously a very stable com- pound. Professor Faurisson was the first person to point out that this blue discoloration is absent from the supposed homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. Faurisson’s idea was to analyze samples from the masonry in the alleged homicidal gas chambers for traces of poison gas or its com- pounds (cyanides) and com- pare them with samples taken from the delousing chambers. Fred Leuchter followed this suggestion when doing his on-site investigations in Auschwitz in 1988. On April 20 and 21, 1988, Leuchter took the stand as an expert wit- ness in the courtroom in Toronto. He reported about his research and developed his conclusions. The atmosphere in the courtroom was tense. Leuchter’s testimony was straightforward and at the same time sensa- tional: According to Leuchter, there had never been any possibility of mass extermination of human beings by gassing either in Auschwitz, or in Birkenau, or in Majdanek:30 “It is the best engineering opinion of this author that the alleged gas chambers at the inspected sites could not have then been, or now, be uti- lized or seriously considered to function as execution gas chambers.” Shortly before Leuchter, another witness was questioned: Bill Ar- montrout, warden of the Maximum Security Prison in Jefferson City, Missouri. It was Armontrout who, on request of defense attorney Barba- ra Kulaszka, pointed out that no one in the United States understood the operation of gas chambers better than Fred A. Leuchter. Armontrout himself confirmed in court the great difficulties involved in killing people with poison gas, as Robert Faurisson had done before him. 30 F. A. Leuchter, An Engineering Report on the Alleged Execution Gas Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, Poland, Samisdat Publishers Ltd., Toronto 1988; new: F.A. Leuchter, “The First Leuchter Report,” in: F.A. Leuchter et al., op. cit. (note 9), pp. 13-119, here p. 57. Fig. 7: Frederick A. Leuchter, the world’s first, and possibly only, cyanide gas chamber expert, during a talk at the conference of the Institute for Historical Review in 1992
  25. 25. 26 GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT Following Leuchter, Prof. James Roth, director of a chemical labora- tory in Massachusetts, also took the witness stand to describe the results of his analysis of the 32 masonry samples, the origins of which had been unknown to him: All samples taken from the gas chambers suppo- sedly used for mass human extermination exhibited either no or only negligible traces of cyanide, while the sample from the delousing chambers taken as a control exhibited enormously high cyanide concen- trations.31 Leuchter’s report and subsequent testimony shook the foundations of Holocaust history, the story of the “Nazi gas chambers.” Considering the tens of thousands of copies of this Leuchter Report that have been distributed in all major languages all over the world and the many spee- ches Leuchter held, the impact of the work of this one man was enorm- ous. 2.2. Damage Control Alarmed by this development, the “Never Forgive, Never Forget” brigade wasted no time in taking counter-measures. Self-styled “Nazi hunter” Beate Klarsfeld announced that Fred Leuchter “has to under- stand that in denying the Holocaust, he cannot remain unpunished.”32 Jewish organizations launched a vicious smear campaign to destroy not only his reputation, but his ability to make a living. Leading the charge was Shelly Shapiro and her group, “Holocaust Survivors and Friends in Pursuit of Justice.” Calling Leuchter a fraud and impostor, this group claimed, despite better knowledge, that he lacked qualifica- tions as an execution equipment specialist and had asserted the posses- sion of professional qualifications which he had never earned.33 Although these accusations were entirely unfounded and failed to survive any legal verification, the “get Leuchter” campaign, with the co-operation of mainstream journalists and editors, was successful. Leuchter’s contracts with state authorities for the manufacture, installa- tion, and servicing of execution hardware were cancelled. He was fi- nancially forced out of his home in Massachusetts and had to find pri- 31 Partially derived from Prof. Faurisson’s description in: R. Faurisson, “The End of a Myth,” JHR, 8(3) (1988), pp. 376-380; R. Faurisson, “The Zündel Trials (1985 and 1988),” ibid., 8(4) (1988), pp. 417-431. 32 This paragraph is again taken from the paper quoted above (note 11), which gives no reference for this alleged quote of Beate Klarsfeld. 33 Cf. JHR, 12(4) (1992), pp. 421-492.
  26. 26. GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT 27 vate work elsewhere. No American has suffered more for his defiance of the Holocaust lobby.
  27. 27. GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT 29 3. The Origins Before the publication of the Leuchter Report, discussion relating to the reliability of eyewitness testimony of National Socialist mass mur- der was confined to groups describing themselves as “revisionists,” usually termed “Neo-Nazis” or “right-wing extremists” by the media. But in fact, the labels used by the media were wide of the mark, as can be seen in the case of four of the most well-known revisionists: Paul Rassinier, French Socialist and former member of the French Resis- tance, who was an inmate of the concentration camps Buchenwald and Dora-Mittelbau;34 German Jew Josef Ginsburg, who suffered from anti- Jewish measures taken during WWII by other countries as well as Ger- many.35 The two most notable revisionists, Professors Arthur R. Butz, USA,36 and retired Prof. Robert Faurisson, of France, can certainly not be accused of being political extremists, and nobody ever seriously tried to do this.37 The discussion on the technical problems of the National Socialist mass-murder of the Jews was begun in the late 1970s by Robert Faurisson, then professor of French, Greek and Latin, and an analyst of documents, texts, and witness statements at the University of Lyon II. He began to question the standard historical version of the Holocaust after he had made nu- merous critical studies concerning witness testimony and on documents that supposedly supported the claims of mass-murder. In 1978 for the first time, he advanced the argument that “there had not been one single 34 Some of his most important works were also published in English, see The Real Eichmann Trial or the Incorrigible Victors, Torrance, CA, 1976; Debunking the Genocide Myth, The Noontide Press, Los Angeles, 1978; The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses, 2nd ed., Insti- tute for Historical Review, New Port Beach 1990. 35 Some of his most import works (all in German) are available online at www.vho.org/dl/DEU.html#jdd. 36 Cf. The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, 3rd ed., Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago 2003; “Context and perspective in the ‘Holocaust’ controversy,” JHR, 3(4) (1982), pp. 371-405. 37 Cf. Mémoire en défense, La Vieille Taupe, Paris 1980; Serge Thion (ed.), Vérité historique ou vérité politique?; La Vielle Taupe, Paris 1980; R. Faurisson, Écrits révisionnistes, 4 vols., pu- blished by author, Vichy 1999. Fig. 8: Prof. Dr. Robert Faurisson
  28. 28. 30 GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT gas chamber under Adolf Hitler.”38 Later he supported this claim with physical, chemical, topographic, architectural, documentary, and histor- ical arguments. He described the existence of the homicidal gas cham- bers as “radically impossible.”39 At the end of 1979, the largest French daily newspaper, Le Monde, decided to publish Professor Faurisson’s provocative thesis, so he was given the opportunity to summarize it in an article.40 The establishment historians’ reaction was characteristic41 and is best illustrated by a passage from a declaration signed by Pierre Vidal Naquet and 33 other researchers:42 “One may not ask how such a mass-murder [of Jews] was possible. It was technically possible, because it happened. This is the obligatory start- ing-point of every historical investigation of this subject. We simply want to call into memory this truth: There is no debate over the existence of the gas chambers, and there must not be one.” Such a dogmatic explanation is equivalent to a capitulation, which was well understood. Hence they reconsidered their standpoint and went back to the drawing board. Over the years that followed, establishment historians took up the questions raised by Robert Faurisson and others, at least to some extent, although they doggedly refused to permit him, or any one else who even remotely voiced similar thoughts, to participate in any academic activi- ties. In the early 1980s, two large Holocaust conferences were held in the cities of Paris43 and Stuttgart.44 Some of the more important reasons for these conferences certainly were the works of Faurisson, Butz and others.45 38 Cf. in addition to arguments in the works in note 37 also R. Faurisson, “Es gab keine Gaskammern,” Deutscher Arbeitskreis Witten, Witten 1978. 39 R. Faurisson, “Le camere a gas non sono mai esistite,” Storia illustrata, 261 (1979), pp. 15-35; Engl.: “The Gas Chambers: Truth or Lie?” The Journal of Historical Review, 2(4) (1981), pp. 319-373; cf. Faurisson, “The Mechanics of Gassing,” JHR, 1(1) (1980) pp. 23ff.; Faurisson, “The Gas Chambers of Auschwitz Appear to be Physically Inconceivable,” ibid., 2(4) (1981), pp. 311ff. 40 “‘Le problème des chambres à gaz’ ou ‘la rumeur d’Auschwitz,’” Le Monde, Dec. 29, 1978, p. 8; see also “The ‘problem of the gas chambers,’” JHR, 1(2) (1980), pp. 103-114 (ihr.org/jhr/v01/v01p103_Faurisson.html). 41 Cf. the documentation on numerous articles and letters in R. Faurisson, Mémoire…, op. cit. (note 37), pp. 71-101. 42 Le Monde, Feb 21, 1979. 43 At the Sorbonne from Jun 29. – July 2, 1982, entitled “Le national-socialisme et les Juifs”; cf. Ecole des hautes études en sciences socials (ed.), L’Allemagne nazie et le génocide juif, Galli- mard/Le Seuil, Paris 1985; on December 11-13, 1987, there was a second Colloquium held at the Sorbonne, cf. R. Faurisson, Écrits révisionnistes, op. cit. (note 37), vol. 2, pp. 733-750. 44 For a transcript of the conference, cf.: E. Jäckel, J. Rohwer, Der Mord an den Juden im Zweiten Weltkrieg, Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, Stuttgart 1985. 45 Most importantly, Wilhelm Stäglich’s Der Auschwitz-Mythos, Grabert, Tübingen 1979; Engl.: The Auschwitz Myth, Institute for Historical Review, Torrance, CA, 1986; as well as Walter N.
  29. 29. GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT 31 In 1983, as a counter-measure against the ongoing successes of revi- sionists, a compilation was published, principally the work of French and German establishment historians.46 While this book ridiculed and insulted revisionists and cast political aspersions against them, and at the same time was intended to refute their claims, it does neither ad- dress any particular revisionist argument, nor are any revisionist publi- cations quoted or authors named, so that it is impossible for the reader of this book to verify the polemic accusations made against the revi- sionists. This book also repeats the mistake often emphasized by revi- sionists: quotations from “eyewitness” testimony and passages from documents were taken out of context and pasted uncritically into a pre- determined historical pattern. The publication of the Leuchter Report at the end of the 1980s gave a significant boost to revisionism. From that time onward, there has been an unending stream of publications.47 The number of persons in- volved in “revisionism” increases steadily; although in many European countries this development has been curtailed by the enactment of laws threatening heavy penalties.48 3.1. On the Problem A fact-oriented discussion of the technical arguments brought into the public by the Leuchter Report was started in France by an attempt at refutation by the pharmacist Jean-Claude Pressac in the periodical Jour Sanning’s papers and book on Jewish population statistics: “Die europäischen Juden. Eine technische Studie zur zahlenmäßigen Entwicklung im Zweiten Weltkrieg,” 4 parts, Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart 28(1-4) (1980), pp. 12-15; 17-21; 17-21; 25-31; Sanning, Die Auflösung des osteuropäischen Judentums, Grabert, Tübingen 1983; English: The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry, Institute for Historical Review, Torrance, CA, 1983. 46 E. Kogon, H. Langbein, A. Rückerl et al. (eds.), Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas, S. Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt 1983; Engl.: Nazi Mass Murder, Yale University Press, New Haven 1993; French: Henry Rollet (ed.), Les chambres à gaz: secret d’Etat, Les Editions de Minuit, Paris 1984. 47 Since a complete listing of them all is impossible here, the reader’s attention may be directed to the expanding series Holocaust Handbooks and the literature quoted in them; see the ads at the end of this book (www.HolocaustHandbooks.com). 48 The Fabius-Gayssot Law was passed in France in 1990, rendering punishable the “denial of the facts” of the National Socialist war crimes “ascertained” at the Nuremburg Trials of 1946 con- vened by the Allied powers. In 1993, Austria followed suit (sec. 3h Criminal Law); in 1994, Germany (sec. 130 Criminal Code, new version), in 1995, Switzerland (sec. 216bis Criminal Code) and in 1996, Spain enacted similar laws that year, but abrogated it in 2007. A similar law passed in Belgium in 1997. Poland adopted a similar law in 1999, Czechia in 2001, and Hun- gary in 2010. Canada and Australia have created “Human Rights Commissions” which perse- cute revisionists and other offenders against political correctness. For more details see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial.
  30. 30. 32 GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT Juif.49 His work could hardly qualify as an expert discussion in view of the absence of any references to his sources and any exact scientific argumentation. Though he did point out several deficiencies in the Leuchter Report, he made several errors himself in chemical and engi- neering questions due to his lack of expertise.50 The first response from Germany came from the official Institut für Zeitgeschichte (IfZ, Institute for Contemporary History).51 It was based on Pressac’s work and was hardly useful due to the lack of technical expertise in the same.52 A little later, a contribution on the Leuchter Report appeared in an anthology on the Third Reich, authored by retired social worker Werner Wegner, who had no qualifications in chemistry or civil engineering either.53 Instead of seeking the advice of qualified people on these mat- ters, he drew his own conclusions – to his own massive embarrass- ment.54 One may question why Dr. Rainer Zitelmann, the responsible editor of this anthology, included this ridiculous piece in his otherwise well-researched compilation.55 At the end of 1991, chemist Dr. J. Bailer critiqued the Leuchter Re- port in a little booklet published in Austria.56 This work is notable for largely ignoring the witness testimony on the procedures supposedly 49 J.-C. Pressac, Jour J, December 12, 1988, pp. I-X. See also the related discussion in the un- dated translation, without references; see also Pressac in: S. Shapiro (ed.), Truth Prevails: De- molishing Holocaust Denial: The End of the Leuchter Report, Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York 1990. 50 On this cf. W. Schuster, “Technische Unmöglichkeiten bei Pressac,” Deutschland in Ge- schichte und Gegenwart, 39(2) (1991), pp. 9-13; also Paul Grubach, “The Leuchter Report Vindicated: A Response to Jean-Claude Pressac’s Critique,” JHR, 12(4) (1992), pp. 445-473. 51 H. Auerbach, Institut für Zeitgeschichte, letter to Bundesprüfstelle, Munich, Oct. 10, 1989; Auerbach, November 1989 (no day given), both published in U. Walendy, Historische Tatsache no. 42, Verlag für Volkstum und Zeitgeschichtsforschung, Vlotho 1990, pp. 32 and 34. 52 In this regard, see my technical appraisal, reprinted in Henri Roques, Günter Annthon, Der Fall Günter Deckert, DAGD/Germania Verlag, Weinheim 1995, pp. 431-435. 53 W. Wegner, “Keine Massenvergasungen in Auschwitz? Zur Kritik des Leuchter-Gutachtens,” in U. Backes, E. Jesse, R. Zitelmann (ed.), Die Schatten der Vergangenheit, Propyläen, Frankfurt 1990, pp. 450-476 (www.vho.org/D/dsdv/Wegner.html, with inserted critique by the present writer). 54 On this cf. W. Häberle, “Zu Wegners Kritik am Leuchter-Gutachten,” Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 39(2) (1991), pp. 13-17. 55 In a personal communication to me, he confessed that he had been forced to include the paper to avoid opposition to his book due to the fact that the other papers were “revisionist” in tone. 56 J. Bailer, “Der Leuchter-Bericht aus der Sicht eines Chemikers,” in: Dokumentationszentrum des österreichischen Widerstandes, Bundesministerium für Unterricht und Kultur (eds.), Amoklauf gegen die Wirklichkeit, Vienna 1991, pp. 47-52. With respect to the cyanide content of human hair: Expert Opinion of the Krakow Institute, 1945, on the cyanide content of human hair, hair pins and a ventilation lid, B. Bailer-Galanda, ibid., pp. 36-40; the original is in the custody of the Auschwitz State Museum.
  31. 31. GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT 33 used during the gassings at Auschwitz and for the author’s lack of un- derstanding of the process by which hydrogen cyanide reacts with ma- sonry. Despite criticism directed at his study,57 Bailer repeated his un- sustainable objections in a later publication without responding to his critics.58 At approximately the same time as Bailer’s first publication, G. Wel- lers also published a study of the Leuchter Report.59 Wellers‘ position was superficial, and is characterized by lack of technical and scientific knowledge.60 Finally, the Auschwitz State Museum itself ordered an expert report to be compiled. The Institute for Forensic Research, Toxicology Divi- sion, of Krakow, Poland, named after Prof. Dr. Jan Sehn, prepared this report under Prof. Dr. J. Markiewicz on September 24, 1990, which confined itself to the analysis of masonry samples.61 The report con- cluded that the reason why Leuchter’s samples from the homicidal gas chambers were mostly negative with respect to traces of cyanide was because the cyanide compounds had been exposed for more than 40 years to weathering, which these compounds allegedly could not have withstood. Three of these authors from the Jan Sehn Institute later pub- lished additional findings,62 which were, however, based on a verifiably incorrect analytical method – as was the first series of analyses – so that their results were flawed.63 Correspondence with the authors failed to elucidate the reasons for the deliberate use of an incorrect method.64 In 1997 in France, distribution of the French edition of an earlier version of this present report produced two notable reactions, only one 57 Cf. E. Gauss (= G. Rudolf), Vorlesungen über Zeitgeschichte, Grabert, Tübingen 1993, pp. 290-293; idem, “Chemische Wissenschaft zur Gaskammerfrage,” Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 41(2) (1993), pp. 16-24. 58 J. Bailer, in B. Bailer-Galanda, W. Benz, W. Neugebauer (ed.), Wahrheit und Auschwitzlüge, Deuticke, Vienna 1995, pp. 112-118; cf. my critique “Lüge und Auschwitz-Wahrheit,’” in G. Rudolf, C. Mattogno, Auschwitz-Lügen, Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings 2005, pp. 185-227; Engl.: “Critique of Truth and the Auschwitz-Lie” (www.vho.org/GB/Books/cq/critique.html). 59 G. Wellers, “Der Leuchter-Bericht über die Gaskammern von Auschwitz,” Dachauer Hefte, 7(7) (November 1991), pp. 230-241. 60 Cf. my critique “Fantasies of a Biochemist,” in G. Rudolf, C. Mattogno, Auschwitz-Lies, Thes- es & Dissertations Press, Chicago 2005, pp. 35-43. 61 J. Markiewicz, W. Gubala, J. Labedz, B. Trzcinska, Expert Opinion, Prof. Dr. Jan Sehn Insti- tute for Forensic Research, department for toxicology, Krakow, Sept. 24, 1990; partially pub- lished, e.g. in: “An official Polish report on the Auschwitz ‘gas chambers,’” JHR, 11(2) (1991), pp. 207-216. 62 J. Markiewicz, W. Gubala, J. Labedz, Z Zagadnien Nauk Sadowych, Z XXX (1994) pp. 17-27 (www2.ca.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/post-leuchter.report). 63 G. Rudolf, “Polish Pseudo-Scientists,” in G. Rudolf, C. Mattogno, op. cit. (note 60), pp. 45-68. 64 Ibid., pp. 57-65.
  32. 32. 34 GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT of which addressed factual arguments,65 but which nevertheless failed to discuss the technical problems in a scientific manner.66 The Chemical Department of the French Academy of Sciences chose not to make a comment publicly on factual arguments, but rather to resort to polemic phraseology and personal attacks.67 In 1998, in the United States, in answer to the present report, a paper appeared on the Internet, which partly discusses technical issues and partly consists of political name-calling.68 In related correspondence,69 however, the author of the paper avoided any discussion of the central issues.70 In 1999, cultural historian Prof. Robert Jan van Pelt produced an ex- pert report on Auschwitz for the defense in the libel case of British His- torian David Irving against American writer Deborah Lipstadt.71 This report represents a retreat to the argumentative situation before Jean- Claude Pressac’s first book, published in 1989,72 ignoring almost all arguments brought forward by revisionists since that year.73 In 2002 van Pelt’s expert report appeared in a revised and extened version as a book.74 It is the first book in English to intensively discuss various revi- 65 B. Clair, “Revisionistische Gutachten,” VffG, 1(2) (1997), pp. 102-104. 66 G. Rudolf, “Zur Kritik am Rudolf Gutachten,” ibid., pp. 104-108. 67 La Vielle Taupe/Pierre Guillaume, “Rudolf Gutachten: ‘psychopathologisch und gefährlich.’ Über die Psychopathologie einer Erklärung,” VffG, 1(4) (1997), pp. 224f. 68 Richard J. Green, “The Chemistry of Auschwitz,” May 10, 1998, online: holocaust- history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/, and “Leuchter, Rudolf and the Iron Blues,” March 25, 1998, www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/blue/, with considerable proselytizing “anti- fascist” bias. 69 A detailed description of the deficiencies of the paper appeared in “Das Rudolf Gutachten in der Kritik, Teil 2,” VffG 3(1) (1999), pp. 77-82; Engl.: “Some considerations about the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz and Birkenau,” online: www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/Green.html. 70 Richard J. Green, Jamie McCarthy, “Chemistry is Not the Science,” May 2, 1999, www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/. About a third of the article consists of political accusations and vilification. For a response, see G. Rudolf, “Character As- sassins,” www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/CharacterAssassins.html; cf. “Green sees Red,” in: G. Rudolf, C. Mattogno, op. cit. (note 60), pp. 69-85. 71 The Pelt Report, introduced in evidence during the libel case before the Queen’s Bench Divi- sion, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, David John Cawdell Irving vs. (1) Penguin Books Limited, (2) Deborah E. Lipstadt, ref. 1996 I. No. 1113 (www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/en/trial/defense/van). 72 Jean-Claude Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers, Beate- Klarsfeld-Foundation, New York 1989 (www.holocaust- history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/). 73 Cf. G. Rudolf, “Gutachter und Urteilsschelte,” VffG 4(1) (2000), pp. 33-50; more exhaustively in English: “Critique of Claims Made by Robert Jan van Pelt,” www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/RudolfOnVanPelt.html and “Critique of the ‘Findings on Justification’ by Judge Gray,” …/CritiqueGray.html. 74 Robert J. van Pelt, The Case for Auschwitz. Evidence from the Irving Trial, Indiana University Press, Bloomington/Indianapolis 2002; cf. Samuel Crowell, “A Holocaust Expert Moves from Moral Certainty toward Open Debate,” JHR, 21(1) (2002), pp. 39f.; Robert H. Countess, “van
  33. 33. GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT 35 sionist arguments, although it fails to mention even one of the many books and papers written by the most industrious and productive revi- sionist researchers, Carlo Mattogno. Van Pelt mainly relied on the works of J.-C. Pressac for his own book, even though he hardly ever mentions him.75 It is a pity that the cultural historian van Pelt tries to address many chemical, toxicological, engineering and architectural questions for which he simply lacks both expertise and experience. But even when it comes to analyzing the historical record, van Pelt falls far short of the requirements for a serious study, as Mattogno has con- cluded in his 750 pp. analysis of van Pelt’s tome:76 “[van Pelt’s] study of Auschwitz has no scientific and historiographic value, ¾ because it ignores works of crucial importance; ¾ because it does not even mention essential opposing views and argu- ments; ¾ because it fails to approach pivotal technical issues with technical means; ¾ because it is highly inconsistent; ¾ because it uses deceptive methods; ¾ because it presents conflicting sources without due source criticism; ¾ because it reveals a decidedly threadbare knowledge of the camp’s his- tory; ¾ because it deforms all sources to serve the alleged ‘extermination’ as- pects of Auschwitz; ¾ and because even regarding the claimed ‘extermination’ aspects it ex- hibits an incomplete and superficial grasp.” Most of the above-mentioned attempted refutations of the Leuchter Report, and subsequent discussion with other revisionists, are marred by personal insinuations about the motivations of persons making use of revisionist arguments, or by polemical excursions, neither of which contribute to the scientific discussion. 3.2. On Politics The question of whether or not systematic mass-killings of Jews in homicidal gas chambers specifically constructed for the purpose of ac- Pelt’s Plea against Sound Reasoning,” The Revisionist 1(1) (2003), pp. 99-104; Paul Grubach, “World War I Atrocity Propaganda and the Holocaust,” ibid., pp. 104-109. 75 When he addresses chemical questions, he also refers to some degree to the work of R. Green, op. cit. (notes 68, 70). 76 Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz: The Case for Sanity, The Barnes Review, Washington, DC, 2010, p. 670.
  34. 34. 36 GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT complishing their extermination took place under the National Socialist re- gime is apparently viewed as a political issue. Whether or not a moral appraisal of the National Socialist regime depends on the existence or non-existence of gas chambers is disputable. A political eval- uation of the Third Reich is not signifi- cantly dependent upon this moral eval- uation. Since the present discussion con- tains neither a moral, nor political, eval- uation of a long-dead regime, I shall make no moral or political statements. Personally, I am inclined to judge a poli- tician, or political system, on the basis of what s/he, or it, was able to leave behind for their respective nation – everything else follows. That must suffice at this point. To everyone who has ever suspected that revisionists are motivated by a desire to whitewash National Socialism, or restore the acceptability of right-wing political systems, or assist in a breakthrough of National- ism, I would like to say the following: While researching, our highest goal must at all times be to discover how historical events actually occurred – as the 19th century German historian Leopold Ranke maintained. Historians should not place re- search in the service of making criminal accusations against, for exam- ple, Genghis Khan and the Mongol hordes, nor to whitewash any of their wrong-doings. Anybody insisting that research be barred from exonerating Genghis Khan of criminal accusations would be the object of ridicule and would be subject to the suspicion that he was, in fact, acting out of political motives. If this were not so, why would anyone insist that our historical view of Genghis Khan forever be defined solely by Khan’s victims and enemies? The same reasoning applies to Hitler and the Third Reich. Both revi- sionists and their adversaries are entitled to their political views. The accusation that revisionists are only interested in exonerating National 77 The Globe and Mail, Sept. 18, 1989, Le Monde, Sept. 19, 1989, Sunday Telegraph, Sept. 24, 1989; see also “Revisionist Historian Suffers Savage Beating” (www.codoh.com/thoughtcrimes/8909FAUR.HTML). Fig. 9: People who run out of arguments turn to violence. Prof. Faurisson after an attack by Jewish thugs, Sept. 16, 1989.77
  35. 35. GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT 37 Socialism and that such an effort is reprehensible or even criminal, is a boomerang: This accusation implies that it is deemed unacceptable to partially exonerate National Socialism historically, and by so doing, always also morally. But by declaring any hypothetical exoneration based on possible facts as unacceptable, one admits openly not to be interested in the quest for the truth, but in incriminating National So- cialism historically and morally under any circumstances and at all costs. And the motivation behind this can only be political. Hence, those accusing revisionists of misusing their research for political ends have themselves been proven guilty of exactly this offense. It is therefore not necessarily the revisionists who are guided by political motives – though quite a few of them certainly are – but with absolute certainty all those who accuse others of attempting to somehow historically exone- rate a political system which has long since disappeared. As a consequence, our research must never be concerned with the possible “moral” spin-off effects of our findings in relation to politi- cians or regimes of the past or present, but solely with the facts. Anyone who argues the opposite does not understand scientific research and should not presume to condemn others on the basis of authentic re- search.
  36. 36. GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT 39 4. A Brief History of Forensic Examinations of Auschwitz 4.1. Introduction In late spring 1993, the Max Planck Institute for Solid State Re- search in Stuttgart issued an internal memorandum informing its em- ployees that a doctoral candidate there – the author of this book – had been dismissed because of private research he had done on Auschwitz. The institute explained that in view of the horror of the National Social- ists’ crimes against the Jews, it was morally repugnant to discuss the specific manner in which the victims had been killed, or to try to deter- mine the precise number of the dead. Hence one of the world’s leading scientific research institutes stated to its personnel that it is not only unethical, but reprehensible and a cause for dismissal, should they dare to determine accurate quantities and causes. This is not without its own irony. However, many people are deeply moved by the question wheth- er or not the monstrous crime alleged should be subject to careful scru- tiny by means of thorough forensic analysis. The following is an at- tempt to answer this question by offering a brief overview on forensic examinations of the purported crime scenes at Auschwitz which have been conducted thus far. 4.2. The Moral Obligation of Forensic Examination Does it really matter how many Jews lost their lives in the German sphere of influence during the Second World War? Is it so important, after so many years, to attempt painstakingly to investigate just how they died? After all, it is surely morally correct that even one victim is one too many; and nobody seriously denies that many Jews died. To affirm these things, however, is not to raise a valid objection – moral or otherwise – to the scientific investigation of a crime held to be unique and unparalleled in the history of mankind. Even a crime that is alleged to be uniquely reprehensible must be open to a procedure that is standard for any other crime: namely, that it can be – must be – subject to a detailed material investigation. Further: whoever postulates that a crime, alleged or actual, is unique must be prepared for a uniquely tho- rough investigation of the alleged crime before its uniqueness is ac- cepted as fact.
  37. 37. 40 GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT If, on the other hand, someone sought to shield so allegedly unparal- leled a crime from investigation by erecting a taboo of moral outrage, the creators of that taboo would, at least morally, themselves commit a singular offense: imputing unparalleled guilt, beyond any critique and defense, in this case to an entire people, the Germans. To demonstrate just what kind of double standard is being applied to “the Holocaust” (generally defined as the purposeful annihilation, chief- ly by gassing, of millions of Jews by the National Socialists), let us note the international reaction to several recent examples of mass murder or “crimes against humanity.” In 1949, a trial started in southwest France which caused as much at- tention in France as did the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial: Mdm. Marie Besnard was accused of having murdered twelve people with arsenic. During this extraordinary court battle, 15 experts on medical, chemical, geological and analytical forensic experts made exhaustive analyses and long-lasting, extensive experiments with the aim to verify whether the arsenic traces found in the buried victims stemmed from poison or are the result of yet unknown concentration processes in buried corpses. Finally, after twelve years of research and arguing of the fifteen experts, of which eight were professors and one even a Nobel Price laureate, Mdm. Besnard was acquitted due to lack of evidence.78 After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, numerous mass graves, containing altogether hundreds of thousands of bodies of vic- tims of the Soviets, were discovered, excavated, and investigated. Not only was the number of victims determined, but in many cases the spe- cific cause of death as well. In the same regions where many of these mass graves were found, one million Jews are said to have been shot by the Einsatzgruppen. Yet no such grave has ever been reported found, let alone dug and investigated, in the more than half a century during which these areas have been controlled by the USSR and its successor states. During the conflict in Kosovo in 1999, rumors about mass killings by Serbs spread around the world. After the fighting was over, an inter- national forensic commission arrived in Kosovo, searching, excavating and forensically investigating mass graves. These graves proved to be not only fewer than the Serbs’ Albanian opponents had alleged, but to contain small fractions of the number of victims claimed. 78 Michael D. Kelleher, C. L. Kelleher, Murder Most Rare: The Female Serial Killer, Praeger, Westport, Conn., 1998.
  38. 38. GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT 41 Did the Allies attempt, during the Second World War and in the years immediately following, to find and to investigate mass graves of persons said to have been victims of the Germans? So far as is known, only once: at Katyn. But the findings of the Soviet forensic commission, which blamed the mass murder of several thousand Polish officers bu- ried there on the Germans, are today generally considered a fabrication. The report of the international forensic commission invited by the Ger- mans in 1943, on the other hand, which found that the Soviets had car- ried out this mass murder, is today considered accurate even by the Russian government.79 4.3. A Definition of Forensic Science Forensic science is generally regarded as a supporting science of criminology. Its aim is to collect and to identify physical remnants of a crime, and from these to draw conclusions about the victim(s), the per- petrator(s), the weapon(s), time and location of the crime as well as how it was committed, if at all. This science is relatively new and entered the courtrooms only in 1902, when fingerprint evidence was accepted, in an English court, for the first time. The 1998 CD-ROM Encyclopedia Bri- tannica writes about forensic science: “A broad range of scientific techniques is available to law enforcement agencies attempting to identify suspects or to establish beyond doubt the connection between a suspect and the crime in question. Examples include the analysis of bloodstains and traces of other body fluids (such as semen or spittle) that may indicate some of the characteristics of the offender. Fi- bres can be analyzed by microscopy or chemical analysis to show, for in- stance, that fibres found on the victim or at the scene of the crime are simi- lar to those in the clothing of the suspect. Hair samples, and particularly skin cells attached to hair roots, can be compared chemically and geneti- cally to those of the suspect. Many inorganic substances, such as glass, pa- per, and paint, can yield considerable information under microscopic or chemical analysis. Examination of a document in question may reveal it to be a forgery, on the evidence that the paper on which it is written was man- ufactured by a technique not available at the time to which it allegedly dates. The refractive index of even small particles of glass may be meas- ured to show that a given item or fragment of glass was part of a particular batch manufactured at a particular time and place.” Hence, forensic research is exactly what revisionists, starting with Robert Faurisson, have called the search for material evidence. The 79 Cf. George Sanford, Katyn and the Soviet Massacre of 1940, Routledge, Oxford 2005.
  39. 39. 42 GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT revisionists’ demand for such material evidence is entirely consistent with the normal practice of modern law enforcement. Also, as is gener- ally acknowledged, forensic evidence is more conclusive than eyewit- ness testimony or documentary evidence. Even though forensic methods have hardly been applied with re- gards to Auschwitz, there are a few examples which I shall discuss briefly in the following chapter. 4.4. Forensic Science and Auschwitz 4.4.1. Forensics in the Courts 4.4.1.1. The 1946 Krakow Auschwitz Trial In 1945, the Jan Sehn Institute for Forensic Research (Instytut Eks- pertyz Sadowych) prepared a report on a forensic investigation of Auschwitz that was submitted in evidence in the 1946 Auschwitz trial in Krakow, Poland.80 This expert report should be treated with caution, because forensic examinations and judicial procedures under the Com- munists have been anything but trustworthy, and in 1945, Poland was a Stalinist satellite. One need only point to the example of Katyn, the Soviet account of which was fully endorsed by Poland’s Communist regime.79 The Krakow forensic investigators took hair, presumably cut from inmates, and hair clasps from bags found by the Soviets in Auschwitz. Tested for cyanide residues, both hair and clasps showed positive re- sults. Additionally, a zinc-plated metal cover was tested for cyanide and found to have a positive result as well. The Krakow Institute claims that this metal cover once shielded the exhaust duct of a supposed homicidal gas chamber at Birkenau. The tests conducted by the institute were qualitative, not quantita- tive, analyses. In other words, they could only determine whether or not cyanide was present, not how much of it was there. As to whether or not homicidal gassing with hydrogen cyanide took place in Auschwitz, these analyses are worthless, for three reasons: 1. There is no way of determining the origin and history of the hair and hair clasps obtained from bags in Auschwitz. Assuming that the analytic results are correct, from a chemical point of view the following can be noted: A positive test for cyanide in human hair 80 Published in German, op. cit. (note 56), pp. 36-40; the original is in the Auschwitz State Mu- seum.
  40. 40. GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT 43 proves only that the hair has been exposed to HCN (hydrogen cya- nide). But that result does not suffice to establish that the persons from whom the hair came were killed by cyanide. It is a good deal more likely that the hair had already been cut when it was exposed to the gas: in German as well as in Allied camps, it was standard to cut off prisoners’ hair for hygienic reasons. When hair over a cer- tain length was later reused,81 it had to be deloused beforehand (of- ten with Zyklon B, the active ingredient of which is hydrogen cya- nide). Hence, positive cyanide results from loose hair do not prove human gassings. 2. We face a similar problem with the zinc-plated covers allegedly used to cover the ventilation ducts of the supposed gas chambers: their exact origin and history is unknown. It would have been much pre- ferable for the Krakow Institute to have analyzed samples from the walls of the alleged gas chambers instead of obtaining samples from pieces of metal: a. Whereas the origin and history of these metal covers are uncer- tain, the origin and (at least partly) the history of the walls of the morgues allegedly used as gas chambers are known. b. In contrast to cement and concrete, zinc-plated metal covers pre- vent the formation of stable iron cyanide compounds.82 The de- veloping zinc cyanide compounds are relatively unstable and must be expected to vanish in a short period of time.83 c. The tendency of porous wall material in moist underground rooms to accumulate and to bind hydrogen cyanide, physically as well as chemically, is hundreds of times higher than that of sheet metal (see chapter 6.7.). d. As a matter of fact, the letter accompanying the samples sent to the Krakow Institute actually mentions that a mortar sample alle- gedly taken from a so-called gas chamber is enclosed as well and should also be tested for cyanide. However, for unknown rea- sons, the Krakow Institute did not mention this mortar sample in its report, perhaps because it did not show any positive result. 81 Letter from the SS-Wirtschafts- und Verwaltungshauptamt, Oranienburg, to concentration camp commanders, August 6, 1942, IMT document USSR-511, cited in: International Military Tribunal, Trial of the Major War Criminals (hereafter IMT), Nuremberg 1947 (www.avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/imt.asp), Aug. 5, 1946, vol. 20. The letter ordered the recycling of prisoners’ hair twenty centimeters or more in length; but see also the critical remarks by Carlos W. Porter, www.cwporter.com/gussr511.htm. 82 Zinc prevents the formation of rust, which is required to form long-term stable iron cyanides. 83 Like earth alkaline cyanides, zinc cyanides are slowly decomposed by humidity.
  41. 41. 44 GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT 3. It is unknown where those zinc-plated metal covers are today. It is furthermore impossible to identify them, since the Krakow report does not include a description or photo of them. Therefore, this analysis cannot be reproduced. 4.4.1.2. The 1964-1966 Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial Several expert reports were prepared during the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial, the best known being those of the Munich Institut für Zeitge- schichte (Institute for Contemporary History).84 However, none of these reports was forensic in nature. They addressed legal, historical, or psy- chological topics. Throughout this mammoth trial, the court, the prose- cution85 and the defense86 never suggested that material traces of the alleged crime be secured and investigated. The prosecution had at its disposal numerous statements by eyewitnesses and confessions by per- petrators, and it considered this material entirely sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt the existence of a program to exterminate Jews at Auschwitz and elsewhere during the Third Reich.87 The abun- dance of such evidence has since been used to argue that the lack of documentary and material evidence is irrelevant.88 That no material evidence was presented during the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial was freely conceded by the court in its ruling:88 “The court lacked almost all possibilities of discovery available in a normal murder trial to create a true picture of the actual event at the time of the murder. It lacked the bodies of the victims, autopsy records, expert reports on the cause of death and the time of death; it lacked any trace of 84 H. Buchheim, M. Broszat, H.-A. Jacobsen, H. Krausnick, Anatomie des SS-Staates, 2 vols., Walter Verlag, Freiburg 1964. 85 Throughout his writings, Adalbert Rückerl, one of the most prominent German prosecutors in “Holocaust cases,” dispenses with any mention of material evidence. Instead, he declares do- cumentary evidence the best and most important form of evidence, even in the absence of ma- terial evidence for the authenticity and correctness of the documents themselves (in Jürgen We- ber, P. Steinbach (eds.), Vergangenheitsbewältigung durch Strafverfahren?, Olzog, Munich 1984, p. 77). Rückerl reports that it is practically impossible to find a suspect guilty solely on documentary evidence, so that, especially given the increasing time span separating alleged crimes from trial, it is almost always necessary to fall back on eyewitness testimony, even though its unreliability is clear, particularly in trials of so-called “National Socialist violent crimes” (A. Rückerl, NS-Verbrechen vor Gericht, C. F. Müller, Heidelberg 1984, p. 249; Rückerl, Nationalsozialistische Vernichtungslager im Spiegel deutscher Strafprozesse, dtv, Munich 1978, p. 34; Rückerl, NS-Prozesse, C. F. Müller, Karlsruhe 1972, pp. 27, 29, 31). 86 Such total naiveté, combined with legal incompetence, on behalf of the defense is best exempli- fied in Hans Laternser, Die andere Seite im Auschwitzprozeß 1963/65, Seewald, Stuttgart 1966. 87 One of the most prominent German advocates of this thesis is Professor Ernst Nolte in his book Streitpunkte, Propyläen, Berlin 1993, pp. 290, 293, 297. 88 Ref. 50/4 Ks 2/63; cf. I. Sagel-Grande, H. H. Fuchs, C. F. Rüter (eds.), Justiz und NS- Verbrechen, vol. 21, University Press, Amsterdam 1979, p. 434.
  42. 42. GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT 45 the murderers, murder weapons, etc. An examination of the eyewitness tes- timony was only possible in rare cases. Where the slightest doubt existed or the possibility of a confusion could not be excluded with certainty, the court did not evaluate the testimony of witnesses […]” 4.4.1.3. The 1972 Vienna Auschwitz Trial Between January 18 and March 10, 1972, two architects responsible for the design and construction of the crematoria in Auschwitz- Birkenau, Walter Dejaco and Fritz Ertl, were put on trial in Vienna, Austria.89 During the trial, an expert report on the possible interpretation of the blueprints of the alleged gas chambers of the Auschwitz and Bir- kenau crematoria was presented to the court. The report concluded that the rooms in question could not have been gas chambers, nor could they have been converted into gas chambers.90 Thanks to this first methodo- logically sound expert report on Auschwitz, the defendants were acquit- ted. 4.4.2. Forensics Outside the Courts 4.4.2.1. In Search of Mass Graves In 1966 the Auschwitz State Museum commissioned the Polish company Hydrokop to drill into the soil of the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp and to analyze the samples. It is not known whether this research was done in the context of the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial. The results, however, vanished into the museum’s archives: they have never been released, which by itself is revealing enough. Years later, however, several pages from this report were photocopied and sent to the German revisionist publisher Udo Walendy, who published them with commen- tary in an issue of his periodical.91 Traces of bones and hair allegedly found at several places might indicate mass graves. The few pages pub- lished by Walendy, however, do not reveal whether these findings led to an excavation or a subsequent forensic study of the traces. It is not even evident whether the bone and hair samples collected are human or ani- mal remains. (Since Birkenau had a butchery to provide the camp with 89 Ref. 20 Vr 6575/72 (Hv56/72), Jan. 18-March 10, 1972; this reference number is different from the one Robert van Pelt quotes in his report: The Pelt Report, op. cit. (note 71), p. 135 n. 59: 20 Vr 3806/64 and 27 C Vr 3806/64). 90 Personal communications by Walter Lüftl who interviewed the expert, who must, for the time being, remain anonymous for fear of persecution and prosecution. See Michael Gärtner (=W. Lüftl), “Vor 25 Jahren: Ein anderer Auschwitzprozeß,” VffG, 1(1) (1997), pp. 24f. 91 Udo Walendy, Historische Tatsachen, no. 60, Verlag für Volkstum und Zeitgeschichtsforschung, Vlotho 1993, pp. 7-10.

Comments

comments

One thought on “The Rudolph Report”

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.