Some considerations about the ›Gas Chambers‹ of Auschwitz and Birkenau

by Dipl.-Chem. Germar Rudolf

Paper presented at the 1st Australian Revisionist Conference, August 9, 1998, revised version

Editorial Note

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Political-polemic approaches

You all know these approaches, and I don't want to be boring in quoting the well known examples again. Just a few examples from the latest attempt of refuting the Revisionists as made by Richard J. Green on in his articles »Leuchter, Rudolf, and the Iron Blues« and »The Chemistry of Auschwitz«

  1. He is merely repeating the arguments of Deborah Lipstadt,[1] for example the stupid, unscientific claim that there should be no debate with, as they call us, Holocaust deniers.
  2. He argues that Leuchter didn't have the qualifications he claimed to have, which is not completely true[2] and, by the way, is no scientific argument.
  3. He cannot understand why I am using several pen names, even though he admits that I am unacceptably persecuted because of my views.
  4. Green imputes that the freedom of expression as granted by the First Amendment of the United States would be lost if [quotation]: »people like Rudolf and his hero Remer ever to come to power here«. I cannot speak for General Remer here, who died in October last year, but regarding my person this is not only wrong, it is a libel. And furthermore: Gen. Remer is not my hero. He was a defendant who had a right for unrestricted defense as every defendant. By describing Remer as my hero, Green obviously intends to link me to Remers political convictions.
  5. Finally, Green labels my arguments »deceptions«. But even if I made mistakes - nobody is perfect - that does not mean that I intended to deceive anybody. This insinuation of bad intentions, unfortunately to be found on either sides of this debate, has as a prerequisite the strong believe of the insinuator that he holds the one and absolute truth, and on the other side has as a consequence that the opposite side is being restricted in their rights, namely by not being granted of having scientific valid arguments, by denying them to participate in discussions and debates, and as a final step by denying them their human rights of freedom of expression and freedom of science, as we can see in many European countries already today. And indeed, Green strongly insists that his views of historical events are »historical fact«, that what the Revisionists are doing is »pseudoscience« or »pseudoscientific«, spreading »distasteful and false propaganda«, and even if it »ought to be permitted to spread untruth does not make untruth into truth«. He imputes that we are happy to »spread a bit of confusion to obfuscate the truth«; that we are telling a »lie« which he intends to »expose« as one.

In his conclusion Richard Green writes:

»I am not embarrassed to call Holocaust-denial hate speech. That is what it is. People who are smart enough to obfuscate using pseudoscientific arguments are also smart enough to know what they are doing: propagating a lie. Although some people may be attracted to Holocaust denial because of gullibility and/or mental illness, these people are not the same people who write these clever but mendacious pseudoscientific reports. The people who write these reports are motivated by a desire to rehabilitate Nazism, an ideology of hate. Hate-speech is what it is, and in calling it that I am merely exercising my right of free speech.«

Here you have it: Hate speech. Imputing that someone wants to rehabilitate the incarnation of evil on earth - and that is what National Socialism is in the eyes of the vast majority of all humans -, and that he is using evil techniques for this purpose or, alternatively, that he is mentally ill or feeble-minded. On a long run, that sort of arguing drives us directly into mental asylums, prisons or onto pyres, a situation which unfortunaltely is no longer unlikely in Germany today.[3]

. This is real hate speech, and unfortunately it is politically correct and thus supported by nearly everybody. And by the way: Even if it were true that some of us would like to rehabilitate National Socialism - I trust that this is only a minority -, this is not an argument against the validity of our arguments.

But Richard Green's ways of arguing are evidence that he has a strong political motivation which may twist his way of recognizing reality: apparently he is an extreme opponent of any historical rehabilitation of National Socialism. But that sort of motivation must not influence our scientific arguing, since it is purely political. The results of our scientific research must not depend on the effect they might have on the cleanness of the slate of any historical person or political ideology. Caring about the white- or blackwashing effect of any research is highly unscientific.


2. Engineering approach: »No Holes, no "Holocaust"«

Green spends a few paragraphs on discussing Faurisson's famous quip »No Holes, no "Holocaust"«. According to Green, air photos actually show four vents in the roof of morgue 1 of Crematorium II in Birkenau, the alleged gas chamber most frequently used to kill humans. He refers to Michael Shermer and his well known article in Skeptic Magazine as it was reprinted slightly modified in his book Why people believe weird things.[4] Shermer himself is quoting a CIA expert as having found »evidence of extermination activity«, which is pure nonsense, since no such activities can be found.

Shermer reproduces a 1944 aerial photo of Krema II and a 1942 picture taken from ground level. I quote Shermer's according paragraph as quoted by Green:

»The aerial photograph in figure 23 shows the distinctive features of Krema II. Note the long shadow from the crematorium chimney and, on the roof of the adjacent gas chamber at right angles to the crematorium building, note the four staggered shadows. [Holocaust denier John Clive] Ball claims these shadows were drawn in, but four small structures that match the shadows are visible on the roof of the gas chamber in figure 24, a picture taken by an SS photographer of the back of Krema II...«

Now let's have a closer look at these allegations.

Air Photo of Auschwitz-Brikenau Conc. Camp (159 KB)

Illustration 1: Section of an aerial photograph of the camp Auschwitz-Birkenau taken by Allied aeroplanes in 1944

Illustration 1 is a detail enlargement of an air photo of Birkenau as taken by allied air planes end of August 1944.[5]
Now look at the spots on top of the roofs of the morgues 1 of Krematorium III (Ill. 1, left arrow) and II (Ill. 1, right arrow), the alleged gas chambers.

Illustration 2. Click on picture to enlarge

ß In illustration 2 I have added some explaining graphics.

First of all, the direction of these spots prove that they cannot be shadows. They simply have the wrong direction if compared to the shadow of the chimney. The angle between the shadow and the main direction of the Krematorium is roughly 45°. But the angle between the spots and the Krematorium's main direction is somewhat between 75 to 80° degrees in case of Krematorium III and 80-90° in case of Krematorium II.

Secondly, these spots are much to big for Zyklon B introduction vents. They are some 3-4 meters long and about 1 meter wide, which in case of shadows would result in a object height of some 3 meters (this results from the relation of the known height of the chimney to the length of its shadow). But, as shown, they cannot be shadows, but must be some quite flat objects. But if they were holes, their enormous size would mean that the roof of the morgues would have been destroyed by them.

Illustration 3. Click on picture to enlarge

ß Illustration 3 is showing a cross section through morgue 1 of Krematorium II.[6] The numbered crosses indicate the locations where Fred Leuchter took his samples. The dotted line along the middle of this morgue indicates the supporting reinforced concrete beam, running across the entire length of the morgue and carried by 7 pillars of reinforced concrete. If the four spots visible on the middle of the roof of this morgue were indeed holes, they would have destroyed this supporting concrete beam, and thus would have destroyed the entire supporting structure of the ceiling of this morgue.

Illustration 4.

Finally, as shown in illustration 4 drawn by John Ball, the locations of the four spots ƒ neither match the locations nor the size or shape of the two holes that can actually be found today in the collapsed roof of morgue 1  of Krema II.[7] à

Thus, we have proved that these objects can impossibly be holes.




Illustration 5. (Click to enlarge)
Illustration 6. Click on picture to enlarge.

Illustration 7.

ß Now let's have a look at the ground level picture from February 1943 mentioned by Green and as it can be found in Danuta Czech's book about Birkenau, illustration 5.[8]

When enlarging the indicated section of this photo (illustration 6, below), you can see that there are only three objects which apparently are located on the roof of morgue 1 of Krema II, not four as stated by Shermer and Green. The fourth object at the right hand (arrow) side is not located on the roof, but behind it.

It can be seen that the three object neither have equal sizes nor equal shade colors. Thus, we must conclude that they do neither have the same measurements nor obviously the same shape and/or orientation, because otherwise they should have the same shade color.

Illustration 7 is a vanishing line drawing on a cross section of morgue 1, as prepared by Jean Marie Boisdefeu.[9] The crossing lines indicate the possible locations of these three objects on the roof. Hence, it is clear that these objects are not equally distributed over the roof, but are located quite closely together. Furthermore, only one of the actually existing holes is located on one of these vanishing lines, namely the right hand side one (rough position of actual holes drawn as grey rectangles).

Since the Krematorium II was still under construction at this time, it is quite reasonable to assume that these objects are some sort of building material stored temporarily on the roof of the morgue.

Illustration 8. Click on picture to enlarge.

Illustration 9. Click on picture to enlarge.

Illustration 10. Click on picture to enlarge.

There doesn't exist any other photo with objects on this roof.

ß But we have found one that does not show these object. It was shot in January 1943 and reproduced again by Danuta Czech (illustration 8). The layer of snow on the roofs indicates that it was already completed at this time, but no introduction devices are visible.[10]





ß Finally it can be proved at least for one of the two holes existing today that it was chiseled in after the war and that it was never finished. This photo in illustration 9 shows the left hand one of the two holes. The reinforcement bars of the concrete are still visible, they were just once cut and bent, but never removed. This hole has no cracks in its corners which definitely proves that it was chiseled in after this morgue was blown up, since otherwise many cracks must start right from the corners as they are the weak points of such a structure.[11]

ß Compare illustration 10, the photo of a house in the Alps that was hit by a rock. The only crack in the wall starts (or ends) at the corner of the window. This phenomenon is a well known and established fact.[12]

Thus, Robert Faurisson's quip is still valid: »No Holes, No "Holocaust"«

This contribution could end with this sentence, since it doesn't make much sense to discuss chemical problems of Zyklon B when it has been proved that there was no way to introduce this poison gas as described by the witnesses. Nevertheless I am going to say a few words to the chemistry of Auschwitz as well.


3. Chemical approach: »The Holy Ghost of Wiesenfeld«

I would like to focus just on the question of the formation and detectability of Iron Blue, the famous blue colored iron cyanide compound.

There are three conceivable explanations for the well known difference in cyanide content of samples taken from alleged human gas chambers on the one hand and delousing chambers on the other hand, as Green correctly states:

  1. »The presence of Prussian-Blue staining is a necessary consequence of exposure to HCN and the fact that it is not present in the homicidal chambers proves they were not used for homicidal gassing.« This is the way Leuchter is arguing,[13] and I agree with Green that this is an unfounded assumption.
  2. »The Prussian-Blue staining is present for reasons having nothing to do with the exposure to HCN. For example the Austrian chemist Dr. Josef Bailer has suggested it may be a pigment from paint.« Even in this point I agree with Green who more or less dismisses Bailers unfounded theory.
  3. »The Prussian-Blue staining indeed owes its presence to exposure to HCN, but the conditions under which it formed were not universally present in all facilities exposed to HCN. The rate of Prussian-Blue formation may be very different under the conditions used in homicidal chamber versus the conditions in delousing chambers.« And again, I agree with Green that this is the correct approach to this problem.

But I strongly disagree when Green continues arguing:

»Answer number one is, of course, untenable. We know that homicidal gassings occurred from historical evidence independently of the chemistry involved.«

First of all, you cannot refute chemical or other findings of the exact sciences with eyewitness accounts, and there is no other evidence apart from eyewitness accounts, the only other extisting "evidence", as far as I know. Green does not even try to give us a clue what »other historical evidence« he is referring to.

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

Green is the first exterminationist author who is accepting my suggestions of how iron blues can be formed from hydrogen cyanide and iron oxide, the latter being a common component of all sorts of mortar, plaster and concrete.[14] He adds some more explanations which he found in expert literature, and which more or less support my thesis as well - even though I must admit that his theory of water as a reducing agent for iron(III)compounds is very odd. Since this is a crucial point in this discussion, let me summarize the steps involved in the formation of iron blues and which factors support it. The process of formation can be divided into five steps:

  1. Ad-/absorption of hydrogen cyanide (HCN) on/in the wall. As every gaseous compound, HCN is increasingly absorbed on surfaces with sinking temperature, especially because the water content of walls is much higher at lower temperatures than at higher ones (eg. 10 times higher at 10°C with a rel. humidity at around 100% compared with 20°C at 60% rel. humidity)[15], and because HCN is easily absorbed by water. Additionally, the sort of material may be important, since e.g. concrete and cement mortar has an inner surface which is up to ten times and more higher than that of lime mortar, thus leading to higher absorption rates, and by doing so supporting the first step in the formation process of Iron Blue.[16]
  2. Dissociation of HCN in water to CN- and H3O+. For this step, a high pH-value, i.e. alkalinity is required. In neutral medium, not more than 1% of the entire absorbed HCN is dissociated to CN-, and at pH-values of 9,31 (medium basic) 50% is dissociated.[17] Whereas fresh lime mortar is being transferred to pH-neutral Chalk after only a few days due to the influence of CO2 in the air, cement mortar and concrete stay alkaline for many years, depending on the relative amounts of its compounds (water, sand, cement). Hence, again, concrete and cement mortar are advantageous for the formation of Iron Blue.
  3. Complexing of Fe3+ with 6 molecules CN- to [FeIII(CN)6]3-. This requires reactive iron which is part of all mortars and concrete due to the sand and/or cement added, which frequently has an iron oxide (i.e. rust) content of 1 to 4%.[18] The reactivity of iron increases with decreasing pH-value. This means that at pH-values beyond 11 (to be found in freshly mixed mortars and concrete) the complexing step is unlikely, because the iron complexes are no longer stable.
  4. Reduction of [FeIII(CN)6]3- to [FeII(CN)6]4-, i.e. effectively the reduction of Fe3+ to Fe2+ [in complexes, the formal charge of an ion is given as roman exponent, thus FeIII would be a Fe3+ as a free ion]. This step is described as unlikely or even impossible by many exterminationists, because they cannot see any mechanism that could reduce the iron from its natural form (Fe3+) to the unnatural one (Fe2+), which is normally relatively unstable in aqueous solutions. In fact, free CN--molecules, which have not yet been complexed by Fe3+, can serve as a reducing agent. The reduction may be induced photolytically by light (UV)[19, 20, 21], but this is not at all necessary. Experiments have shown that [FeIII(CN)6]3- is converted into [FeII(CN)6]4- in the presence of excess CN-, when exposed to pH-values of 9 to 10.[22] This finding is supported by the well known fact that [FeIII(CN)6]3- is a strong oxidizing agent in alkaline medium which can even oxidize Cr3+ to CrO3, a compound itself well know for its oxidizing power.[23] Driving force for this powerful reaction is the much more favourable energetical position of [FeII(CN)6]4-, if compared to [FeIII(CN)6]3-.[24] For this reason, the reduction of free, uncomplexed Fe3+ to Fe2+ by CN- is energetically at a disadvantage and must be regarded as neglectable. The real reason for the conviction of exterminationists holding the opinion that no Fe2+ can possibly be formed from Fe3+ under the conditions to be expected in walls may be that they did not consider the complex chemistry involved in it which changes the chemistry of the compounds dramatically. In this step, too, mortar plasters and concretes would support the formation of Iron Blue due to their longer lasting alkalinity.
  5. Precipitation of Iron Blue by combination of Fe3+ with [Fe(CN)6]4- to from Fe4[Fe(CN)6]3, (pure Iron Blue). This final step of formation is occurring spontaneously and, in contrary to other metal complexes of similar, is complete.[25] It depends an the amount of water available, since the only process necessary for this step is to transport the ions together. Thus, this final formation of the intensive blue compound may take years, if the wall is relatively dry.

Consequently, we can conclude that the actual speed of Iron Blue formation (i.e. its kinetics) in walls depends mainly on the following factors:

  1. Water content of the wall
  2. reactivity of the iron oxides involved
  3. temperature of the walls
  4. pH-value of the walls
  5. HCN-concentration the walls were exposed to
  6. time of exposure
  7. other influences, e.g. were the walls rinsed, cleaned, chemically treated, covered by paint, tiles...

Green starts discussing the problem of the kinetics involved in the formation process of Iron Blue as a result of Zyklon B gassings, but before getting into details, he quits this problem be assuming

»that the kinetics are too difficult to model without resort to experiment«.

Again I do agree with him to a certain degree: An exact answer to the question: Could long term stable Iron Blue compounds be formed by human gassings, and if so: which amount could be formed? would indeed require experiments, which of course cannot be considered seriously - except perhaps when using some Revisionist, who sometimes seem to be quite eager to do such experiments. I remember that Jürgen Graf once offered himself as a Guinea Pig for such an experiment.

A great disadvantage of Green is that he cannot read German. As a consequence he relies on information or opinions which have been refuted already a long time ago. This lets him come to false conclusions.

For example, Green's assumptions regarding the HCN-concentration the walls of the alleged gas chamber were exposed to and the time of exposure are likely to be wrong.

Regarding the evaporation speed of hydrogen cyanide from the Zyklon B carrier used in Auschwitz in the 40ies, Green is referring to a publication of the early 30ies, but the Chemist Dr. Wolfgang Lambrecht[26] and Carlo Mattogno[27] have found much more reliable sources from 1943 and 1945, respectively, which show that my earlier assumption were correct: In dry air and at 15°C, it took roughly two hours for 90% of the hydrogen cyanide to evaporate from the carrier, and much longer, if the air was saturated with water, as it must be expected in rooms crowded with humans.

Furthermore Green has not taken into considerations that even killings with instantly generated, high concentrations of hydrogen cyanide, as applied at executions of some states in the USA, frequently last for more than 10 minutes.[28] Green is not aware that it does not make much sense to refer to toxicological literature in order to find out how long it takes to kill all humans more or less immediately with that poison. For security reasons - that is why these books were written - this literature gives figures which indicate how long it takes for a small, weak and perhaps ill person to inhale an amount of hydrogen cyanide that is lethal. You won't find any figures in there how long it takes until even healthy, tough and well trained people are actually dead. Even if a person has inhaled a lethal amount of cyanide, it might still take up to an hour until he is dead. This means that it would have required enormous amounts of Zyklon B to kill all victims in a few minutes, as stated by all eye witnesses.[29] This would have led to higher concentrations of HCN than assumed by Green.

Additionally, Green is not considering the problems of airing a room where allegedly Zyklon B is still evaporating, and where heaps of corpses are blocking the air exchange driven by a ventilation system designed for underground morgues only, as shown in my report[30] and documented by Carlo Mattogno.[31] Thus, he is not discussing the arguments brought forward by us that it would take several hours until these morgues would have been ventilated in a manner save for anybody to enter, leading to much longer exposure times than assumed by Green.

These examples should suffice to make clear that Green's articles cannot be considered a serious work as long as he is not addressing the most important Revisionist findings of the last couple of years. Having no foreign language skills is no excuse for these deficiencies.

Regarding the chemical problems of the alleged homicidal gas chambers, Green concludes:

»Until Rudolf and Leuchter can demonstrate rigorously that the pigments found on the delousing chamber are indeed the result of exposure to HCN, and that the kinetics involved with the formation of such pigments dictate that significant quantities should be formed in all of the homicidal gas chambers, and that these pigments could not possibly have degraded over time, their "forensic reports" remain unsupported speculation.«

Let me say a few words about this.

Illustration 11: Iron Blue patches on the plaster of the Protestant church of Meeder-Wiesenfeld due to a single Zyklon B disinfestation. Illustration 12: Protestant Church of Meeder-Wiesenfeld

Apparently Green has never heard of the case of a Bavarian church were a single fumigation with Zyklon B lead to blue staining all over the walls a few months later, as it was republished by me in 1994,[32] basing on an article published in Germany in 1981[33] and rediscovered by Walter Lüftl. This case proves that wet and alkaline premises are extremely liable for accumulating hydrogen cyanide and transforming it into stable Iron Blue compounds. Illustration 11 shows the according article with a black & white image of the patchy blue staining of the wall's surface. Illustration 12 shows the protestant church in Meeder-Wiesenfeld in Bavaria which is the victim of this single Zyklon B gassing in 1976.[34] This case is of extreme importance because it helped us understanding which factors strongly support the forming of Iron Blue and it demonstrates definitely that our theory about the formation of this pigment as a result of Zyklon B gassings is correct.

This is the first evidence Green wants to see: Hydrogen cyanide gassings are responsible for the blue staining in delousing facilities, especially if the walls are wet and alkaline. But alkalinity is not a necessary prerequisite for the formation of this famous blue dye stuff. Carlo Mattogno and Jürgen Graf have shown recently that even the use of an old premises in the concentration camp Majdanek as a delousing chamber resulted in the formation of Iron Blue,[35] as it is the case in the old disinfestation chamber of the Auschwitz main camp as well. It probably only takes longer and requires more gassings before non-alkaline walls form Iron Blue.

Green's second prerequisite is that I have to »demonstrate rigorously« »that the kinetics involved with the formation of such pigments dictate that significant quantities should be formed in all of the homicidal gas chambers«. I stated before that this is nearly impossible. Consequently we must conclude that chemistry is not a science with the power to prove or refute human gassings in Auschwitz »rigorously«. But when considering that

  1. the alleged killing of thousand or thousands of people in a cold underground morgue with Zyklon B in only a few minutes, as stated by all witnesses - this is faster than the US executions -, would have required enormous amounts of this product, which releases its poison only slowly and which spreads only slowly into each corner of the alleged gas chamber;
  2. that the ventilation of this gas chamber would have taken many hours;
  3. that the tendency of the cold and wet walls of these underground morgues to accumulate hydrogen cyanide was certainly higher than that of any other room, even of any delousing facility;
  4. that because of the high water table in Birkenau these underground morgues were plastered with a water resistant long-term alkaline mortar plaster which increases both accumulation of hydrogen cyanide and its transformation into long term stable Iron Blue;
  5. that these morgues were allegedly put into operation shortly after having been finished, that is: their walls must have been still alkaline;
  6. that especially in case of the morgue 1 of Krematorium II the roof is still today protecting many parts of this room from any environmental influences;[36]
  7. that the delousing facilities of the buildings 5a and 5b in Birkenau, where beyond any doubt Zyklon B was used en masse and exclusively to kill lice, Iron Blue formed en masse too, despite the fact that in contrary to the alleged gas chamber of crematorium II these rooms
    1. were plastered with a less reactive lime mortar only;
    2. were not underground, i.e. neither permanently wet nor cold;
    3. were additionally heated by several stoves;
    4. did not house hundreds of sweating people whose dampness condensed on the cold walls;
    5. consequently must have had much drier walls with a strongly decreased reactivity for Iron Blue formation.

one should be impressed by the similarity between the alleged human gassings in these morgues and the case of the Bavarian church, which had cold, partly wet and alkaline walls as well, and where blue staining did occur already after just one single gassing.

Certainly, this is not a »rigorous« proof, but it is a well founded expert opinion. I never claimed to have rigorously proved this. At the end of my report you can find these words:

»Under the circumstance of the witnessed homicidal mass gassings with hydrogen cyanide, comparable amounts of cyanide residues should be found in the locations in question as can be found in the delousing facilities, including the resulting blue wall staining.«[37]

Furthermore, Green wants me to prove that »these pigments could not possibly have degraded over time«. In my report one can find a lot of arguments to this end, and Green is not even discussing one of them.[38] So I am not quite sure how to react on his ignorance. But let me briefly summarize the perhaps most impressing examples presented in my report.

First of all, a long term stability test must be mentioned performed by a British Team of the Institute of Metal Finishing, based in Slough near London.[39] In this test, a thin Iron Blue layer was formed by precipitation on an sheet of aluminium alloy. This was then uninterruptedly exposed for 21 years (between 1958 and 1980) to the environment on the roof of a building without any protecting cover or layer. Even after 21 years, the Iron Blue samples were still in a good, nearly unchanged condition, together with ochre (i.e. rust) the winner of the test. Considering the strongly corrosive atmosphere of the industrial area of greater London in these times, this result is astonishing.

Another fact proves the long term stability of Iron Blue compounds. As might be know, until the middle of this century city gas was supplied to the households of bigger cities in western Europe. This gas was a by-product of the coke production from coal. At the source, it contained roughly 1% HCN, which was washed out in special iron hydroxide washers, leading directly to the formation of Iron Blue. Since at these times it was (falsely) assumed that Iron Blue could be used as a herbicide, but was known for being completely harmless in other respects, many coke factories used to simply spread it on the soil of their sites. An investigation of some former coke factory sites in Germany, since 50 years or even longer used for completely different purposes, has shown, that still today their soils contain high amounts of Iron Blue which was neither decomposed nor washed out, although exposed to all sorts of environmental influences.[40]

When we consider that in our case the Iron Blue would have formed as an integral part of the wall, i.e. in the inner parts of the wall, it must be quite sure that Iron Blue, if once formed, could have impossibly decomposed or washed out. It would rather have a long term stability comparable to the stability of the entire wall itself.

But asides from these examples, let's approach to this problem from a different end.

Green, as many of his co-dogmatics, relies heavily on the results of the Cracow Institute of Forensic Research, i.e. the work of Markiewicz and colleagues as published in 1994.[41] These Poles have conducted their analyses with a method which is not able to detect Iron cyanide compounds. They did this because they allegedly didn't understand how such compounds could possibly form. Has anyone ever heard that the non-understanding of a phenomenon is a reason for not examining it? For the Poles it obviously was. And even more: They did not even try to refute the theory I presented in one of my publication of spring 1993.[42] They knew this publication, since they quoted it, but only as an example of the alleged "evil deeds" of the deniers and "whitewashers" of Hitler, who they intend to refute. That should be enough to show that the intention of the Poles is highly ideologically biased.

And besides of this, they did not even try to explain what else might be responsible for the high iron cyanide content of the wall's plaster, inner (!) mortar and even partly the outside bricks as well as their patchy blue coloring without any paint being visible.

By using their method, the Poles found out that in both the delousing chambers and the alleged homicidal gas chambers comparable cyanide residues can be found. In the following table I am comparing the results as obtained by the Poles, by Leuchter and by me:

Comparison of the order of magnitude of analyses results of different samples


Markiewicz et al.



Detection of 

Cyanide without Iron Cyanides

Total Cyanide

Total Cyanide

Delousing Chambers

0 - 0,8 mg/kg

1.025 mg/kg

1.000 - 13.000 mg/kg

Alleged Gas Chamber

0 - 0,6 mg/kg

0 - 8 mg/kg

0 - 7 mg/kg

Inmates Hut

0 mg/kg


0 - 3 mg/kg

Gassed Samples

0 - 12 mg/kg


50 - 100 mg/kg

One can draw several conclusions out of these results:

  1. After 50 years considerable less than one per thousand of the total cyanide in the walls of the delousing chambers is not bound as iron cyanide.
  2. In the alleged homicidal gas chambers, this ratio is only 1:10 in maximum.
  3. Since the amount of none-iron cyanide compounds is in both cases comparable, and because there has been no erosion in case of the entirely intact delousing facilities, this means either
    1. that there has been no erosion in case of the alleged homicidal gas chambers as well, or
    2. in case of erosion: that there must have been considerable more cyanide absorbed in these walls; that is: the walls of the alleged gas chambers did accumulate more cyanide than the delousing facilities, but lost it partly since.
  4. If we accept these Cracow results and their assumption, that the walls of the alleged homicidal gas chambers were similar or less liable for accumulating cyanides, then this would be a proof for the fact that erosion was not even able to destroy the less stable non-iron cyanide compounds. Consequently, we would then have to assume that the extremely much more stable iron cyanide compounds could not have been destroyed considerably by environmental influences. (Thus, we have fulfilled Green's last demand). Henceforth, we would have to expect the ratio of non-iron cyanide content to total cyanide content being comparable in both the ›gas chambers‹ and the delousing chambers, which is obviously not the case.
  5. When assuming a considerable reduction of the cyanide compounds due to erosion in the alleged homicidal gas chambers – in contrary to the absolutely not environmentally exposed walls of the delousing chambers – than this erosion would have affected the non-iron cyanide compounds much more than the extremely more resistent iron cyanide compounds. Thus, we would have to expect the ratio of non-iron cyanide content to total cyanide content being considerable smaller in case of the alleged gas chambers than in case of the delousing chambers, but the opposite is true.

In my eyes, there are only two explanations left for these wrong ratios determined by the Poles:

  1. For unknown reasons, the walls of the alleged homicidal gas chambers tend to accumulate and conserve comparable or even higher amounts of non-iron cyanide compounds than the delousing facilities, but despite of the long term alkaline and wet medium in these walls these cyanide compounds were not transformed into iron cyanides. I cannot explain this, but perhaps Richard Green has an idea.
  2. The fact that the amount of long term stable iron cyanide compounds in the alleged homicidal gas chambers is hundred or more times lower than in the delousing facilities is evidence for the fact that the method used by the Poles is producing wrong and/or unreliable results, or must be explained differently than by assuming that the cyanide residue detected by them is the remainder of gassings that took place roughly 50 years ago. That is, these results are »artefacts«, as Josef Bailer put it.

Anyway, the paper presented by Markiewicz et al. is reeking like a fraud, and even after confronting them with my arguments about their work,[43] the Poles refused to give any explanation why they did not at least use both methodes of analysis in order to get two independent data sources for comparison. In case of the sample gassings they performed, for example, they could have been sure that no artificial cyanide pollution from other sources would have twisted their results. At least theses samples, gassed in their own laboratory, would have been able to show how quickly and thoroughly non-iron cyanides are transformed into iron cyanide compounds.

Because even after more than 21/2 years they have not given any explanation for their biased behavior, I call their work a fraud.

4. Conclusions

The result of my report, as I am summarizing them today is:

When it was being operated, there were no holes in the roof of the alleged homicidal gas chamber of Krematorium II in Birkenau, allegedly the most frequently used gas chamber of all. And it is most likely that there were no holes in the twin Krematorium no. III as well. But without holes, no gassings according to the scenario as described by the eye witnesses, without such gassings no reliable eye witnesses, and without reliable eye witnesses no evidence for the Holocaust. Or, as Robert put it:


Furthermore, I am convinced that chemistry is not the science which can prove or refute any allegations about the Holocaust »rigorously«. We have several circumstantial evidences which, especially together with all the other evidence, allow us to come to the conclusion that the homicidal mass gassings as stated by the eye witnesses can not have taken place. But on the chemical argument no absolute certainty can be built.

Germar Rudolf, 4th August 1998


  1. Deborah E. Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, Free Press, New York 1993
  2. Compare e.g. The Journal of Historical Review, 17(2) (1998), pp. 34ff.,
  3. Compare the attempts of German judges and psychologists to declare Revisionists as being mentally ill: Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung , 1(3) (1997), S. 219; 2(1) (1998), S. 35f., 56-60.
  4. Michael Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things, Freeman & Co. New York 1997; cf. G. Rudolf, »Geschichte und Pseudogeschichte«, Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung 3(1) (1999), in print.
  5. Air Photo RG 373 Can F 5367, exp. 3185, National Archives.
  6. Drawn from the plans as shown in Jean-Claude Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gaschambers, Beate-Klarsfeld-Foundation, New York 1989 and printed in my report Rüdiger Kammerer, Armin Solms (eds.), Das Rudolf Gutachten, Cromwell Press, London 1993, p. 81; online:
  8. Danuta Czech, Kalendarium der Ereignisse im Konzentrationslager Auschwitz-Birkenau 1939 - 1945, Rowohlt, Reinbek 1989, p. 454
  9. Jean-Marie Boisdefeu, La controvers sur l'extermination des Juifs par les Allemands, vol. 1, Vrij Historisch Onderzoek, Berchem 1994, p. 167
  10. Danuta Czech, op. cit. (Note 7), p. 398
  11. For more details about this see Rudolf Gutachten, op. cit. (Note 5), pp. 26, 28; online:
  12. Kurier, August 30, 1992, p. 20: »Wenn Felsen fallen« (When rocks are falling).
  13. F. A. Leuchter, An Engineering Report on the alleged Execution Gas Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, Poland, Samisdat Publishers Ltd., Toronto 1988.
  14. About this mechanism cf. Ernst Gauss, Vorlesungen über Zeitgeschichte, Grabert, Tübingen 1993, pp. 163ff., 290-294; online: and ~/v5.html#v5_5; Rudolf Gutachten, op. cit. (Note 5), pp. 39-45; online: and ff.
  15. Landolt-Börnstein, Zahlen und Funktionen aus Physik, Chemie, Astronomie, Technik, Band IV Technik, Teil 4b Wärmetechnik, Springer, Berlin 61972, pp. 433-452.
  16. For information about properties of concrete, cement mortars and lime mortars, the following German literature was used:
    S. Röbert (Hg.), Systematische Baustofflehre, Band 1, VEB Verlag für Bauwesen, Berlin 41983, S. 120; K. Wesche, Baustoffe für tragende Bauteile, vol. 1 & 2, Bauverlag, Wiesbaden 1977, p. 37, pp. 51f. resp.; Verein Deutscher Zementwerke, Zement Taschenbuch 1972/73, Bauverlag, Wiesbaden 1972, pp. 19ff.; W. Czernin, Zementchemie für Bauingenieure, Bauverlag, Wiesbaden 1977, S. 49f.
  17. Landolt-Börnstein, Eigenschaften der Materie in ihren Aggregatzuständen, Part 2, vol. b, Lösungsmittelgleichgewichte I, Springer, Berlin 1962, pp. 1-158.
  18. W.H. Duda, Cement-Data-Book, Bauverlag, Wiesbaden 1976, pp. 4ff.; O. Hähnle, Baustoff-Lexikon, Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, Stuttgart 1961, p. 384.
  19. G. Stochel, Z. Stasicka, Polyhedron 4 (11) (1985), pp. 1887-1890.
  20. T. Ozeki, K. Matsumoto, S. Hikime, Anal. Chem. 56 (14) (1984), pp. 2819-2822.
  21. L. Moggi, F. Bolletta, V. Balzani, F. Scandola, J. Inorg. Nucl. Chem. 28 (1966), pp. 2589-2598.
  22. M.A. Alich, D.T. Haworth, M.F. Johnson, J. Inorg. Nucl. Chem. 29, (1967), pp. 1637-1642. Spectroscopical studies of the reaction of Hexacyanoferrat(III) in water and ethanol. A solution of 3,3×10-4 M Fe(NO3)3 was treated with a cyanide excess of 3,3×10-4 mol l-1. At pH-values of about 10, all Fe2[Fe(CN)6] was converted into Iron Blue within 48 hours. Cyanate, the oxidation product of CN- to be expected, was not detected. Perhaps it was immediately oxidized to the final product CO2.
  23. J.C. Bailar, Comprehensive Inorganic Chemistry, Vol. 3, Pergamon Press, Oxford 1973, p. 1047.
  24. R.M. Izatt, G.D. Watt, C.H. Bartholomew, J.J. Christensen, Inorg. Chem. 9 (1970), pp. 2019ff. Results of calorimetrical measurments regarding the enthalpies of formation of Iron Blue starting from different educts (in brackets):
    DH(Fe2+ + [Fe(CN)6]3-)= -66,128 kJ mol-1; DH(Fe3+ + [Fe(CN)6]4-)= 2,197 kJ mol-1.
  25. F. Krleza, M. Avlijas, G. Dokovic, Glas. Hem. Tehnol. Bosne Hercegovine, 23-24 (1977) (Vol. Date 1976), pp. 7-13.
  26. Wolfgang Lambrecht, »Zyklon B - eine Ergänzung«, Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung 1(1) (1997), pp. 2-5; online:
  27. Carlo Mattogno, »Die Gaskammern von Majdanek«, Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung 2(2) (1998), pp. 118, footnote 5; online not available.
  28. Conrad Grieb, »Der selbstassistierte Holocaust-Schwindel«, VffG 1(1) (1997), pp. 6-8; online:
  29. Re. the alleged time required for the killings see e.g.: Schwurgericht Hagen, sentence of July, 24, 1970, Ref. 11 Ks 1/70, p. 97 (5 min.); Final Trial Brief of the Prosecution, acc. to U. Walendy, Auschwitz im IG-Farben-Prozeß, Verlag für Volkstum und Zeitgeschichtsforschung, Vlotho 1981, pp. 47-50 (3 to 15 min. at the most); E. Kogon, H. Langbein, A. Rückerl et al., Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas, Fischerverlag, Frankfurt/Main 1983, ubiquitious (immediately to 10 min., more seldom to 20 min.); J. Buszko (Hg.), Auschwitz, Nazi Extermination Camp, Interpress Publishers, Warschau 21985, pp. 114 + 118 (a few min.); H.G. Adler, H. Langbein, E. Lingens-Reiner (Hg.), Auschwitz, Europäische Verlagsanstalt, Köln 31984, pp. 66, 80 + 200 (a few min., up to 10 Minuten); Hamburger Institut für Sozialforschung (ed.), Die Auschwitz-Hefte, vol. 1, Beltz Verlag, Weinheim 1987, pp. 261ff.+294 (immediately to 10 min.); C. Vaillant-Couturier, Der Prozeß gegen die Hauptkriegsverbrecher vor dem Internationalen Militärgerichtshof Nürnberg (IMT), vol. VI, p. 242 (5 to 7 min.); M. Nyiszli in: G. Schoenberner (ed.), Wir haben es gesehen, Fourier, Wiesbaden 1981, p. 250 (5 min.); C.S. Bendel in: H. Langbein, Menschen in Auschwitz, Europaverlag, Wien 1987, p. 221 (victimes stopped screaming after 2 min.); P. Broad in: B. Naumann, Auschwitz, Athenäum, Frankfurt/Main 1968, p. 217 (4 min.), after 10-15 min. doors were oppend: A. Rückerl, NS-Verbrechen vor Gericht, C.F. Müller, Heidelberg, 21984, p. 58f.; K. Hölbinger in: H. Langbein, Der Auschwitz-Prozeß, Europäische Verlagsanstalt, Frankfurt/Main 1965, p. 73 (1 min.): R. Böck, ibid., p. 74 (after doors were close: 10 min screaming victims, then doors were opened); H. Stark, ibid., p. 439 (10-15 min. screaming victims); F. Müller, ibid., p. 463 (8-10 min.); E. Pyš, ibid., p. 748 (ventilation switched on after a few min.); K. Lill, ibid., p. 750 (e few seconds after Zyklon B was thrown in a scream, a few min. later smoke came out of the chimney).
  30. Cf. Rudolf Gutachten, op. cit. (Note 5)pp. 70-73; online:
  31. Cf. Carlo Mattogno in: Herbert Verbeke (ed.), Auschwitz: Nackte Fakten, Vrij Historisch Onderzoek, Berchem, 1995, pp. 133-143; online:
  32. In Ernst Gauss (ed.), Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte, Grabert, Tübingen 1994, pp. 401ff.; online:; english translation:
  33. Günter Zimmermann (ed.), Bauschäden Sammlung, Band 4, Forum-Verlag, Stuttgart 1981, pp. 120f.
  34. Fortunately, the responsible engineer in charge with restoring this church in 1976 is a supporter of revisionism. He gave me more details about this case and the photo of the church shown here.
  35. Jürgen Graf, Carlo Mattogno, »KL Majdanek. Ein historische und technische Studie«, Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings 1998; online:
  36. For more details to all of these points see Rudolf Gutachten, op. cit. (Note 5), ubiquit.
  37. Rudolf Gutachten, op. cit. (Note 5), p 98; online:
  38. Rudolf Gutachten, op. cit. (Note 5), 45-49; online: ~/ph_sens.html and ff.
  39. J.M. Kape, E.C. Mills, Trans. Inst. Met. Finish. vol. 35 (1958), pp. 353-384; ibid., vol. 59 (1981), pp. 35-39.
  40. D. Maier, K. Czurda, G. Gudehus, »Das Gas- und Wasserfach«, in: Gas • Erdgas, 1989, 130, S. 474-484.
  41. Jan Markiewicz, Wojciech Gubala, Jerzy Labedz, Z Zagadnien Nauk Sadowych, Z. XXX (1994), pp. 17-27; online:
  42. Vorlesungen über Zeitgeschichte, op. cit. (Note 13).
  43. G. Rudolf, Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart 43(1) (1995), pp. 22-26; online:; J. Markiewicz, W. Gubala, J. Labedz, G. Rudolf, correspondence, in: Sleipnir (Verlag der Freunde, Postfach 35 02 64, D-10211 Berlin) 1(3) (1995), pp. 29-33; reprint in: Herbert Verbeke (ed.), Kardinalfragen zur Zeitgeschichte, Vrij Historisch Onderzoek, Berchem 1996 (online ibidem).

Next article about this dispute