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
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 http://www.holocaust-history.org in his articles »Leuchter, Rudolf, and the Iron Blues« and »The Chemistry of Auschwitz«
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.
. 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.
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. 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.
|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.
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. 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.
Finally, as shown in illustration 4 drawn by John Ball, the locations of the four spots 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. à
Thus, we have proved that these objects can impossibly be holes.
|Illustration 5. (Click to enlarge)|
|Illustration 6. Click on picture to enlarge.|
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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. 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:
Consequently, we can conclude that the actual speed of Iron Blue formation (i.e. its kinetics) in walls depends mainly on the following factors:
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 and Carlo Mattogno 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. 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. 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 and documented by Carlo Mattogno. 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, basing on an article published in Germany in 1981 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. 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, 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
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.«
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. 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. 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.
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. 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. 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.
Cyanide without Iron Cyanides
0 - 0,8 mg/kg
1.000 - 13.000 mg/kg
|Alleged Gas Chamber||
0 - 0,6 mg/kg
0 - 8 mg/kg
0 - 7 mg/kg
0 - 3 mg/kg
0 - 12 mg/kg
50 - 100 mg/kg
One can draw several conclusions out of these results:
In my eyes, there are only two explanations left for these wrong ratios determined by the Poles:
Anyway, the paper presented by Markiewicz et al. is reeking like a fraud, and even after confronting them with my arguments about their work, 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.
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:
NO HOLES, NO "HOLOCAUST"
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