The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: orgs/american/ihr/jhr/jhr.v12n4

Archive/File: orgs/american/ihr/jhr jhr.v12n4

Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.censorship,alt.activism,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Fred Leuchter: Courageous Defender of Historical Truth
Summary: Luftl's report on the "gas chambers" of Auschwitz and Mauthausen
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1993 04:29:51 GMT
Lines: 1299

From _The Journal of Historical Review_, Vol. 12, Number 4 (Winter 1992-93):

                            The Luftl Report

                  An Austrian Engineer's Report on the
               "Gas Chambers" of Auschwitz and Mauthausen

                              WALTER LUFTL

In March 1992, a prominent Austrian engineer made headlines when a report
he had written about alleged German wartime gas chambers was made public.
Walter Luftl concluded in his controversial report, "Holocaust: Belief and
Facts," that the well-known stories of mass extermination of Jews in gas
chambers at the wartime camps of Auschwitz and Mauthausen are impossible
for technical reasons and because they are incompatible with observable
laws of nature.  Luftl further characterized the often-repeated stories of
Jews being gassed with diesel engine exhaust (at Treblinka, for example) as
a sheer impossibility.  (See the IHR _Newsletter_, April 1992, p. 6.)

  Luftl, 59, is a court-recognized expert engineer and heads a large
engineering firm in Vienna.  On the basis of a well-established reputation
as a particularly precise and exact specialist, he was chosen to serve as
president of the Austrian Engineers Chamber (Bundes-Ingenieurkammer), a
professional association of 4,000 members.

  In spite of his reputation, he was obliged to resign as president of the
engineers' association in the uproar that followed news reports about his
iconoclastic report.  A leading official of the governing People's Party
expressed fear that Luftl's report could harm Austria's image abroad.

  A few days later, Austrian police raided Luftl's residence, turning it
inside out in a "Stasi"-like search for possibly "incriminating material"
that might show that he had violated a recently enacted law that makes it a
crime in Austria to deny the "National Socialist crimes against humanity."

[Photograph captioned, "Walter Luftl".]

  To insure that Luftl is not brought into any further legal jeopardy, it
should be stressed that his report is published here (for the first time in
English) without the author's authorization or cooperation.  The text has
been slightly edited, and the editor has added some clarifying words in

  Luftl's report is further authoritative confirmation of the findings of
American gas chamber expert Fred Leuchter, who testified about his on-site
investigation of the supposed "gas chambers" of Auschwitz, Birkenau and
Majdanek in the 1988 trial of German-Canadian publicist Ernst Zundel.  (A
deluxe illustrated edition of _The Leuchter Report_, with a foreword by
Robert Faurisson, and an introduction by David Irving, is available from
the IHR for $20.00, plus $2.00 for shipping.)

  Luftl's report also corroborates Leuchter's findings from his 1989
investigation of the supposed extermination "gas chamber" at the Mauthausen
camp.  (This "Second Leuchter Report" was published in the Fall 1990 IHR
                                                                -The Editor

                      Holocaust: Belief and Facts

                 Introductory statement by the author:

  The following remarks are intended neither to threaten the democratic
order that has prevailed in the Republic of Austria since 1945, nor to
advocate or promote the reintroduction of National Socialism.  These
remarks are intended solely to correct one-sided presentations of
historical events, and to do so taking into consideration the laws of
nature and technical limits, which are of course beyond dispute both
politically and historically.

  These remarks are not intended to "quibble over the number of victims" or
to "defame the victims."  Rather, they are intended to serve as a
scientific clarification of the number of possible victims on basis of
technical and organizational considerations.  These remarks are also
intended to encourage further investigation into the actual events and the
search for truth.

  Because "Holocaust literature" tends to be so one-sided, it is
unfortunately not possible to provide a "balanced presentation" here.  A
critical examination of the limited area of the overall topic under
discussion has shown that the accounts of "eyewitnesses" in particular have
been immensely exaggerated and unbelievable; so much so that a balancing of
the discussion appeared indispensable.  The impossible does not become any
"truer" when it is claimed by many people.  In cases of contradiction
between witness testimony and objective proof, the latter takes precedence
in every modern constitutional state.  In the case of the "Holocaust,"
though, this has obviously been otherwise.


  The author would like to anticipate the proposed introduction of Section
283a of the Criminal Code [of Austria], according to which "the offense...
[has been] committed whenever a person denies the FACT that millions of
human beings, especially Jews, were systematically exterminated in a
genocidal way in the concentration camps of the National Socialist regime."
Such a legal provision could have the effect of rendering the following
remarks punishable, in spite of the fact that they are based on scientific
considerations treated in a manner subject to experimental duplication.

                         What is the Holocaust?

  In the view of those who believe--or cause others to believe--in the
[Holocaust], mass gassings, especially of Jews, were carried out in the
concentration camps of the Third Reich.  Above all in Auschwitz (hence the
term "Auschwitz Myth"), four million Jews were gassed.  [The Nuremberg
Tribunal "established" that four million PEOPLE (Jews and non-Jews) had
been KILLED (by all means) at Auschwitz.]  Currently, though, unimpeachable
sources are seeking to reduce this [sic] figure to 1.5 million.  On
mathematical grounds alone, the "symbolic figure of Six Million" should be
reduced by 3.5 million.  Of course, such a reduction does not lessen the
[gravity of the] crime in any way, because even one victim is one too many.

  All the same, the question remains whether mass gassings took place at
all, or could possibly have taken place.

  Insofar as possible, the author has carefully examined many reports of
"eyewitnesses," as well as "confessions" of SS men.  If one examines the
"eyewitness" testimony, doubts still persist, even if one believes
everything that appears in the Holocaust literature.  These doubts become
even greater when one studies the "confessions" of those who were later
found guilty [of crimes].

  The author does not "deny" anything.  (In proper legal terminology, this
should really mean "to dispute.")  He does not wish to minimize or glorify
anything.  To use a currently fashionable phrase, he wishes only to
"inquire into" [the truth of] the "Auschwitz myth."

  The author wishes to focus on the critical core of the "Auschwitz myth":
the technical possiblities of industrial mass killing with Zyklon B.

           Zyklon B is the Cornerstone of the Auschwitz Myth

  If Zyklon B is unsuitable for use in "deliberate genocidal
extermination," then the entire Auschwitz extermination story ["Auschwitz-
Mythos"] falls apart.  A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

                           The War of Belief

  Because the Auschwitz extermination story ["Auschwitz-Mythos"] has so far
not been subjected to scientific analysis, the discussion has been
dominated by belief.  Even intelligent, well-educated people believe in the
"atrocities confirmed by many eyewitnesses."  In doing so, they forget that
in any modern constitutional state, forensic evidence and documentary proof
carry more weight than witness testimony.

  Witnesses may err; their memories may deceive; witnesses may exaggerate
their own importance and repeat hearsay.  Witnesses have also been known to
lie.  Even the "confessions" of allegedly guilty individuals (which may be
extorted through torture or obtained through promises of lesser punishment)
are worthless without the support of objective proof.  Anyone who doubts
this should check Solzhenitsyn...  [In _The Gulag Archipelago_, Aleksandr
Solzhenitsyn cites the case of the Bavarian Jupp Aschenbrenner, who
"confessed" to serving in a German wartime murder commando.  Only later, in
a camp in 1954, was he able to prove that at the time of the alleged
crimes, he was in Munich learning to be a welder.]

  All the arguments against the Holocaust [story] will be meaningless if
people are not willing to accept the truth.  In the words of Schopenhauer:

     Nothing is more galling
     Than to fight with facts and arguments
     Against an adversary
     In the belief
     That one is dealing with his understanding,
     When in reality
     One is dealing with the wil,
     Which obdurately closes its mind to the truth.
     One must understand that reason
     Applied against the will
     Is like seed sown on a bare rock
     Like light arrows against armor,
     Like the stormwind against a beam of light.

  Nothing can be done for those who do not want to face the truth.  But
perhaps, after reading the following, some will be ready to WANT to

                            The Gas Chambers

  According to the Holocaust literature, the victims were "packed" into the
gas chambers and then poisoned with hydrogen cyanide (Prussian Blue) vapors
from Zyklon B.  The bodies were burned in crematory ovens, and the ashes
were strewn on hillsides or in water.

                        Organizational Problems

  Because certain organizational problems arise even in mass extermination
--for example, varying killing capacities of the gas chambers or varying
crematory capacities in disposing of the bodies--it should be obvious even
at this point that events cannot have transpired as described in the
Holocaust literature.  We shall nevertheless limit our discussion to the

                        The Handling of Zyklon B

  What is Zyklon B?  Zyklon B is a pest control agent, the active
ingredient of which is Prussian Blue (hydrocyanic acid, HCN).

  Hydrocyanic acid is a highly toxic, highly flammable liquid that
vaporizes at 25.7 degrees Celsius.  The vapors released upon evaporation
are lighter than air (density: 0.95).  The ignition point of hydrocyanic
acid is 535 degrees Celsius, but the acid can be ignited at temperatures as
low as -17.8 degrees Celsius.  The explosion point in air at 20 degrees
Celsius ranges from 5.4 to 46.6 percent by volume percent, or between 60
and 520 grams per cubic meter (m3).

  Among other uses, gaseous hydrogen cyanide is used as a fumigant gas.

  What is the effect of hydrogen cyanide gas on human beings?

  -- 10 ml/m3 is harmless over an eight-hour exposure;

  -- 90 ml/m3 is dangerous or fatal upon protracted exposure;

  -- 80-270 ml/m3 is rapidly fatal.  Alcohol, even if consumed in only
  small quantities prior to exposure, dangerously enhances the effects of
  cyanide gas.

  For safe handling, hydrocyanic acid is absorbed in diatomite (following
the admixture of an irritant for safety purposes), and is stored and
transported in air-tight metal cans.  The product is generally used within
three months.  Because the Zyklon B manufacturing facilities were totally
destroyed in bombing attacks in early 1944, gassings with Zyklon B could
not have taken place after the summer of 1944.

  The trade weight of the cans was 100, 200, 500, 1000, and 15000 grams HCN
content.  The total weight of a can corresponds to approximately three
times the HCN content.

  Hydrocyanic acid vapors are not released immediately after the cans are
opened.  The evaporation of Zyklon B requires as many as 32 hours or as few
as six hours, depending on whether the ambient temperature ranges from five
to 30 degrees Celsius.  The evaporation rate is not exactly proportional to

      The Gassing Procedure According to the Holocaust Literature

  The victims were led to the gas chambers, which were disguised as shower
baths, and were deceived by being handed soap and a towel.  But what for?
Who takes a shower holding a towel in his hands?  But let's not detain
ourselves with such trivia.

  It is said, for example, that a hundred victims were packed into a
chamber of 20 square meters, that is, five persons per square meter.
(Witnesses sometimes speak of as many as 25 victims per square meter.)  At
five persons per square meter, the victims wouldn't even be able to soap
themselves, due to lack of space.  So what would they need the soap for?
Soap was a commodity in short supply, but was permitted to fall on the
floor unused, and become unusable.  But let's move along.

  The doors of the 2.5 meter-high chamber were hermetically sealed.  An SS
man wearing a gas mask threw in Zyklon B, a mixture of hydrocyanic acid and
irritant (added as a warning substance, since some people cannot smell
hydrocyanic acid, the odor of which peculiarly resembles that of bitter
almonds) absorbed in a carrier substance, from a can containing 200 grams
of HCN in each case, from above.  (This is the usual procedure described in
the Holocaust literature.  According to some sources, it was done
differently only at Mauthausen.)  The mixture fell to the floor, and the
hydrocyanic acid began to escape.  The gassing procedure normally lasted 15
to 20 minutes.  (According to some sources, it lasted from five to as long
as 30 minutes.)

  Assuming that the floor temperature was 25 degrees Celsius (which is
quite warm, since the gas chambers were mostly cold, damp cellars), let us
also conservatively assume a gassing time of one half hour.  After one half
hour, there would have been at most 16 grams of HCN in the air of the
chamber.  The volume of air would be 44 cubic meters.  (That is, 50 cubic
meters, minus the volume of the victims, estimated at six cubic meters,
assuming an estimated average body wieght of 60 kilograms per person, which
would mean a volume of 6 cubic meters for the victims.)  The hydrocyanic
acid content in the air of the chamber would thus have been 363.6 mg/m3.
(That is, 16,000 mg/44 m3 = 363.6 mg/m3.)  That certainly would have been
enough to kill them.  (That is, 270 ml/m3 x 1.23 = approximately 330

  The one hundred victims would now therefore be dead, if we assume that
the hydrocyanic acid did not condense on the cold ambient surfaces inside
the room--perhaps the room was pre-heated to a comfortable temperature.

  At this point, the "chief of the gassing operation" looked through a
peephole in the door to see whether any of the victims showed signs of
life.  But just how he could have done that at Mauthausen, looking through
a peephole 1.20 meters above the ground in a door that is only 1.68 m high,
is a matter that merits further study.

  How could he see anything when the victims were "packed together," and
therefore could not fall down even in the remotest corners of the room?
Nevertheless, after a brief look, the SS executioners turned on the
ventilators to air out the gas chamber.  And here we hit the first snag.
The ventilators must, of course, have been exhausters.  For them to work
(that is, to exchange the air in the chamber), the gas chambers would have
to have been equipped with air intake channels and chimneys equipped with
blowers.  Nothing of this sort has ever been found in any [alleged
homicidal] gas chamber!

  Are the Nazis supposed to have caused all of this equipment to disappear
without a trace in the confusion of defeat?  Apart from that, some
concentration camps were liberated intact by the Allies.

  The ventilation lasted 30 minutes, and, finally, the door was opened (!)
to determine whether the room was gas-free.  "The gassing chiefs, wearing
gas masks" carefully held up a strip of [chemically sensitized] paper
inside [the chamber].  When the room was free of gas, the doors were opened
and the BLUE [skin-colored] corpses were taken by prisoner members of the
crematory work team to the morgue, or straight to the crematory.  (However,
any textbook on toxicology will confirm that the skin color of victims of
hydrocyanic acid poisoning is RED.)  Then the gas chambers--heavily soiled
with blood, excrement, and vomit--were cleaned.

  What is the evidence against such a procedure?  Zyklon B!

  Holocaust writers have overlooked the fact that, during the ventilation
process, Zyklon B would still have retained 92 percent of its hydrocyanic
acid content, and would thus continue merrily on its way, releasing
hydrocyanic acid gas.  At 25 degrees Celsius, it would continue to do so
for fully 15 1/2 hours, and even longer yet at lower temperatures.

  Of course, one could have sent work team members into the gas chamber
wearing gas masks and protective clothing to remove the Zyklon B [carrier
material], which would at that point still be only partially gas-free.  But
just how they could remove this [carrier material] from the midst of the
tightly packed piles of corpses covered with excrement, vomit and blood,
defies explanation.

  The bodies could have been removed, and the gas chamber then cleaned,
only by men wearing gas masks and protective clothing.  But this would mean
a huge pile of excrement, vomit, and similar material, thorougly
contaminated with 184 grams of hydrocyanic acid (which would still continue
to evaporate, although slowly.)  But the remaining 184 grams of hydrocyanic
acid would still be enough to kill approximately 3,000 persons (at 0.001
gram per kilogram, assuming an average body weight of 60 kg per person).

  This is the flaw in the Holocaust literature!

  How did they get rid of the remaining Zyklon B from the midst of the one
hundred corpses, without lengthy ventilation periods, and without causing
mass deaths outside the gas chamber?

  The procedure described above might have worked at Mauthausen, if people
were really gassed at intervals of weeks or months.  If we are to believe
Hans Marsalek, the Mauthausen "historian," an interval of 17 months elapsed
between the fourth and fifth gassings at Mauthausen (April 17, 1943, and
September 25, 1944).  But at Auschwitz, people are said to have been gassed
[continuously] on an industrial basis.

  In fact, Zyklon B is utterly unsuited for purposes of systematic mass
murder.  It can be used to FUMIGATE, and it could be used to gas a group of
persons occasionally.  But for time considerations alone, quasi-industrial
killing would simply be impossible.

  Although the Prussic (hydrocyanic) acid contained in Zyklon B can, of
course, kill quickly and certainly, the handling requirements for Zyklon B
and the circumstances involved rule out any significant use for the mass
killing of people.  This eliminates Zyklon B as a direct instrument of the
Holocaust.  The "eyewitness accounts" in this regard are false.  The
witnesses could never have seen an actual gassing.  The events described
never took place.

  There remains the possiblity of Zyklon B being used as a carrier material
for hydrocyanic acid in gas generators.

  The description of the [gassing] procedure given during a trial before
the German district court [Landesgericht] at Hagen suggests the existence
of a gas generator of almost ingenious simplicity of design.  (The evidence
for gassing in the Mauthausen camp was provided by the document archives of
the Austrian Resistance Center [DOeW].)

  In this case, Zyklon B was not thrown in from above.  (Even though this
is what a commemorative plaque tells us, Marsalek reports it differently.)
Why this brilliant procedure was never used in other concentration camps
remains a mystery.  At Mauthausen, the gas generator consisted of a sheet
metal box with a lid, in which a hot brick (that had been heated in the
open fire of the crematorium) was laid.  This means that the SS could have
gassed people only when bodies were already being burned.  Zyklon B was
then strewn onto this hot brick.  But because of the temperature, this
would mean an explosively rapid vaporization of the gas, resulting in an
explosion of the HCN itself.

  This version of gas generation may clearly be relegated to the realm of
fairy tales.  But it was believed by the Hagen district court, just like
the fairy tale of BLUE (actually, RED) victims of hydrogen cyanide
poisoning.  [The red coloring is confirmed, for example, in: _Allgemeine
und spezielle Pharmakologie und Toxikologie_ (Dr. W. Forth, et al., eds.),
Mannheim, 4th ed., p. 645.]

  Nothing is known of any other gas generators.


  An absolutely unabridged study of the problem must conclude that, by and
large, the views of the so-called "Revisionists"--the so-called "deniers"--
are far more in line with the laws of nature, logic, and technical
realities than the accounts in the Holocaust literature (in which,
moreover, scientifically verifiable data is generally lacking).  When, as
an exception, verifiable data is given in the Holocaust literature, a
critical examination of such data leads to absurd results (25 persons per
square meter, and so forth).

  The decisive error in the Holocaust literature is the belief that the
hydrocyanic acid contained in Zyklon B could be fully released in the
alleged time span of 15-30 minutes required for the gassing, and that the
carrier material would simultaneously and completely vaporize like a moth
ball.  The [fact of the] residue of Zyklon B makes the Auschwitz
extermination story ["Auschwitz-Mythos"] obsolete.


  Preliminary note: The "Gerstein Report" discussed here is the
"confession" of an "informed" SS man, and is a cornerstone of the Holocaust
literature.  [For a detailed analysis, see _The 'Confessions' of Kurt
Gerstein_, by Henri Roques.  Available from the IHR.]  It should therefore
be critically examined for its technical correctness with regard to the
reported mass gassing.

  Note: The quotations [from the "Gerstein Report" given] here are from the
book _Der Nationalsozialismus: Dokumente, 1933-1945_ (W. Hofer, ed.),
Fischer, 1957, pp. 307-311.

  First of all, this writer has made a remarkable observation: the terms
"Zyklon B" and "mass gassings with hydrocyanic acid" appear nowhere in the
entire chapter [about persecution and extermination of Jews].  Didn't Hofer
think that they were worth mentioning in 1957?

  According to the book _Judenfeindschaft: Darstellung und Analysen_
["Hostility to Jews: Description and Analysis"], (K. Thieme, ed.), Fischer,
1963 (p. 277), Gerstein was assigned " pick up 100 kilograms of
hydrocanic acid.  Gerstein carried out the order, and became an eyewitness
to the extermination of Jews in the concentration camp at Belzec..."
Apparently he must have left the hydrocyanic acid in his luggage once he
got there, because [according to Gerstein] he witnessed a gassing [there]
with carbon monoxide.

  Was the Zyklon B story invented between 1957 and 1963?  This is a
possible subject of research for contemporary historians!  But back to the

  Gerstein relates:

  ...The rooms are five by five meters, and 1.90 meters high...The SS
  forced 700-900 people into 25 squre meters, 45 cubic meters.  [Actually:
  47.5 cubic meters.]  The doors close...The people are to be put to death
  with diesel exhaust gas.  But the diesel doesn't work!...Yes, I see
  everything!  And I wait.  My stop watch has recorded everything
  perfectly.  Fifty minutes, 70 minutes, the diesel still won't start!  The
  people wait in their gas chambers.  In vain.  We hear them cry, sob...
  After two hours and 49 minutes--the stop watch has registered everything
  --the diesel starts...Another 25 minutes go by...After 28 minutes, only a
  few of them are still alive.  Finally after 32 minutes, all are dead...

  "Eyewitness" Gerstein never saw a gassing.  He produced an absurd
confession, perhaps to alert others that this atrocity story was extorted
out of him.  This writer wonders why the people who have used this
confession never examined it in its physical and physiological aspects.
They overlooked that any confession requires technical examination.  A
confession can become a liability if used without examination.  The
Gerstein Report is a particularly important indication of the incorrectness
of the Holocaust literature.  Nothing reveals the absurdity of this
"eyewitness report" more than an examination of the verifiable facts

  There were [according to Gerstein] 700-800 persons--that is, an average
of 750 persons--in the chamber, weighing an average of 60 kilograms, and
with a density of approximately one [sic], a volume of 45 cubic meters

  How the people could be "packed" into a room measuring 47.5 cubic meters
is a mystery.  Such an attempt would be absurd and unthinkable.  At the
most, ten persons can fit into one square meter.  (Using rather slender
persons, experimentation has usually yielded a result of eight persons.)

  Two hundred and fifty persons displace 15 cubic meters, which means an
air volume of 32.5 cubic meters (47.5 - 15 = 32.5).  The breathing time
volume (BTV) of those people will amount, on the average, to 7.5 liters per
minute.  Therefore, 250 people will require 250 x 60 x 7.5 / 1000 = 112.5
cubic meters of air to breathe in one hour.  In 32.5 cubic meters of room
space, this air, therefore, will pass through the lungs of the people shut
up in that room 3.45 times in one hour.  It will therefore take 17 minutes
and 20 seconds for the air to pass through their lungs once.

  Dry air contains approximately 21 percent oxygen and only traces of
carbon dioxide.  Exhaled air contains approximately 15 percent oxygen and
4.4 percent carbon dioxide, as well as six percent water vapor.  After 34
minutes and 40 seconds, the air will have been passed through their lungs a
second time, and will now contain approximately ten percent oxygen, but
already eight percent carbon dioxide.  After a (hypothetical) third passage
through the lungs, the air in the chamber would contain approximately five
percent oxygen, but at least eleven percent carbon dioxide, after only 52

  But unconsciousness and anoxia would have appeared after 30 to 45
minutes.  And five minutes of anoxia means brain death.

  Therefore, the people in the "gas chamber" could not, first of all, have
waited two hours and 49 minutes for the diesel engine to start.  Nor could
they have cried and sobbed after 50 minutes of hopeless waiting.  They
would certainly have been dead by that time.  And how could 700-800
people--assuming they could be packed or forced into the chamber at all--
have breathed at all if they were "packed together"?  They would have been
unconscious soon after the doors closed, and in another five minutes they
would have been dead.

  The Gerstein Report is no report, but a whopping lie.  This "eyewitness"
(or rather, those who told him what to write, or who made it up themselves)
was lying!  As shown by the calculations given above, this "eyewitness" is
quite obviously lying.


  In addition to the "Gerstein Report," there are a number of reports that
describe the "genocidal extermination of millions of people, particularly
Jews" in gas chambers in the concentration camps of the National Socialist
regime, as well as reports of so-called "gas vans."  In addition to Prussic
acid [HCN] gas, which came from the pest control agent Zyklon B, carbon
monoxide from diesel exhaust gas was [reportedly] also used.

  It is true that carbon monoxide is a dangerous poison.  The many
unemployed people in Vienna who, during the 1930s, used illumination [coal]
gas (which contained carbon monoxide) to commit suicide were very well
aware of that.  [On the toxicity of carbon monoxide, see, for example:
_Allgemeine und spezielle Pharmakologie und Toxikologie_ (Dr. W. Forth, et
al., eds.), Mannheim, 4th ed., pp. 643-645.]

  The toxicity of carbon monoxide is undisputed.  As always, though, the
question remains: How could this dangerous poison have been applied to the
victims in a quasi-industrial manner?

  First, permit me to digress: According to the Holocaust literature,
submarine motors and tank diesel engines are supposed to have been used.
These details are intended to enhance the credibility of the claims.  It is
nevertheless worth noting that submarine motors, or any other kind of
ship's diesel engines, were not readily available, and that German tanks--
incomprehensibly, due to the greater fuel consumption and considerably
greater danger of fire in the event of a direct hit--were exclusively
equipped with spark-ignition (gasoline) engines.  The only diesel motors
available would have been those from captured tanks after the beginning of
the Russian campaign.  However, their use would hardly have been advisable
due to the difficulty of obtaining spare parts.  But that is beside the
point, only a noteworthy detail.

  What the Holocaust writers have obviously overlooked is the fact that
diesel motors are particularly unsuited for the efficient production of
carbon monoxide (CO).  The SS would have gone over to spark-ignition
[gasoline] engines immediately after the first attempts to kill the victims
with diesel exhaust gases.  Spark-ignition engines can certainly produce
eight-percent carbon monoxide by volume with poor idle adjustment, but
diesels are practically CO free.

  Table of exhaust components in percent by volume

         carbon       water    oxygen    hydrogen     nitrogen   carbon
         dioxide                                                 monoxide
             CO2      H2O      O2        H2           N2         CO

Spark-ignition engines

idle         6.5-8    7-10     1-1.5     0.5-4        71         4-6
throttle     7-13     9-11     0.1-2     0.1-1        74-76      1-4

Diesel engines

idle         3.5      3.5      16        ---          77         0.05!
throttle     5.5-7    7        10-12     0-0.1        77         0.1-0.3!

air inhaled  0                 21                     79
air exhaled  4        6        15                     75

  As this table clearly shows (it is the "idle" column that is important
here), spark-ignition [gasoline] engines deliver up to 120 times as much
carbon monoxide (CO) [as diesel engines], and diesel exhaust gases cannot
produce enough CO.

  And something else is interesting here:  This table includes information
about the content of air inhaled and exhaled during ordinary breathing.  If
the reader compares these figures with those of diesel exhaust gases, he
will quickly notice that this [diesel exhaust] is less toxic.  The amount
of carbon dioxide (CO2), which is also poisonous gas, is less, the amount
of carbon monoxide (CO) is negligible, and the amounts of oxygen and
nitrogen are nearly the same.  Just what does this mean in plain language?

  It means that nobody can be gassed with diesel exhaust.  Instead, victims
would more readily suffocate from using up the oxygen in the "gas tight"
chambers.  In fact, if diesel exhaust gas is introduced into the chamber,
the people inside would actually receive more oxygen than they would from
breathing the air in the closed chamber after it was passed twice through
their lungs!

  This [twice-breathed] air would have only ten percent oxygen left in it,
but would already contain eight percent carbon dioxide.  The oxygen content
would continue to drop as the people [in the chamber] continue breathing,
and the carbon dioxide (CO2) content would continue to rise.  Anoxia
(oxygen deprivation) would occur very quickly, and five minutes after that,
the end would come quickly through brain death.

  The victims--who would otherwise die quickly--would easily live longer as
a result of "gassing" with diesel exhaust, because of its high oxygen
content.  This means that the diesel engine is not suited for quick
killing, assuming this could be done at all.  On the other hand, if the
victims were gassed with exhaust from spark-ignition engines, death would
come much more quickly as a result of oxygen deprivation and the high
carbon dioxide (CO2) content than death by carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning.

  Any executioner would have chosen spark-ignition [gasoline] engines to
suffocate victims in the gas chamber: the first time he tried a diesel
motor, it would quickly become obvious that he had chosen the wrong method
of execution.

  Furthermore, a diesel motor with a five liter displacement running at
1000 revolutions per minute would create an overpressure of one (1)
atmosphere after ten minutes in a 50-cubic meter (m3) large air-tight
chamber, and two (2) atmospheres after 20 minutes.  That's more than the
air pressure inside an automobile tire.  This means that after ten minutes,
there would be twelve tons of pressure against the "gas chamber door," and
24 tons after 20 minutes.  (The measurements of the door at Mauthausen are
72 x 166 cm.)  How long would it take to blow open the door?

  This proves that the testimonies about mass killings with diesel exhaust
gas (such as given in the Gerstein Report) are objectively untrue.  They do
not stand up to scientific examination.


  In the Holocaust literature one can often read reports of eyewitnesses
who saw dense smoke coming from the chimneys of the crematories in German
concentration camps.  Inmates also often saw flames "many meters long"
shooting out of the chimneys.  People with especially good eyesight even
saw such phenomena from as far away as 20 kilometers from Auschwitz.

  Mauthausen "historian" and state official [Hofrat] Hans Marsalek writes
(in the book _Das war Mauthausen_, p. 14, point 18, "Bunker"):

  ...Below the bunker was the first crematorium.  Its fire burned day and
  night, and the glare of the flame shooting out of the chimney could be
  seen far away in the Danube valley...

  All these "eyewitnesses" (who are now commonly referred to as
"contemporary witnesses") are telling conscious untruths when they report
such things, unless they are the victims of an optical illusion.  Only they
themselves know if they are lying.

  The origin of such tales is obvious, even if those who speak loosely
without any technical knowledge achieve exactly the opposite effect by it:
they are thinking of an open fire, which burns higher as more wood is put
on it.  This is supposed to make the story of mass cremations--of more and
more people--appear more credible.  These people confuse a midsummer
bonfire with a crematory oven.

  First, we will make two demands upon the reader's knowledge of geometry
and sense of logic:

  1. Geometry: From a distance of 20 kilometers, even over the
Neusiedlersee [Neusiedl Lake] (which is quite flat), the influence of the
curvature of the earth is enough to cut off any possible visual contact
between the eye of the observer and any high chimney or high flame, even
from a high vantage point (such as the roof of a railroad car, since the
"eyewitnesses" were railroad workers).  In the vicinity of Auschwitz,
furthermore, there were gently rolling hills, which were nevertheless
sufficient to shield the installations from view.

  2. Logic: Why did the Germans lay a smoke screen over the "Hermann Goring
Works" in Linz, and order strict blackouts if, at the same time, (according
to Marsalek) "...the glare of the flame shooting out of the chimney could
be seen far away in the Danube valley..."?  This would have been a beacon
for US bombers.  (I can just hear the co-pilot reporting to the pilot:
"John.  I see the lights of Mauthausen straight ahead!  Now five degrees
[to the] west for Hermann!").  Nobody can believe this.

  Turning now to technology, because objective proof is always far more
conclusive than witness testimony.

  In the book _Bauentwurfslehre_ ["Textbook on Construction Design"] by
Ernst Neufert (Ullstein Fachverlag, 1962), p. 423, one can read:

     Cremation takes place in special ovens which are coke-fired,
  electically-fired (cremation of a body requires about 45 Kw of energy),
  or gas-fired...[and is] entirely free of smoke [Staub] or odor.

(This puts an end to the fairy tales of noticeable odor of the cremated

  [The cremation] takes place in dry air heated to 900-1,000 degrees
  [Celsius], that is without the flame coming into contact with the dead
  [body].  The oven is heated before-hand for two to three hours, and the
  cremation process itself requires between an hour and a quarter and an
  hour and a half.

(See aso the _Meyer_ and _Brockhaus_ standard reference works.)

  Thus, technology also establishes that the crematory capacity could never
have kept pace with the number of bodies in the "genocidal mass gassings of
millions of people," and that therefore the bodies could NOT have been
disposed of in sufficient quantity by burning.

  That no "flame many meters high" could shoot out of the chimney should be
clear to anyone who has ever watched the burning of wood in an open
fireplace, or who watched the grilling of pieces of meat (a preliminary
stage of cremation) on a charcoal fire.

  Contrary to popular belief, corpses are not combustible materials.
Cremation of bodies requires large quantities of fuel.  (With a wooden
coffin of 40 kilograms, and assuming 50 percent total efficiency of
combustion, 45 kilowatts [of electrical energy] corresponds to about 15
kilograms of coke, or eight cubic meters of natural gas.)

  The cremation of four million people using coke would alone require at
least 50 kilograms [per body], which would mean about 200,000 tons of coke!

  It is also senseless (and technically impossible) to speak of cremating
several corpses at the same time in the same oven (witnesses have claimed
as many as ten bodies at a time!), because this would exceed the capacity
of the oven.

  And what about the flames?  Coke is a short-flamed fuel.  The flame could
not even exceed the confines of the burning chamber.  In addition, there is
a short exhaust channel, the flue, between the oven and the chimney.  The
chimney only comes after that.  So, using [such] short-flamed solid fuels,
there wouldn't be any "flame."  At most, there would be exhaust fumes at a
temperature of 180 degrees Celsius.  Otherwise, the chimney would soon be
ruined.  Therefore, after traversing eight or ten meters of chimney, no
flame could be visible outside.  (The chimney length is determined by the
required draw, not the length of the flame.)  Not even a reflection would
be visible because it would be lost in the flue.  I always wonder why the
judges who believed such testimony never at least asked a chimney sweep
about this, even if they didn't consult an expert.  Only "contemporary
historians" and a series of courts have ever accepted these tales of
"contemporary witnesses" about "flames many meters high" shooting out of
the crematoria chimneys.

  On this subject as well, it might be noted that the objections of
"Revisionists" are far more in harmony with the laws of nature and
technology than the tales of the Holocaust writers.


  Before dealing with the question of whether a [homicidal] gas chamber
existed at Mauthausen at all, a few facts--based on unimpeachable sources--
should first be noted.  The following sources have been used:

  A) Hans Marsalek, _Die Geschichte der Konzentrationslager Mauthausen_
  ["The History of the Mauthausen Concentration Camp"] (Vienna: 1974 and

  B) Hans Marsalek, _Giftgas in Mauthausen_ ["Poison Gas in Mauthausen"]
  (Vienna: 1988)

  C) Hans Marsalek, _Mauthausen: Fuhrer durch die Gedenkstatte_
  ["Mauthausen: Guide to the Memorial Site"] (Vienna)

  D) Martin Gilbert, _Auschwitz und die Allierten_ (Munich: 1982) [English-
  language edition: _Auschwitz and the Allies_]

  The following statements are taken from the above sources:

According to H. Marsalek, _Giftgas in Mauthausen_, p. 15:
   On November 19, 1943, 38 Soviet citizens were GASSED.

According to H. Marsalek, _Die Geschichte der Konzentrationslager
Mauthausen_, p. 227:
   On November 19, 1943, 38 Soviet citizens were SHOT.

If those aren't contradictions, what is?

According to H. Marsalek, _Giftgas in Mauthausen_ (1988), p. 15:

   1. Gassing on May 9, 1942: 231 Soviet prisoners of war.

But according to H. Marsalek, _Die Geschichte_ (1974/1980), it was only

   2. Gassing on October 24, 1942: 261 Czechs.

But according to H. Marsalek, _Die Geschichte_ (1974/1980), it was only

   3. Gassing on January 26, 1943: 31 Czechs.

But according to H. Marsalek, _Die Geschichte_ (1974/1980), it was only 15.

   4. Gassing on April 17, 1943: 59 Soviet citizens and five Poles.

   5. Gassing on September 25, 1944: 138 Soviet citizens and one Pole.

But according to H. Marsalek, _Die Geschichte_ (1974/1980), it was only 110
Soviet citizens.

And so forth.

To sum up here:

  According to H. Marsalek, _Giftgas in Mauthausen_ (1988), the sum total,
up to September 9, 1944, is 726 persons.

  But, according to H. Marsalek, _Die Geschichte der Konzentrationslager
Mauthausen_ (1974 and 1980), the sum total, up to September 9, 1944, is 526

  It is worth noting here that more than 17 months elapsed between the
fourth and fifth gassings.

  We are further given to understand--from H. Marsalek, _Die Geschichte der
Konzentrationslager Mauthausen_--that Zyklon B was already delivered on
September 22, 1941, and was again delivered on July 7, 1942, on April 28,
1943, July 1, 1943, and November 5, 1943, in the amount of 240 kg of
cyanide content for each delivery.

  Zyklon B was therefore already being delivered long before the
[homicidal] "gas chamber" was [supposedly] put into operation, and was
thereafter delivered in quantities exceeding the requirement for executions
in a "gas chamber" by many thousands of percent.  This may be proven by the
following calculations:

  The fatal dose would amount to 180-270 ml/m3, or 220-330 mg/m3.  (Source:
Supplement [Beilage] ./D, Merkblatt M 002 der Berufgenossenschaft der
chemischen Industrie, p. 9.)

  The volume of the "gas chamber" was approximately 35 cubic meters (3.70 x
3.90 x 2.46).  Subtracting a volume of approximately two cubic meters for
the people to be gassed, the chamber therefore contains a volume of 33
cubic meters of air.  Assuming a CERTAIN fatal dose of one gram per cubic
meter (or about 3 to 4.5 times as much as would really be required to
kill), per gassing 33 grams are required, or 1.1 grams of hydrocyanic acid
per person.  Assuming five grams per person--conservatively assuming a 22
percent degree of efficiency of the cyanide content in Zyklon B for
purposes of yielding cyanide gas--the 2,481 persons (according to H.
Marsalek, _Giftgas_) could have been killed 10 to 20 times over with 12
kilograms.  So why did they deliver more than one ton between September 22,
1941, and November 11, 1943, even though only 526 persons could have been
gassed up to September 25, 1944, according to H. Marsalek, _Die Geschichte
der Konzentrationslager Mauthausen_?  Or was the Zyklon B used only for
delousing and pest control?  The actual requirement for the certain killing
of 526 persons is about one half kilogram.

  According to H. Marsalek, _Giftgas in Mauthausen_, p. 233:

  On August 19, 1944, 457 (or 456) Jewish prisoners were sent to Auschwitz.
On August 28, 1944, 419 arrived [at the camp].

  And according to M. Gilbert, _Auschwitz und die Allierten_, p. 362 [or,
_Auschwitz and the Allies_, p. 308]:

  A train with 417 [or 429] persons arrived at Auschwitz from Mauthausen on
August 22, 1944.  Of this number, 93 were transferred to the work camp, and
326 were gassed.

  A close look at the above reveals something remarkable.  The question
arises: Why did the Nazis, who possessed a properly functioning gas chamber
at Mauthausen (but one which, at this point in time, apparently had not
been used for 17 months), first transport the 326 Jews for three (or nine)
days to Auschwitz, and then immediately gas them?  Why didn't they gas them
right away in Mauthausen?

  According to H. Marsalek, _Giftgas in Mauthausen_, p. 15:

The gassing operations in Mauthausen first really began in earnest on March
23 (or 27), 1945.  Up until April 28, 1945, there were nine gassings, and
up to the period between May 9, 1942, and February 19, 1945, also only

  According to H. Marsalek, _Die Geschichte der Konzentrationslager
Mauthausen_, gassings took place on just 18 days, with 1,980 victims.  But
according to H. Marsalek (the same author), in _Giftgas in Mauthausen_,
there were 2,481 victims!

  In H. Marsalek, _Mauthausen: Fuhrer durch die Gedenkstatte_, p. 12, a
document is cited.  This is a communication from the SS Economic and
Administrative Main Office (WVHA), dated Nov. 10, 1943, to the commandants
of the concentration camps.  Among other things, it reads:

     The bordello and the crematories are not to be shown during camp
  visits.  These installations are not to be mentioned to persons visiting
  the camp...

  Aparently, then, EVERYTHING ELSE could be shown and mentioned to
visitors.  Logically, then, a GAS CHAMBER, if one existed, could be shown
and talked about; otherwise, it would have been included in the

  Since we cannot assume that the SS ever showed a [homicidal] gas chamber
to the inspectors of the International Red Cross, it is permissible to
conclude that none existed.


  Why was Zyklon B delivered for a year prior to the [alleged homicidal]
gassings?  Obviously, for pest control and delousing!  Delousing chambers
are in Mauthausen even today, but there is no structure capable of being
used as a [homicidal] gas chamber.

  Why was nobody gassed for 17 months even though there [supposedly] was a
working gas chamber?  Why did they send hundreds of people during this
period to Auschwitz for gassing?  Obviously, in fact, because nobody was
ever gassed in Mauthausen as part of any "systematic genocide."

  Why would a gas chamber be built if, during a period of more than three
and a half years, it was used on only 18 days, and if the adjacent
installation--where people were shot in the back of the neck (according to
H. Marsalek in _Giftgas in Mauthausen_)--worked three times as efficiently?

  The answer is that the room shown today as a gas chamber was never used
for that purpose, and--for technical and physical reasons--never could have
been used for that purpose.  It was very probably the shower room for the
crematory personnel, although its use as a morgue cannot be excluded.

  Anyone familiar with the danger involved in handling hydrocyanic acid gas
(which is explosive and extremely toxic) must wonder why the SS
executioners didn't use carbon dioxide gas--which is easier to handle and
completely harmless to the executioner--to kill the prisoners who were
allegedly poisoned with Zyklon.

  Any textbook on physiology confirms that in the event of anoxia (oxygen
deprivation), disturbances of brain functioning appear after five seconds,
followed by unconsciousness after 15 seconds, and brain death after five
minutes.  This is how animals are put to sleep, painlessly and surely.  It
also works with people.

  But according to Marsalek (in _Giftgas in Mauthausen_, p. 10), instead of
blowing carbon dioxide (CO2) into the "gas chamber," the Nazis sprinkled
Zyklon B onto a brick heated on a shovel in the crematory oven to generate
cyanide gas!


  The allegation is also found in Holocaust literature that gas chamber
victims were suffocated using carbon monoxide (CO).

  In Hans Marsalek's work, _Vergasungsaktionen im Konzentrationslager
Mauthausen: Die Gaskammer im Schloss Hartheim_ ["Gassings Actions in the
Mauthausen Concentration Camp: The Gas Cahmber in the Hartheim Castle"],
pp. 21 ff., we read:

  ...People were apparently first gassed in Hartheim with carbon monoxide
  gas on June 6, 1940...New supplies of steel flasks with poison gas...were
  provided...Poison gas streamed through this pipe, which was always blown
  in from a steel flask located in the next room...

  This allegation can also be found in the indictment of the Prosecuting
Attorney of Linz, dated July 20, 1947 (3 St 466/46).

  In Simon Wiesenthal's book, _Doch die Morder Leben_ (Droemer Knaur), 1967
[US edition: _The Murderers Among Us_], p. 385, on the photo of the site
diagram of Hartheim Castle, the gas flask storage area [Gasflaschenlager]
is marked, right next to the "gassing area" [Vergasungsraum].

  (Interestingly, Wiesenthal refers in this book to eleven million people
supposedly gassed [sic] by the Nazis.  As part of the downward trend, this
figure has been reduced to six million.  The figure continues to fall, and
because of the recent subtraction of three million from the Auschwitz
figure, the grant total must now be three million.)

  That this diagram is actually a forgery fits, of course, with the general
pattern.  ([Specifically:] Captions and, therefore, room designations, were
not made with a typewriter.  Instead, the diagram designations were made
with standard script or block letters.  And a "gas chamber" with a window
is technical nonsense.  The handwritten word "crematory" has been added to
the words "oven room," apparently to criminalize the heating system.  Given
the lack of space, the question of precisely how the bodies were
[supposedly] brought into the ovens is a matter worthy of some
consideration.  And the word "Sektierkammer" [dissection chamber] was
obviously added by someone who is not entirely familiar with the German

  Gassing by means of carbon monoxide from flasks is technical nonsense.
Carbon monoxide (CO) could only have been filled and stored in high
pressure steel flasks, which would have been extremely expensive to fill,
and even more expensive to transport.  Anyone engaged in quasi-industrial
mass killing could generate carbon monoxide in large quantities by simply
using a spark-ignition (gasoline) engine, with a suitably "bad" (but for
this purpose quite logical) carburetor adjustment.  With just one liter of
gasoline, and set at idle, such an engine can deliver many cubic meters of
[deadly] exhaust in a very short time.  This exhaust would not have any
oxygen content, but would have eight, ten, 15 or even 20 percent carbon
monoxide content.  It would also be produced cheaply and on the spot, and
at a fraction of the cost of the fuel required for the transport of any
"gas flasks."

  Once again, it must be stated that the Nazis may have been criminals, but
they were certainly not stupid enough to use approximately one hundred
liters of gasoline to produce a quantity of carbon monoxide that they could
easily have manufactured on the spot using a couple of liters of gasoline.

  In addition, carbon monoxide was produced in chemical plants and was a
basic element for [the production of] synthetic gasoline.  If for no other
reason, the story of "carbon monoxide in flasks" for mass killing appears
improbable because of the energy required to compress it, transport it in
filled high pressure flasks, and then release it later at atmospheric
pressure during use.

  Thus, the last remaining cornerstone of the mass gassing story is
relegated to the class of technical fairy tales rather than scientifically
proven fact.  This applies to gassings whether by:

  --hydrocyanic acid used in the manner described above (that is, by
  throwing in Zyklon B from above),

  --exhaust gas from diesel engines, or

  --carbon monoxide in flasks,

whether in stational "gas chambers" or in so-caled "gas vans."

  The mass gassing story is certainly not a "fact of common knowledge"!

  Had the Nazis really wished to "gas" (or, more accurately, to
"suffocate") people on a quasi-industrial basis ("systematic genocide"),
they certainly would have turned to carbon dioxide gas (CO2), which would
have been absolutely harmless to the executioners and cheap to produce,
instead of hydrocyanic acid (HCN) in Zyklon B or carbon monoxide (CO).

  Anyone who does not believe this should take care to read the newspaper
accounts of frequent accidents with fermentation gas which occur every year
in the springtime in Austrian wine cellars.

  Carbon dioxide kills quickly, painlessly and surely.


  Leuchter states that "the gas chambers at Auschwitz were not used to kill
human beings with Zyklon B, because they could not be heated and had
insufficient ventilation installations."

  In this regard, the author H. Auerbach, writing in a statement on "The
So-Called Leuchter Report," issued in November 1989 by the [semi-official
German] Institut fur Zeitgeschichte ["Institute of Contemporary History"]
in Munich, stated:

    Leuchter fails to consider that even in a much larger room (Note:
  compared to a US execution gas chamber), this temperature (of evaporation
  of hydrogen cyanide) would be reached very quickly if it were packed full
  of people, and that therefore no heating at all is required.

  Like so many Holocaust writers, Auerbach is mistaken.

  An experiment was carried out by this writer to simulate the heating of a
chamber by human beings.

  The dimensions of the chamber were as follows: Floor area: 5.43 square
meters.  Height: 2.45 meters.  Volume: 13.30 cubic meters.  Surface area:
33.70 meters.  The chamber floor was tiled, as were the walls up to a
height of 1.50 meters.  Above that height, the walls were of wood section
covering, with a wood section ceiling.  Because of the large wood surface,
the chamber is far easier to heat than the "gas chambers" shown as tourist
attractions at Auschwitz.  The chamber took an hour to heat using an 1.8 Kw
electric convection heater, after which the room was "ventilated" for 30

  The nearly square chamber had one outside wall (outdoor air temperature:
20 degrees Celsius), and three inside walls (inside air temperature: 22
degrees Celsius).

  The rise in temperature (Celsius) is shown in the following table (with
figures founded off):

Time              Air     Floor      Wall 1.35 m     Wall 1.75 m

Beginning         22      22         22              22

30 min.           38.5    24         28              31
60 min.           42.5    25         30              32

Heating stopped
30 min. [later]   22      22         22              22

Ventilation stopped

  Since according to the laws of nature, warmth flows from areas of higher
temperature to cooler areas, and the standard "average body temperature" is
approximately 33-34 degrees Celsius (_Physiologie des Menschen_,
Schmidt/Thews, Springer, 1987, p. 655), the figures measured in the
simulation (at summer temperatures) are well above those that could be
attained in the middle of the year in an unheated "gas chamber."  Even [in
a room] with people "tightly packed crushed together," an air temperature
in excess of 30-32 degrees Celsius would not be attained.  In addition, the
gassings are supposed to have taken place quickly and on a quasi-industrial

  Consequently, the wall temperatures would rise only slightly (hence the
possibility that the hydrocyanic acid would condense on the walls), and the
floor temperature would hardly rise at all.  Nor would the bare feet of the
victims warm the floor to any appreciable extent, because the temperature
of the arch of the foot is only 27-28 degrees Celsius, and the temperature
of the soles is practically identical to the floor temperature.  Therefore,
rather than warming the floor to any measurable extent, the victims would
suffer from cold feet.

  According to the Holocaust literature, Zyklon B was normally thrown in
from above.  This means, naturally, that it would land on the floor (which
even in summer was colder than 26 degrees Celsius).  As a result, the
hydrocyanic acid contained in the Zyklon B would not vaporize quickly, but
would instead evaporate more or less slowly (from six to 32 hours, at five
to 30 degrees Celsius).  This is precisely the secret of the success of
Zyklon B as a pest control agent: a nearly even yield of the active
ingredient over long periods of time depending on the temperature.

  To achieve the rapid killing described in the Holocaust literature, the
SS therefore would have had to incorporate floor heating installations into
the "gas chambers" in order to be able to use them as [homicidal] gas

  And there is another detail: rapid and effective ventilation would have
required not just mechanical ventilation, but suitable air intake channels.
Without an air intake, using ventilators alone, the deadly air-gas mixture
could never have been exhausted from the gas chamber.  If this were
attempted, the ventilator would reach a "suction limit" and run empty.
That is, it would deliver nothing, but would instead simply maintain a
certain partial vacuum [Unter-druck] in the chamber.  Deadly hydrogen
cyanide (HCN) would continue to evaporate for many hours, and the
concentration in the air of the chamber would thereby become more and more
rapidly fatal.  How the room [removal] work team could work without heavy
breathing equipment and protective clothing, only a "witness" can explain.
Science can provide no answer.

  Rather, science shows that:

  a) Leuchter is correct, even though he provided no detailed scientific
  proof in his report, and

  b) Holocaust writers are telling stories which cannot withstand
  scientific scrutiny.


  Holocaust writers now face a dilemma.

  The weapon for the "systematic genocidal extermination of millions of
people, especially Jews" must now be abandoned if one looks at the facts
instead of concentrating on belief.

  No weapon, no crime.  What now?

  Mass murder with diesel exhaust gases (in 32 minutes, according to
Gerstein) is a sheer impossibility for reasons of time alone.  This can be
proven experimentally, even today, with a couple of brave men.  Therefore,
the [stories of] "gas chambers with diesel engines" and "gas vans"
["gaswagen"] can only be disinformation.  The "witnesses" make objectively
false statements, and the "confessions" are clearly false.  The laws of
nature apply both to Nazis and anti-fascists.  Nobody can be killed with
diesel exhaust gas in the manner described.

  Mass murder in the manner described, with Zyklon B and with carbon
monoxide, cannot have taken place, either, because it too would violate the
laws of nature, and because the necessary technical and organizational
prerequisites were lacking.

  Experimental killings with Zyklon B may have taken place.  After fifty
years, this cannot be ruled out with certainty.  But such experiments would
have resulted in deaths among the executioners, and the recognition that
something like the [supposed] Mauthausen shooting installation would be
more logical and safer.

  A similar recognition would have come very quickly in any experiment
using diesel exhaust gases ("get rid of that diesel and get us a spark-
ignition engine"), if there had ever been any "gas chambers with diesel
engines" or "gas vans" ("generator gas" from "wood gas" trucks would have
been more logical).  The Nazis may have been criminals, but they certainly
were not stupid enough to use diesel motors and Zyklon B in the manner

  The crematories could never have disposed of the number of victims: this
may be considered proven by engineering science.  Bodies are not a
combustible material.  Their cremation requires a great deal of time and

  In light of what is now known, ther are no "facts of common knowledge"
[or "judicially noted" facts] with regard to the Holocaust.  The facts
given above should be elaborated to a higher degree of proof by
specialists, and preferably by court-recognized experts.  Such a study will
certainly produce amazing results, which will radically alter the basic
views of many people.

  Objective proof will refute the testimony of perjured "witnesses" and the
"confessions" of "criminals."

  Judges and historians must draw the appropriate conclusions, and a whole
generation of "contemporary historians" will sit on the ruins of their
worldview, much as the Marxists today sit on the ruins of their Marxist

  In court trials of "Revisionists," therefore, "contemporary historians"
should never be the only ones permitted to determine the "facts" of the
Holocaust.  There must be interdisciplinary cooperation with scientists and

  Any legal provision that seeks to hinder or even penalize scientific
investigation of the Holocaust (such as section 283a of the Austrian
criminal code) would amount to a state-ordered reign of terror against the
human spirit.

  Should actual investigation of the Holocaust prove the "deliberate
genocide" to be a fact, the discussion will then be at an end, among the
"Revisionists" as well.  Who could wish to oppose discussion of the
Holocaust, on any grounds, let alone attempt to choke discussion using
criminal law?

  Who is there who could abolish freedom of thought and the rule of law,
without opening himself to the suspicioin of trying to exert improper
influence by suppressing discussion?

  Is "1984" coming after all--through the back door?

[end of article]

[Reprinted by permission from _The Journal of Historical Review_, P.O. Box
1306, Torrance, CA 90505, USA.  Subscription rate: $40 per year, domestic.
$50 per year, foreign.]

     This article was manually transcribed by the System Operator of the
"Banished CPU" computer bulletin board system, which is located in Portland,
Oregon, U.S.A.

                    Banished CPU supports Freedom of Speech!
         |                                                           |
         |  For 300-9600 bps (3 lines w/V.32) call:  (503) 232-5783  |
         |  For 14400 bps (2 lines w/V.32bis) call:  (503) 232-6566  |

                        Sysop: Maynard "the Main Nerd"

[end of file]

-Dan Gannon

dgannon@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-0636 (1200/2400, N81)
From oneb!!uw-beaver!!uunet!techbook!dgannon Sat Mar 27 12:31:15 PST 1993
Article: 18554 of alt.activism
Xref: oneb soc.history:10182 alt.censorship:9002 alt.activism:18554 alt.revisionism:1540
Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.censorship,alt.activism,alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!!uw-beaver!!uunet!techbook!dgannon
From: (Dan Gannon)
Subject: The Leuchter Report Vindicated: A Response to J.-C. Pressac's Critique
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1993 11:27:00 GMT
Lines: 1211

>From _The Journal of Historical Review_, Vol. 12, Number 4 (Winter 1992-93):

                    The Leuchter Report Vindicated:
                 A Response to J.-C. Pressac's Critique

                              Paul Grubach

[All footnotes at end of article.]

In early 1988, American execution hardware expert Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.,
carried out the first-ever forensic investigation of the alleged
extermination gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek.  His
sensational conclusion--that these structures were never used as gas
chambers to kill people--set off an international controversy that is still
continuing.  In a detailed report, commonly referred to simply as _The
Leuchter Report_, the gas chamber specialist summed up the result of his

    After a study of the available literature, examination and evaluation
  of the existing facilities at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, with
  expert knowledge of the design criteria for gas chamber operation, an
  investigation of crematory technology and an inspection of modern
  crematories, the author finds no evidence that any of the facilities
  normally alleged to be execution gas chambers were ever used as such, and
  finds, further, that because of the design and fabrication of these
  facilities, they could not have been utilized for execution gas chambers.

  Not suprisingly, indignant defenders of the orthodox Holocaust
extermination story have tried frantically to discredit Leuchter and refute
his findings.  Undoubtedly the most ambitious effort to impeach _The
Leuchter Report_ on scientific and technical grounds consists of two
articles by French pharmacist Jean-Claude Pressac in a book sponsored by
"Nazi-hunter" Beate Klarsfeld, and grandiloquently titled _Truth Prevails:
Demolishing Holocaust Denial: The End of the Leuchter Report_.^2  [A review
of _Truth Prevails_, which deals more generally with the book's
non-scientific criticisms of Leuchter, is published elsewhere in this issue
of the _Journal_. --Editor.]

  In _Truth Prevails_, Pressac is described as "one of the world's rare
research specialists in gas chamber extermination technique.  He is not a
Jew and nearly became a 'revisionist'." (p. 29)  At the conclusion of his
essay "The Deficiencies and Inconsistencies of 'The Leuchter Report',"
Pressac pronounces stern judgement on _The Leuchter Report_:

  ...Leuchter is the victim of his own errors: layout errors, location
  errors, measurement errors, drawing errors, methodology errors and
  historical errors.  Based on fake knowledge, inducing fake reasoning and
  leading to false interpretations, "The Leuchter Report" is inadmissible
  because it was produced in illegal conditions; because it overlooks the
  most basic historical data; because it is scuttled by gross errors of
  calculation, drawing and location; and because it is suspect of
  falsification.  "The Leuchter Report" lands in the cesspool of
  pretentious human folly. (p. 55)

  As this article will show, Pressac, by dismissing _The Leuchter Report_'s
scientific and technical method so intemperately, has cast a verbal
boomerang that returns to strike its author.


  When Leuchter took forensic samples of brick, mortar and sediment from
the alleged extermination "gas chambers" in Auschwitz-Birkenau, as well as
a control sample from a camp delousing facility, he wore protective gear.
Pressac ridicules him for this:

  To prevent his "precious" samples from being polluted during their
  removal, Leuchter and his assistant...had agreed to wear protective
  surgical gloves and masks.  Since the analyses to be done on the samples
  were chemical and not bacteriological in nature, this was a perfectly
  ludicrous and totally useless precaution. (p. 62)

  Pressac is ignorant of the real reason why Leuchter and company wore
protective masks and gloves.  Potassium cyanide, a highly poisonous
solid,^3 is found in the walls of some of the facilities under study.^4  As
Du Pont chemists have pointed out: "Wear an approved dust respirator when
there is danger of inhaling cyanide dust...Wear protective gloves when
handling solid cyanide."^5  Thus, Leuchter and his team showed good sense
by wearing protective gear when extracting the samples.

  Leuchter stored his samples in cool, damp, and sunlight free locations.
But Pressac writes: "Since Leuchter placed the samples in transparent
plastic bags, it is difficult to accept his 'sunlight free locations'
claim." (p. 62)  In fact, although Leuchter first placed the samples in
transparent bags, he then transported them to America in closed,
sunlight-free suitcases.^6  The gas chamber expert wrote: "We boarded the
Polish airline plane after clearing customs--my suitcase containing twenty
pounds of forbidden samples, fortunately none of which was found."^7

  Leuchter is faulted for allegedly making misleading descriptions of the
specimens.  In Pressac's words:

  Thirty-one samples...were identified by laboratory coming
  from "brick"--an inexact generalization.  If two-thirds really are brick
  fragments, either pure or mixed with a bit of mortar, the rest are
  composed of lime mortar or sometimes of pure cement (as in the case of
  two or three samples).  This abusive generalization leads one to have a
  major reservation about the very nature of the samples Leuchter took.
  Either Leuchter was mistaken in his assessment of the substratum, or the
  laboratory made an error. (p. 61)

  In one part of his report, Leuchter wrote: "...forensic samples of brick,
mortar, concrete and sediment were selectively taken from sites in
Poland."^8  In a letter to Alpha Analytical Laboratories (Ashland,
Massachusetts), the laboratory which analyzed the samples, Leuchter wrote:
"Samples No. 1 through No. 11; Samples No. 13 through No. 32.  Brick,
mortar and sediment.  Cyanate content."^9  Clearly, he did not use the
"inexact generalization" of "brick" to characterize the samples.^10


  Pressac realizes the importance of the samples taken from the "gas
chambers" and the delousing facility.  Thus, discrediting Leuchter's method
of taking samples and his conclusions regarding their chemical content is
really the major purpose of Pressac's two essays in _Truth Prevails_.  He

  Since Leuchter's samples were obtained illegally, I will only concur with
  their cyanide concentration on the express condition that they be
  verified by official expert chemical evaluation.  Admitting their
  validity with reservations, certain results which may have been
  surprising at first glance can be logically explained. (p. 40)

  A subsequent "expert official chemical evaluation" has in fact strongly
corroborated Leuchter's findings.  In response to Revisionist claims that
Zyklon B was not used at Auschwitz-Birkenau to commit mass murder, the
Auschwitz State Museum asked Poland's Institute of Forensic Research (in
Krakow) to carry out a scientific investigation of the matter.  Its expert
report results buttress those of Leuchter: The institute's team found
significant cyanide residue in delousing facility samples, while next to
none in alleged "gas chamber" samples.^11  (As will be discussed below, the
Polish institute's conclusion regarding the significance of this finding
differs from Leuchter's.)

  Throughout both his essays, Pressac strongly implies that Leuchter
consciously falsified his findings in order to disprove the existence of
the gas chambers.  As a case in point--concerning sample 2 from Crematorium
II--Pressac insinuates that Leuchter planted a brick with no cyanide
residue in the "gas chamber" area in order to "prove" his case. (p. 65)

  At the 1989 conference of the Institute of Historical Review, Leuchter
publicly challenged the international scientific community to investigate
his findings--hardly the behavior of a man who is guilty of falsifying his
results.^12  A team of scientists could easily expose deliberate
deceptions, as well as methodological errors, by Leuchter.  All they would
have to do is retrace his path, take more samples from the same facilities,
and subject them to chemical analysis.

  Leuchter's 1988 investigation of the concentration camps, including his
inspection and sample taking, was recorded on videotape.  A videotape
cassette of his visit, which shows Leuchter taking some of his specimens,
is available to the public.^13  Pressac claims throughout his second essay
that this video is a "witness to a fraud." (pp. 61-73)  He writes, for
example: "Manipulation, substitution and trick photography are certainly
confirmed in the case of sample No. 6." (p. 68)  With reference to the
extraction of this sample, he writes at another point: "The deception seems
clearly obvious." (p. 67)

  Pressac writes further:

    Out of seven samples obtained from the Crematorium II gas chamber
  ruins, not a single one was shown upon analysis to contain cyanide.  This
  amazing result is contrary to everything known about the building's
  history.  Faurisson wanted this gas chamber to yield a perfect (for him)
  result across the board--that is to say, uniformly negative.  Playing his
  cards close to his vest, he succeeded all too well.  The results are too
  consistent, too perfect. (p. 68)

  Whatever defects there may be in the videotape record of Leuchter's
investigation, it seems unlikely that they are the result of conscious
fraud (let alone a plot orchestrated by his arch-enemy Robert Faurisson).
Any possible defects there may be are more likely to have been occasioned
by inexperience and the circumstances in which the gathering of evidence
and the videotaping was conducted.  As British historian David Irving has

    I myself would, admittedly, have preferred to see more rigorous methods
  used in identifying and certifying the samples taken for analysis, but I
  accept without reservation the difficulties that the examining team faced
  on location in what is now Poland: chiselling out the samples from the
  hallowed site under the very noses of the new camp guards.  The video
  tapes made simultaneously by the team--which I have studied--provide
  compelling visual evidence of the scrupulous methods that they used.^14

  Furthermore, as already mentioned, Poland's Institute of Forensic
Research (Krakow) has provided independent corroboration of Leuchter's
findings.  The Institute's investigation team found no cyanide residue in
the "gas chamber" samples they took, except for one taken from the
Crematorium II ruins.  It measures 6 micrograms per 100 grams of material.
This is equal to .06 milligrams of cyanide per kilogram of material

  This is less than the minimum amount that could be detected by the
measuring instrument of the Alpha laboratory.  The minimum trace level of
cyanide that could be detected by Alpha was ONE mg/kg.^16  Anything below
this amount was rightly considered inconsequential.  Thus, Leuchter's
findings are consistent with those of Poland's Institute of Forensic
Research: there was no significant cyanide residue in material taken from
Crematorium II's "gas chamber."


  Pressac asks:

    What decisive point of the [Leuchter] report leads the deniers
  [Holocaust Revisionists] to think they have "won" [the debate about the
  existence of extermination "gas chambers"]?  They compared the quantity
  of cyanide residue in the Birkenau BW 5a delousing building gas chamber
  (sample No. 32) yielding 1,050 mg/kg...and those varying from 0 to 7.9
  mg/kg in samples from the Auschwitz-Birkenau homicidal gas chambers.  The
  result triggers the following line of questioning.  How can it be
  believed that the areas supposedly used to asphixiate thousands daily by
  means of hydrocyanic acid over the course of a year or two retain only
  minute traces of cyanide while other places, used for delousing with the
  same gas over the same time period, yield traces one hundred and fifty to
  a thousand times greater? (p. 35)

As Pressac indicates, Leuchter did indeed conclude:

    One would have expected higher cyanide detection in the samples taken
from the alleged gas chambers (because of the greater amount of gas
allegedly utilized there) than that found in the control sample.  Since the
contrary is true, one must conclude that these facilities were not
execution gas chambers, when coupled with all the other evidence gained on

  In an effort to discredit this conclusion, three explanations have been
offered in response:

  Explanation 1.  After 45 years, virtually all of the cyanide residue in
the alleged extermination gas chambers has "weathered away."  Poland's
Institute of Forensic Research, for example, expressed the view that can hardly assume that traces of cyanic compounds could still be
  detected in construction materials (plaster, brick) after 45 years, after
  being subjected to the weather and the elements (rain, acid oxides,
  especially sulfuric oxides).  More reliable would be the analysis of wall
  plaster [samples] from closed rooms which were not subject to weather and
  the elements (including acid rain).^18

  Writing in _Truth Prevails_, Pressac expresses a similar opinion: "As a
general rule, the more a sample's locale was exposed to the elements, the
lower--indeed, nil--the cyanide content."  He also wrote: "The ruins of
Crematorium II and III and the restored walls of IV and V have been exposed
to the elements for over forty years.  It's practically a miracle that any
measurable hydrocyanic compound traces still remain." (pp. 71, 44)

  However, in his 1989 book, _Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas
Chambers_, Pressac says something rather different.  In this detailed work,
he published a picture of the OUTSIDE wall of a delousing chamber.
Referring to this structure, he wrote: "...from ground level to just below
the chimney, bluish stains can be seen on the bricks of the wall, showing
that hydrocyanic acid was used there (in 1942-1944), for delousing
purposes."^19  He thus confirms that even though this wall has been exposed
to the elements since the Second World War, a significant amount of
Prussian blue is nevertheless still visible.  Pressac himself thus
discredits the claim that all or even most of the Prussian blue (ferric
ferrocyanide) would have "weathered away."

  If Pressac's view on this is correct, the OUTSIDE wall of this delousing
facility would have a LOWER Prussian blue content than the INSIDE walls of
the "gas chamber" of Krema I.  In fact, though, visible Prussian blue
stains can be seen on the OUTSIDE wall of the delousing facility, which has
been exposed to the elements since the Second World War.  By contrast,
there are only invisible and barely detectable amounts of Prussian blue in
samples taken from the INSIDE wall of the supposed homicidal "gas chamber"
of Krema I, which is inside an intact structure and has thus been protected
from the elements since the Second World War.^20  As Pressac himself notes:
"Its [Krema I] morgue/ gas chamber inside walls have never been exposed to
sun, rain, or snow (factors which contribute to cyanide content
diminishing) as the other crematoriums were and are." (p. 44)

  Referring to the absence of cyanide/Prussian blue traces in the samples
taken from Birkenau's Krema II, Pressac writes in _Truth Prevails_:
"Cyanide's solubility in rain water and the water layer accumulated
underground from infiltrating rain accounts for its absence from the
samples." (p. 41)

  This view is simply not correct.  Dr. James Roth, the chemistry expert
who analyzed Leuchter's samples, pointed out that Prussian blue cannot be
washed out of brick, mortar or cement by water.  The ferric ferrocyanide
compounds produced by the interaction of hydrogen cyanide with the iron
elements in brick (and such) are very stable, and remain in such substances
for a very long time.  As Roth testified under oath, the compounds can be
removed only by sand-blasting or the application of strong acid.^21  Nobel
Prize-winning chemist Linus Pauling similarly confirms that Prussian blue
is insoluble in water.^22  Finally, the authoritative _Handbook of
Chemistry and Physics_ notes that ferric ferrocyanide--or iron (III)
ferrocyanide--is insoluble in hot or cold water.^23

  It should be stressed here that whereas the Institute of Forensic
Research (Krakow) measured the amount of POTASSIUM CYANIDE,^24 Leuchter was
mainly concerned with PRUSSIAN BLUE (or ferric ferrocyanide).^25  As
previously noted, while Potassium cyanide is indeed water soluble,^26
ferric ferrocyanide is not.  Prussian blue is a very stable compound that
simply could not have been washed away by rain.

  Explanation 2.  Pressac suggests that when camp officials dynamited
crematory buildings (Kremas) II, III and V, this contributed to the removal
of cyanide residue. (pp. 40, 42, 43)  This explanation will also not hold
up.  While it is true that dynamiting breaks up the bricks of a structure,
it does not remove chemical stains on or within such bricks.  Nor, for the
most part, would it abrade Prussian blue on their surfaces.  Pressac
himself points out that a support pillar in Krema II's "gas chamber"
withstood the effects of explosion. (p. 65)  Any Prussian blue on the
surface of or within the pillar's pores would have remained.

  Explanation 3.  This is Pressac's principal explanation.  Even though the
delousing facility was exposed to a lesser amount of HCN than the "gas
chambers," the walls of the delousing facility were impregnated with warm
HCN for at least twelve hours a day.  He writes:

  This cyanide saturation of 12 to 18 hours a day was strengthened by the
  heat the stoves in the room emitted, providing a temperature of 30
  degrees Celcius [86 degrees Fahrenheit].  The walls were impregnated with
  hot HCN for at least 12 hours a day, which would induce the formation of
  of a stain: Prussian blue, or potassioferric ferrocyanide [SIC]... (p.

  As for the "gas chambers," Pressac alleges the HCN was in physical
contact with their walls "for no more than ten minutes a day," at a
temperature of about 30 degrees Celsius (86 degrees Fahrenheit).  Without
additional heat, the brief contact of high concentrations of HCN with the
walls of the homicidal installations was not able to induce the reaction
which led to the formation of significant amounts of cyanide residue.
Hence, the amount of ferric ferrocyanide in the "gas chamber" samples is
nil or nonexistent. (pp. 36-38)

  If Pressac had made an objective study of the chemistry of hydrogen
cyanide and Prussian blue, he would have learned how inaccurate this theory

  The walls of the alleged gas chambers contain a large amount of iron.^28
And, as Dr. James Roth pointed out: "If iron is present with hydrogen
cyanide around, then you are going to get a reaction between the hydrogen
cyanide and iron."^29  Hydrogen cyanide dissolves very readily in water,
becoming hydrocyanic acid.^30  As Pressac and Leuchter have both noted, the
alleged gas chambers were very damp.^31  Enough moisture would have been on
the walls, floors and ceilings to dissolve at least some of the HCN
supposed to have been used during an alleged gassing.

  In the presence of water, iron in the walls and cyanide from the hydrogen
cyanide would readily combine to form an iron cyanide complex.  Aqueous
solutions of hydrogen cyanide are weak acids.^32  As Dr. Pauling notes:
"Iron is an active metal, which displaces hydrogen easily from dilute
acids."^33  Consequently, the iron from the walls would easily have
displaced the hydrogen [H+] in the hydrocyanic acid, bonded with the
cyanide [CN-], and formed an iron-cyanide complex, ferrocyanide ion
[Fe(CN6)]^4-.^34  This is what Dr. Pauling meant when he wrote that cyanide
ion [CN-] added to a solution of ferrous ion [iron (II) ion] forms
precipitates which dissolve in excess cyanide to produce complex ions.^35

  Finally, according to Dr. Pauling, the pigment Prussian blue is made by
the addition of ferric [iron (III)] ion to a ferrocyanide solution.^36
According to chemist James Brady: "The deep color Prussian blue is formed
when a drop of dilute solution containing Fe3+ [iron (III) ion] is added to
a dilute solution containing ferrocyanide ion, Fe(CN)6^4-.  After a few
moments, the blue precipitate, Fe4[Fe(CN)6]3.16H2O, settles to the bottom
of the test tube."^37  In plain language, the iron-cyanide complex,
ferrocyanide, combines with more iron to form ferric ferrocyanide (or
Prussian blue).

  What this whole reaction mechanism shows is that even if the HCN were in
contact with the "gas chamber" walls for less than ten minutes every day or
two for two years, significant quantities of Prussian blue still would have
formed.  (By a "significant amount" is meant an amount slightly less or
equal to that found in the delousing facility samples.)  At least some of
the HCN, upon contact with the diffuse wetness, would have dissolved
immediately.^38  This dissolved HCN, upon contact with the iron, would have
formed some ferrocyanide immediately.^39  The ferrocyanide, upon contact
with more iron, would have formed some Prussian blue almost immediately.^40

  But just as important, the application of heat to the walls and gas is
not at all necessary to form significant amounts of Prussian blue.
Relevant to this issue is the informative verbal exchange between attorney
Dougles Christie and Dr. James Roth during the 1988 trial in Toronto of
Ernst Zundel.  Referring to the reaction between hydrogen cyanide and the
iron in the walls of the alleged gas chambers, Christie asked Roth: "And
could you explain any way by which this would not happen or no such
reaction would occur?"  The chemist replied:

  ROTH: Well, one is the lack of water.  These reactions to--in a lot of
  cases have to take place in water or with some vapor around.  Now,
  chances are great [that with] NORMAL TEMPERATURES and rooms of normal
  humidity, there would be plenty of moisture present for this type of
  reaction to take place.  [Emphasis added]

  CHRISTIE: So in a normal room with normal humidity these quantities of
  iron in the wall, hydrogen cyanide in quantities of 300 parts per million
  [.36 g/m^3] or more, on a daily basis for two years or even two weeks,
  you would expect to see the formation of Prussian blue.  Is that correct?

  ROTH: I would expect to see detectable amounts of Prussian blue.  [If not
  visibly detectable, at least chemically detectable.]  That type of
  reaction is an accumulative reaction.  In other words, as it reacts it
  doesn't go away.  It stays...^41

  Pressac's theory that without additional heat the brief contact of high
concentrations of HCN with the walls of the gas chambers was not sufficient
to form significant amounts of Prussian blue is therefore false.^42  The
whole ensemble of physical and chemical conditions would have ensured that
significant amounts of Prussian blue residue would have been detectable in
Leuchter's samples if they had been exposed to the amount of gas Pressac


  The boiling point of hydrogen cyanide (HCN) is 26 degrees Celsius (or 78
degrees Fahrenheit).^43  That is, HCN vaporizes, or changes from liquid to
gas, at this temperature.  If the temperature is below 78 degrees F, there
will thus be condensation: Much of HCN will change from gas to liquid.  In
addition to being cool year round, the Auschwitz I and II (Birkenau) "gas
chambers" were supposedly operated during the cold weather months of fall,
winter and spring.^44  They were allegedly ventilated "naturally" or
"mechanically." (p. 72)^45  In either case, air from the outside
environment would have been used to expel poison gas from the chamber.
During the fall, winter and spring months, this outside ventilation air
would have been considerably cooler than 78 degrees F.  In addition, as
Pressac admits and Leuchter confirms, the "gas chambers" had no internal
heating devices to prevent condensation.^46  The temperature of the walls,
floors and ceilings for much of the year would have been well below 78
degrees F.

  During an alleged gassing operation, much of the poisonous HCN gas
therefore would have promptly condensed to liquid upon contact with the
frigid walls, floors and ceilings, or upon contact with cold air during
ventilation.  Because HCN gas naturally adheres to surfaces, it can be
ventilated only with difficulty and after considerable time.^47  Thus, even
if an alleged "gassing" lasted no more than twenty minutes, a considerable
amount of condensed, liquid HCN would have remained on the walls, floors
and ceilings after ventilation.  The cold air allegedly used to ventilate
the poison gas would simply have ensured that much of the HCN would have
changed to liquid and remained on the inside surfaces of the "gas

  In this vein, Leuchter has noted:

  ...if the temperatures [of the gas chamber] is not above 78 to 79
  degrees, we get condensation of the gas on the walls, the floor and the
  ceiling.  When the hydrogen cyanide condenses into a liquid it will be
  absorbed by the brick and by the mortar...^48

  As Dr. Pauling has noted, "Hydrogen a gas which dissolves in
water and acts as a very weak acid."^49  In this regard, it is worth
pointing out that the Auschwitz-Birkenau "gas chambers" were always
damp.^50  Therefore, even during the warm weather months, when the ambient
temperature in the "gas chambers" may have been above 78 degrees F, some
gaseous HCN would have readily dissolved the moment it came into contact
with the natural moisture on the floor, walls and ceiling.  In this way,
the constant dampness or moisture in the "gas chambers" would ensure that
HCN would be held in solution even during the warm weather months.^51  This
HCN--dissolved in the moisture or condensed back to liquid--thus would have
remained in the "gas chambers" even after ventilation, and would have
reacted with the iron in the bricks to form Prussian blue.

  According to chemists of the German Degesch company (which manufactured
Zyklon), exposed porous surfaces of an authentic (delousing) gas chamber
must be coated with a sealant to make the facility impervious to HCN
impregnation.^52  Leuchter found that none of the alleged extermination
"gas chambers" in Auschwitz was coated with any sealant.^53  If these
facilities had actually been used as extermination gas chambers, their
walls, floors and ceilings would have absorbed significant quantities of

[Photograph captioned, "Tourists at Auschwitz are routinely told that
thousands of Jews were killed with Zyklon B in this alleged extermination
gas chamber in the Auschwitz I main camp.  German camp authorities never
bothered to destroy this incriminating 'evidence.' (Photo: Samisdat

  Critical to Pressac's thesis is this claim:

    In a homicidal gas chamber, the action of highly concentrated HCN was
  rapid and intense (never more than 15 or 20 minutes), at a temperature
  below 27 degrees C. [80.6 degrees F], then the room was aired or
  artificially ventilated to get rid of the gas as quickly as possible...
  The acid had time to attack the metallic parts superficially, forming
  cyanide, but did not have enough time to impregnate and stain the brick.
  Conversely, the operation of a delousing gas chamber used much lower
  concentrations of HCN, but as a general rule and according to witnesses,
  the gas remained for a very much longer time, from 16 to 18 hours, and a
  higher temperature was maintained by heating the chamber by stoves...^54

  This is not accurate.  As we have already established, if the structures
in question had actually been used as homicidal "gas chambers," the walls,
floors and ceilings would have absorbed significant quantities of HCN.  The
physical and chemical conditions in the alleged "gas chambers" were such
that a significant amount of HCN would have remained after a "gassing,"
impregnating the brick and forming significant quantities of Prussian blue.

  Let us summarize Pressac's thesis with two quotations.  In the 1990 work,
_Truth Prevails_, he wrote:

    Without heat induction of long continuance, the cyanide doses [in the
  "gas chambers"], as high as they were, were not in contact with the walls
  of the homicidal installations long enough to provoke the reaction
  [forming Prussian blue] to an appreciable--that is to say visible--
  degree. (p. 38)

And in his 1989 work, _Auschwitz_, Pressac wrote:

    The "blue wall" phenomenon makes it possible now to distinguish
  visually, empirically, but with absolute certainty, between delousing gas
  chambers, where the phenomenon is present, and homicidal gas chambers,
  where it is not.  Without additional heat, the too brief contact of
  nevertheless high concentrations of hydrocyanic acid with the walls of
  the homicidal installations was not able to provoke the development of
  the reaction appreciable enough to be visible.^55

  To sum up here: as a consequence of all these factors, HCN would have
been in contact with the walls of the "gas chambers" for much more than
just ten or twenty minutes a day, and significant amounts of HCN would have
remained after gassing and subsequent ventilation.  Therefore--and contrary
to what Pressac claims--significant amounts of Prussian blue would have
been produced.

  Leuchter's comparison of samples taken from the "gas chamber" with
samples taken from the control/delousing facility samples is entirely
valid.  If the alleged extermination "gas chambers" had actually been used
to kill people as alleged, ferric ferrocyanide would have been found in
them in amounts comparable to those found in the delousing facility.  As
the American gas chamber expert has noted, the point is not that the
cyanide traces at the alleged gassing sites are "somewhat less" but that
they are

  negligible or nil.  The samples from the alleged gas chamber areas, most
  of them had totally no traces at all.  The few that did have traces were
  barely above detection level.  So, we're not talking about a situation
  that there was more or less.  We're talking about nothing and something,
  and in the area where there was something [the delousing facility], we
  had a very high content.  We had a thousand and fifty miligrams per
  kilogram, and the highest that we detected in any of the other areas [the
  alleged gas chambers] was seven milligrams per kilogram.^56


  Pressac claims that only a select few of Leuchter's specimens were taken
correctly.  The rest are "worthless," allegedly because Leuchter "switched
samples" by planting rocks with no cyanide residues in the "gas chamber"
area in order to "prove" his case.  Pressac also charges that Leuchter
confused sample location.  (That is, samples designated by Leuchter as
coming from one area actually came from another.)  And, according to
Pressac, the American specialist used "trick photography." (pp. 42-43,
46-48, 61-73)

  Let us give Mr. Pressac the benefit of the doubt, and assume that his
designation of most of Leuchter's samples as either "worthless" or "valid"
is correct.  This would mean that remaining "acceptable" specimens include:

    Krema III: Sample 9 (p. 69)
    Krema V: Sample 24. (p. 71)
    Krema I: Samples 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30. (pp. 40, 46, 62)

  Fortunately, using just these samples, we can disprove Pressac's theories
and show that Leuchter's results are valid.

  Consider crematory building (Krema) I in the Auschwitz main camp.  The
supposed gas chamber there was adjacent to a washroom.^57  The washroom was
never part of the "gas chamber."^58  They were separated by a gas-tight
door.^59  Both rooms were apparently disinfested with hydrocyanic acid.^60
Pressac maintains that people were killed in the alleged "gas chamber"
there from the end of 1941 until 1942.^61  Prior to this, he believes, it
was used as a morgue, and afterwards it was used as an air raid shelter.^62
Hence, it would have been exposed to significant amounts of HCN not only
during the period when it allegedly functioned as a homicidal gas chamber,
but also as a result of periodic disinfestation treatment during the time
it functioned as a morgue and air raid shelter.

  According to Pressac, "probably" no more than ten thousand persons were
put to death in the alleged "gas chamber" of Krema I.^63  Consequently,
this room would have been exposed to significant concentrations of HCN for
extended periods of time.^64

  Leuchter found no evidence of any exhaust system, or any other way to
expel the gas in a short period.^65  For this reason, it would have taken
many hours after each alleged "gassing" operation to ventilate HCN from the
chamber.  For reasons already given, much HCN would have remained after the
ventilation phase of a "gassing" to permeate the walls, floor and ceiling.
By contrast, the washroom would have been exposed to the gas only during
periodic disinfestations.  Clearly, then, the alleged "gas chamber was
exposed to HCN for much longer periods of time than the washroom.

  Pressac's theory predicts that the amount of cyanide residue in a
structure would be proportional to the amount of time it was exposed to
HCN.  He writes:

    The considerable difference in hydrocyanic resideue between the
  delousing stations and the homicidal gas chambers is the result of the
  respective difference in time spent administering Zyklon (at least 12
  hours per day in the delousing versus 5 to 10 minutes every day or two in
  killing humans). (p. 63)

In the view of Revisionist researcher Enrique Aynat, though:

  ...Leuchter took one of his samples in an area that had been a washroom,
  which had never been a part of the supposed gas chamber, and was
  separated from it by a gas-tight door.  The partition wall that separated
  the washroom from the supposed gas chamber was eliminated by the Poles
  after the war.  The analysis of this sample reveals a presence of cyanide
  COMPARABLE to that of most of the other samples.  In short, the amount of
  cyanide found in a sample taken from a place that had NEVER served as a
  gas chamber was SIMILAR to that detected in the samples taken from the
  supposed gas chamber.  If the mortuary had really been a gas chamber,
  cyanide ought to have been detected in the samples taken there, and by
  the same token nothing should have been detected in the sample obtained
  from the former washroom; or rather a minute amount of cyanide should
  have been found in the former washroom (from contingent disinfestation
  with hydrocyanic acid) and a much larger quantity in the gas chamber.
  What proves to be inexplicable from the Exterminationist point of view is
  the findings of SIMILAR amounts of cyanide in both places.^66

  This finding strongly suggests that Pressac's theory is false.

  Pressac notes that "...sample 9 (Crematorium III, L-Keller 1), taken from
the base of a fifth central support pillar, exposed to every imaginable
meteorological turpitude for 45 years, still gives a reading of 6.9 mg/kg."
(p. 71)  Sample 24 was taken from the ruins of an alleged gas chamber of
Krema V.  Because the building which housed it was razed to the ground in
the 1940s, the foundation and floor were exposed to the elements for
decades. (p. 44)  Therefore, Pressac cannot contend that any difference
between the cyanide levels of samples 9 and 24 is due to the "weathering

  The time periods during which the extermination "gas chambers" of
crematory buildings (Kremas) III and V were in operation are similar.  The
"gas chamber" in Krema III (Birkenau) allegedly operated during much of
1943 and 1944--almost two full years.^67  The "gas chamber" in Krema V
(also in Birkenau) supposedly operated from April 1943 until the summer
1944. (p. 43)

  According to Pressac, because there was a mechanical ventilation system
in Krema III, sample 9 would have been in contact with the HCN for only
five to ten minutes during an alleged gassing operation: "Considering the
poisoning time required to asphyxiate the victims in conjunction with the
ventilation, the time period during which the walls were exposed to the
hydrocyanic acid gas did not exceed 5 to 10 minutes every one or two days."
(p. 72)  By contrast, in the case of the supposed "gas chambers" of Krema
V, he writes:

    Crematorium V's (then 4) gas chamber bloc [SIC] was aired out
  naturally, with all the doors open.  It clearly took more time than the
  mechanical ventilation did.  The period during which the walls were
  exposed to the hydrocyanic acid, with the concentration progressively
  diminishing during the airing out time, had to be one or two hours. (p.

  According to Pressac's theory, then, sample 24 should have a
significantly higher cyanide content than sample 9, because of the former's
longer exposure time to HCN.  Yet just the opposite is the case.  Sample 9
has a measured residue of 6.7 mg/kg, while sample 24 has no measurable

  In an attempt to explain away this serious discrepancy, Pressac claims
that sample 9 stood one meter from one of the four wire mesh columns
through which Zyklon B was supposedly introduced into the chamber.  This
"privileged position," he speculates, could be the cause of the "unusual"
cyanide content. (pp. 71-72)

  This explanation will not withstand close scrutiny.  As noted above,
Pressac alleges that HCN was in contact with sample 9 of Krema III for only
five to ten MINUTES during a gassing, while sample 24 of Krema V was in
contact with the gas one or two HOURS during a gassing operation.  Pressac
himself wrote: "The substantial difference between the two exposure periods
(that of V being 10 to 30 times longer than that of II/III) shows that V's
bricks were saturated with hydrocyanic gas much longer than those of II and
III." (p. 72)  According to his own theory, the HCN would have had more
time to form significant amounts of Prussian blue in sample 24 than in
sample 9.

  The reader may understandably ask: "If the alleged 'gas chambers' were
never used for homicidal purposes, why was any cyanide at all found in the
samples taken by Leuchter?"  Dr. Robert Faurisson provides an answer: "The
extremely low levels of cyanide found in some crematoria was likely, in my
opinion, to have resulted from disinfection of the premises during the

  Pressac rejects this explanation as an "often-used lie":

    Hydrocyanic acid is used first and foremost to exterminate such vermin
  as insect pests [lice] and rodents.  Classified as an insecticide and
  vermin killer, it has no bactericide or germicide properties for use as
  an antiseptic.  Places and things are disinfected with various kinds of
  antiseptics: solid (lime, lime chloride), liquid (bleach, cresol), gas
  (formaldehyde, sulfur anhydride).  To remove lice from clothing required
  either an insecticide, or dry steam disinfecting in an autoclave.  But a
  morgue is not disinfected with an insecticide or vermin killer like
  hydrocyanic acid, as Faurisson foolishly claims...Leuchter, who claims to
  be scientifically trained, whereas Faurisson is not, similarly used this
  stupidity in his report. (pp. 38-39)

  Here Pressac is straining to represent Dr. Faurisson and Leuchter as
having ignorantly confused "disinfection" with "disinfestation," although
he knows full well that the word "disinfection," in line with the German
usage (DESINFEKTION), is used for "delousing."

  A standard reference work makes this point about the disease typhus: "The
spread of typhus in communities results largely from the fact that infected
lice tend to leave persons with high fever, and they evacuate the corpses
of those who have died from the disease."^70  As both Revisionists and
Exterminationists agree, many thousands died in Auschwitz as a consequence
of recurrent typhus epidemics, and the supposed homicidal gas chambers were
used as morgues.  Because deceased victims of the disease are a direct
source of the infected lice, any place where the corpses of typhus victims
were kept would therefore be a logical place for disinfestation treatment
with Zyklon B.  Contrary to what Pressac maintains, it would make perfect
sense to periodically delouse the morgues (or supposed "gas chambers").
Indeed, a wartime German document on the use of hydrogen cyanide and Zyklon
B (Nuremberg document NI-9098) specifically states that Zyklon B should be
used for large-scale fumigations of storerooms.^71


  Finally, a few miscellaneous comments are in order.

  Pressac misrepresents what Leuchter writes about the danger of locating
HCN gas chambers adjacent to crematoria:

    Leuchter's last claim about the homicidal gas chambers in connection
  with the cremation furnaces is that they are incompatible under the same
  roof.  As soon as the door was opened to the area saturated with
  hydrocyanic acid, the same being without ventilation according to
  Leuchter, the gas would be spread throughout the crematorium, reaching
  the lit ovens, and, combined with the air, would have exploded,
  destroying the entire building.  HCN's flammability limits in air are
  from 5.6% (minimum) to 40% (maximum) in volume (6%-41% according to Du
  Pont).  This signifies that upon contact with a flame there is an
  explosion if the concentration of hydrocyanic acid in the air comprises
  between 67.2g/m^3, and 480g/m^3.  Below 67.2g/m^3 there is no risk, nor
  is there any at greater than 480g/m^3 because there is not enough
  remaining oxygen for burning to begin.  The SS used doses of 5g/m^3 in
  delousing and 12-20g/m^3 in killing, well under the 67.2g/m^3 threshold.
  Their gas chambers and crematoria were not about to explode.  Leuchter's
  "impartial" opinion is based upon an incorrect calculation. (p. 45)

  Leuchter was well aware of the very real explosiveness of HCN.  As he has
pointed out, no execution gas chamber system in the United States has ever
been designed for use with Zyklon B because

  ...a danger of explosion always exists.  The overall gas mixture [in a
  gas chamber] is generally below the lower explosion limit (LEL) of the
  gas air mixture...but the concentration of the gas at the generator (or
  as in the case of Zyklon B, at the inert carrier) is much greater and may
  well be 90% to 99% by volume.  This is almost pure HCN and this condition
  may exist at points of time in pockets in the chamber.^72

  Du Pont company chemists confirm this point: "Hydrogen cyanide is
extremely flammable and can be ignited by an open flame, hot surface, or
spark...Outside closed containers, the gas is likely to form flammable
mixtures because of its high volatility."^73  Even if the gas does no
explode, it can still burn.  Another authoritative source similarly notes:
"Small quantities of hydrogen cyanide can be burned in a hood in an open
metal vessel.  Large-scale burning in outdoor pans can be performed, but
special safety precautions must be employed."^74

  Leuchter has also pointed out the alleged extermination gas chambers were
not properly sealed.^75  Gas would have leaked out, and some of the
escaping HCN gas would have reached the ovens, ignited, and burned in the
air--all the way to the source of the leaks in the "gas chamber."  If the
burning HCN reached a pocket of the gas within the explosive limits, an
explosion would have occurred.  Because this scenario is quite plausible,
Leuchter stated: "...I wouldn't even want to be present within the vicinity
of the building [which housed the alleged gas chambers] if someone were
using Zyklon B and the crematory was functioning."^76  Simply put, it would
have been extremely dangerous to carry out a homicidal gassing operation
near a functioning crematory.  A disaster would be likely.

  With regard to another issue of contention, Pressac writes:

    The nature of the substrata is not sufficiently taken into account, to
  the extent of evading the issue, and is grouped under the heading of
  "brick" by the Analysis laboratory.  In the case of L-Keller 1 of
  crematoriums II and III, the German construction documents attest that
  the "cellar" walls were built with 400 bricks per cubic meter, with
  mortar mixed at the ratio of 1/1/5, which measures one part cement and
  one part lime for every five parts of sand.  The pillars were poured of
  1/5 reinforced concrete, meaning one part cement to every five parts of
  sand.  The interior partitions, pillars and ceiling all received a coat
  of roughcast (about 1 to 1.5 cm thick), comprising 17 liters of mortar.
  Its composition was 1/0.5/5, meaning one part cement and one half part
  lime for every 5 parts sand.  The L-Keller 1 wall bricks which are
  visible today were covered throughout the war with a roughcast which has
  since fallen off.  These bricks were never directly exposed to the gas.
  Leuchter's samples of the exposed bricks in the "cellar" are not worth
  very much in view of the feeble impression the hydrocyanic acid made on
  their surfaces. (p. 73)

  An official wartime information sheet on the use of hydrogen cyanide and
Zyklon B confirms that HCN has "extraordinarily great penetrative powers."
This sheet (Nuremberg document NI-9912) was issued by the public health
agency of Bohemia-Moravia.^77  Even if the roughcast had been present
during the alleged homicidal gassings, HCN would have penetrated through to
the iron in the bricks beneath it, ultimately producing a significant
quantity of Prussian blue.

  Also noteworthy in this regard is the observation of Poland's Institute
of Forensic Research concerning the Auschwitz delousing facilities:
"According to our information, these rooms were whitewashed during the war
years.  In some spots, a blue or dark blue stain shows through."^78  As Dr.
Roth pointed out, the reaction between HCN and iron will go fairly deep in
porous substances (like roughcast) unless perhaps the surface formation of
Prussian blue inhibited its further penetration.^79  Indeed, the OUTSIDE
wall of a Birkenau delousing facility had Prussian blue stains.^80
Apparently, the gas penetrated from the inside of the chamber to the
outside surface of the bricks.  Any paint or roughcast on the inside
surface did not prohibit HCN penetration.

  Another criticism of the _Leuchter Report_ has been made by Mr. Charles
Provan, an American lay theologian and contributor to the weekly _Christian
News_.  He has alleged that certain "eyewitnesses" have claimed that the
chambers were washed down with water after the homicidal gassings.  This
water supposedly would have washed away the HCN, preventing it from
reacting with the iron.^81

  Since HCN has great penetrating powers and the "gas chamber" surfaces
were porous, at least some hydrogen cyanide would have penetrated far
enough into the roughcast and brick to escape being washed away.
Furthermore, HCN is water soluble.  After the hosing down, numerous water
droplets, containing dissolved HCN, would have remained on the walls,
floors and ceilings to react with the iron, ultimately forming significant
amounts of Prussian blue.


  Based on spurious knowledge, inducing specious logic which leads to false
conclusions, Pressac's attacks on _The Leuchter Report_ stem from faulty
scientific and technical understanding, and thus utterly fail to demolish
it.  As already noted, since the publication of _Truth Prevails_, a study
by Poland's leading forensic institute has given strong corroboration to
Leuchter's findings, and thus to his methodology.

  Pressac's AD HOMINEM attacks on Leuchter and Faurisson, who by daring to
subject the gas chamber myth to scientific and technical investigation,
have risked their livelihoods, their personal freedom, and even their
lives, will, one hopes, strike future generations of readers as no less
obscurantist than the attacks directed at Galileo, at Darwin, or at the
geneticists who dared to defy Lysenko during the Stalin years.  May _The
Leuchter Report_ help to free, not only the Western world, but the entire
literate world from the chains of an oppressive illusion--the lie of the
Hitler gas chambers.


  The author would like to express special thanks to a retired Standard Oil
research chemist who wishes to remain anonymous, and to Dr. William
Lindsey.  Their knowledge and expertise were very helpful.  Any mistakes or
errors in this article are, of course, the sole responsibility of the

1. _The Leuchter Report: The First Forensic Examination of Auschwitz_
   (London: Focal Point, 1989).  With foreword by David Irving, and
   introduction by Robert Faurisson.  Page 10.  Hereafter, this work will
   be cited as _The Leuchter Report_.

2. Shelly Shapiro, editor, _Truth Prevails: Demolishing Holocaust Denial:
   The End of "The Leuchter Report"_ (New York: Beate Klarsfeld Foundation
   and Holocaust Survivors & Friends, 1990).  Distributed by: Holocaust
   Survivors & Friends in Pursuit of Justice, 800 New Loudon Rd., #400,
   Latham, NY 12110.  Pressac's two articles are "The Deficiencies and
   Inconsistencies of 'The Leuchter Report'," (pp. 31-60), and "Additional
   Notes: Leuchter's Videotape: Witness to a Fraud" (pp. 61-73).
   Hereafter, all page numbers cited in the main text of this article refer
   to _Truth Prevails_.  For a good review of Pressac's contribution to
   this book, see the May-June 1991 issue of _Remarks_, available for $3
   postpaid from Jack Wikoff, P.O. Box 234, Aurora, N.Y., 13026.

3. Robert C. Weast, ed., _Handbook of Chemistry and Physics: A Ready-
   Reference Book of Chemical and Physical Data_, 57th edition. (Cleveland:
   CRC Press, 1976), p. B-144.  Hereafter, this book will be cited as
   _Handbook of Chemistry and Physics_.

4. Institute of Forensic Research (Krakow, Poland), "An Official Polish
   Report on the Auschwitz 'Gas Chambers,'" _The Journal of Historical
   Review_, Summer 1991 (Vol. 11, No. 2), pp. 207-216.

5. "Sodium Cyanide: Properties, Uses, Storage and Handling," p. 7.  This Du
   Pont company information sheet is reprinted in facsimile in _The
   Leuchter Report_ (London: 1989), pp. 33-38.  See p. 37.

6. Leuchter letter to Alpha Analytical of March 9, 1988.  Reprinted in
   facsimile as an appendix in _The Leuchter Report_ (London), p. 31.

7. Fred Leuchter, "The Leuchter Report: The How and the Why," _The Journal
   of Historical Review_, Summer 1989 (Vol. 9, No. 2), p. 137.

8. _The Leuchter Report_ (London), p. 15.

9. Leuchter letter of March 9, 1988 to Alpha Analytical.  Reprinted as an
   appendix in _The Leuchter Report_, p. 31.

10. The term "cyanate content" is a mistake.  Leuchter wanted to know the
    CYANIDE content, not CYANATE content.  The two are different.

11. Institute of Forensic Research (Krakow, Poland), "An Official Polish
    Report on the Auschwitz 'Gas Chambers,'" _The Journal of Historical
    Review_, Summer 1991 (Vol. 11, No. 2), pp. 212-213.

12. See the videotape of Leuchter's lecture in the videotape recording,
    "Highlights of the 9th IHR conference" (Feb. 1989).  Available from the
    Institute for Historical Review, Videotape V-048.

13. Videotape "Fred Leuchter in Poland" (VT-003).  Available from David
    Clark, P.O. Box 726, Decatur, Ala., 35602.  This videotape, produced
    under the name of Samisdat (Toronto), does not show the entire visit.

14. See David Irving's foreword to the London (Focal Point) edition (1989)
    of _The Leuchter Report_, p. 6.

15. See footnote 11.

16. F. Leuchter, _The Leuchter Report_, p. 21.  See also: Robert Lenski,
    _The Holocaust on Trial: The Case of Ernst Zundel_ (Decatur, Ala.:
    Reporter Press, 1990), p. 394.  Hereafter, this book is cited as _The
    Holocaust on Trial_.

17. _The Leuchter Report_, p. 15.

18. Institute of Forensic Research (Krakow, Poland), "An Official Polish
    Report on the Auschwitz 'Gas Chambers'," _The Journal of Historical
    Review_, Summer 1991, pp. 213-214.

19. Jean-Claude Pressac, _Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas
    Chambers_ (New York: Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, 1989), p. 59.
    Hereafter cited as: Pressac, _Auschwitz_ (1989).

20. _The Leuchter Report_, pp. 21-22.

21. Robert Lenski, _The Holocaust on Trial: The Case of Ernst Zundel_
    (1990), pp. 395-396.

22. Linus Pauling, _General Chemistry_ (New York: Dover Publications,
    1988), p. 706.

23. _Handbook of Chemistry and Physics_, 57th ed., p. B-120.

24. See footnote 11.

25. Fred Leuchter, "The Leuchter Report: The How and Why," _The Journal of
    Historical Review_, Summer 1989 (Vol. 9, No. 2), pp. 138-139.

26. _Handbook of Chemistry and Physics_, 57th ed., p. B-144.

27. The scientific name of Prussian blue is ferric ferrocyanide.  The
    elemental potassium which Pressac says is part of the compound is
    actually an impurity.  See: _Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology_, 3rd
    ed., Vol. 13, p. 769.

28. See the compiled data from Alpha Analytical Laboratories given as an
    appendix to _The Leuchter Report_, p. 21.  See also Dr. Roth's
    statements in: R. Lenski, _The Holocaust on Trial_, p. 394.

29. R. Lenski, _The Holocaust on Trial_, p. 395.

30. "Zyklon B for Pest Control," Degesch company booklet, p. 5. This entire
    booklet is reprinted in facsimile as an appendix in _The Leuchter
    Report_ (London, 1989), pp. 49-62.  See p. 51.

31. J.-C. Pressac, _Auschwitz_ (1989), pp. 208, 215, 284-285.  Leuchter
    also observed that the "gas chambers" were cool and damp.  See _The
    Leuchter Report_, pp. 13, 16, 17.  See also R. Lenski, _The Holocaust
    on Trial_, p. 375.  Filip Muller, an alleged "operator of the gas
    chamber," claimed: "Normally the concrete floors in the gas chamber as
    well as in the changing room were damp."  See: F. Muller, _Eyewitness
    Auschwitz: Three Years in the Gas Chambers_ (New York: Stein and Day,
    1979), pp. 82-83.

32. "Hydrogen Cyanide: Storage and Handling," Du Pont company information
    sheet (1983), p. 2.  This sheet is reprinted as an appendix in _The
    Leuchter Report_, (London), pp. 39-44.  See p. 41.

33. Linus Pauling, _General Chemistry_ (1988), p. 690.

34. P.W. Atkins, _General Chemistry_ (New York: Scientific American, 1989),
    p. 780.

35. Linus Pauling, _General Chemistry_ (1988), p. 691.

36. L. Pauling, _General Chemistry_ (1988), p. 692.

37. James Brady, _General Chemistry: Principles and Structure_, 5th ed.
    (New York: John Wily, 1990), p. 704.  Dr. Brady also notes: "It is
    interesting that exactly the same compound is formed if a solution
    containing Fe^2+ [iron (II) ion] is added to a solution containing
    Fe(CN)6^3- ion [ferricyanide ion]."  _The Encyclopedia of Chemical
    Technology_, 3rd ed., Vol. 13, p. 769, provides clarification.  It
    lists the following reactions.

    excess Fe^3+ + K2[Fe(CN)6] --> insoluble Prussian blue

    excess Fe^2+ + K3[Fe(CN)6] --> insoluble Turnbull's blue

    They point out that insoluble Prussian blue and insoluble Turnbull's
    blue are the same substances.  See also James E. Huheey, 3rd ed.,
    _Inorganic Chemistry: Principles of Structure and Reactivity_ (New
    York: Harper and Row, 1983), p. 522.  The following are the chemical
    equations used to describe the formation of ferric ferrocyanide, or
    Prussian blue.

    1) Fe^2+           + 6CN-      --->     [Fe(CN)6]^4-
    Ferrous ion,       cyanide ion          ferrocyanide ion
    iron (II) ion

    2) 3 [Fe(CN)6]^4-  + 4Fe^3+    --->     Fe4[Fe(CN)6]3
    ferrocyanide       ferric ion           Prussian blue

    Sources: Linus Pauling, _General Chemistry_ (1988), pp. 673, 691-692;
    P.W. Atkins, _General Chemistry_ (1989), p. 780; James E. Brady,
    _General Chemistry_ (1990), p. 704; James E. Huheey, 3rd ed.,
    _Inorganic Chemistry: Principles of Structure and Reactivity_ (New
    York: Harper and Row, 1983), pp. 521-522; William Nebergall, Frederic
    Schmidt, Henry Holtzclaw, _College Chemistry with Qualitative
    Analysis_, 5th ed., (Lexington, Mass: D.C. Heath, 1976), p. 909;
    William Brown, Elizabeth Rogers, _General, Organic, and Biochemistry_,
    3rd ed., (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1987), pp. 561A-561B.

38. See footnote 30.

39. See footnotes 33, 34 and 35.

40. See footnote 36 and 37.

41. R. Lenski, _The Holocaust on Trial_, p. 396.

42. Pressac's theory is further undermined by the observation of Degesch
    company chemists: "Hydrocyanic acid dissolves very readily in water.
    Compared with liquid hydrocyanic acid, the gas is chemically very
    indifferent, and even in highly concentrated form under prolonged
    exposure it does not show a tendency to react with other substances."
    From: "Zyklon for pest control" Degesch company booklet, p. 5.
    Published in facsimile as appendix to _The Leuchter Report_ (London),
    p. 51.  This statement suggests prolonged exposure of the gas with the
    walls is not what would cause the formation of large emounts of
    Prussian blue.  The gas becomes reactive when it dissolves in water or
    condenses to liquid.

43. Information provided by the Dupont and Degesch companies, published as
    appendices in _The Leuchter Report_ (London, 1989), pp. 41, 51.;
    _Handbook of Chemistry and Physics_, pp. B-117, F-135.

44. J.-C. Pressac, _Auschwitz_ (1989), pp. 131-132, 183, 223, 224, 264,
    284-285, 289, 375, 379, 392; Fred Leuchter, _The Leuchter Report_, pp.
    13, 16, 17; Robert Lenski, _The Holocaust on Trial_, pp. 367, 375, 377.

45. Note also: J.-C. Pressac, _Auschwitz_ (1989), pp. 16, 183, 223, 224,
    284-285, 289, 355-376, 384-386, 489.

46. F. Leuchter, _The Leuchter Report_, pp. 13, 16, 17.  Nowhere in
    _Auschwitz_ (1989) does Pressac show the "gas chambers" had any
    internal heating devices to prevent condensation.

47. Nuremberg document NI-9912.  Published in English translation as an
    appendix to _The Leuchter Report_, (London), pp. 23-25, and in J.-C.
    Pressac, _Auschwitz_ (1989), pp. 18-20.  Original German-language text
    is published in: Udo Walendy, ed., _Auschwitz im IG-Farben Prozess_
    (Vlotho: Germany, 1981), pp. 66-72.
    Dr. Robert Faurisson was the first person to publish document NI-9912,
    and to stress the importance of both NI-9912 and NI-9098.  Writing in
    the Paris daily, _Le Monde_ (Jan. 16, 1979, p. 13), he stated: "The
    industrial documents [NI-9098 and NI-9912] establish that Zyklon B WAS
    NOT among those gasses which were described as 'ventilatable'; on the
    contrary, its manufacturers were obliged to admit that it was
    'difficult to ventilate since it adheres to surfaces'."  These two
    documents are referred to by Dr. Faurisson in his interview/essay,
    published in _The Journal of Historical Review_, Winter 1981, pp. 324,
    356-357.  See also Faurisson's essay in _The Journal of Historical
    Review_, Spring 1991, p. 39.

48. Lenski, _The Holocaust on Trial_, p. 377.

49. L. Pauling, _General Chemistry_, p. 288.  HCN is soluble in water in
    all proportions.  See _Handbook of Chemistry and Physics_, 57th ed., p.

50. See footnote 31.

51. That the humidity in the air would "collect" the HCN and make it react
    with the iron in the walls is suggested by this statement of Degesch
    chemists: "In case of high relative humidity of air, it may happen that
    blank-polished surfaces of metal get tarnished, particularly in case of
    somewhat higher concentration of gas."  See _The Leuchter Report_
    (London), p. 51.

52. "Zyklon For Pest Control," Degesch company booklet, p. 25.  Reprinted
    as appendix in _The Leuchter Report_ (London), p. 61.

53. _The Leuchter Report_, p. 13.

54. J.-C. Pressac, _Auschwitz_ (1989), p. 59.

55. J.-C. Pressac, _Auschwitz_ (1989), p. 53.

56. R. Lenski, _The Holocaust on Trial_, p. 366.

57. J.-C. Pressac, _Auschwitz_ (1989), pp. 131, 159.

58. J.-C. Pressac, _Auschwitz_ (1989), p. 131; R. Lenski, _The Holocaust on
    Trial_, p. 375.  Sample 28 was taken from the washroom.  It was never a
    part of the presumed gas chamber.  To confirm this, compare Leuchter's
    diagram of Krema I (p. 28 of _The Leuchter Report_) with Pressac's
    diagram of the same in _Auschwitz_, p. 159.

59. J.-C. Pressac, _Auschwitz_ (1989), p. 131.

60. Pressac evidently does not think the washroom or morgue/"gas chamber"
    was ever deloused with Zyklon B.  However, sample 28 (from the
    washroom) contains a miniscule amount of cyanide residue.  What
    accounts for this?  Since Pressac admits the washroom was never used as
    a "gas chamber," the presence of cyanide in this specimen can only be
    due to the fact that it was treated at least once with Zyklon B during
    delousing/disinfestation.  See footnote 58.  Pressac himself suggests
    that virtually every building in Auschwitz-Birkenau was deloused with
    Zyklon-B at one time or another.  See: J.-C. Pressac, _Auschwitz_
    (1989), pp. 188, 201.

61. J.-C. Pressac, _Auschwitz_ (1989), p. 132.

62. J.-C. Pressac, _Auschwitz_ (1989), pp. 131-132.

63. J.-C. Pressac, _Auschwitz_ (1989), p. 132.

64. 12 g/m^3 (grams per cubic meter) is the concentration of the HCN
    allegedly used in a homicidal gassing.  5g/m^3 was the concentration
    used in a disinfestation.  See J.-C. Pressac, _Auschwitz_ (1989), p.

65. R. Lenksi, _The Holocaust on Trial_, p. 375.  Pressac claims that one
    or two extractor fans may have been installed in the ceiling.  Even if
    this were true, much HCN would have still remained behind after the
    ventilation phase of an alleged gassing.  See J.-C. Pressac,
    _Auschwitz_, (1989), p. 132.

66. Enrique Aynat, "Neither Trace Nor Proof," _The Journal of Historical
    Review_, Summer 1991 (Vol. 11, No. 2), pp. 182-183.

67. J.-C. Pressac, _Auschwitz_, pp. 183, 264.

68. _The Leuchter Report_, pp. 21-22.

69. Introduction by R. Faurisson to _The Leuchter Report_ (London), p. 7.

70. "Typhus," by Herbert Kondo, in: _Grolier Universal Encyclopedia_, 1966

71. See footnote 47.

72. _The Leuchter Report_, p. 12.

73. "Hydrogen Cyanide: Storage and Handling," Du Pont company information
    sheet, pp. 1, 8.  This sheet is reprinted as an appendix in _The
    Leuchter Report_ (London), pp. 39-44.  See pp. 40, 44.

74. Kirk, R.E. and Othmer, D.F., _Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology_,
    Third Edition, 7, p. 316.

75. _The Leuchter Report_, pp. 16, 17.

76. R. Lenski, _The Holocaust on Trial_, p. 367.

77. See footnote 47.  Specifically, see _The Leuchter Report_ (London), p.

78. "An Official Polish Report on the Auschwitz 'Gas Chambers'," _The
    Journal of Historical Review_, Summer 1991 (Vol. 11, No. 2), p. 211.

79. R. Lenski, _The Holocaust on Trial_, pp. 395-397.

80. J.-C. Pressac, _Auschwitz_ (1989), p. 59.

81. Audiotape, "Hoffman Interviews Provan," Summer 1991.  Available from
    Wiswell Ruffin House, P.O. Box 236, Dresden, NY 14441.

[end of article]

[Reprinted by permission from _The Journal of Historical Review_, P.O. Box
1306, Torrance, CA 90505, USA.  Subscription rate: $40 per year, domestic.
$50 per year, foreign.]

     This article was manually transcribed by the System Operator of the
"Banished CPU" computer bulletin board system, which is located in Portland,
Oregon, U.S.A.

                    Banished CPU supports Freedom of Speech!
         |                                                           |
         |  For 300-9600 bps (3 lines w/V.32) call:  (503) 232-5783  |
         |  For 14400 bps (2 lines w/V.32bis) call:  (503) 232-6566  |

                        Sysop: Maynard "the Main Nerd"

[end of file]
Article 27605 of alt.activism:
Xref: oneb soc.history:16613 alt.censorship:13085 alt.activism:27605 alt.revisionism:3906 alt.discrimination:8964 alt.conspiracy:19769 alt.politics.correct:5293 alt.journalism.criticism:722 talk.politics.misc:94039 talk.politics.mideast:34442
Path: oneb!!destroyer!gatech!!!uunet!!!not-for-mail
From: (Dan Gannon)
Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.censorship,alt.activism,alt.revisionism,alt.discrimination,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.correct,alt.journalism.criticism,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast
Subject: "Is There Life After Persecution?", by Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.
Date: 20 Sep 1993 13:14:33 -0700
Organization: TECHbooks - Public Access
Lines: 639
Message-ID: <27l2v9$>
Summary: Posted to help answer questions recently asked about this topic.

From _The Journal of Historical Review_, Vol. 12, Number 4 (Winter 1992-93):

                    Is There Life After Persecution?

                 The Botched Execution of Fred Leuchter

        (Presented at the Eleventh IHR Conference, October 1992)

                         FRED A. LEUCHTER, Jr.

Many of you, I am sure, know who I am, where I've been, and what I've done.
Today I'm here to tell you what has happened to me since I addressed the
Tenth International Revisionist Conference in Washington, DC, in October

  One of my jobs as an engineer of execution technology has been to "post
mortem" executions from a technical standpoint, that is, to determine if
anything went wrong and, if so, to determine just how the execution was
botched.  This normally entails reviewing eyewitness accounts of how the
executees were tortured, mutilated, or otherwise dehumanized in society's

  I will do that here today, except that, in this case, it is myself that I
post mortem--and the cadaver isn't dead!  Much to the dismay of my
executioners, the execution was so badly botched that I am able to stand
here before you to speak the truth, and to tell the world that it is not
myself, but the Holocaust story that is dead.  I repeat for the record: I
was condemned for maintaining that there were no execution gas chambers as
Auschwitz, Birkenau, Majdanek, Dachau, Mauthausen, or Hartheim Castle.
There's no proof for the charge, only innuendo, lies, and half-truths.
Robert Faurisson, Ernst Zundel and others said this first.  They, too, live
as victims of botched executions, but nevertheless free to speak the truth
in a strong and growing voice that repeats:  No gas chambers, no gas
chambers, no damn gas chambers!

  This address, then, is not a post mortem ON my cadaver but rather a post
mortem BY my cadaver.

  As you know, I was sent to Poland in 1988 by and for Mr. Ernst Zundel to
investigate the alleged execution gas chamber facilities at the three
concentration camps of Auschwitz, Birkenau, and Majdanek.  I was chosen for
this task from a field of experts numbering one, and recommended by those
states in the USA where lethal gas chambers are used to execute convicted
criminals.  My forensic analysis and subsequent report prove beyond any
shadow of a doubt that there were no gas execution facilities operated by
the Nazis at these sites.  I also entered these findings (which are also
detailed in my published report) into the court record in sworn testimony
in Toronto as a court-qualified expert.

  Because I was somewhat naive at the time, I was not aware that by so
testifying I was offending the organized world Jewish community.  By
providing final, definitive proof that there were no execution gas chambers
utilized for genocidal purposes by the Germans at these wartime camps, I
established the simple fact that the Holocaust story is not true.  What I
did not know was that anyone expressing such beliefs is guilty of a capital
crime: that of thinking and telling the unspeakable truth about the
greatest lie of the age.

  I would have to pay for this crime.  While I innocently told the truth in
Toronto, plans were made, and subsequently implemented, for a major effort
to destroy me.  If I could be destroyed and discredited--so the reasoning
went--no one would accept my professional findings, no matter how truthful.


  Since April 1988, when I testified in the second Zundel trial in Toronto
about my inspection of the alleged gas chambers in Poland, my life has been
turned upside down.

  I have been vilified both privately and publicly in all forms of the
media.  My clients have been cajoled and threatened into not dealing with
me.  High-level law enforcement officials, acting for personal reasons,
have lied about me and have prevented clients from dealing with me.  My
person and reputation have been defiled by lies and innuendo.  My family
and I have been repeatedly threatened.

  Behind this campaign to punish me and suppress the truth about the gas
chambers, have been several Jewish organizations, which have publicly vowed
to silence me by destroying my ability to make a living.

  At the forefront of this effort has been Beate Klarsfeld of the
Paris-based Klarsfeld Foundation.  In the United States, the campaign has
been orchestrated through the US-based "Holocuast Survivors and Friends in
Pursuit of Justice."  Associated with these two organizations have been the
Anti-Defamation League of the B'nai B'rith and the Jewish Defense League.

[Photograph captioned, "Fred A. Leuchter, Jr."]

  At Klarsfeld's initiative, these groups first carried out an extensive
one year investigation.  After they were unable to turn up any impropriety
or wrong-doing on my part, they began to threaten prison wardens with
political consequences if they dealt with me.  This first came to light
when the ABC television news program, "Prime Time," decided to do a network
television piece on myself and my work.  This involved filming at various
prisons.  Prison wardens advised the "Prime Time" personnel of the threats
and problems that resulted from my presence at the prisons for the filming.
ABC news was told not to air the program.  It refused to succumb to the
pressure, and consequently suffered vilification by the organizations

  To sum up here, this campaign has consisted of the following:

  1. Threats against prison officials who dealt with me.

  2. False and slanderous vilification through private channels, as well as
  publicly in newspapers and magazines.

  3. Legislation to prevent me from working at my profession.

  4. Criminal prosecution for working at my profession.

  5. Lies by public officials spread both officially and privately.

  6. Restriction of my personal freedom and right to travel by effecting my
  illegal arrest and imprisonment in England, from where I was finally

  7. Interference with my right as an American citizen to help and
  protection from the US State Department, which refused to assist me
  during my illegal imprisonment in England.

  As a result of this campaign, my livelihood has been destroyed, and my
career has been ruined.  All this for telling the truth under oath.

  The organizations cited above also interfered with the execution in
Illinois of a certain Mr. Walker by threatening to pass legislation to
prevent that state from allowing me to complete an ongoing contract.  As a
result, Director McGinnis ultimately yielded to this pressure and proceeded
with the execution using equipment known to be defective.  Under pressure
from these groups, and through the efforts of Alabama Deputy Attorney
General, Ed Carnes, the State of Alabama did not purchase a new electric
chair.  Carnes wrote a lying memorandum to all Departments of Corrections
around the United States claiming that I was dangerous and held unorthodox
views on execution.  He caused the State to breach its contract.  Carnes
actually lied to me to get me to testify that a prior execution was humane.

  As a direct result of interference by these groups, at least one man was
tortured to death in Virginia.  Purchasing agents and wardens have been
mendaciously told that my equipment failed during an execution, which is
not true.  It has never failed.  Delaware Deputy Attorney General Silverman
breached my contract, which was already underway, because I wrote the
Zundel trial _Leuchter Report_.  This contract was for maintenance on their
lethal injection machine and gallows, previously fabricated by me, and for
training of their execution personnel.  Delaware has refused to pay me for
the work I completed, and has instructed me to keep the control module of
their lethal injection machine.  However, the protocol I wrote for
execution for hanging was submitted by them and approved by the court
system.  In Massachusetts, legislation specifically designed to put me out
of business has been filed for four years running.

  Finally, and also at the insistence of these same Jewish groups, a
spurious criminal complaint was filed against me in the Massachusetts court
system with the intent of destroying my reputation by putting me in prison
for three months.

  I was charged with practicing as an engineer without a license.  In point
of fact, a license is not required in Massachusetts, or any other state,
unless the engineer is involved in construction of buildings, and is
certifying compliance with specifications.  There is also a statutory
exemption for engineers who do not deal with the general public.

  As confirmation of the spurious nature of this charge, it should be
pointed out there are more than fifty thousand practicing engineers in
Massachusetts, of whom only five thousand are licensed.  Although the
state's licensing law has been in effect since 1940, there has been no
record of any prosecution for this offense.

  The charge was improperly brought.  Nevertheless, if it had been
successful, and I had been convicted, I would have been imprisoned for
three months.

   The Massachusetts state Engineering Board, under pressure from Klarsfeld
and her "Holocaust Survivors and Friends in Pursuit of Justice," filed this
criminal complaint in Middlesex County.  The name of the complainant was
denied me, and was not made available until the matter was brought before
the court.  Before the complaint was issued, and several times thereafter,
I was given the chance to recant in return for non-issuance or dismissal of
the complaint.  I also would have been obliged to give up my profession, in
order to discredit my _Report_.  I refused, and responded to the Board's
threat with a denial that any law had been violated.  The original clerk
magistrate who issued the complaint apologized for bowing to Jewish
pressure in prosecuting me under a statute that was being mis-applied.  A
representative of the ADL tried to force her testimony on the hearing, but
was denied access because she had no evidence to offer that was pertinent
to the matter.  The District Court judge, in an excellent imitation of
Pontius Pilate, summarily dismissed our motions for dismissal, allowed my
court-appointed attorney to withdraw, and instructed Kirk Lyons, Director
of the Cause Foundation and my out-of-state attorney, to re-file our
motions for dismissal, because they all had merit.  After it became clear
that there would be no justice for us in the Malden District Court, we
moved the case to Superior Court for a jury trial.

  With this charge hanging over my head, it was impossible for me to
consult, supply equipment, or even act as an expert witness in American
courts, as I had often done.

  The district attorney's office, under heavy pressure from various Jewish
organizations, selected its best prosecuting attorney to handle my case.
In the belief that he would be the person most likely to bring about a
conviction, he was pulled from a murder trial.  In June, just prior to the
trial, our motions for dismissal were heard.  The judge, also under heavy
pressure from Jewish groups, told the district attorney that this case was
not properly a criminal matter, and strongly suggested that the case be
resolved short of a trial.  With the ever-present possibility of conviction
and jail (faced by most political prisoners) we negotiated a settlement.

  A very special consent agreement was signed [on June 11, 1991] that made
legal history in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  The agreement was not
a promise by the defendant to the court, as is normally the case, but an
agreement between the State Engineering Board and myself.  The board which,
on two previous occasions, had refused to accept my application for
registration because they do not register people who practice my
discipline, was required to become a party to the agreement.  [For more on
this agreement, see the _IHR Newsletter_, July-August 1991, p. 3.]

  The consent agreement requires the board to accept my application and
process it with "due diligence."  Until the application is approved, or
until two years are up, I have agreed not to use the title "engineer" or
issue an engineering opinion in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  This
is, in effect, a temporary gag order imposed to satisfy the interested
Jewish groups.

  By removing the case from consideration by criminal courts, the
possibility of my imprisonment has been eliminated.  If the Engineering
Board fails to process and issue a license to me within a reasonable
period, and in due course, the matter should then move to the civil courts.
Attorney Lyons is presently preparing the necessary application.  However,
a new problem has arisen.  All applications must be accompanied by the
recommendations of three state-licensed engineers, but none is willing to
risk the wrath of the Jews in my behalf.

  The DE FACTO gag order, imposed by the settlement, applies only within
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and I am free to pursue my profession
anywhere else.

  Most of the execution equipment inthe United States is either worn out,
obsolete, or improperly fabricated, and is in need of repair or
replacement.  I am the only person who does this work, and states are being
denied the right to deal with me.  Although wardens and commissioners are
afraid to even speak with me, they often do so anyway through
intermediaries.  One state has a leaking gas chamber, but will use it,
endangering the lives of guards and witnesses, rather than risk discovery
in dealing with me.  How many more inmates will be tortured, or lives lost,
through the callous interference of these Jewish groups?

  Owing to the successful conspiracy of these Jewish groups, I am
completely out of business, unable to find work to feed my family.  In
spite of everything, though, I am still here, and I am still telling the
truth.  Furthermore, I intend to CONTINUE to tell the truth.  If the
organized Jewish community wants to stop me, it will have to try much

  Moreover, attempts to discredit the _Leuchter Report_ have failed, most
notably with Pressac's inept analysis.  Since the release of the _Leuchter
Report_ [in 1988], independent evidence has shown that the six million
death figure has been grossly exaggerated, and an investigation by the
Polish state forensic institute [among others] has corroborated that no gas
was utilized in the alleged execution chambers at Auschwitz.


  In the spring of 1991, David Irving asked me if I would consider a
speaking engagement in England later that year.  I said that I would, and I
was advised in mid-summer that this would take place during the second week
of November.

  Irving apparently announced the speech sometime later.  This apparently
enraged Jewish groups in London which protested to UK Home Secretary Mr.
Kenneth Baker in an effort to prevent me from traveling to London.  This is
a clear infringement of the rights of British people to hear me speak.
This certainly also curtails my right to travel to England as any other
American citizen.

  As a result of pressure by these Jewish groups, Mr. Baker apparently
promised to take action.  The _Jewish Chronicle_, a London weekly paper,
reported in its issue of October 4, 1991, that Home Secretary Baker had
banned my travel to the United Kingdom.  This was the only mention of the
ban in the British media, and was not a particularly reliable source.

  A week or so later, my father, Fred A. Leuchter, Sr., received a letter,
ostensibly from the Immigration and Naturalization Department of Her
Majesty's government, informing him that, by direction of the Home
Secretary, he was not permitted to travel to the United Kingdom.  My father
communicated this letter to me.

  Because my father had no such travel plans, my first assumption was that
this letter was meant for me.  However, a closer reading of it suggested
that it might be a fraud.  The signatory, Mr. "G.P.J. Catt," had no title,
and part of the date was written by hand.  Certainly, the Home Secretary
and Her Majesty's Immigration Office would not be so sloppy and
unbusinesslike as to send off an amateurishly prepared letter to the wrong
person.  My address is publicly known, and is easy to ascertain.

  I turned the questionable document over to my attorney, Kirk Lyons, to
authenticate.  He, in turn, formally protested the letter to the UK
Consolates in both Houston and Boston.  In each case, the Consulate advised
him that his protest was unfounded because htere was no ban on travel to
the UK by me (or my father, for that matter).  He was informed that the
letter must be fraudulent, and that it did not prohibit my travel to
Britain in any way.  Lyons was also informed that all Home Office documents
must contain a reference number, which this did not.  Based on all this, I
confirmed my travel plans to London.

  Because I had also arranged to visit Germany, I combined that trip with
my visit to London.  Accordingly, my wife Carol and I left for Germany on
November 2, 1991.  We planned to drive to Calais and take the ferry to
Dover from there on or about November 11, 1991.  We also planned to return
to Germany on or about November 15, immediately following my scheduled
speech in London.  Because our visit in Germany would be very hectic, we
intended to arrive in England several days prior to my speech, giving us a
few days to relax and see some of that country.

  As planned, we arrived in Dover on the ferry from Calais late on November
11, and spent the night in Dover.  The next morning we drove to London,
where we met with Irving.  We then left to see the country, leisurely
driving south to Salisbury to see Stonehenge.  We returned to London by way
of Wimbledon on November 15.

  On Friday evening, November 15, we arrived at the Town Hall in Chelsea
where I was to give my speech.  After Irving opened the program, Dr. Robert
Faurisson spoke.  I was then called to the podium, and began my
presentation.  At approximately 9:15 p.m., some five minutes into my
speech, I was interrupted by Irving, who told me that a "gentleman" wished
to speak to me in the anteroom to the stage.  I did not know it then, but I
would remain in illegal police custody, without interruption, until I was
expelled from England, and would not see my host, Dr. Faurisson, or the
audience again.

  In the anteroom I was greeted by Chief Inspector Philip Selwood and three
metro police officers.  I was asked to identify myself, which I did by
presenting my passport (which Selwood kept) and my driver's license (which
he returned).  I was told that two male technicians with the Thames
television news team had quietly spoken with him outside, and had insisted
(as citizens) that I be arrested as an illegal alien because I had sneaked
into the country contrary to a ban by the Home Secretary.  I responded by
pointing out that my passport was properly stamped, and that, as the two
British Consulates in the United States had indicated, there was no such

  I further informed Selwood that if it was indeed determined that I was in
the country illegally, I would leave immediately.  I told him that I had no
wish to stay where I was not wanted, and that I did not want to violate the
law.  Selwood told me that Thames television was trying to make news
instead of reporting it, and that my cooperation would be very much
appreciated.  He asked me to accompany him to the Chelsea police station,
without talking to the media, whilst he made an investigation.  If I
refused, I would be arrested on suspicion of illegal entry.  I agreed.
After he spirited me out of the building and into an unmarked van, away we
went.  Selwood was also afraid of violent Jews, who might attempt to break
up the speech, and that was the reason for the presence of himself and his
large contingent of men.  I asked him to bring my wife, who was at the back
of the hall.  He stopped the van, ordered his men to take me to the
station, and personally returned to collect my wife.  I arrived at the
station, and he soon followed with Carol.  We were placed in a visitors'

  Selwood advised me that I was not under arrest, and that if the Home
Office determined that I was in the country illegally I would be permitted
to leave.  I was told that I was free to call the American consul, if I
wished.  I did not.

  At this point I asked to leave.  I was informed that I would have to wait
for my status to be determined, because it would be necessary to escort me
out of the country if I was there illegally.  Selwood further told me that
persons who were in the country illegally must be permitted to leave, if
they so wished, providing they had the means.  (In fact, we had ferry
tickets.)  Chief Inspector Selwood and the other police personnel were
cordial and accomodating, providing us with a toilet and refreshment.  We
advised the police that Carol was diabetic.  After first introducing us to
his second-in-command, and leaving instructions as to our treatment,
Selwood left before midnight.

  At approximately 12:05 a.m., early Saturday morning, November 16, the
Deputy Chief Inspector received a call, apparently from the Home Office.
We could not hear very much, but we did hear him say that we should leave
by way of Dover.  A few minutes later, shortly before 12:15 a.m., he again
received a call, to which he replied "Yes sir."  He then came to speak to
me.  "I'm sorry," he said.  "I have been ordered to arrest you."  He
informed me of my rights, and told me that I could talk with the US Consul,
or the Deputy Solicitor (Public Defender), or both.  When I asked if it had
been determined that I was in the country illegally, he said that he did
not know for sure.  I then asked to leave, and he told me that this was not
possible.  At this point I asked to speak with the US Consul, and was told
that this would be arranged.  I was then searched, booked, and locked in a
detention room with someone else, also under arrest.

  About an hour later I was removed from the detention room, and told that
the American Consulate was on the telephone.  I spoke with Under Consul
Christopher Randall who informed me that the Consular Corps was not there
to help US citizens.  He totally refused to help.  I asked to talk with the
Duty Solicitor, and was told he would be called.  I was taken to a cell
(instead of a detention room) for lock-up.  When I asked why I was being
moved to a cell, I was told that the other occupant of the detention room
was there for assault, and that I was being moved for my own protection.

  I now found myself in an isolation cell with one other occupant who
turned out to be there for theft.  Because I make execution equipment (and
criminals know this), I should never have been put in a cell with others.
To do so might put my life in danger.

  Moreover, the cell was freezing, and I had no coat.  The other inmate had
a blanket and mattress.  In an effort to keep warm, I wrapped my arms
around myself, but this didn't work.  I was unable to sleep.

  Some time later I was let out to accept a phone call from the Duty
solicitor, who told me he was unable to help because I had not committed a
crime.  He told me that I should call my Consul, who ought to be able to
help.  When I told him that my consul had refused to help, he urged me to
call back and insist, because he was obliged by law to help.  I was
returned to my cell.

  At approximately 3:00 a.m., I was removed from my cell for interrogation
by two Immigration Department personnel.  I was taken to an interrogation
room with recording equipment, and advised that my statement would be
taped.  I was also advised that I did not have to make a statement if I
chose not to.  I agreed to speak with them, but they first had to give me
time to warm up so that my teeth would stop chattering and I would be able
to speak normally.  I gave them the same information that I had given hours
earlier to Chief Inspector Selwood.  I affirmed that I was a legal entrant,
and once again requested permission to leave.  I was refused.  I was told
that I should call the American Consul and/or the Duty Solicitor.  I was
also informed that charges might be brought.  At this point I was served
with Immigration form IS 151-A.  I was also told that I would not be
allowed to leave by way of Dover, but would instead be sent out through
Heathrow airport (where they were from), and that my wife and our rental
car would have to stay behind.

  I asked about my wife, concerned that she had not eaten in over twelve
hours, which could be a problem because of her diabetes.  I was told that
they would make a decision later about my legal status, and that in the
meantime I would have to remain in the cold cell.  I asked to be allowed to
warm up, and to see my wife.  They agreed to this.  Carol had also asked to
see me.

  I met with Carol.  After talking with her, I once again asked to talk
with my Consul.  The Consulate official again gave me a hard time, but
after I told him of my discussion with the Duty Solicitor he said he would
at least inquire into the matter.  The guard rushed me to complete my phone
conversation.  Carol subsequently found out that the Under Consul had
inquired late that morning.  Carol had been removed while I was on the
telephone, and I was rushed back to my cell.  I froze again, but on 4:30
a.m. I was given a blanket.

  The day shift personnel who arrived at about seven o'clock proved more
difficult to deal with.  At 7:00 a.m., the other inmates were awakened to
be taken to court.  They were given coffee; I was not.  My cellmate asked
the guard to give me some coffee, which he did.  By 7:45 a.m., all the
inmates were gone, and new inmates began to arrive.

  I repeatedly asked about my wife to make sure that she was well.  I
inquired at 7:00, 8:00, 9:00, 10:00, 11:00, 12:00, and 1:00 o'clock, but no
one would tell me how she was.  Later I found out that just one officer had
checked on her.  She likewise had been asking about me, and was told
nothing.  At noon I was given a breakfast that consisted of cold eggs,
sausage, and toast left over from hours earlier.  It was inedible.  It
certainly would have made my ulcer worse.  Carol had been given nothing to
eat, even though she had been required to stay there by the Immigration
officers who knew of her medical problem.

  At about 1:20 p.m., I was again taken from my cell, this time to see Mr.
Phillips of the Immigration Department.  He met with Carol and me together.
Phillips told us that it had been determined that I was in the country
illegally, because I had entered in violation of the ban by the Home
Secretary.  I was told that I would be held until I was deported.

  He acknowledged that he could not understand why I had been arrested and
imprisoned after I had asked on three occasions to leave.  Once again I
asked to leave, but Mr. Phillips told me that this was not not possible
because I had been formally arrested.  This should not have happened, he
said, but, because it did, I would not have to be deported.  Carol asked
how it was possible for me to be in the country illegally if I had entered
legally at Dover and had a valid passport stamp.  Phillips replied that I
was not actually in the country illegally, but that an official
determination had been made that I was, and that was the law.  I asked why
those immigration officials who had interviewed me had made this
determination, and Phillips responded that they had not.  He further said
that the "decision has been made very high up in the Home Office," higher
than he would ever reach in his career.  He added that I could legally be
held for up to five days after my arrest, even though I wanted (and should
have been allowed) to leave earlier.

  Phillips also told us that the Immigration Department had contacted
French immigration about my possible deportation to France, but that I had
been refused entry there.  I responded by commenting that this is not
surprising, because no country would want a deportee unless it is one of
its own citizens.  Phillips agreed.

  He said that his next step would be to ask Belgium, and, if I was refused
there, Germany.  He did not expect Belgium to accept, but if Germany did, I
would be sent on the Hamburg Ferry that ran only twice a week, the next
time being on Tuesday [three days hence].  If I were to go this way, I
would have to remain incarcerated until that time.

  However, I was asked, in view of my desire to leave, would I consider
going to the United States?  Phillips informed me that if I officially told
him that I wished to return to the United States, he could not stop me, and
would put me on a flight that very evening.  I then formally asked to be
returned to the United States, and Phillips said that he would begin making
the necessary arrangements.  We would have to leave the rental car in
England and make some arrangement for its return to Germany (other than by
our driving it).  Furthermore, we would have to forego our remaining
commitments in Germany because time would not permit our return.

  After taking our airline tickets, he contacted Lufthansa to reschedule
our flight.  The only available flight that day was at 3:30 p.m., which was
too soon for us to get to the airport.  He returned our tickets, and
promised to make arrangements at the UK government's expense.  He booked us
on a British Airways flight to New York (not Boston) that departed at 6:30
p.m.  We were escorted in two cars.  Phillips' car went first, and we
followed in another police car, under guard.  We stopped for our luggage at
our car which was parked behind Selfridge's [in London], at a parking
meter, and proceeded to the airport in rush-hour traffic.  If we did not
make it on time, they would have to return me to my cell.

  After a stop at the Immigration office to pick up the necessary forms, we
arrived at the airport, passed through security, and reached the gate just
as the plane was being loaded.  The police officer had left us at the
entrance to the terminal.  After returning my passport (which noted my
detention on form IS 151 A), Mr. Phillips watched us enplane.  The people
at the ticket counter had been told that I was being deported, as were the
gate attendants.

  We took our seats, flew to New York, and arrived at about 9:45 p.m.  We
had to purchase air tickets to Boston at our own expense.  After barely
making this flight, we arrived in Boston at approximately 11:45 p.m.,
exhausted and hungry.

  In summary, I was detained and held in custody for some twenty one and
three-quarters hours, fourteen of them in an unheated cell.  I was given a
breakfast at noon, and was given one cup of coffee only at my cellmate's
insistence.  I was given no water, and there was none in the cell.  My
ulcer did not fare well under these circumstances, particularly because of
my anxious concern for Carol.

  For her part, Carol fared even less well than I did.  After my arrest,
she was given no food or water, even though she was not free to leave, and
the police knew that she was a diabetic.  After my arrest, she was allowed
to see me only once.  By the time we left, we were both cold and ill.  The
conduct of both Chief Inspector Selwood and Mr. Phillips, as well as that
of the police personnel on the evening shift, was exemplary.  By contrast,
the conduct of the day shift personnel was poor and careless.

  During the time that I was being held, Dr. Robert Faurisson went to the
US Embassy in London to see if he could obtain help for me.  He was
informed that neither I, nor any other American, had been arrested that
evening.  That the US Embassy would lie about the illegal arrest and
imprisonment of an American citizen is inexcusable.  Faurisson also went to
the police station where I was being held.  He was told there I had been
arrested and was being held in a cell in the station, but that I was not
permitted any visitors.  The police later told Faurisson that I had been
deported on Saturday at 6:30 p.m.

  As shown by the statements of the two British consular officials in the
United States, and the fact that my name was not on any list and was
legally permitted to enter at Dover, it is clear that no order barring me
from entering the UK was ever officially given.

  It is likewise clear that the difficulty started only when the Thames
television people lied about me to Chief Inspector Selwood, apparently in
order to make a "better" news story.

  It is also clear that the Home Secretary (or someone acting for him)
illegally ordered my arrest, imprisonment and deportation, knowing full
well that I had entered the country legally and should have been left alone
or, if later determined to be there illegally, at least permitted to leave.
This plain violation of international law by the Home Secretary's Office
was undoubtedly done to please the complaining Jewish groups which bear the
ultimate responsibility.

  By failing to uphold one of the prime responsibilities of the Consular
Corps--that is, to protect the rights of Americans abroad--the United
States Embassy in London, and Under Consul Christopher Randall in
particular, clearly failed in their responsibility to me as an American
citizen, as well as their responsibility to the nation as a whole.  It is a
shameful disgrace that the British duty solicitor and UK Immigration
Officer Phillips cared more for my rights than my own embassy.

  A formal protest to the State Department, and requests for help from our
Senators and Representatives, have resulted in nothing but lip service.


  Unfortunately, my clients--the state governments--are still intimidated
by my Jewish persecutors.  This continues to deprive me of my income, and
it is not at all clear whether this will ever end.

  I have been unable to apply for my state engineering license because no
engineers have been willing to sign papers recommending me (which is a
requirement), out of fear of retaliation.  Without some official change in
my status, such as a license, even the friendly state governments are
afraid to deal with me.  The major lawsuit we had planned against my
persecutors is stalled, perhaps permanently, because of a lack of funds.

  And, although my findings will ultimately be accepted by all, I still
have no contracts, have been unable to find work and have no income.  It
does not seem that this will improve in the near future.

[end of article]

[Reprinted by permission from _The Journal of Historical Review_, P.O. Box
1306, Torrance, CA 90505, USA.  Subscription rate: $40 per year, domestic.
$50 per year, foreign.]

     This article was manually transcribed by the System Operator of the
"Banished CPU" computer bulletin board system, which is located in Portland,
Oregon, U.S.A.

                    Banished CPU supports Freedom of Speech!
         |                                                           |
         |  For 300-9600 bps (3 lines w/V.32) call:  (503) 232-5783  |
         |  For 14400 bps (2 lines w/V.32bis) call:  (503) 232-6566  |

                        Sysop: Maynard "the Main Nerd"

[end of file]

-Dan Gannon

dgannon@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-0636 (1200/2400, N81)

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.