He argues that eyewitness accounts, in particular the commonly made claim that death followed quickly minutes implies that large amounts of Zyklon B would have been needed to carry out the killing process. This affects the detectability of cyanide compounds today, as do other factors, such as the rate of evaporation of HCN gas from its holding material, 14 the distribution of Zyklon B in the underground Leichenkeller morgue cellar No. In chapter 4, "Evaluation of the Chemical Analyses," Rudolf relates how the samples he collected were analyzed by the prestigious Institut Fresenius in Taunusstein, Hessen, Germany, without the institute being informed of the origin of the samples.
Rudolf regards the analytical method of the Cracow institute as altogether unreliable, mainly because it excludes the possibility of detecting stable compounds of cyanide like Prussian Blue, which should account for the vast majority of compounds detectable today. Results from morgue No. Rudolf also discusses the results of experiments in which he exposed building material to HCN under various laboratory conditions.
The fifth chapter contains Rudolf's conclusions cited below. Wellers, Austrian chemist J. Bailer, 44 Prof. Jagschitz, 45 and historian Gerald Fleming. Prussian Blue stains are formed on walls as follows: First the hydrocyanic acid HCN gas sticks to the walls, where it is adsorbed on the surface in a purely physical process. Later HCN combines with ferrous iron and, eventually, ferric iron in the building materials to form the permanent blue compound.
This can be observed in Auschwitz-Birkenau buildings BW Bauwerk 5a and 5b, which had delousing or disinfestation chambers that used Zyklon B. The north-west interior wall of the delousing tract in building BW 5a shows intense blue coloring, and there are dark blue patches on the exterior walls of both these buildings, especially the wall of BW 5b which was exposed to wet westerly winds. This shows that Prussian Blue has "migrated" right through the brick. The claim that exposure to the elements would have "washed away" any cyanide compounds is thus shown to be false.
Rudolf cites the interesting case of a sample of building material taken from a farmhouse in the Bavarian countryside that showed a cyanide concentration of 9. This suggests that such low concentrations may well be a phenomenon of nature, or be below the practical detection level.
Some revisionists have suggested that the morgue cellars where homicidal gassings were allegedly carried out may have been disinfected from time to time with HCN, thus accounting for these low levels of cyanide. This is possible, 50 but pharmacist Pressac has plausibly pointed out that HCN would not normally be used as a disinfectant. In fact, though, we simply do not know if the morgues were disinfected with Zyklon B or not.
If the figures for cyanide found in the Leichenkeller indeed have nothing to do with applications of Zyklon B, that would surely be more satisfactory than having to account for partial gassings there. A The investigation concerning the formation and long-term stability of cyanide remnants in the witnessed facilities and the analysis of the brick and mortar samples resulted in the following conclusions: The cyanide in the walls, which has been activated into Prussian Blue possesses a long-term stability of centuries Cyanide remnants should therefore be detectable in almost undiminished quantities, irrespective of the influence of the weather.
This is proved by the intense blue in the outer walls of the delousing chambers of the buildings BW 5a and 5b which contain large amounts of cyanide. Under the actual conditions, as testified to by eyewitnesses of massive homicidal gassing in the disputed chambers, traces of cyanide residues would have formed of the same order of magnitude as those found in the delousing chambers, including the blue coloration of the walls. The traces found in the alleged gas chambers are just as insignificant as those to be found in any building chosen at random.
Conclusion: On chemical and physical grounds, the mass gassing with hydrocyanic acid in the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz, as described by witnesses, could not have taken place. B The investigation of the practical and technical data regarding the witnessed mass gassing in the indicated facilities and their physical and chemical analyses resulted in the following conclusions:. The alleged main gas chambers of Auschwitz, that is the morgue in the main camp, and the morgue number 1 of Kremas II and III in Birkenau, had no means to introduce the poison. Holes visible today in the roofs were made after the war.
The release of the lethal hydrogen cyanide gas from its carrier material could not have taken place in the short time span indicated by eyewitnesses. In fact, it would have taken hours before the gas was completely released. The necessary ventilation of the alleged gas chambers of Kremas II and III, at the rate of one air exchange every 15 minutes would have taken at least two hours, contradicting all eyewitness accounts. The Sonderkommandos could not have removed the corpses from the chambers without wearing protective clothing and gas masks fitted with a special filter.
Conclusion: The mass gassing as described by witnesses cross-examined before courts, as stated in verdicts and published in literary and scientific writings could not, for chemical and physical reasons, have taken place. Rudolf concludes with the declaration: "The author of this report can only refer to existing eyewitness accounts and documents, which can be the only basis for any historical consideration of the matters under discussion. Should the belief nevertheless arise that the eyewitnesses erred in their statements, then the author of the present report can only assert that there is no other basis for putting together a specialist report, and therefore The invention of new mass-murder techniques and scenarios which contradict all eyewitness testimony may be fine for the Hollywood horror industry but is unsuited for writing history.
Not all these conclusions are new, but as a scientist Rudolf rightly emphasizes that he can only go by existing evidence, either based on eyewitnesses testimony or on accepted scientific principles. In the Jan Sehn Forensic Institute published a second, lengthier technical report on the Auschwitz gas chambers, basing its conclusions on chemical analyses of numerous brick and mortar samples taken from various buildings.
What, if anything, is wrong here? The Polish investigators called the blue wall phenomenon "controversial," and possibly due to paint! In a fax exchange with the Cracow Institute and the authors of this report, Germar Rudolf reminded them that, by their own admission, they had deliberately chosen an analytic method that would not detect Prussian Blue, 56 that is, the vast majority of stable cyanide compounds present in the walls. If the standard DIN method used by Rudolf is the proper or correct one, then, we can conclude, with Rudolf, that the chemical results of the Jan Sehn Institute are completely meaningless.
Even a single gassing with hydrocyanic acid can be instructive. A fascinating instance of a one-time gassing is that of a church which was treated with HCN to rid the woodwork of bore beetles. A few months later intense blue patches began to show on the walls, and eventually all the plaster had to be removed to get rid of the Prussian Blue. The significance of this is clear: even a single gassing can result in the formation of large remnants of cyanide. It should be noted that the interior church walls had been freshly plastered some weeks before they were exposed to HCN, and that the chemical reaction producing Prussian Blue stopped only a year later, confirming the long-term action of the process.
Professor Richard Green, a chemist, joined the discussion -- against the "deniers," as he calls them -- about the conditions under which Prussian Blue is formed. While accepting that cyanide compounds of iron are present in the delousing chambers, he disputes whether they would have formed in the "homicidal gas chambers. John C. Zimmerman, an Asssociate Professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, responded critically to a Los Angeles Times article 61 that had given a fair description of Rudolf's forensic results.
In a letter published in the paper, 62 Zimmerman wrote: "The problem for deniers like Rudolf is to explain why any traces of poison gas turned up in structures identified by numerous eyewitnesses as homicidal gas chambers. In a reply to Zimmerman, Rudolf wrote: "Contrary to your false claim, I have no problems to explain the minimal cyanide residues in the walls of those morgues: They are not reproducible and in the same order of magnitude as in samples taken from all sorts of locations.
In other words: These values close to the detection level cannot be interpreted at all. Because the Jan Sehn Forensic Institute used much the same methods for both its reports, revisionists should not cite the earlier report as somehow confirming Leuchter's findings. One of the charges brought against Rudolf in was, remarkably, the publication of his correspondence with the Jan Sehn Institute in the Berlin periodical Sleipnir.
It found the former Major General guilty of the charges brought against him, and, in October , sentenced him to 22 months imprisonment. Before fleeing to Spain in February he once again showed his defiance by adding his own polemical comments to a new edition of Rudolf's Report, publishing it, and then distributing it to leading German personalities, including many accomplished professors of inorganic chemistry.
Remer's foreword or preface, as well as the epilogue afterword were added without Germar Rudolf's permission. When copies of the new edition began arriving at the Max Planck Institute in the middle of April , heated discussions took place between Rudolf and his doctoral supervisor, Professor H. A letter of complaint by the Central Council of German Jews expressed anxiety that the Report "might all too easily be used as pseudo-scientific support for denial of the mass murder of the Jews.
The uproar led not only to Rudolf's dismissal from the Max Planck Institute, 67 but also to his indictment for collaboration with Remer. Formal charges were brought against him on April 19, , 68 with the indictment accusing him of having "concomitantly 1 attacked the dignity of others in a way suited to disturbing public order by a inciting hatred against sections of the population b abusing these people, maliciously making them appear despicable and calumniating them; 2 defamed the memory of the dead, and 3 defamed others. In the indictment as well as the judgment Urteil , the term Gutachten expert report is consistently given in quotation marks, apparently to denigrate the value of Rudolf's forensic investigation.
We read in the indictment, for example: "In this 'Gutachten', the notorious systematic mass murder of the Jews, which was committed by means of gas chambers in concentration camps of the Third Reich, in particular at Auschwitz-Birkenau, is denied in a degrading way and, in at least a partial identification with Nazi persecution and motivated by a tendency to exonerate National Socialism from the stain of having murdered the Jews, it is claimed that as a result of allegedly scientific research [angeblich wissenschaftlich fundierter Untersuchungen], neither at Auschwitz nor at Birkenau were there gas chambers for the destruction of human beings nor were they suitable for such a purpose.
The indictment then quotes Rudolf's "Concluding Assessments" A and B as given above, and goes on to state that the accompanying text of the 'Gutachten' "blames the Jews for the 'gassing lie'. The charges are further justified with the claim that the "degrading denial" of the "historically documented murder of Jews in gas chambers Remer's foreword holds German politicians and the media responsible for what is called an "unbelievably satanical distortion of history," and Jews are not even mentioned. The added epilogue -- which covers Remer's trial and some revisionist material -- consists only of brief quotes from a few Jewish personalities.
Thus the charge that Rudolf "blames the Jews for the 'gassing lie'" was paper-thin to begin with. My understanding is that the "aggavating circumstances" -- his revisionist work -- was the real object of the trial, as I will try to show.
Although during the trial he categorically denied having collaborated with Remer, Rudolf has subsequently acknowledged that, through a third person he, in fact, gave Remer permission to distribute what he thought would be the unpoliticized version of his Report.
Rudolf has repeatedly stressed, both before and during the trial, that only dry, material arguments have a chance to be being taken seriously. It is difficult to see how the court could regard such an attitude, which he repeatedly emphasized in writings and dealings with others, as "particularly refined deception. Without justification the court regarded as insincere even statements made by Rudolf in private letters.
In a personal letter to his godmother, for example, he rejected David Irving's "propaganda methods," and wrote of Remer, "I do not wish to be associated with his totally obnoxious views. In the court's opinion the publication of Remer's edition of the Rudolf Report was a "publicity trick" which served as an advertisement for the later authorized version. Allegedly, another purpose of Remer's publication was to enable Rudolf to avoid the penal consequences of publishing the official version!
The court declared: "The 'Gutachten' was A public debate! How dare Rudolf! In its judgment the court claimed that because Rudolf could not find a publisher for his report outside the "national camp," and in order "to avoid possible negative repercussions for his career Not once did the court address any of Rudolf's technical arguments, while it regarded his conclusions -- A and B , above -- as constituting aggravating circumstances.
Further aggravating circumstances were that Rudolf continued his revisionist work during the trial. The court cynically pronounced that "freedom of the sciences remains unrestricted, and is unaffected by the verdict In its totality, the Remer version of the 'Gutachten' This follows already from the polemical character of the comments The accused and his accomplices made use of the scientific-looking major section of the work with the express aim of committing the stated offence by means of the foreword and accompanying text.
The court ordered a "self-reading procedure" for the Report itself, so that it was not be read in open court. The court justified this order by explaining that "in spite of damage done to transparency," "the work is extremely extensive and difficult to read and understand," thus implicitly admitting it was not qualified to form an opinion on the technical issues discussed by Rudolf. The "Report," it patronizingly stated, "is concerned with a "difficult to explain Because this is quoted in Rudolf's Report, the court found that the accused "cynically The court refused to admit extensive testimony that would have favored the defendant.
For example, it dismissed as of no importance the avowal by a Jewish friend that Rudolf was no anti-Semite. Likewise, the court regarded as insignificant the fact that Rudolf had given a public lecture praising the German-Jewish patriot Eduard von Simson, the first president of the Reichstag. Similarly, in an introductory chapter of the anthology Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte, Rudolf expressed the hope that a resolution of the Holocaust issue might lead to a re-establishment of the fruitful German-Jewish "symbiosis.
It is also my wish that a chapter of history which has been full of mutual contempt, mistrust and fear can be finally closed. I long for the end of a period which, like none other before it, has brought so much unhappiness to the world, to Jews and Germans. In support of its award of punishment, the court asserted that by means of his "specially refined and concealed strategy On June 23, , Germar Rudolf was sentenced to 14 months imprisonment.
Thus there were "no mitigating circumstances which would make his offence 'more understandable. One of the major flaws in the German judicial system is the lack of any records of statements made by witnesses. Since even summaries of such statements were dispensed with, thus allowing for later distortions and even contradictions during judgment.
Significantly, during the post-war trials of "war criminals" this same system was in operation. Because he had been convicted of a "thought crime," the University of Stuttgart refused to accept Rudolf's doctoral thesis -- ironically on the basis of a law signed by Hitler that permits German universities to withdraw or withhold academic titles in cases of "lack of academic dignity. At the time of his flight from Germany there were other cases pending against Rudolf. Rather than serve his month sentence, he fled the country, first going to Spain and then settling in England.
Rudolf also runs Castle Hill Publishers, which has brought out new and important revisionist works. The writers, Jessica Berry and Chris Hastings, claimed that they had "tracked down" a "neo-Nazi who fled Germany after being convicted of inciting racial hatred. My work has brought me into contact with people on the far Right. I have also made contact with David Irving. But I want to make clear that I am not a member of any far-Right organisations.
I am not a total apologist for the Nazis like a lot of people who support my work. I miss Germany but I am a political prisoner who came here because I wanted to be free. Based on the Sunday Telegraph article, the German news agency dpa issued a report about the "wanted German neo-Nazi" that appeared in several German newspapers, and a German radio station told listeners that Germany's Jewish Community demanded that the German government ask Britain to extradite Rudolf to Germany.
Rudolf immediately issued a response to the Sunday Telegraph, which the paper did not publish. In this letter of response, 97 Rudolf categorically denied that he ever was "involved in a neo-Nazi organisation," or held "political views which are even close to National Socialism. Furthermore, Rudolf continued, his only reason for contacting the head of the British National Party was because he "wanted to report [in VffG] about him [the BNP leader] being prosecuted for 'Holocaust denial'.
Rudolf also recalled that reporter Chris Hastings "was very curious about the situation in Germany regarding freedom of speech. I hope the German authorities will take immediate action to deal with this man. I intend to refer the case to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I intend to refer this particular case to the Home Secretary'. It is encouraging to note that former Conservative MPs Michael Howard and Sir Leon Brittan, to mention only two of Jewish origin, have vigorously opposed such legislation. The article confirmed that "there is a warrant out for [Rudolf's] arrest," and Rudolf told his supporters "They won't get me, I promise you all.
Two weeks later the Sunday Telegraph again reported on the Rudolf case. Stephen Twigg, the chairman of the lobby group Labour Friends of Israel, said: 'I welcome any action that would bring this man to justice. This country should not be used as a haven for people who have committed crimes abroad'. If he is arrested on British soil, he faces extradition or deportation. One source close to the case said: 'Concern about this man's presence in Britain has been raised at the very highest level. The Home Secretary is likely to want to do all he can to help the Germans bring this man to justice'.
This television report included six or seven photographs of Rudolf, which had been taken from Rudolf's website. The public was warned to be aware of this "nazi sympathizer", as though Rudolf was some dangerous skinhead. Michael Whine of the British Jewish Board of Deputies appeared on screen to announce that Britain was dealing with a "new breed of dangerous Nazis.
In May , the British Home Secretary -- responding to an inquiry by a Member of Parliament -- stated: "The Government are aware of the reports in some quarters that Mr. Rudolf may be in the United Kingdom. The police have also been informed of the allegations against Mr. Thus Rudolf is treated as a common criminal.
No one bothers to read a single word of his writings, let alone take any of it seriously. Or is his writing taken so seriously as to be regarded as a threat? In his well-publicized libel action against Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books for what Lipstadt had written about him in her book Denying the Holocaust, British historian David Irving made almost no use of the Rudolf Report. Had he made good use of it he would possibly have stood a better chance in the London Royal Courts of Justice.
As it was, Irving had no legal representation, while the defendants' case was ably argued by Richard Rampton, Queen's Counsel. Deborah Lipstadt, professor of Jewish Studies at Emory University claimed in her book that "Irving is one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial. Familiar with historical evidence, he bends it until it conforms with his ideological leanings and political agenda.
The three-month trial began on January 11, , and ended April 11, , with Justice Gray's finding in favor of Lipstadt and Penguin Books. The defendants called numerous "expert witnesses," who submitted lengthy "expert reports," for which they were handsomely paid. Heinz Peter Longerich. Irving claimed that the defendants conspired with what he calls "the traditional enemies of truth" to ruin his reputation and income. They influenced publishers not to publish his books and even to break existing contracts.
To decide whether calling Irving a "Holocaust denier" constitutes libel, Justice Gray wished to know how "the notional typical reader While I agree that our century has known many holocausts, Irving should have been aware of the commonly accepted meaning of "Holocaust denier": one who denies that National Socialist Germany murdered Jews on an industrial scale in gas chambers. In fact, Prof. Richard Evans devotes almost a hundred pages of his page "expert report" to finding a suitable definition of the expression, concluding it fits Irving quite well.
Irving wrote in his Statement of Claim that "the true or legal innuendo of the words 'Holocaust denier' is that any person described as such wilfully perversely and with disregard to all the existing historical evidence denied and continues to deny all and any occurrence of one of the worst crimes known to history, namely the mass murder by whatever means by Hitler's agents and their associates of the Jewish people and hence genocide and hence a crime against humanity. The rest of this section will explore to what extent Irving should be regarded as a spokesperson for Holocaust revisionism, and to his responses to the arguments of his adversaries, especially those dealing with chemistry.
The trial was puzzling from the start, with Irving determined not to make this a debate about the Holocaust as such, on which he is no expert -- and which in any case "bores" him -- but to defend his reputation as an historian. Sometimes you ignore them But when you are conscientious, then you will put those objections to other people who are probably better informed than yourselves and say, 'What do you say about this?
How well Irving was prepared for the trial and how much he followed his own advice is problematic, as we will see. Just as the trial was getting under way, Robert Faurisson wrote: "I expect David Irving to make twists and turns and recantations. He writes and publishes too much in order to allow himself the time, beforehand, to read attentively the documents which he quotes or which the opposing side submits. If he is acquainted with the revisionist literature, it is only just barely; he cannot be considered a spokesman for historical revisionism. I have always called him 'the reluctant revisionist.
His opponents will have an easy time tripping him up. In the introduction to his edition of the Leuchter Report, Irving wrote that "chemistry is an exact science I myself would, admittedly, have preferred to see more rigorous methods used in identifying and certifying the samples Statements such as "the gas chambers that are shown to tourists in Auschwitz are fakes" give the impression that the gas chambers at Birkenau are also fakes since for most people "Auschwitz" includes Auschwitz II.
Irving found it easy to use such loose language when talking to admiring audiences, but it harmed his case. In David Irving touched off a lively historical controversy with the presentation, in his book Hitler's War, of his provocative thesis that Hitler was not responsible for the Holocaust, and hardly knew about it until quite late in the war. In my view, Irving's worst blunder was to neglect the work of Germar Rudolf, who did not appear as an expert witness.
On the morning of the ninth day, Irving promised to have it couriered for the afternoon session, but it failed to arrive. Then Robert Jan van Pelt took the stand, and defense attorney Rampton examined him on Rudolf's work, as well as on the various reports made by the Institute of Forensic Research in Cracow, even though Van Pelt admitted he was far from qualified as a chemist. With regard to Rudolf's Report, van Pelt said that he was "vaguely familiar with it. Furthermore, had Irving been familiar with Rudolf's work, he might have been able to counter van Pelt's arguments, as well as those of Dr.
James Roth, who had analyzed Leuchter's samples in , but who now says "I do not think that the Leuchter results have any meaning Had David Irving examined more thoroughly his doubts about the Leuchter Report -- and made them "plain to his audiences" -- before the trial, instead of having his nose rubbed in them during the proceedings, he might have been in a better position to counter the rather thin arguments of his opponents.
The strongest criticism of Leuchter was that he had grossly overestimated the concentration of HCN gas that would have been needed in the "homicidal gas chambers. He responded: "I completely agree and you are absolutely right. There are probably concessions [which] have to be made at both ends of this scale. Although Irving held on to Leuchter's forensic chemistry, he lacked the necessary knowledge to back up his argument. When confronted with technical details he had to confess: "I am afraid I am way out of my depth there," "I am lost.
Although Justice Gray agreed that "Irving's argument deserves to be taken seriously," he also agreed with Van Pelt that the now-collapsed roofs of the "gas chambers" are too fragmentary to permit any firm conclusions, and that "it is unclear how much of the roof can be seen in the photograph on which Irving relies. Irving also pointed out that Roth was wrong in assuming that cyanide is only a "surface reaction," given that cyanide had penetrated to the outer walls of the delousing tracts.
Questioned whether the outside walls had been tested, Irving answered: "Yes, by Germar Rudolf. Two days later Van Pelt acknowledged that the blue stains on the outside walls were due to cyanide. On day nine Van Pelt, in his discussion of the Cracow Institute report, pointed out that samples taken from blue stains on both the inside and outside walls of the building mentioned by Irving, showed "relative high readings," comparable to those from morgue number 1 of Birkenau Krema II.
This was supposed to constitute "a positive proof that the spaces in the crematoria they had tested had been used with Zyklon B" [sic]. Not even once did Irving challenge Van Pelt's "evidence," and his ignorance of Rudolf's arguments was once again his nemesis. The heart of the matter is that the analytic methods used by the Cracow forensic institute do not pick up total cyanide, and are therefore suspect.
- 302: Das Rudolf Gutachten / Die Chemie von Auschwitz?
- The Swift Diet: 4 Weeks to Mend the Belly, Lose the Weight, and Get Rid of the Bloat?
- Navigation menu.
- cixycele.tk | The Rudolf Report ( edition).
- Exploration of Near Earth Objects!
David Irving repeated Leuchter's challenge: "If you don't like Leuchter's results, go and do the tests yourself and prove that I am a nincompoop. What is one to make of Irving's statement about the "Reinhardt" camps, Belzec, Treblinka and Sobibor? Asked if he accepts that "hundreds upon thousands of Jews were from Although he scored some good points on the Gerstein documents, Justice Gray indicated that Irving's arguments had no real purpose because he was already "accepting that gas chambers were used [to] kill Jews in those three camps.
Regarding Chelmno and the "gas vans," Irving was more explicit: "I have repeatedly allowed that [Jews] were killed in gas vans" -- and he included Yugoslavia among the places where such vans were used. It showed "systematic, huge scale, using gas trucks to murder Jews. As Rampton put it in his closing speech: "Mr Irving has been driven, in the face of overwhelming evidence presented by Professor Robert Jan van Pelt, Professor Christopher Browning and Dr Longerich, to concede that there were indeed mass murders on a huge scale by means of gassing at Chelmno in the Warthegau and at the Reinhardt camps of Belzec, Treblinka and Sobibor; and even that there were 'some gassings' at Auschwitz.
In many countries revisionists are outcasts, and their writings suppressed; in some countries questioning "the Holocaust" is a crime. In France for example, Professor Faurisson has repeatedly been convicted for so-called "Holocaust denial," as have others in Germany, including David Irving. The list grows longer and longer. Why are authorities so determined to stamp out revisionism?
Some claim that the answer lies in Jewish influence, in particular in the power of the "Jewish lobby. Let it be said, though, that if six million innocent men, women and children were indeed killed in cold blood only because of their birth -- in other words if one accepts the standard picture of the Holocaust, with all its chilling details -- then it is not so surprising that humanity's conscience should be deeply troubled, and that thinking people would want to keep the memory of it alive, especially the German leaders.
A strong hint that a condition set for German reunification by the victors of World War II was that the German authorities clamp down on revisionists can be gleaned from a Der Spiegel interview wth the then Interior Minister for Brandenburg, Alwin Ziel, who stated: "The Allies only allowed Germans to consider reunification on the condition that a catastrophe such as National Socialism would never again take root in Germany Restrictions on freedom of opinion and association, which before unification were viewed critically, are now justified.
The Germar Rudolf Case, David Irving's Lost Libel Suit and the Future of Revisionism
Today Germany and her basic law are different from what they were before unification. However, we must accept that, on the whole, the "Holocaust promotion lobby" is concerned with preserving what it perceived as truth. There cannot be any reasonable doubt about the realities of the forced deportations of millions, including the very young and the very old, of forced labor, or of anti-Jewish pogroms and massacres in the East.
Surely it is a bitter irony that many talented Jews would likely have remained patriotic Germans and contributed to Germany's struggle for equality among nations, had not the regime turned against them only on account of their birth. I do not think it will ever be possible to really understand why National Socialist Germany carried out such harsh measures against Jews as a people. One day, perhaps, it might be possible to better "understand" these measures, and Irving's question is perfectly valid: "Why were the Jews so hated? It is clear to me that historians should long ago have challenged the prosecution evidence at the Nuremberg trials, especially regarding the alleged systematic extermination of six million European Jews.
While it is generally normal to be wary of, sometimes even hostile to a new idea that challenges the status quo, the very nature of the Holocaust issue intensifies such feelings a hundredfold, and not just among Jews. Shock waves from the Hitler period are still being felt, above all in Germany. A major impediment to revisionist views gaining legitimacy is the fact that many of revisionism's adherents often have their own, all too obvious, political-ideological agendas, which frightens off those who might otherwise be interested, even supportive. Some Internet users with ill-considered, even irrational, viewpoints are increasingly labelled "revisionist," or label themselves thus, so that the term may be losing any clear or precise meaning.
All this adds to the widely held perception that Holocaust revisionism is not serious or scholarly, and gives ammunition to those who regard revisionists as "Neo-Nazis, nostalgics and agitators. Of course many other factors play a role, for example the perception that questioning the Holocaust is a little like committing the crimes all over again. In order to facilitate cross-fertilization with academic historians, genuine Holocaust revisionists may ultimately have to distance themselves from those who use and abuse the, often still tentative, results of revisionist research for overt political ends.
It cannot be overemphasized that for revisionism to be taken seriously, " Furthermore, we need to remind ourselves that nothing is one hundred percent certain, and this also applies to Auschwitz, the camp most thoroughly studied by both sides. Although apparently based on standard scientific methods, Rudolf's results should not be regarded as the final word on the subject, and need to be confirmed by other competent scientists. Compared to Auschwitz, much less is known about the "purely extermination" camps Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Chelmno.
Should Auschwitz go the way of "Jewish soap," it is obvious that many historians would consider questions on the Holocaust with a far more open mind and, in fact, find themselves forced to re-examine all aspects of that terrible period. To get to the truth, a completely open debate is needed -- something that revisionists have wanted for a long time.
Revisionism will only have a wider impact once it starts to filter down from recognized authorities to the public at large. There are several criteria for judging revisionist progress. The most important one will always be the quality of work published, but another is the extent to which it is accepted by historians of more general standing, and the degree to which revisionist work is acknowledged in quality journals, newspapers, and so forth. In conclusion, let me quote Germar Rudolf's words from a statement he made in "Our challenge must be to write a comprehensive history of the persecution of the Jews during the Third Reich: one that says not merely what did not happen, but above all tells us what really did happen.
The truth is, that in early I was approached by an acquaintance of General Remer. This person asked me if I would be opposed if Remer, in an act of self-defense, would send copies of my Report to representatives of Germany's High Society. In , Remer, though over 80 years old and having suffered two strokes, was sentenced to 22 months imprisonment for, inter alia 'Holocaust denial.
Every attempt by the defense lawyers to introduce such evidence, including my Expert Report, was rejected since German jurisdiction regards the Holocaust as 'self-evident. Therefore, he, his lawyers and associates considered this sentence to be a death penalty. Hence, they thought they had the right to go to extremes and publish my report in order to make Germany's High society aware of how a German court hands down a death penalty against someone -- whom many people considered to be an old, severely ill WWII war hero -- on account of his dissenting historical views.
In , three years after he fled Germany, Remer died in Exile. So he most likely would indeed have died in prison. After all, why do we do revisionism in the first place? To hide it? To refuse to help people in distress? Did I prepare a legal expertise for the defense of people and then refuse to let them defend themselves with it? I was not involved in the production nor distribution of his version, nor did I know anything about the preface a justification for Remer's action or the epilogue a report of his own trial which Remer and his associates had added to my Report.
I actually learned about these additions only after Remer's distribution had started in April , and I read them for the first time in my life during my trial in For theses additions, but not for my Report -- which was considered to be formally scientific by the court itself, I was eventually sentenced to 14 months imprisonment. It therefore agreed not to reveal the identity of any other persons involved in order to protect them. We succeeded in this.
The court, on the other hand, conducted its proceedings in a vicious show trial manner, since this of course was the only way for them to either break me and make me reveal the real 'culprits' or to 'prove' an obviously innocent man guilty. A court, however, that does not try to seek truth, justice and fairness, but tries to destroy as many innocent citizens' lives as it can, did and does not deserve the truth. It is not clear to me what Rudolf means by "formally scientific," but I understand the expression to mean that the outer form of his Report has all the trappings of a scientific paper.
In Rudolf's case, in order to get around the "content" part, the court simply ignored it! See below, especially note See his deposition regarding the charges against him: Stellungnahme zur Anklageschrift der Staatsanwaltschaft Stuttgart, Az. On such procedures, see also notes 92 and 93 below. The Prozessprotokoll also includes written submissions by the defense and the accused.
Costas Zaverdinos was born in Johannesburg, South Africa, in Since he has been with the University of Natal Pietermaritzburg , which awarded him a Ph. He is the author of several papers in internationally recognized scholarly journals. Since he has been a member of this Journal's Editorial Advisory Committee.
For more about him, see the May-June Journal, p. We examine here what the safe exposure limit is. This is also a ceiling value. Department of Labor. DuPont lists furthermore the following safety thresholds:. Prussian Blue in Five Steps Perhaps the central issue in understanding the significance of the various attempts to measure cyanide traces in the remnants of the gas chambers is the issue of the formation of Prussian blue.
Yet many deniers completely ignore this issue in their defense of the Leuchter Report. Leuchter and Rudolf claim to have detected far more cyanides in the delousing chambers than in the homicidal gas chambers. This finding, according to some, should trump all historical evidence and show that the Final Solution is a made-up tale. That there is a discrepancy between the amount of Prussian blue between some of the delousing facilities and some of the homicidal facilities is clear from inspection of the prominent blue staining on some of the delousing chambers and the chemical work of Leuchter and Rudolf, even if honestly conducted, shows no more than is evident from inspection.
The important question is whether such staining is an accurate marker for exposure to HCN. Must it always be present in buildings exposed to HCN? The essay "Leuchter, Rudolf and the Iron Blues" shows that such compounds in the gas chambers were exceedingly unlikely to form. Factors such as the shorter exposure time and the greatly reduced concentration of aqueous cyanide ions in part, because of the washing of the chambers with water distinguish the gas chambers from the delousing chambers.
Here we extend these results, make them more quantitative and address Rudolf's criticisms. Rudolf agrees with Dr. Green on the most plausible way to answer this question. Rudolf quotes "The Chemistry of Auschwitz": The Prussian-Blue staining indeed owes its presence to exposure to HCN, but the conditions under which it formed were not universally present in all facilities exposed to HCN.
The rate of Prussian-Blue formation may be very different under the conditions used in homicidal chamber [sic] versus the conditions in delousing chambers. Rudolf agrees: And again, I agree with Green that this is the correct approach to this problem. The disagreement is perhaps centered on understanding what the probability is for Prussian blue formation in the gas chambers.
Rudolf wrote his criticism in August , so he could not have been aware of the revised version of "Leuchter, Rudolf, and the Iron Blues," in which it is argued based upon the findings of Alich et al. Rudolf proposes five steps in the development of the blue staining. Absorption by the walls of HCN. Formation of Hexacyanoferrate Fe CN 6 Formation of the so-called soluble Prussian blue. The terms soluble and insoluble when applied to Prussian blue describe the ability to form colloidal suspensions and not the actual solubility.
Step one. The first step relies on the ability of water to absorb HCN. Appendix 1 of "Leuchter, Rudolf, and the Iron Blues" addresses this issue. Rudolf asserts that the gas phase concentrations assumed are likely to be wrong but presents no evidence. Most likely he was not familiar with Appendix 1 when making that claim.
- Axis History Forum?
- A Quantitative Tour of the Social Sciences?
- From Yorktown to Valmy: the transformation of the French Army in an age of revolution.
- The Impact of Macro Social Systems on Ethnic Minorities in the United States.
At any rate, we show above that those concentrations are indeed reasonable. More reasonable assumptions lead to a maximum concentration of about 0. Additionally, these are equilibrium values! This assumption is in fact unlikely and the maximum liquid phase concentrations are likely to be much lower delousing on the other hand took much longer than a homicidal gassing and it is thus likely that the liquid phase concentrations would be higher.
After the gassing the chambers were washed down with water drastically reducing this concentration. See footnote 15 in "Leuchter, Rudolf and the Iron Blues". Step one is one of the crucial points in attempting to understand the differences between the gas chambers and the delousing chambers. The delousing chambers were exposed to HCN for longer; the Zyklon evaporated completely, the possibility of reaching equilibrium with HCN in solution was much higher. Additionally, the gas chambers were washed with water after a gassing.
HCN is a weak acid, which means that in aqueous solutions it dissociates somewhat but not completely. In other words the concentration of cyanide ions in solution is even less than the concentration of HCN. The strength of an acid is measured by a quantity known as the pK a. The lower the pK a the stronger the acid. The pK a of HCN is 9. Rudolf would like to claim a pH of around 10 a claim that we shall examine in further detail. If the pH is as measured by Markiewicz et al. Appendix 1 of "Leuchter, Rudolf, and the Iron Blues" shows that the concentration of aqueous HCN before washing with water is on the order of 0.
Alich et al. Even if Rudolf is correct that the pH was about 10, that would lead to concentrations of cyanide ions on the order of 0. A mere thousandfold dilution by washing with water would reduce this concentration to the same level. Rudolf's present view is that lime a. We therefore discount without further ado the possibility that lime from plaster or whitewash is a reason for an alkaline pH. As for the other construction materials, we await Rudolf's analysis of their actual content.
His claims about pH rest on pure speculation. During the gassing process itself any water in the chamber was likely to be slightly acidic owing to the influence of carbon dioxide in the air from the exhalation of the murderers victims see Appendix 2 of "Leuchter, Rudolf and the Iron Blues". Here is another significant difference from the delousing chambers.
The influence of CO 2 inhibits dissociation, but the whitewashing which took place after the washing with water enhances it. Step three. Without this step, Prussian blue will not form by Rudolf's mechanism. This fact shows that step 3 is not a fast process by any means, and yet it is a necessary step.
The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the Gas Chambers of Auschwitz
Cyanide ions in the presence of Fe 3 do not reduce the iron. Rather, the iron must already be complexed to cyanide in the form of Fe CN 6 Rudolf notes correctly that basic environments inhibit this process. Lechatelier's well-known principle predicts that a higher concentration of hydroxide ions OH - should drive this reaction to the left. The basicity that Rudolf needs to have even a snowball's chance in hell of producing Prussian blue by his proposed mechanism under the conditions in the gas chambers inhibits the formation of a necessary precursor!
Rudolf claims that the pH must reach 11 to hinder the process, but offers no support for this assertion. This graphic shows a schematic structure of Fe CN 6 It is not an optimized structure, and not intended to reproduce bond-lengths and angles with any precision. The yellow represents iron Fe , the gray represents carbon C and the blue nitrogen N. The point of this structure is to facilitate the intuition of those not used to thinking of chemistry in three dimensions as well as those not used to violations of the octet rule in atoms with energetically accessible d- orbitals.
Each CN - ligand must react with the iron individually. The formation of this molecule is a step-by-step process each step of which is inhibited by basicity. Step four. Rudolf is correct to note that there is a photoreduction mechanism to convert Fe III to Fe II , however, the mechanism is different than that suggested by Rudolf in his response. These researchers have done some elegant work to exclude other possible mechanisms. This ion reacts with Fe CN 6 3- to form Prussian blue.
They cannot completely exclude a direct photoreduction mechanism, but certainly do not argue for one. The other citation Rudolf gives concerns a similar reaction in methanol and is not truly relevant here although there is certainly some likeness. Its sensitivity to cyanide concentration and photoflux is great. If such a mechanism is active and it may well be relevant to some of the staining outsides of buildings , it is even more sensitive to conditions than the non-photochemical mechanism.
The non-photochemical mechanism of reduction has been discussed in great detail in "Leuchter, Rudolf, and the Iron Blues," in which it is argued that the probability of this step occurring under the conditions of the gas chambers is quite small. Rudolf's response was written before the revised version of that study was presented, however. Step five. This step is not controversial. Although Rudolf's proposed mechanism for Prussian blue formation is not an implausible explanation for the staining on the delousing chambers, he has not truly demonstrated this fact.
Again, Gauss is a pseudonym of Rudolf himself. The staining in the church is an event that occurred, but it does not represent a phenomenon that always occurs. As "Gauss" notes, the specialists were surprised. The fact that blue staining occurred in this church is not sufficient to demonstrate that the same mechanism is responsible for the blue staining in the delousing chambers. Nevertheless, this church demonstrates some interesting chemistry that may be the topic of a future article on this site.
Despite the fact that he has not demonstrated the case, we agree that formation of Prussian blue by a mechanism similar to that which Rudolf proposes in his three steps is not an unlikely explanation for the presence of blue staining on the delousing chambers. It is, perhaps, not so important whether the mechanism is exactly as Rudolf states or takes place by a similar mechanism. Supposing that Rudolf is correct or nearly correct regarding the formation of blue staining in the delousing chambers, it is exceedingly unlikely that the same process would have taken place to any great extent in the gas chambers used for mass murder.
We agree with Rudolf that "insoluble" Prussian blue is less susceptible to weathering than other cyanides. The weathering is important, if one considers its implications for buildings that were exposed to HCN but did not form Prussian blue stains as Gauss's fumigation experts attest is the normal state of affairs. A building in which Prussian blue formed would have much higher levels of detectable total cyanides than a building in which Prussian blue did not form. We must therefore conclude that Prussian blue is not a good marker for exposure to hydrogen cyanide.
Because of the fact that Prussian blue is much less susceptible to weather, a building that has Prussian blue stains will have a total cyanide content much greater than one in which Prussian blue did not form. Because of these facts, we must conclude that judging exposure to cyanide by means of the total cyanide content is inappropriate. A fair marker for exposure to hydrogen cyanide is to measure the remnant cyanide content when iron compounds are excluded. Such an experiment was actually performed by the Institute for Forensic Research in Cracow.
At best, the likelihood for formation of Prussian blue is uncertain in the gas chambers, and we have shown that such formation has a very small probability. Comparing the total cyanide concentrations of structures that actually do have Prussian-blue staining with those that do not is a comparison of apples and oranges, especially because Prussian blue is much less susceptible to weathering than other cyanides. A fair comparison, as stated above, is to measure remnant cyanides excluding iron-cyanide complexes. They unequivocally show that the cyanide compounds occur in all the facilities that, according to the source data, were in contact with them.
On the other hand, they do not occur in dwelling accommodations, which was shown by means of control samples. Can he mean this argument to be serious? Recall that Rudolf agrees with Dr. Green that the most plausible explanation for the disparity in Prussian blue is: "The Prussian-Blue staining indeed owes its presence to exposure to HCN, but the conditions under which it formed were not universally present in all facilities exposed to HCN.
The rate of Prussian-Blue formation may be very different under the conditions used in homicidal chamber versus the conditions in delousing chambers. Quite simply this argument means that Prussian blue is not a reliable marker for exposure to HCN. It would have shown among other things whether Leuchter and Rudolf treated their samples honestly. It would not, however, have shown much more than that. It is clear to the naked eye that the delousing chambers have visible blue staining. There is no question that there is a disparity in the concentration of Prussian blue between the delousing chambers and the gas chambers.
The relevant question is whether such a disparity is inconsistent with the historical record. Other Editions 7. Friend Reviews. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about The Rudolf Report , please sign up. Having read the technical and forensic analysis of Mr.
Rudolph's Report, I am, without any question, convinced with his impeccable research that validates the most controversial and a taboo question about the existence and the accountability of the killings of 6 million Jews! Being a historian and a Jewish attorney in New York City, I am always surrounded by great many friends and family members who all have differen?
See 1 question about The Rudolf Report…. Lists with This Book. Community Reviews. Showing Rating details. More filters. Sort order. Total crap. I believe this book came up when I was reading a discussion on the ethics of using medical data obtained by the Nazis, although I don't recall in what context. View all 17 comments. Jan 29, LeeAnne rated it did not like it. View 1 comment. Sep 06, B rated it it was amazing. This book was one of the most interesting non-fiction books I've ever read.
It was well put together, everything was divided and subdivided, nothing was out of place, the most citations I have ever seen, it was fascinating, and every other scrap of research or public acknowledgement of the field was briefly summarized and dissected. While you can completely throw out The Leuchter Report for being ill conceived and no citations, The Rudolf Report you cannot.
If there's a single book on this field w This book was one of the most interesting non-fiction books I've ever read. If there's a single book on this field worth reading, it's this one. Blackout rated it it was amazing Jun 30, Joey Brown rated it it was amazing Aug 30, Guido rated it it was amazing Sep 15, Christian V rated it really liked it Jun 28,