Matthew Ghobrial Cockerill vs. Thomas Dalton Debate: Response to the Gas Chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau Claims
Editor: Matt Cockerill and Thomas Dalton had a debate on the Holocaust which can be found at https://codoh.com/news/3495. Both participants did an excellent job, and displayed a civility that is often lacking in such debates. WearsWar will run a series of articles written by John Wear over the next several months refuting Matt Cockerill’s statements in this debate.
No Homicidal Gas Chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau
Matt Cockerill and Thomas Dalton had a debate on the Holocaust which can be found at https://codoh.com/news/3495. This article discusses why revisionists say there were no homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau.
Matt Cockerill writes on pages three and four: “Let me turn now to the third main stage of mass killing, gassing at Auschwitz-Birkenau. There is overwhelming testimonial and documentary evidence that Auschwitz was an extermination camp…Despite denier rhetoric (“no holes, no Holocaust”), induction holes to accommodate the dropping of Zyklon B pellets into the gas chamber (via wire-mesh columns) have also been identified in the ruined ruins of Crema 2’s roof by independent investigators. Disturbances reflecting the existence of such holes are visible in Allied aerial photographs of Crema 2, taken by reconnaissance pilots in 1944. All categories of evidence—material, documentary, and testimonial—runs in the same direction, establishing the existence of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz beyond any reasonable doubt.”
My response: Actually, the existence of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau has been scientifically disproven.
In 1988, the Canadian government put Ernst Zündel on trial a second time for the criminal offense of knowingly disseminating false news about “the Holocaust.” As part of his defense in this trial, Zündel commissioned the American gas-chamber expert Fred Leuchter to make a scientific examination of the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek. The resulting Leuchter Report is the first scientific study of the alleged German homicidal gas chambers.1
In addition to reporting that the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek were structurally unsuitable for gassing, Leuchter researched the chemical properties of the Zyklon B fumigant. Leuchter found that Zyklon B is a highly toxic compound that releases deadly hydrogen cyanide gas. The released hydrogen cyanide gas clings to surfaces and reacts chemically with materials containing iron, forming ferrocyanide compounds that have a distinctive blue color called Prussian Blue. Since building materials normally contain a certain amount of rust (iron oxide, usually between one and four percent), repeated exposure to hydrogen cyanide gas would result in Prussian Blue staining on the walls of the alleged homicidal gas chambers.2
Leuchter took forensic samples from the alleged homicidal gas chambers at the visited sites and a control sample from the delousing facility at Birkenau. The samples were analyzed by an independent laboratory in the United States. The laboratory found no significant ferrocyanide compound traces in the samples taken from the alleged homicidal gas chambers, but the sample from a wall of the Birkenau delousing facility had heavy concentrations of the ferrocyanide compounds. Leuchter concluded that this result would be impossible if the alleged homicidal gas chambers had been repeatedly exposed to hydrogen cyanide gas.3
Germar Rudolf, a certified chemist, expanded on Leuchter’s work by writing the Rudolf Report in the spring of 1992. The Rudolf Report, which has been updated and revised several times, focused on engineering and chemical aspects of the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz and Birkenau. Rudolf observed in his on-site examinations that all of the delousing facilities at Auschwitz, Birkenau, Stutthof and Majdanek have one thing in common: their walls are permeated with Prussian Blue. Not only the inner surfaces, but also the outside walls and the mortar between the bricks of the delousing facilities have Prussian Blue staining. Nothing of this sort can be observed in any of the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz and Birkenau.
Rudolf also took samples from the alleged homicidal gas chambers and the delousing facilities at Auschwitz and Birkenau. Similar to Leuchter’s samples, the alleged homicidal gas chambers exhibit only insignificant traces of ferrocyanide residue on the same order of magnitude found in any other building. The samples from the delousing chambers, however, all showed very high ferrocyanide residues. Rudolf determined that, if mass execution gassings with hydrocyanic acid had taken place in the alleged homicidal gas chambers, the rooms in the alleged homicidal gas chambers would exhibit similar ferrocyanide residue as the delousing chambers. Therefore, Rudolf concluded that mass gassings with Zyklon B did not occur in the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz and Birkenau.4
Kraków Institute of Forensic Research
The Kraków Institute of Forensic Research published results in 1994 that attempted to refute the Leuchter Report. The team from this forensic institute led by Dr. Jan Markiewicz claims not to have understood how it was possible for Prussian Blue to have formed in walls as a result of their being exposed to hydrogen cyanide gas. The researchers therefore excluded Prussian Blue and similar iron cyanide compounds from their analyses, resulting in much lower cyanide traces for the delousing chambers. Their analysis made it practically impossible to distinguish between rooms massively exposed to hydrogen cyanide and those which were not: all would have a cyanide residue of close to zero. The Kraków researchers concluded from their analysis that since the gas chambers and delousing facilities all had the same amount of cyanide residues, humans were gassed in the gas chambers.
Germar Rudolf gave the Kraków researchers irrefutable proof that Prussian Blue can be formed in walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide gas, citing a case document in expert literature.5 The authors of the Kraków report refused to change their report and admit they made a mistake. Rudolf writes: “The only ‘scientific’ attempt to refute Frederick A. Leuchter’s most intriguing thesis turns out to be one of the biggest scientific frauds of the 20th century. How desperate must they be—those who try to defend the established version of the Holocaust, i.e., the alleged systematic extermination of Jews in homicidal ‘gas chambers, that they resort to such obviously fraudulent methods?”6
British science historian Dr. Nicholas Kollerstrom also refuted the Kraków Institute of Forensic Research report, as succinctly summarized by the retired professor of the philosophy of science Dr. James H. Fetzer:
When the Auschwitz Museum was confronted with the fact that the innocuous delousing chambers at Auschwitz have blue walls–due to being saturated with blue iron cyanide compounds–but the alleged homicidal gas chambers have not, they commissioned their own chemical research. Instead of testing wall samples for the chemicals that had caused the blue stains, the researchers they commissioned simply excluded those chemicals from their analysis by employing a procedure that could not detect them. They justified this measure with the claim that they did not understand exactly how these compounds could form and that they might therefore be mere artifacts. Researchers who don’t understand what they are investigating have no business becoming involved. In this case, however, it appears to be deliberate. They have deliberately ignored an obvious explanation–that Zyklon B was only used for delousing–which would have remedied their lack of comprehension. As a result of this failure to adhere to the principles of science, they produced a report of no scientific value, which they used to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.7
Dr. Arthur Robert Butz writes regarding the Kraków Institute of Forensic Research report: “The argument, to the extent that it was intelligible enough to be summarized at all, was that they did not understand how the iron-cyanide compounds got to be there, so they decided to ignore them in reaching their conclusions. I don’t understand how the moon got there, so I will ignore all effects associated with it, such as tides. I hope I don’t drown.”8
Dr. James Roth
Dr. James Roth testified at the 1988 Ernst Zündel trial that he received samples from Fred Leuchter in his capacity as an Analytical Chemist at Alpha Analytical Laboratories. The purpose of the tests was to determine the total iron and cyanide content in the samples. Dr. Roth testified that the Prussian Blue produced by a reaction of the iron and hydrogen cyanide could penetrate deeply in porous materials such as brick and iron.9
Dr. Roth later changed his testimony in a documentary movie titled Mr. Death produced by Errol Morris. Dr. Roth states in this movie: “Cyanide is a surface reaction. It’s probably not going to penetrate more than 10 microns. Human hair is 100 microns in diameter. Crush this sample up, I have just diluted that sample 10,000; 100,000 times. If you’re going to go looking for it, you’re going to look on the surface only. There’s no reason to go deep, because it’s not going to be there.”10
Dr. Nicholas Kollerstrom writes that Dr. Roth’s statements in Mr. Death are wrong:
The 1999 film about Leuchter features an interview with the chemist [Dr. James Roth] who had done the analysis of his wall-samples back in 1988. He had done this “blind,” i.e. with no knowledge of where they had come from, which was correct scientific procedure. During the second Zündel trial in Toronto in 1988 he testified under oath concerning the method used and what Leuchter had sent him. He said back then that hydrogen cyanide can easily penetrate into brick and mortar. But then, when he was interviewed again by Morris for his documentary, he suddenly stated that the results were quite meaningless, because the cyanide could only have soaked a few microns into the brickwork. Wow, that was quite a whopper. Mortar and brickwork are highly porous to hydrogen cyanide, obviously so because the delousing chambers were more or less equally blue inside and out, it had soaked right through. But you can watch him on video explaining this, as if he were confusing brick and mortar with rock. The latter will only absorb cyanide to a few microns of its surface.11
Germar Rudolf writes regarding Dr. Roth’s statements in Mr. Death: “It can be shown that Prof. Dr. James Roth is wrong for the following reasons:
1. It is a fact that the walls of the disinfestation chambers in Auschwitz, Birkenau, Stutthof, and Majdanek are saturated with cyanide compounds, and this not only superficially, but into the depth of the masonry, as I have demonstrated by taking samples from different depths of the wall. Compare in this regard my mortar and plaster Sample Pairs 9 & 11, 12 & 13, 19a & b…, which were each taken at the same spot but at different depths, as well as Sample 17, taken from below the overlying lime plaster (which is thus similar to 19b).
These values prove that hydrogen cyanide can rather easily reach deep layers of plaster and mortar. But even the other samples taken from the surface prove that Prof. Roth’s allegation is wrong: Provided that most of the cyanide detectable today is present in the form of iron cyanide (Iron Blue and other cyanoferrates), as Prof. Roth assumes himself, his thesis would mean that 10% to 75% of the iron content of these samples are located in the upper 10 micrometers thin layer of the samples (0.010 mm), i.e., they are located in less than 1% of the entire sample mass. The rest of the samples, however, would have been massively deprived of iron. How this migration of a major portion of iron to a thin surface layer would have happened is inexplicable to me. Fact is that this simply could not happen.
2. Furthermore, expert literature is detailed about the following:
a. Hydrogen cyanide is an extremely mobile chemical compound with physical properties comparable to water…
b. Water vapor can quite easily penetrate masonry material, and thus also hydrogen cyanide…
c. Hydrogen cyanide can easily penetrate thick, porous layers like walls…
3. In addition, it is generally known that cement and lime mortar are highly porous materials, comparable for instance to sponges. In such materials, there does not exist anything like a defined layer of 0.01 mm beyond which hydrogen cyanide could not diffuse, as there can also be no reason, why water could not penetrate a sponge deeper than a millimeter. Steam, for example, which behaves physically comparable to hydrogen cyanide, can very easily penetrate walls.
4. Finally, the massive discolorations of the outside of the walls of the disinfestation chambers in Birkenau and Stutthof, as shown in this expert report, are clearly visible and conclusive evidence for the fact of how easily hydrogen cyanide and its soluble derivatives can and do penetrate such walls.
As a professor of analytical chemistry, Prof. Roth must know this, so one can only wonder why he spreads such outrageous nonsense. That Prof. Roth is indeed a competent chemist can be seen from what he said during his testimony under oath as an expert witness during the above mentioned Zündel trial: ‘In porous materials such as brick or mortar, the Prussian blue [hydrogen cyanide] could go fairly deep as long as the surface stayed open, but as the Prussian blue formed, it was possible that it would seal the porous material and stop the penetration…’
It is also revealing that Prof. Roth mentioned during this interview that, if he had known where Leuchter’s samples originated from, his analytical results would have been different. Does that mean that Prof. Roth manipulates his result according to whether or not he likes the origin of certain samples? Such an attitude is exactly the reason why one should never tell an ‘independent’ laboratory about the origin of the samples to be analyzed, simply because ‘independence’ is a very flexible term when it comes to controversial topics. What Prof. Dr. Roth has demonstrated here is only his lack of professional honesty.”12
Dr. Richard Green
Dr. Richard Green, who has a Ph.D. in Chemistry from Stanford University, agrees with Germar Rudolf that the Prussian Blue found in the delousing chambers is the result of gassings with hydrogen cyanide. However, Dr. Green offers a possible alternative explanation for why the outside walls of the delousing chambers having blue staining. Green writes: “…the discoloration on the outside of walls [of the delousing chambers], ought to make one consider what possible processes could have taken place outside of the delousing chambers. For example, is it possible that materials that had been soaked with aqueous solutions of HCN were leaned against the outside of the buildings? Not enough is known, but it is premature to conclude that the staining on the outside of buildings owes its origins to processes that took place within those buildings.”13
Dr. Green’s speculation is absurd. Why would the Germans lean materials that had been soaked with aqueous solutions of HCN against the outside walls of the delousing chambers? Dr. Green is desperate to find an alternative reason for the heavy blue staining on the outside walls of the delousing chambers.14
Germar Rudolf writes regarding Dr. Green’s speculation: “One major rule of science is that it is impermissible to immunize a theory against refutation, here in particular by inventing untenable auxiliary hypotheses to shore up an otherwise shaky thesis…This is exactly what Dr. Green is doing: coming up with a ludicrous attempt at explaining a fact which does not fit into his theory. Yet instead of fixing his theory, he tries to bend reality.”15
Dr. Green also challenges the possibility of formation of any noticeable quantities of Prussian Blue in the alleged homicidal gas chambers. Dr. Green writes: “The difference in total cyanides (Prussian blue + non-Prussian blue) owes to the fact that Prussian blue formed efficiently in the case of the delousing chambers but not in the homicidal gas chambers, and Prussian blue once formed is likely to remain.”16
Dr. Green is not able to provide any convincing evidence why Prussian Blue would not form efficiently in the alleged homicidal gas chambers. For example, Dr. Green states that masonry in the alleged homicidal gas chambers has a neutral pH value which does not allow for the formation of cyanide salts. Germar Rudolf writes: “But if that were true, how come huge amounts of cyanides did accumulate in the walls of the disinfestation chambers?”17
Rudolf has documented with expert literature on the chemistry of building materials that the cement mortars and concretes used in the alleged homicidal gas chambers are noticeably alkaline for many weeks, months, or even years. These walls would have been very much inclined to accumulate cyanide salts and to form Prussian Blue, even more so than the lime plaster of the disinfestation chambers.18
Dr. Georges Wellers
French biochemist and Auschwitz veteran Dr. Georges Wellers provides another explanation why Prussian Blue stains do not appear in the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau. Wellers states that humans are considerably more sensitive to hydrogen cyanide than insects. The homicidal gassings at Auschwitz-Birkenau thus were conducted with smaller amounts of hydrogen cyanide over shorter periods of time. Wellers says the victims would have inhaled almost all of the hydrogen cyanide, so there presumably was nothing left to react with the masonry.19
Cyrus Cox agrees with Wellers that warm-blooded creatures such as humans are considerably more sensitive to hydrogen cyanide gas than insects. However, Cox writes that Wellers’s explanation overlooks several things:
1) Experience with executions by means of instantly released hydrogen cyanide in the execution gas chambers of the U.S. shows that in these cases of applying hydrogen-cyanide concentrations similar to those used against insects, it took on average around nine minutes before the gassing victims were dead, and in extreme cases up to 18 minutes;
2) The Zyklon B used in Auschwitz-Birkenau would have slowly discharged its toxin over a period of one to two hours;
3) None of the alleged homicidal gas chambers used in Auschwitz-Birkenau had devices such as warm-air blowers to aid evaporation of the hydrogen cyanide. Such devices were part of the standard equipment of the disinfestation chambers used in that period (the alleged homicidal gas chambers are said to have used precisely the same form of Zyklon B as did the disinfestation chambers);
4) The concentration of toxic gas in the chambers would have steadily increased for one or two hours; therefore, ventilation of the chamber before the complete evaporation of the hydrogen cyanide would have been of no avail; and
5) The victims before dying could have inhaled only an insignificant part of the hydrogen-cyanide gas that would have been in the homicidal gas chambers.20
Cox lists several additional factors indicating that the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau had a significantly higher tendency of forming long-term-stable cyanide residue than the disinfestation buildings. He concludes: “In the masonry samples of the underground morgue, we should find approximately similar residues as in the disinfestation chambers, if not even more, provided that the stories told by the witnesses are true.”21
The alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz/Birkenau could not have been used to exterminate hundreds of thousands of people as described in pro-Holocaust literature for numerous reasons: 1) they did not have escape-proof doors and windows; 2) they did not have panic-proof equipment; 3) they did not have technically gastight doors and shutters; 4) they had no provision to quickly release and distribute the poison gas; and 5) they had no effective device to ventilate or otherwise render ineffective the poison gas after the execution.22
By contrast, Germany built highly sophisticated and expensive disinfestation facilities at Auschwitz-Birkenau to kill lice and save inmate lives. By one estimate, the SS at Auschwitz spent almost $1 billion in today’s values to bring the typhus epidemics raging there under control.23 An enormous amount of information exists concerning these German delousing facilities24, but no similar information exists regarding the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau.25
Another important piece of evidence arguing against the existence of homicidal gas chambers is that the British broke the ultra-secret Enigma code used by the Germans to transmit secret communications. During 1942 and 1943 British intelligence intercepted daily coded messages from Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Dachau, and seven other camps. Every day the Germans recorded the numbers of dead and the method of death at each camp. The transmissions from Auschwitz mentioned illness as the primary cause of death, but also reported a few deaths attributable to shootings and hangings. There was no reference to homicidal gassings as a cause of death in any of the decoded messages.26
The roof of the semi-underground Morgue #1 of Crematorium II at Birkenau, which is said to have been the building’s homicidal gas chamber, remains intact to some degree today. An important factor refuting the existence of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau is that, contrary to eyewitness testimony, that roof has no Zyklon-B-introduction holes. This has been acknowledged by pro-Holocaust researcher Robert Jan van Pelt. Since it is impossible to close holes measuring 70 x 70 cm from a concrete roof without leaving clearly visible traces, it is certain that no Zyklon-B-introduction holes ever existed at Crematorium II. Consequently, Zyklon B could not have been introduced through the roof at this morgue as alleged by pro-Holocaust supporters.27
Germar Rudolf has discovered additional information indicating that the roof of the semi-underground Morgue #1 of Crematorium II at Birkenau has no Zyklon-B-introduction holes. Rudolf writes:
“I may introduce another witness at this point who contacted David Irving by e-mail after conclusion of Mr. Irving’s legal proceedings against Deborah Lipstadt in May 2000. He is an engineer named Paul Barford; his colleagues are assisting in the conservation and restoration of the camp for the Auschwitz Museum administration. He informed David Irving that, during his trial, investigations were made in complete secrecy at Auschwitz with regard to the mystery of the holes, and then remarked:
‘[W]hat happened to their [the Auschwitz Museum’s] tests on the roof of Crema II mentioned in the attachment? Did they find the Zyklon B holes or not? Did they report those results to Lipstadt’s lawyers, and when?… As you can guess, despite my belief that you and the Revisionists are wrong, and despite spending half an hour examining the collapsed roof of the under-ground gas chamber of Crematorium II from different angles, I found no evidence of the four holes that the eyewitnesses say were there…Secondly several areas of the slabs are covered in small rubble from an outer layer of concrete which was fractured by the blast. Now I would have expected these fragments to have fallen through the holes, if they were there, into the void beneath…I remain puzzled by the lack of physical evidence for these holes.’
The search for the introduction holes mentioned by Barford, which was conducted by the Auschwitz Museum during Irving’s libel suit against Lipstadt, comes as a surprise. Right after the war, the investigative judge Jan Sehn should have conducted a forensic examination about this, but that was evidently not done. During the decades since, the museum should also have conducted research on this issue. Nothing has ever been published about the results of the search conducted in 2000. That result evidently disappeared in some drawer. If we consider the unscrupulousness with which the museum manipulated material evidence in a completely undocumented fashion with regard to the crematorium at the Main Camp, any competent researcher will be horrified about these apparently once-more-undocumented sledge-hammer methods used by this search of those holes in early 2000.
In addition to the deterioration of this physical evidence caused by the ravages of time, we are therefore dealing here also with the destruction of evidence by the museum authorities. What should have been done —meticulously putting together the fragments of this morgue’s roof like a big jigsaw puzzle while thoroughly documenting it, as is done with crashed airplanes–, evidently remained undone. Instead of doing it in a professional manner, that topic was left to be covered by amateurishly acting outsiders.”28
The authors of the book The Holocaust in Hungary: Evolution of a Genocide write that at least 300,000 to 345,000 Hungarian Jews were murdered in the gas chambers upon arrival at Birkenau.29 The cremation capacity at Birkenau was not nearly enough to cremate this many Jews so quickly. The authors of The Holocaust in Hungary acknowledge this fact and write: “The Nazis’ main problem: they were killing more people in the gas chambers than they could burn in the furnaces. The crematoria simply could not keep up with the task.” Thus, the Germans decided to burn many dead Hungarian Jews in open pits.30
The photographic evidence indicates that Germany did not have an extermination program against the Hungarian Jews. The U.S. government released wartime aerial photographs in 1979 of the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp taken on several random days in 1944 during the height of the alleged extermination period. Many of these photographs were taken at mid-morning on typical workdays. None of these photos shows huge pits or piles of bodies, smoking crematory chimneys, masses of Jews awaiting death outside of the alleged gas chambers, or mountains of coke used to fuel the crematoria. All of these would have been visible if Auschwitz-Birkenau had been the extermination center it is said to have been.
In his book Auschwitz: The End of a Legend, Carlo Mattogno writes regarding the Allied aerial photographs taken at Birkenau on May 31, 1944:
It is pointed out also that the aerial photographs taken by the Allied military on 31 May 1944, at the crucial time of presumed extermination, on the day of the arrival at Birkenau of about 15,000 deportees, and after 14 days of intense arrivals (184,000 deportees, averaging 13,000 per day) and with an extermination toll (according to Pressac’s hypothesis) of at least 110,000 homicidally gassed, which would have had to average 7,800 per day, every single day for 14 consecutive days; after all of that, the photographs do not show the slightest evidence of this alleged enormous extermination: No trace of smoke, no trace of pits, crematory or otherwise, burning or not, no sign of dirt extracted from pits, no trace of wood set aside for use in pits, no sign of vehicles or any other type of activity in the crucial zones of the courtyard of Crematory V nor in the earth of Bunker 2, nor in Crematories II and III. These photographs constitute irrefutable proof that the story of extermination of the Hungarian Jews is historically unfounded.31
John C. Ball writes that the Hungarian Jews arriving at Auschwitz-Birkenau from May 28 through May 31, 1944 are said to have been killed on the spot and cremated. Since the crematories at Auschwitz-Birkenau could have cremated only a small fraction of these bodies, by necessity most of them would have been cremated on gargantuan pyres outdoors. Therefore, if the orthodox story was true, the area would have been blanketed in smoke. However, the Allied air photo of Birkenau on May 31, 1944 shows a peaceful and uneventful camp devoid of any smoke emanating from the crematoria or open pits.32
The air photos of Auschwitz-Birkenau known to date from the period of December 1943 to February 1945 show no signs of fuel depots, massive smoke from chimneys or open fires, burning pits or pyres. The photos were altered: fake Zyklon-B input shafts and groups of inmates were retouched onto the photo negatives. One must assume that any actual mass-murder activities would not have escaped the notice of the air-photo interpreters, which would have resulted in the bombing of the camp – but this did not happen…To this day there is no air-photo evidence to support the alleged mass murder of the Jews at any location in Europe occupied by the Germans during World War II.33
As documented in this article, chemists adhering to the orthodox Holocaust narrative have failed to explain why the walls of the delousing facilities at Auschwitz-Birkenau are permeated with Prussian Blue, while nothing of this sort can be observed in any of the alleged homicidal gas chambers. The only reasonable explanation is that Zyklon B was never used in the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau. Nicholas Kollerstrom writes: “…for any alleged human gas chamber found in a German World War II labor camp let us merely measure cyanide in the walls: if it’s not there, it didn’t happen.”34
The forensic evidence refutes the possibility of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau. Reports, articles, testimony, books and videos from Fred Leuchter, Walter Lüftl, Germar Rudolf, Friedrich Paul Berg, Dr. William B. Lindsey, Carlo Mattogno, John C. Ball, Dr. Arthur Robert Butz, Dr. Nicholas Kollerstrom, Dr. Robert Faurisson, Wolfgang Fröhlich, Dr. Ing Franco Deana, Dr. James H. Fetzer, Richard Krege, Arnulf Neumaier, Cyrus Cox and David Cole have conclusively shown that there were no homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau. The books The Real Case for Auschwitz by Carlo Mattogno35 and The Chemistry of Auschwitz by Germar Rudolf36 are probably the best books available for anyone wanting to make a thorough study of this subject.
1 Rudolf, Germar, “Some Technical and Chemical Considerations about the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz and Birkenau,” in Gauss, Ernst (ed.), Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique of Truth and Memory, Capshaw, Ala.: Thesis and Dissertations Press, 2000, p. 337. See the currently available edition of Leuchter’s report: Fred A. Leuchter, Robert Faurisson, Germar Rudolf, The Leuchter Reports: Critical Edition, 4th ed., Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, 2015.
2 Rudolf, Germar, “A Brief History of Forensic Examinations of Auschwitz,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 20, No. 2, March/April 2001, p. 7.
3 Leuchter, Fred A., “The Leuchter Report: The How and the Why,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 9, No. 2, Summer 1989, pp. 138-139.
4 Rudolf, Germar, “Some Technical and Chemical Considerations about the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz and Birkenau,” in Gauss, Ernst (ed.), Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique of Truth and Memory, Capshaw, Ala.: Thesis and Dissertations Press, 2000, pp. 363-371.
5 Rudolf, Germar, “A Brief History of Forensic Examinations of Auschwitz,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 20, No. 2, March/April 2001, p. 9.
6 Rudolf, Germar, “Some Technical and Chemical Considerations about the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz and Birkenau,” in Gauss, Ernst (ed.), Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique of Truth and Memory, Capshaw, AL: Thesis and Dissertations Press, 2000, p. 369.
7 Preface to: Kollerstrom, Nicholas, Breaking the Spell: The Holocaust, Myth and Reality, Uckfeld, Great Britain: Castle Hill Publishers, 2015, pp. 12-13.
8 Butz, Arthur R., “Historical Past vs. Political Present,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 19, No. 6, Nov./Dec. 2000, p. 15.
9 Kulaszka, Barbara, (ed.), Did Six Million Really Die: Report of Evidence in the Canadian “False News” Trial of Ernst Zündel, Toronto: Samisdat Publishers Ltd., 1992, pp. 362-363.
10 https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mr._Death; Richard J. Green, “Report of Richard J. Green”, introduced in evidence during the libel case before the Queen’s Bench Division, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, David John Caldwell Irving vs. (1) Penguin Books Limited, (2) Deborah E. Lipstadt, ref. 1996 I. No. 1113, 2001, p. 16; http://www.phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/irving-david/rudolf/affweb.pdf,
11 Kollerstrom, Nicholas, Breaking the Spell: The Holocaust, Myth and Reality, Uckfeld, Great Britain: Castle Hill Publishers, 2015, p. 66.
12 Rudolf, Germar, The Chemistry of Auschwitz: The Technology and Toxicology of Zyklon B and the Gas Chambers—A Crime-Scene Investigation, Uckfield, Great Britain: Castle Hill Publishers, 2017, pp. 342-345.
13 https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mr._Death; Richard J. Green, “Report of Richard J. Green,” introduced in evidence during the libel case before the Queen’s Bench Division, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, David John Cawdell Irving vs. (1) Penguin Books Limited, (2) Deborah E. Lipstadt, ref. 1996 I. No. 1113, 2001, p. 16; http://www.phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/irving-david/rudolf/affweb.pdf., pp. 18, 36, 41.
14 Rudolf, Germar, The Chemistry of Auschwitz: The Technology and Toxicology of Zyklon B and the Gas Chambers—A Crime-Scene Investigation, Uckfield, Great Britain: Castle Hill Publishers, 2017, pp. 347-349.
15 Ibid., p. 348.
16 Richard J. Green, “Report of Richard J. Green”, op. cit. (note 13), p. 51.
17 Rudolf, Germar, The Chemistry of Auschwitz: The Technology and Toxicology of Zyklon B and the Gas Chambers—A Crime-Scene Investigation, Uckfield, Great Britain: Castle Hill Publishers, 2017, p. 345.
18 Ibid., pp. 345-346.
19 Cox, Cyrus, Auschwitz—Forensically Examined, Uckfield, UK: Castle Hill Publishers, March 2019, p. 42.
20 Ibid., pp. 42-45.
21 Ibid., pp. 45-47.
22 Rudolf, Germar, The Chemistry of Auschwitz: The Technology and Toxicology of Zyklon B and the Gas Chambers—A Crime-Scene Investigation, Uckfield, Great Britain: Castle Hill Publishers, 2017, pp. 174-175.
23 Ibid., pp. 175, 293.
25 Rudolf, Germar, The Chemistry of Auschwitz: The Technology and Toxicology of Zyklon B and the Gas Chambers—A Crime-Scene Investigation, Uckfield, Great Britain: Castle Hill Publishers, 2017, p. 114.
26 Hinsley, Frank H., British Intelligence in the Second World War: Its Influence on Strategy and Operations, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984, Vol. 2, Appendix 5, “The German Police Cyphers,” p. 673.
27 Rudolf, Germar, The Chemistry of Auschwitz: The Technology and Toxicology of Zyklon B and the Gas Chambers—A Crime-Scene Investigation, Uckfield, Great Britain: Castle Hill Publishers, 2017, pp. 143-147.
28 Ibid., pp. 145-146.
29 Vagi, Zoltan, Csosz, Laszlo, Kadar, Gabor, The Holocaust in Hungary: Evolution of a Genocide, Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 2013, pp. 218, 335.
30 Ibid., p. 220.
31 Mattogno, Carlo, Auschwitz: The End of a Legend, Newport Beach, CA: The Institute for Historical Review, 1994, p. 32.
32 Ball, John C., Air-Photo Evidence, in Rudolf, Germar (ed.), Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique of Truth and Memory, Uckfield, UK: Castle Hill Publishers, 2019, pp. 275-277.
33 Ibid., p. 277.
34 Kollerstrom, Nicholas, Breaking the Spell: The Holocaust, Myth and Reality, Uckfeld, Great Britain: Castle Hill Publishers, 2015, p. 70.
35 Mattogno, Carlo, The Real Case for Auschwitz: Robert van Pelt’s Evidence from the Irving Trial Critically Reviewed, 2nd ed., Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers, 2015 https://shop.codoh.com/book/the-real-case-for-auschwitz-en/389/.
36 Rudolf, Germar, The Chemistry of Auschwitz: The Technology and Toxicology of Zyklon B and the Gas Chambers. A Crime-Scene Investigation, Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers, 2020 https://castlehill.shop/product/the-chemistry-of-auschwitz-the-technology-and-toxicology-of-zyklon-b-and-the-gas-chambers-a-crime-scene-investigation/.