Honest Media
Today

"News for the discerning
reader"

See the DVDs shocking the nation:

The Persecution of Revisionists: The
Holocaust Unveiled

---------------

Zionist War Crimes: The Case for the
Prosecution

---------------

Judea Declares War: A Critical Look at
WWII

---------------

Understanding Anti-Semitism: Why Do Some
People Dislike Jews?

---------------

Rep. Paul Findley Dares to Speak Out: A
22-Year Veteran Congressman Exposes Israel's
Lobby

---------------

Ritual Murder
Revisited: The Hidden Cult

---------------

The
Line in the Sand

---------------

Human
Sacrifice among the Fanatical Hasidic Jews and Other Cults from Ancient
Times to the Present

---------------

Africa: Blood & Guts

---------------

Mondo
Cane

---------------

Slave
Trade in the World Today

Michael
Collins Piper Live Radio 7-8 PM EST

The Piper
Show Archives

The
Political Cesspool

Prof. Patrick McNally's Controversial
Comments on the Holocaust

Politically Incorrect
Cartoons

Paul Grubach's Writings on the Holocaust,
Etc.

Take a look:

HMT TV

Links to all the
good

videos on the
web

*****************

(This website is hosted by
the above, and supports both Free Speech and America.)

FBI/Congressional Record on
King

The Nonexistent “Auschwitz Gas
Chambers” of Deborah Lipstadt, Part
I

By Paul Grubach
copyright 2006

(Pictured: Jewish Holocaust
Propagandist Deborah Lipstadt)

I

In her 1993 critique of the
Holocaust revisionist movement, Denying the
Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and
Memory, prominent Holocaust historian
Deborah Lipstadt labeled British historian David
Irving a “Holocaust denier” and “one of the most
dangerous spokespersons of the denial
movement.”   In response, Irving sued
Lipstadt and her publisher for libel.  The
subsequent trial in London, beginning in January
2000, received worldwide coverage, as the media
spotlight fell upon the ongoing battle between
traditional and revisionist views of the Jewish
tragedy in W.W.II.  After a ten-week trial,
Irving lost his case and Lipstadt’s victory was
front-page news worldwide.

The Irving-Lipstadt saga
continued well into 2005.  In the early
part of the year, Lipstadt published her version
of events, History on Trial: My Day in Court
with David Irving.1 The book was generally
favorably reviewed and widely hailed as a
“publishing event.”  In her tome, she put
forth in laymen's terms that everyone could
understand, straightforward reasons as to why
one should reject Holocaust revisionist theories
and accept the existence of the homicidal
Auschwitz gas chambers.

As most readers of this essay
are already probably aware, Irving was arrested
in Vienna, Austria, in November 2005 and will
stand trial for “denying the Holocaust.”
According to a British press report, Irving's
Austrian lawyer claimed that his client has
recanted and now asserts belief in the existence
of the Nazi gas chambers.

Let us assume for the
sake of argument that David Irving has recanted,
and now believes the gas chambers were for
real.  Does this mean that Deborah Lipstadt
has finally and conclusively won the
Irving-Lipstadt war? Does this mean that she has
proven the Nazi gas chambers actually
existed?

In
view of this ongoing, headline grabbing story,
we should investigate exactly what “proof”
Lipstadt has offered her readers in History
on Trial to show the Auschwitz gas chambers
actually existed.

II

In January 1988, the second trial of Ernst
Zundel began in Toronto, Canada.  The
intrepid, German-born revisionist was charged
with spreading false news; he published a
booklet that challenged the prevailing view that
six million Jews were killed by the Nazis,
primarily through the use of gas chambers that
used hydrogen cyanide (HCN) as the killing
agent.

Fred A. Leuchter specialized in the design,
construction, and maintenance of execution
hardware such as gas chambers.  He was a
consultant to several states and penitentiaries,
had worked on and designed facilities used to
kill condemned criminals with hydrogen cyanide,
and in the late 1980s designed the new Missouri
State Penitentiary Death House and gas
chamber.  It would not be stretching the
truth a bit to say that at one time he was
America's foremost expert on gas chamber
technology.

Zundel contracted Leuchter to prepare an
expert opinion on the alleged murder facilities
at three sites in Poland.  In early 1988,
the American execution hardware expert 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.

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.  It is
agreed that no one was ever gassed at the latter
location; it was used only to delouse clothing
and other belongings.  Here is Lipstadt’s
description of Leuchter’s activities: “Leuchter
chiseled chunks of concrete from the walls of
the gas chambers.  He also took samples
from the walls of the delousing facility in
which clothes and objects were fumigated.
Leuchter intended to compare the amount of gas
residue in each facility.”2

Leuchter smuggled the samples out of Poland,
and back in Massachusetts he had a chemical lab
test them.  Lipstadt reports on Leuchter’s
findings: “The lab found there was more gas
residue in the delousing chamber samples than in
the gas chamber samples.  Based on this,
Leuchter concluded that no humans were gassed at
Auschwitz.”3

Lipstadt’s description of Leuchter’s findings
is very misleading.  The amounts of gas
residue found in the alleged homicidal gas
chamber samples were minuscule (!)
as compared with that found in the
non-homicidal delousing facility sample.4

Concerning Leuchter’s
findings, Lipstadt again writes: "Leuchter had
made a number of fundamental mistakes that
destroyed the validity of his conclusions.
In the fall of 1944, as the Soviet forces
approached Auschwitz, the Germans blew up the
gas chambers in order to camouflage their
genocidal activities.  The piles of rubble
had been exposed to years of rain, snow, sun and
mud.  The water-soluble HCN residue on the
chambers' exposed walls and floors had been
severely diluted by the time Leuchter arrived
with his chisel, Baggies, and running
commentary."5

In
other words, she is saying that one reason that
Leuchter found minuscule HCN residue in the
alleged gas chamber samples is because over 40
years of harsh weather--sun, rain, snow, heat,
cold, wind, mud, etc.,--washed virtually all of
the residue away.

The
revelation of the late Jean-Claude Pressac
disproves her claim.  French pharmacist
Pressac--one of the major researchers
in Lipstadt’s ideological camp, whose work
attempted to prove the existence of
the Auschwitz gas chambers--has been described
by Lipstadt’s allies as “one of the rare
research specialists in gas chamber
extermination technique.”6

In his widely hailed,
1989 tome, Auschwitz: Technique
and Operation of the Gas Chambers,
he published the picture of the outside
wall of a non-homicidal, HCN delousing
chamber.  Referring to this structure, he
wrote: "[F]rom ground level to just below the
chimney, bluish stains can be seen on the bricks
of the wall, showing that hydrocyanic acid [HCN]
was used there (in 1942-1944), for delousing
purposes."7

Thus, the findings of Pressac
discredits Lipstadt’s claim that all or even
most of the HCN residue on the alleged gas
chamber walls would have been "severely
diluted" by the elements or "weathered
away."  Despite being subjected to
over 40 years of weathering, the highly
visible HCN residue is still very much
present.  (There are other examples of
visible HCN residue remaining despite many
decades of being subjected to harsh
weather.8)

Furthermore, it is not true,
as Lipstadt claims that all of Leuchter’s
samples had been subjected to years of rain,
snow, sun and mud.  Leuchter took some
samples from the inside walls of the
alleged homicidal gas chamber of Crematorium
I.  As Pressac pointed out, these inside
walls were protected from the harsh, outside
elements: “Its morgue/gas chamber inside walls
have never been exposed to sun, rain, or snow
(factors which contribute to cyanide content
diminishing) as the other [alleged gas chambers]
were and are.”9

The important point here is
this.  The findings of one of the most
prominent experts on the alleged Auschwitz gas
chambers can be used to discredit the theories
of Deborah Lipstadt!  Pressac’s evidence
contradicts Lipstadt on these points.

Lipstadt again explains
another alleged consequence of Leuchter’s
supposed most serious “error.”  She writes:
“He assumed that because he found higher levels
of HCN residue in the chambers for delousing
clothing and objects than in the homicidal gas
chambers, humans were not killed in the
latter.  But vermin are far more resistant
to cyanide than humans.  Therefore, in
order to kill them, far higher concentrations of
gas are needed for substantially longer periods
of time.  Therefore, there should be
more gas residue in a clothes delousing chamber
than in a homicidal gas chamber.
Furthermore, when humans are packed tightly into
a room—such as they were in the gas
chambers—lower amounts of the gas will kill them
more rapidly than in other circumstances.
Given these conditions, it is surprising that he
found any gas residue at all in the homicidal
gas chambers.”10

Once again, an assertion of Pressac
undermines the claim of Lipstadt.  Pressac
claimed that 12 to 20 grams per cubic meter is
the concentration of the HCN allegedly used in a
homicidal gassing; two to five grams per cubic
meter was the concentration used in a
non-homicidal disinfestation/delousing.11
Contradicting Lipstadt, Pressac is claiming that
a greater concentration of gas would have been
used to kill humans in each gassing than that
used to kill vermin in each delousing.
Pressac’s claim contradicts Lipstadt, which
suggests that she and her fellow promoters of
the Holocaust ideology change their story
according to the propaganda needs of the
moment.

In all fairness to Lipstadt, though,
Pressac does claim that the gas was in contact
with the delousing chamber walls for much longer
periods that it was in contact with the walls of
the homicidal gas chambers.

Before we can proceed with our
critique of Lipstadt’s claims, we must
understand a few facts about the Holocaust story
and the properties of HCN.

The standard Holocaust story insists
that large numbers died in each gas chamber.
Allegedly, approximately 400,000 were gassed in
Crematorium II, 350,000 in Crematorium
III.12  And it is still a part of the
standard Holocaust history that the alleged gas
chambers were in operation for long periods of
time. Crematorium II allegedly functioned as a
homicidal gas chamber from March 1943 to
November 1944; Crematorium III was supposedly
used in a similar fashion from June 1943 to
November 1944.13

Enter Dr. Robert Jan van
Pelt, professor of architecture at the
University of Waterloo, Canada.  In
connection with Lipstadt’s defense at the
Irving-Lipstadt trial, van Pelt testified as an
expert witness on the alleged execution
Auschwitz gas chambers.

Dr. van Pelt points out that
“Hydrogen cyanide is very soluble in
water.”14  The authoritative Nuremberg
document, “Directives for the Use of Prussic
Acid [Hydrogen Cyanide] for the Destruction of
Vermin (Disinfestation),” also confirms that HCN
is water-soluble and has extraordinarily great
penetrating powers.15  Dr. van Pelt
estimates that 350,000 people were killed in the
alleged gas chamber of morgue I. At 2,000 people
per gassing, that comes out to 175 gassings, or
approximately 117 hours of the gas chamber being
exposed to HCN.16

For the sake of argument, let
us give Lipstadt and her allies the benefit of
doubt and assume what they say about the alleged
operation of the gas chambers is 100%
correct.  That is, let us assume A) far
less gas was used in a homicidal gassing than in
a non-homicidal delousing; B) the gas chamber
ventilation systems insured that the HCN was in
contact with the gas chamber walls for only
short periods of time during each homicidal
gassing; and C) the chambers were washed down
after the gassings with water.17.  Most
importantly, Lipstadt is claiming that the main
reason there was no long-term buildup of cyanide
residue in the “gas chambers” is because only
small amounts of the HCN were in contact with
the walls, pillars and ceilings for only very
brief periods of time.

Even if we assume all of
these to hold, the conditions would still have
been conducive to the development of the
long-term buildup of cyanide residue.

Since HCN has great
penetrating powers, at least some of the gas
used during the mass gassings would have
penetrated far enough into the brickwork to
escape being washed away after each gassing.
Furthermore, HCN is water-soluble. After the
hosing down, numerous water droplets containing
dissolved HCN, in addition to the natural
moisture in the damp chambers which would have
dissolved the gas, would have remained on the
walls, floors and ceilings to react with the
iron in the walls, ultimately leading to a
cyanide residue buildup.  We repeat:
Lipstadt’s allies claim that the gas chamber of
morgue I, for example, was exposed to HCN for
approximately 117 hours and it was hosed down
with water after each gassing.18

Enter Germar Rudolf, a former
Max-Planck Institute chemistry doctoral
candidate.  Correcting the deficiencies of
Leuchter’s pioneering study, he undertook a far
more thorough forensic study of the alleged
Auschwitz gas chambers.  Certified chemist
Rudolf uncovered the case of a German church
that had visible hydrogen cyanide residue
staining after only one (!) fumigation with HCN
gas.19

Considering all of the
aforementioned facts, one is justified in
concluding the following: if the structures in
question were actually used as homicidal gas
chambers, the conditions would have been
conducive for the long-term buildup of
considerable hydrogen cyanide residue.  The
point is not that the cyanide traces at the
alleged homicidal gassing sites are “somewhat
less” than those found at the non-homicidal
delousing sites, but that they are negligible or
nil in comparison.  As Rudolf points out,
if the structures in question were actually used
as homicidal gas chambers, there would have been
a considerable and significant cyanide residue
buildup.20

It is important to note that
Rudolf, in his forensic analysis of the alleged
Auschwitz gas chambers, found this: “Quantities
of cyanide on the order of magnitude of those
found by Leuchter in the alleged ‘gas chamber’
can apparently also be found in the wall
material of the inmate barracks.”21  In
other words, the amount of cyanide residue found
in the alleged gas chambers is similar to that
found in the inmates’ barracks—where no
homicidal mass gassings ever occurred!  If
the structures in question were actually used as
homicidal gas chambers, one would expect to find
a significantly greater cyanide residue buildup
in their walls than in the walls of the inmates’
barracks.  This is further evidence that
supports the revisionist claim that the alleged
“Auschwitz gas chambers” never existed.

Further
on, Lipstadt makes an important concession to
Holocaust revisionism, confirming that at least
one of its claims are indeed correct, while
simultaneously, she undermines the testimony of
one expert in her own camp.  Her rebuttal
to Dr. James Roth is most certainly revisionist
in nature.

As
stated earlier, Fred Leuchter took samples from
the alleged gas chamber walls.  The
laboratory that evaluated his samples pulverized
them for the tests.  When Roth, the chemist
who conducted the tests, learned the samples
were from gas chamber walls, he declared that
Leuchter’s findings were meaningless because
hydrogen cyanide only reacts on the
surface.  Roth said that the HCN “would
probably not…penetrate more than 10
microns.  Human hair is 100
microns.”22  Ergo, according to his
viewpoint, by pulverizing Leuchter’s samples,
the laboratory had diluted any HCN residue.

In a footnote, Lipstadt
undermines Roth’s claims, and implicitly admits
that at least one of the findings of Holocaust
revisionist chemist Germar Rudolf is indeed
correct.  She writes: “[T]he HCN most
likely penetrated far deeper than 10
microns.”23  This is precisely the point
that Rudolf demonstrated elsewhere.

Rudolf pointed out that
there are blue hydrogen cyanide residue stains
on the outside walls of the Auschwitz delousing
facilities.  This shows that “hydrogen
cyanide can rather easily reach deep layers of
plaster and mortar.”24

So let’s get this
perfectly straight.  Establishment chemist
Dr. James Roth, who now apparently agrees with
Lipstadt’s view of the Nazi gas chambers, was
wrong about how far the HCN gas would have
penetrated into the walls of the gas
chambers.  But the so-called Holocaust
denier Germar Rudolf was actually correct on
this issue.

Thank you Deborah
Lipstadt for bolstering the credibility of
Holocaust denier Germar Rudolf and undermining
the credibility of Holocaust true believer James
Roth.

To be continued…

Footnotes

1.
Deborah E. Lipstadt, History on Trial:
My Day in Court with David Irving (
HarperCollins, 2005).

2.
Ibid, p.35.

3.
Ibid.

4.
Fred A. Leuchter, jr., Robert Faurisson,
Germar Rudolf, The Leuchter Reports: Critical
Edition (Theses & Dissertations Press,
2005), p.58.  Online: http://www.zundelsite.org/english/leuchter/report1/index.html

5.
Lipstadt, p.35.

6.
Shelly Shapiro, ed., Truth Prevails:
Demolishing Holocaust Denial: the end of “The
Leuchter Report” (The Beate Klarsfeld
Foundation, 1990), p.29.

7.
Jean-Claude Pressac, Technique and
Operation of the Gas Chambers (The Beate
Klarsfeld Foundation, 1989), p.59.

8.
See the photographs in Germar Rudolf,
The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical
and Technical Aspects of the “Gas Chambers” of
Auschwitz (Theses & Dissertations Press,
2003).  Online: http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/index.html

9.
Shapiro, ed., p.44.

10.
Lipstadt, pp.35-36.

11.
Pressac, pp.16, 18, 31; Shapiro, ed., pp.
36-37.

12.
Pressac, p.183.

13.
Ibid.

14.
Robert Jan van Pelt, The Case for
Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial
(Indiana University Press, 2002), p. 363.

15.
Document printed in full in Pressac, pp.
18-20.

16.
See Dr.
Richard Green, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL ON APPEAL
(2000/2095) FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (1996-I-No. 1113)
BETWEEN: DAVID JOHN CAWDELL IRVING and PENGUIN
BOOKS LIMITED and DEBORAH E. LIPSTADT: REPORT OF
RICHARD J. GREEN, PHD, p.43. Online: http://www.holocaust-history.org/irving-david/rudolf/

17.
Ibid.  Dr. Green makes claim “C” in
his report.  See page 43.

18.
footnote 16.

19.
Rudolf, pp.20-22.

20.
Ibid, passim.

21.
Ibid, p.258.

22.
Lipstadt, p.131.

23.
Ibid.

24.
Rudolf,
p.274.

Send mail by filling out the form on the Feedback page with
questions or comments about this web site.
Last modified: 06/05/06