Fred Leuchter's Problem

by A. O.

A student essay from Dr. Elliot Neaman's History 210 class (historical methods - spring 2001)

When one thinks about the Holocaust many different thoughts occur. Most of these thoughts deal with brutality, racism, and death that occurred in the concentration camps and due to actions by the Nazi party. The Holocaust is one of the most recognized and studied mass genocide’s. The Nazi Party is known for the harsh brutality and the crime against humanity that were committed during World War II. The great and well research infamous cause of death for the millions of Jews that were executed were the gas chambers, which were built at many of the concentration camps, owned by the Nazi’s. Some of these concentration camps were Auschwitz, Birkenau, and Majdanek. These gas chambers have been studied by many and have now become museums to educate and teach people about the Holocaust. Since the Holocaust is the most popular and infamous mass genocide to study, many people have gone to great lengths to research and analyze the many different reasons that the holocaust may have occurred or even if it occurred at all. Many historians research the many aspects and different motivations for certain occurrences during the Holocaust. One aspect of the concentration camps that has been thoroughly studied is the gas chambers and the construction behind them. Some researchers and historians find factual evidence to prove that the gas chambers were a tool for genocide, while others find facts to dispute this. The Leuchter Report written by Fred Leuchter in 1988 was data and statistics based on the compounds of chemicals and the forensic considerations behind the gas chambers in concentration camps. Because of his research he became a holocaust denier. Since the holocaust has been one of the most recognized cases of brutality, it causes a great amount of interest in many people and especially historians. To the present day the occurrences of the holocaust baffle the many nations of the world, as well as instill fear that something so horrible could occur and that a reign of terror as brutal as the holocaust could ever reoccur.

Fred Leuchter is a man who lives in the United States and is around forty-five years old. His educational background is in engineering, and he specializes in execution hardware used in many prisons around the United States (Faurisson, pg. 6). One project that Leuchter was assigned to do was to design the gas chamber for a penitentiary in the state of Missouri (Faurisson, pg. 6). Since his background of knowledge of modern day gas chambers and his understanding of their construction he was asked to do some research on the gas chambers of concentration camps. The key to Leuchter is the motivation and reasoning for him to take the initiative to research the holocaust. Fred Leuchter was approached by Robert Faurisson to do the research on the gas chambers. The motivation behind this was the Robert Faurisson is a denier of the gas chambers and he is also is help in defending another fellow denier. Faurisson was defending Ernst Zundel who had been charged with spreading false news by publishing "Did Six Million really Die?. (Faurisson, pg. 1). In this book written by Zundel, he questions the occurrence of the holocaust and the statistics of the death count. Because of his denier viewpoints he was charged and brought to trail. (Faurisson, pg. 1). From the beginning Leuchter was researching the holocaust for a holocaust denier and to support his case. Faurisson told Leuchter that his findings would be used in court, and that Leuchter himself would have to take the stand to show his findings. Because of Zundel’s opinion that the gas chambers did not exist based on the Zyklon B gas chemicals that are contained in the walls of the gas chambers, Leuchter found a connection and agreed to take on the assignment (Faurisson, pg. 1)

Before this study was started or completed by Leuchter he had not previously questioned the notion of the holocaust.

Leuchter and his wife, along with a team many other people who specialized in certain aspects that needed to be covered such as a draftsman, cinematographer, and a language interpreter (Leuchter, pg. 2 of introduction). The trip that the team of researchers took was eight days long, and consisted of investigating the concentration camps of Auschwitz, Birkenau, and Majdanek. Leuchter took samples of the walls of the gas chambers illegally and without permission. He had to outsmart the museum authorities to be able to take samples from the concentration camps (Leuchter, pg. 2 of background). Leuchter and his team also had to be very sneaky through customs so they would not get caught with historical memorabilia and other things that are very significant to a country's history. (Leuchter, pg. 6). Without the permission of the museum authorities Leuchter was not able to get background information as well as the conditions in the gas chambers to see what the walls were and are exposed to which could change the actual chemical compounds.

In The Leuchter Report, Leuchter himself explains the methodology of his study and the procedures that were involved in the study for the forensic analysis. The basic procedures were preformed and the depth in his study was minimum. Leuchter based his report on "on-site visual data" and samples that he took off the walls of the gas chambers and crematories (Leuchter, Methodology pg. 1). Leuchter based his conclusions on very minimal data and background.

After the data was complete Leuchter wrote a 192-page report on his findings. The main point was in favor of the holocaust deniers which was that mass genocide was not completed in the "supposed gas chambers at the concentration camps".

After reviewing all of the material and inspecting all of the sites at Auschwitz, Birkenau, and Majdanek, your author finds the evidence as overwhelming. There were no execution gas chambers at any of these locations. It is the best engineering opinion of this author that the alleged gas chambers at the inspected sites could not have then been, or now, be utilized or seriously considered to function as execution gas chambers. (Leuchter, Report 22, pg.1)

The conclusions from the samples that Leuchter took from the concentration camps were obvious to him. Leuchter backs this up with how and why he came to these conclusions. This is due to the fact that there was a blue residue and staining in walls of certain facilities at the camps, yet not on the walls of the supposed gas chambers. This told Leuchter that the compound hydrogen cyanide or also called Zyklon B could not have been present in the walls of the gas chambers. Leuchter concluded along with his other information that because of the Prussian Blue compounds not found in the gas chambers that they simply could not have been constructed for mass killings. (Green, pg. 3) Leuchter’s test on the forensic evidence collection from the site at the camps states that the almost all the samples were negative and few that were possible for detection of HCN compounds which would be used in a gas chamber. Leuchter states that "one would have expected higher cyanide detection in the samples taken from the alleged gas chambers (because of the greater amount of gas allegedly utilized there) than that found in the control sample. Since the contrary is true, one must conclude that these facilities were not execution gas chambers, when coupled with all the other evidence gained on inspection" (Leuchter, Report 17, pg. 2). Yet if you look at Leuchter’s Appendix 1 from the Leuchter report one can see that many of his results were not sensitive (ND) and the data was inconclusive. Leuchter also bases his conclusions on the fact that the blue staining caused by the chemicals Zyklon-B was found in the delousing chambers, yet not on the gas chambers. According to Leuchter this could not be possible if the gas chambers were used for killings, than the staining and the chemical residue would appear in the forensic tests taken from the samples of the gas chamber walls. The delousing chambers were to get rid of insects and diseases so that lice and typhoid would not run rapid through the work camp. Leuchter believes that the chemicals in the gas chambers should be stronger than in the delousing chambers since one is to kill people, while the other is to kill insects (Green, pg. 2). Leuchter also states that if cyanide was used to kill in the gas chambers than the cyanide compound may and should remain in a location where it was used to kill so many people. Since Leuchter’s control sample was the delousing chambers where cyanide was known to have been used since the evidence of the blue staining, higher rates of blue staining should be apparent in the gas chambers (Leuchter, Report 17 Forensic, pg. 1). Therefore the alleged gas chambers, where not in fact, according to Leuchter used as gas chambers in the Holocaust.

The Leuchter Report is very important to holocaust deniers, and destructive to the millions of people who lost family members and their lives. The holocaust deniers use the Leuchter Report to back up the claims that the gas chambers did not exist. The greatest amount of impact that the Leuchter report has had is on Germany and those interested in the history of the Nazi party. When the Leuchter report was published in Germany, the German authorities tried to suppress it (Editor of JHR, pg. 1). This report can drastically and dramatically change fundamental views surrounding the certain important aspects of the Holocaust. This is why the Leuchter Report is such a controversy. Yet, the Leuchter Report can not be banished because of freedom of speech laws, and in Germany the Leuchter Report was declared a constitutionally protected scholarly work. Because of the circulation and impact of the Leuchter report, Holocaust historians have to refute the report with more substantial evidence than Leuchter himself came up with.

Even thought the Leuchter report seems to have strong evidence and proof to back it up, there are many holes in Leuchter’s argument. One key component is that Leuchter did not ask permission to take any samples to do his study. Also Leuchter compares the gas chamber of concentration camps to the high tech gas chambers of American penitentiaries. The most important claim presented by Leuchter is that most of his evidence comes from the blue staining present in the delousing facilities due to the amount of Zyklon-B used. Yet in the gas chambers where Leuchter believes there should also be blue staining if in fact it was used as a gas chamber are not present on the walls. This seems like credible evidence, yet there is another way of looking at the conditions at the work camps. First of all the blue staining is not present in all delousing chambers (Green, pg. 2) Second the delousing chambers were used for 24 hour periods at a time, opposed to a gas chamber which would be used for 20 minutes at a time. Yet, at the Majdanek death camp there is blue staining on the inside walls of the gas chambers, but Leuchter chooses to over look the evidence in the Majdanek gas chambers (Green, pg. 2). Also Leuchter has introduced a bias because he uses the delousing chambers as a control, instead of using a part of the work camp that was not exposed to the HCN compound and cyanide (Green, pg.3). Because of this bias, other studies have been done to try to over come Leuchter’s bias. The Institute for Forensic Research overcame the bias by using other walls at Auschwitz-Birkenau. The walls of the gas chambers and the delousing chambers had traces of cyanides significantly above the background of other buildings at Auschwitz-Birenau. (Green, pg. 3).

Another aspect to refute the deniers if the fact that the conditions surrounding the upkeep of the museum work camps was not addressed in Leuchter’s report. Many different environmental conditions and weather conditions may in fact change the compounds of the wall, or cause them to deteriorate. Hydrogen cyanide is a weak acid that can form a variation in salts. (Green, pg.4) Potassium cyanide can be one of these salts formed. This changes the chemisorption and formation of other cyanide compounds. The problem with the testing of the HCN which has turned into Potassium cyanide or another salt is the fact that cyanide salts are highly water soluble unlike Prussian blue. Prussian blue only form with very high concentrations of HNC. The actual concentrations that were used in the gas chambers are hard conclusions to come to. Yet the concentration of the levels of cyanide are hard to detect because the gas chambers were hosed down with water after gassings to clean up blood and other toxic waste (Green, pg.5). By this watered down treatment the gas chambers received the HCN could absorb water and the chemical composition is not as strong. Another condition could be the atmosphere surrounding the present day museum gas chambers. The presence of the tourism and human beings could effect the gas chambers balance of different compounds in the walls. Also the paint that was on the walls of the delousing chambers could be used in the effects and staining from the Prussian Blue. (Bailer, pg. 5). To disprove Leuchter and other deniers, further and more extensive tests have been done on the blue staining. Since the control was the dwelling accommodations and not the delousing room the results varied. The cyanide compounds were found in both the gas chambers and the delousing rooms which show that even thought the levels of the compounds found in the samples from the alleged gas chambers may be low, they still have enough remittance of the HCN to detect. Since the compounds may have changed in the work camps that are now museums due to environment and water dilution the IFFR recreated many different situations that could cause the cyanide ions to become different compounds. One very important recreation showed that water elutes cyanide compounds considerably (IFFR, pg. 9). Since water dilutes the compounds, the evidence is susceptible to weathering. The IFFR claims that even though the gas chambers have been changed because of environmental and situational conditions over the last 45 years they still find that a considerable amount of Zyklon B has been preserved (IFFR, pg.9). Leuchter’s argument against the IFFR’s claim that evidence was preserved was that the present day samples have Zyklon B compounds simply because of the fumigation’s that were carried out a long time ago (Item 14.004 of the Leuchter Report). The IFFR found an argument once again to disprove Leuchter’s claim, in the IFFR final conclusion it states:

…is refuted by the negative results of the examination of the control samples from living quarters, which are said to have been subjected to a single gassing, and the fact that in the period of fumigation of the Camp in connection with a typhoid epidemic in mid-1942 there were still no crematoria in the Birkenau Camp. The first crematorium (Crematorium II) was put to use as late as 15 March 1943 and the others several months later (IFFR, pg. 9)

The Institute of Forensic Research was able to disprove Leuchter’s theories by simply re-doing, re-creating, and testing every different situation that could possibly be looked at for evidence for the Holocaust.

One researcher tried to investigate the blue staining from a different perspective, than simply the water dilution of the Zyklon-B. Bailer figured that the paint on the walls of the facilities could also have a hand in the compound format changing. J. Bailer states in his collective work "Amoklauf gegen die Wirklichkeit" that:

that the formation of Prussian blue in bricks is simply improbable; however, he takes into consideration the possibility that that the walls of the delousing room were coated with paint. It should be added that this blue coloration does not appear on the walls of all the delousing rooms. (Green, pg. 2)

The IFFR also believes that simply because the some of the delousing rooms have blue staining, this does not been that it is attributed to exposure to carbon dioxide in factual proof. Even though Bailer believes that he may be able to attribute the blue staining to paint this does seem very unlikely, yet it is one more characteristic and issue to investigate (Green, pg. 3).

The deniers of the Holocaust work very hard to find circumstances that may not have as much evidence of and that seem on the surface level to be easy to prove false. The appearance and research of the Leuchter report seems in-depth and factual, yet to be a real historian one must look at all the surrounding evidence instead of picking and choosing what seems to be helpful to a certain claim. This is what Leuchter does in his report; he picks and chooses what will support his stance on the holocaust. Proof of this lies is his control sample, and his ignorance on the fumigation in the camp. Since the Leuchter report many people have not just made attempts to disprove his theories, the holocaust researchers and historians have found proof to make Leuchter’s report seem incompetent and false. Many holocaust organizations and forensic institutes work determinedly to show the holes and wrong information that the Leuchter gives out. They do this by pointing out the false statistics and bias forensic reports that Leuchter uses to make his conclusion that homicidal killings did not in fact occur in the alleged gas chambers.

Through all the research and the forensic reports, there is not anything that can explain the motivation and hidden agenda that is possessed by the holocaust deniers and Leuchter himself. Leuchter’s background does not seem as if he has a real strong motivation to deny the holocaust personally, just simply because he was recognized by deniers as a intellectual on the design and use of gas chambers in the present day. The explanation of why Leuchter was bias and did not do through enough of an investigation can not be explained.

The denial of the gas chambers leaves a huge hole in the history of the holocaust if in fact the gas chambers were non-existent. Unfortunately, even through Leuchter’s extensive report he does not do a good job in justifying this claim. The gas chambers are one of the most important aspects of the mentality of the Nazi party and the infamous death camps. To simply deny that the gas chambers exist and to go against the photographs, statistics, first-hand stories, and even the Nazi’s admitting that the gas chambers did exist is irrational in itself and the claim. To try to ruin the history of the holocaust by defending the Nazi’s intention by denying the key component to the genocidal massacre is simply historically incorrect based on all the knowledge and proof of the great number of people who lost their lives in the Nazi’s rein of terror. The controversy will continue between historians and deniers, yet the evidence that is shown backs up the historical fact and data that the gas chambers existed. The holocaust is a very important occurrence in history to study because of the impact it had on the world. The mass genocide of over 5 million people needs to be studied and understood so that generations to follow will not be subjected to a reign of terror so brutal that the impact, emotions, and pain still continue to this day. These memories and pain continues through the families of the survivors, families of the murders, and families that had to lose everything and start again. This horrible tragedy in the world’s history will not be ignored or forgotten because few deny, whereas million have died.

References:

Green, Richard J. "A Foreword to the IFFR Report." Holocaust Deinial: Demographics, Testimonies and Ideologies. Ed. John Zimmerman. Lanham: University Press of America, 2000.