The Leuchter Debacle

by A. H.

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

In the spring of 1942, an extension of the Auschwitz concentration camp was set up three kilometers west on the site of the small village of Brzezinka. This addition was named Birkenau after a small grove of birch trees at the site and its function was shrouded in mystery. All of the 120 documents pertaining to the construction of the facilities at Birkenau were titled "Re: Kriegsgefangengenlager Auschwitz (Durchfuhrung der Sonderbehandlung)," which translates to, "Concerning: POW Camp Auschwitz (Carrying Out of Special Treatment). The morgues at Birkenau were converted to an alternative purpose and renamed "Sonderkellers," or special cellars (Pressac and Van Pelt 223). The "special" purpose that these facilities carried out was the homicidal gassing of Jews. Certain slip-ups, such as when SS General Hans Kammler referred to one of these alleged morgues as a "Vergasungskeller" meaning gassing cellar, are one type of documentation used to sift through the cover up.

The documentation of every detail of construction, the formidable eye-witness testimony, and the technological breakthroughs in chemical analysis have all played intregal roles in proving that the facilities of the Auschwitz area were in fact intended to exterminate Jews, and subsequently dispose of the bodies. Regardless of this preponderance of evidence, an extensive movement known as Holocaust denial has plagued the world with its contention that the Holocaust is only a fabricated myth intended to advance Jewish interests. The Holocaust deniers dismiss the disappearance of millions of Jews from Nazi Germany’s borders as the result of mass, undocumented immigration and deportation.

To successfully deny the Holocaust, these self-professed Revisionists have sought to establish a firm foundation on which to build their argument. And no aspect of the Holocaust more clearly reveals the true nature of Nazi Germany’s persecution of its Jewish population than the role of homicidal gas chambers, especially in the Auschwitz area. In 1988, the first forensic analysis of the walls of the alleged homicidal gas chambers of the Auschwitz area appeared to prove that the facilities in question had not been regularly exposed to the hydrogen cyanide supposedly utilized in their homicidal gassings.

Throughout the 1970’s and 80’s, Ernst Zundel distributed white supremacist paraphernalia underneath the guise of his Toronto based Samidat Publishers Ltd. (Nizkor 1). Of the literature and videos he circulated, the majority catered to arguments central to denying the Holocaust. Since Zundel distributed his publications out of Canada, he eventually found himself prosecuted under Canada’s law against dispensing false information. S. 181 (formerly s. 177) states that, "Every one who willfully publishes a statement, tale or news that he knows is false and that causes or is likely to cause injury or mischief to a public interest is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years" (Insight 1).

In 1985, Zundel was charged with violating this statute by distributing a pamphlet called "Did Six Million Really Die?" which contested the established estimates for the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust and denied the existence of homicidal gas chambers. The seven week long trial resulted in Zundel’s incarceration for 15 months. But in January 1987, the Ontario Court of Appeals overturned the decision and declared a mistrial, ordering that a new trial be held in January 1988. Robert Faurisson, an infamous Holocaust denier, approached the self-professed engineer and gas chamber specialist Fred Leuchter and asked him to consider participating in expert testimony on behalf of Zundel. Leuchter accepted and set off for Poland to prepare a comprehensive analysis of the existence of homicidal gas chambers in the Auschwitz area, including the first forensic tests for traces of hydrogen cyanide on the walls of the facilities in question (Leuchter 7).

"The Leuchter Report" was completed by the following year. In it Leuchter concludes that the facilities in question could not physically have been used for homicidal gassing with hydrogen cyanide and, furthermore, that his forensic analysis proves that hydrogen cyanide was not regularly administered within these rooms. The facilities focused upon were Krema I at Auschwitz, Kremas II-V at Birkenau, and the two facilities at Majdanek. He states that these rooms in question were no more than morgues and explains that the faint traces of hydrogen cyanide found inside were due to their having been deloused (i.e. fumigated) at some point (Leuchter 10, 15,18-19).

The report focuses on three distinct subjects, all intermingled rather confusingly: his physical observations of the current structures, revised estimates for the output of the homicidal gas chambers and crematories, and the results of his forensic analysis. Only a comprehensive scrutiny of all of these components of "The Leuchter Report" will suffice in demonstrating the diversity of approaches Holocaust deniers rely upon to fabricate their faulty arguments.

Leuchter’s physical observations of the surviving remains of the homicidal gas chambers focus on the absence any evidence of the existence of sealant, gasketing, and mechanical ventilation. He says that these three features are crucial aspects of the design criteria for the safe use of Zyklon-B, preventing the hydrogen cyanide from leaking out of the chamber. Any leakage of hydrogen cyanide, Leuchter maintains, would result in massive fatalities due both to exposure and the explosions occurring when the gas reached the flames of the crematories.

Leuchter’s reason for including revised estimates for the output of the crematories and homicidal gas chambers is ambiguous since his report focuses on proving that the facilities of the Auschwitz area were not used as homicidal gas chambers at all. These revised estimates are based on unique calculations that drastically reduce the widely accepted output projections. Considering the role that the report was intended to play in Zundel’s defense, who was on trial for false information pertaining to number of Jews killed in the Holocaust, these estimates seem to be intended primarily to substantiate the legitimacy of Zundel’s allegations.

The most compelling feature of "The Leuchter Report" is the results of his forensic analysis. Without legal authorization, Leuchter took samples from the interior walls of the homicidal gas chambers and compared the hydrogen cyanide residue present in them with a sample from a known delousing chamber. His results showed minor traces of cyanide ions in the samples from the homicidal gas chambers and a comparatively massive concentration his control sample from the delousing chamber. At face value, these forensic results seem to provide definitive proof that the facilities in question were not used as homicidal gas chambers.

Upon thorough review, every aspect of "The Leuchter Report" fails to prove that homicidal gas chambers did not exist in the Auschwitz area. In fact, many of Leuchter’s findings actually substantiate that the use of these facilities for homicidal gassings, but are disguised by his distortion of evidence, his neglect of abundant and relevant documentation and testimony, and his defective and unsophisticated scientific methods.

PHYSICAL OBSERVATIONS:

Leuchter claims that the homicidal gas chambers in the Auschwitz lack current physical evidence that they utilized gasketing, sealants, or mechanical ventilation. He asserts that the failure to conform to such elementary parts of the design criteria for a fumigation facility would result in the death of the Zyklon-B administrators and technicians due to both direct exposure to the gas via leakage, as well as through the inevitable explosion of most of these facilities.

Ironically, the official documentation from 1944 through 1945 chronicles the systematic dismantling of the facilities in question followed by their intentional demolition, providing ample explanation for the absence of such apparatus. Piper organizes a chronological account of this removal of incriminating evidence beginning with Himmler’s official directive dated November 25, 1944. The comprehensive process continued all the way through January 26, 1945, one day before Soviet troops took control of the area. Efforts to eliminate all evidence of the homicidal gas chambers even extended to exterminating the Jews who given related duties, whether carrying the dynamite or those working as Sonderkommandos. But these efforts were not nearly as successful as the Germans had hoped, providing a multitude of eye-witness testimony (Piper 174).

The most common criticism among Leuchter’s physical observations is that the homicidal gas chambers lack traces of having sealant and gasketing. Leuchter states that in Kremas I-V, "there is no provision for gasketed doors, windows or vents . . . [and] the structures are not coated with tar or other sealant to prevent leakage or absorption of the gas" (Leuchter 13-14, 17). At Majdanek, he says that "the building is not sealed and would not be operable for its alleged purpose" (Leuchter 17-18). Sealant serves to keep gas from being overly absorbed by the walls and thus contributes to preventing its leaking through the walls. Gasketing is the apparatus used to make openings, such as doors and windows, gas-tight.

Leuchter cleverly understates the fact that known fumigation facilities, such as the Bath and Disinfectant facility No.1 at Majdanek, likewise lack any trace of these measures (Leuchter 17-18). The absence of sealant and gasketing in the fumigation facilities demonstrates that the German’s uniformly skimped on sealant application and that such necessities as gasketing were systematically removed from all gassing facilities, whether homicidal or fumigatory. Thus, Leuchter relies on faulty logic by accepting that the fumigation facilities could function in a gassing capacity while arguing that the homicidal gas chambers were not even though they display the same physical evidence.

Though Leuchter emphatically denies the existing of any surviving physical evidence of the employment of these precautionary measures, a considerable abundance of documentation and eye-witness testimony that provide for far more compelling evidence than the ransacked and demolished condition that these facilities are currently in. Numerous witnesses have testified to the presence of the gasketing Leuchter is sure never existed. Piper cites how Perry Broad observed that the doors "had been gas-proofed with rubber and reinforced with iron fittings" (Piper 160). And at the trial of camp Commandant Rudolf Hoss, witnesses testified that the doors of the homicidal gas chambers were "air-proofed with rubber gaskets" (Piper 167). These are just two examples of many eye-witness reports that confirm the utilization of gasketing in the homicidal gas chambers.

Another of the central observations Leuchter makes is that the homicidal gas chambers lack any trace of mechanical ventilation systems. Based on further documentation and testimony, it is apparent that the Germans running Auschwitz were well aware of the hassle and hazard that incurred by failing to mechanically to ventilate the homicidal gas chambers (something observed by officials in the very first test of Zyklon-B [Pressac and Van Pelt 209]). While indeed there may not exist any means of deciphering whether ventilation was employed through looking at the remains of these facilities, the correspondence between the Zentralbauleitung and Topf and Sons (the primary outside contractors employed in the construction and maintenance of the facilities in the Auschwitz area) provides indisputable proof that ventilation was uniformly incorporated. For instance, on October 22, 1941, an order was placed with Topf and Sons for the design and construction of Kremas II-V at Birkenau that included mechanical ventilation (Piper 164).

Krema II serves as an effective example of how the preponderance of evidence supports the existence of mechanical ventilation in the homicidal gas chambers. Various documents chronicle the interaction between the Auschwitz administration and Topf and Sons throughout the construction of Krema II. Besides confirming the presence of specialized mechanical ventilation systems, these documents also reveal two other planned features of the morgue that expose its true function as a homicidal gas chamber: the rerouting of hot air so as to heat the room and the inclusion of gas detectors.

In February 1943, the Zentralbauleitung made several correspondences with Topf and Sons reproaching them for their delays in installing the deaerating system (i.e. a system that extracts the current air) in the morgue of Krema II. It is entirely reasonable for a morgue to utilize an aerating ventilation system (i.e. a ventilation system that brings in fresh air). However, the installation of this deaeration system was prioritized just as highly as the aeration system, if not higher considering the irritation and urgency Bischoff’s letter to Kammler indicates. The installation of a deaeration system in a morgue is unnecessary and expensive, suggesting that the room was actually utilized for another purpose wherein the room’s air needed to be extracted and pumped outside. In fact, the correspondence between the Zentralbauleitung and Topf and Sons also discusses the necessity of a deaerating ventilator that would not be corroded by air mixed with prussic acid (a form of hydrogen cyanide), further proving the ventilation’s undeniable role in the homicidal gassings (Pressac and Van Pelt 229).

On February 19, Kurt Prufer of Topf and Sons called attention to the problem of the Krema II’s smokestack configuration wherein hot air was distributed evenly by the ventilation system throughout all of the rooms in building. Prufer suggested a modification that would route the excess heat to the morgue only; "The plan was immediately accepted by the SS, and on February 22, Topf sent to Auschwitz a cast-iron blower with an extractive power of 9,000 to 10,000 cu m an hour, priced at 522 RM (1992: $2,100)" (Pressac and Van Pelt 230). The introduction of hot air into a morgue is extremely incompatible with its function. However, the introduction of superfluous hot air could serve to expedite the evaporation of Zyklon-B, thus demonstrating another modification consistent with the rooms use as a homicidal gas chamber and inconsistent with its use as a morgue.

On February 26, 1943, the Zentralbauleitung telegrammed Topf and Sons, pressing them to acquire the gas detectors needed for the completion of the morgue in Krema II. In a letter written to the Zentralbauleitung on March 2, 1943, Sander and Prufer of Topf and Sons exposed the true purpose of the room designated as a morgue:

Re: Crematorium (II). We acknowledge receipt of your telegram stating: "Immediate shipment of 10 gas detectors as agreed. Estimate to be furnished later." Concerning this matter, we can tell you that for two weeks now we have been making inquiries of five different firms about the apparatus you want indicating the traces of prussic acid [Anzeigegerate fur Blausaure-Reste] . . . .

(Pressac and Van Pelt 230)

Clearly the majority of evidence reveals that the design of, and apparatus for, Krema II’s morgue was completely incompatible with any use as a morgue. Morgues do not require deaerating (especially with non-corroding ventilators) and the preservation of corpses is defeated with warm temperatures. But if the chamber were intended to be used for the homicidal administration of Zyklon-B, then the introduction of heat would be an advantage, and a deaerating system and gas detectors crucial. There is no other purpose for the inclusion of this apparatus than for facilitating the application of Zyklon-B.

It is evident that contrary to conclusions Leuchter makes based on his physical observations, the design criteria for fumigation standards were met by the homicidal gas chambers, not to mention surpassed with the rerouting of hot air and inclusion of gas detectors. What is surprising is that even the effects that Leuchter claims would be incurred from the failure to meet these design criteria are incorrect. Namely, Leuchter’s contention that these facilities for gassing would result in the death of those administering due to exposure and explosion is false; and in both cases, the vindicating evidence appears within Leuchter’s own sources, demonstrating that either incompetence or misrepresentation account for his failure to convey the relevant contents therein.

Among his appendices, Leuchter includes both the DEGESCH and Dupont manuals for proper Zyklon-B administration (DEGESCH: "Zyklon B For Pest Control!" Appendix XII [Leuchter 49-61]; Dupont: "Directives for the use of prussic acid (Zyklon) for the destruction of vermin (deinfestation)," Appendix III [Leuchter 23-5]). Both of these manuals clearly state that any technician working near the administration of Zyklon-B should use oxygen masks. Nevertheless, Leuchter claims that "those throwing Zyklon B in the roof vents and verifying the death of the occupants would themselves die from exposure to hydrogen cyanide" (Leuchter 13-14). There is also a multitude of eyewitness testimony that those administering the gas and working in the area uniformly utilized such protective masks (e.g. at the trial of Hoss and the trial of Auschwitz personnel [Piper 162, 163]). Therefore, it is surprising that Leuchter would attempt to claim that those administering the gas would be killed by its fumes.

However, claiming that hydrogen cyanide inhalation was inevitable is nothing in comparison to Leuchter’s most dishonest claim in which he states that hydrogen cyanide would inevitably leak from the homicidal gas chambers and cause a massive explosion when it reached the crematories. He is particularly sure that while Kremas I-V "are a potential danger of explosion" (Leuchter 16, 17), at the facility at Majdanek "the gas would have reached the ovens, and after killing all the technicians, would have caused an explosion and destroyed the building" (Leuchter 14).

To stake this claim, Leuchter intentionally distorts his sources. The Dupont manual for proper Zyklon-B management, attached as Appendix X, says that Zyklon-B is extremely flammable" (Leuchter 45). But the DEGESCH manual, his primary source for Zyklon-B management and attached as Appendix XII, goes further in depth about the flammability of hydrogen cyanide and states that the "the lower explosion limit lies far above the concentration used in practical fumigation" (Leuchter 51). It is important to realize that this manual says that hydrogen cyanide is only flammable in concentrations "far above" that used for fumigation. Thus, according to Leuchter’s own attached sources, the risk of an explosion due to leakage of hydrogen cyanide is impossible, especially considering that any leakage would, by definition, be even less concentrated due to dilution. The breadth of Leuchter’s distortion of evidence is staggering, no self-respecting scholar would ever endeavor to manipulate attached sources so egregiously.

In the case of the homicidal gas chambers in the Auschwitz area, making physical observations of the surviving structures fails to provide any solid evidence that supports an argument against their use for homicidal purposes. The documentation of the systematic dismantling of the gassing apparatus, the demolition of the entire structures, and the preponderance of hard evidence documenting the design and equipping of these facilities to meet the design criteria of fumigation standards all substantiate the homicidal purpose of the facilities in question. Leuchter’s observations only demonstrate Nazi Germany’s systematic concealment of the Auschwitz area’s role in fulfilling the final solution, subsequently clearly acknowledging a serious degree of fault on their part.

REVISED OUTPUT ESTIMATES:

Leuchter introduces revised calculations for the potential output of both the homicidal gas chambers and the crematories. While he clearly maintains that the facilities in question were not used for homicidal gassing, Leuchter examines the potential output of these structures so as to further illustrate how incapable they were of functioning in the way that historians have established. His revised calculations for the homicidal gas chambers were admitted into the trial of Zundel vs. the Queen, but those pertaining to the crematories were not because he lacked expertise on the subject. Since Leuchter’s figures for the crematories are wholly based on Ivan Legace’s calculations, which were admitted due to Legace’s minimal expertise, these figures will also be examined so as to provide a glimpse of the common misinformation and misrepresentation characteristic of Holocaust deniers (Zimmerman 12).

Leuchter’s revised calculations for the potential output of the homicidal gas chambers are 50-60% less than what historians have agreed upon. His modifications are largely based on two faulty considerations: the amount of space required per person to allow for proper circulation of the gas and the time it would take for the chambers to be fully ventilated before a new roomful could be processed.

Leuchter states that nine square feet of area are necessary for the hydrogen cyanide to circulate effectively (Leuchter 16). He never makes any reference to the origins of this figure, but much documentation, especially in the form of credible eyewitness testimony, substantiates the contrary. According to Leuchter’s nine-square-feet theory, only 94 people could fit into Krema I per gassing. Filip Muller, a surviving Sonderkommando, disclosed that Krema I processed over 700 people within its homicidal gas chamber (Muller 44). Furthermore, camp Commandant Rudolf Hoss gave a detailed testimony of how 900 Soviet POWs were effectively gassed in this chamber in one of its very first operations (Hoss 164). Therefore, functional practice reveals that rather than Leuchter’s nine square feet per person, about one square foot of space per person allows for the necessary circulation of hydrogen cyanide.

Leuchter’s estimate for the turnover time hinges on combining the length of time that the hydrogen cyanide would take to evaporate with the length of time required for thorough ventilation. All of the figures he uses in this equation are accessible in the manuals on Zyklon-B management attached as appendices. However, these figures are not responsible for Leuchter’s reduced output estimates, his faulty addition is. He cites the DEGESCH manual as the source of the proportion stating that 0.25 lbs of Zyklon-B are required per 1,000 cubic feet of space to insure a strong enough concentration. Thus, for Krema I’s 7,680 cubic feet, 1.9 lbs of Zyklon-B would need to be kept at 78.3* F for 16 hours (Leuchter 16). This accounts for 16 hours.

Leuchter then estimates the time ventilating the chamber would take before another roomful of people could be processed. Clearly stated in section "XI: Airing" in the Dupont manual, the document says that "the airing should continue for at least 20 hours" (Leuchter 24). The DEGESCH manual, which is Leuchter’s primary resource for Zyklon-B management, states that 30-minute interruptions should break up every 15 minutes spent manually ventilating. As per total time required for thorough ventilation, the DEGESCH guidebook says that, "depending on concentration, outdoor temperature and weather conditions, ventilation will take at least 10 hours" (Leuchter 59).

Taking the larger of the two ventilation estimates allows for the addition of 20 hours to the 16 hours required for proper hydrogen cyanide circulation. This accounts for 36 hours. Nevertheless, Leuchter clearly states, "It is doubtful whether the gas would clear in a week without an exhaust system" (Leuchter 16). Regardless of the fact that the preponderance of evidence supports the universal existence of mechanical ventilation systems, Leuchter leads the audience through a step-by-step account of his calculations, however suspect, and then decides to more than quadruple the resulting figure without providing any reasonable basis for this subjective intervention. His calculations account for 36 hours; 36 hours does not equal over one week.

By Leuchter’s own calculations, the revised potential output of the homicidal gas chambers should be almost five times greater because the turnover should be around every 36 hours rather than once a week. In reality, the potential output for the homicidal gas chambers would have been at least 40 times greater than Leuchter’s revisions: nine times more people could, and were, processed per chamber and the turnover time, by Leuchter’s own calculations, took a fifth of the amount of time he concludes. For instance, this raises the output of Krema I’s homicidal gas chamber to around 3400 people a week, far higher than Leuchter’s own 94 per week (Leuchter 16).

Leuchter’s other outlandish revision is for the potential output of the area’s crematories. "The Leuchter Report" states that only three bodies could be cremated each day, per retort (Leuchter 15). The calculations behind this revision hinge on two things: that this output followed the factory recommendations and that multiple bodies were not incinerated simultaneously within the ovens. Both of these assumptions are contrary to the preponderance of evidence.

Leuchter directly asserts that though each oven could theoretically cremate six to eight bodies a day, the factory recommendations advise that only three bodies be cremated every 24 hours (Leuchter 15). The reduction can be inferred to due to Leuchter’s belief that the ovens were not intended to function efficiently on a continual, 24-hour basis. However, the abundance of documented correspondence between Topf and Sons, the primary manufacturers of the crematory ovens for the Auschwitz area, demonstrates that the official factory recommended capacity for the ovens was far higher than Legace and Leuchter admit.

Zimmerman notes how on November 15, 1942, Kurt Prufer, the Topf and Sons engineer who manufactured the 46 ovens at Kremas II-V, stated that each retort could cremate about 53 bodies per day (Zimmerman 12). On July 1941, a letter from Topf and Sons advised that each retort could cremate between 24 to 84 bodies a day. Furthermore, the letter divulges that the factory actually recommended continual use of the ovens: "The quantity mentioned above can be incinerated daily without any problem, without overworking the oven. It is not harmful to operate the incinerator day and night if, required, since the fireclay [resistant walls] lasts longer when an even temperature is maintained" (Czech 71-72).

But these figures for retort capabilities provide that each body would take about 27 minutes each to be cremated. The discrepancy between 27 minutes and the 15 to 20 minutes cited in the Zentralbauleitung report of June 28, 1943, with no known technology of the time supporting such results, is due to the practice of multiple corpse incineration (Zimmerman 15). While Leuchter states that none of the ovens were intended for this practice (Leuchter 15), the assumption that design defines usage is illogical when the preponderance of evidence reveals the systematic introduction of multiple bodies into a single oven.

Those Sonderkommandos fortunate enough to have escaped the efforts to destroy all evidence of the final solution, including themselves, have provided thorough accounts of the reliance on multiple corpse incinerations. In his deposition given in May 1945, most recent deposition to the liberation of Auschwitz by Soviet troops, Sonderkommando Henryk Tauber testified to the standard introduction of five or more bodies into a single oven:

In general, we burned four or five bodies in one muffle, but we often put more bodies in the ovens... Great numbers of bodies were burned at one time, without the knowledge of the director of the crematorium, whenever the air raid siren went off. The especially high flames shooting out of the chimneys were to attract the attention of the pilots. (Pressac 489)

Henryk Tauber worked in Kremas I, II, III, and V, and because of his first-hand experience in the procedures of the majority of facilities in question, his testimony thus provides thorough evidence of the standard practice of multiple body incinerations. His deposition stated that the burning of five bodies could be expected to take an hour to an hour and a half (Zimmerman 16-17); this means that each body would take between 12-15 minutes to incinerated. While on the generous side, this estimate substantiates why other early accounts asserted that bodies took about 15-20 minutes to be cremated: multiple corpses were incinerated simultaneously. The technology of the period could definitely accommodate such a practice, and in fact many early ovens had been specifically manufactured to cremate multiple bodies simultaneously.

Other Sonderkommandos corroborated Tauber’s claims. Mieczyslaw Morawa said that experimentation with the 15 ovens at Krema II revealed that three corpses could in fact be incinerated in around 40 minutes (Czech 345; Zimmerman 16). Filip Muller maintained that three to four bodies were consistently incinerated at a time (Muller 98-99). Szlama Dragon, as well as two escapees from April 1944, testified that three corpses would be cremated at a time. Alter Feinsilber also confirmed that five bodies "burned more quickly in quantity" (Zimmerman 16). And these are just a handful of the Sonderkommandos who gave depositions on what they witnessed and participated in. Many camp administrators and officials also substantiated these allegations, such as SS guard Pery Broad and camp commandant Hoss (Zimmerman 16). Nevertheless, the Holocaust deniers habitually dismiss such official testimony as tainted with coercion and rewards. But even the post-war interrogation of Topf and Sons engineers revealed their recognition of the fact that the early weathering of the ovens was due to solely to the practice of multiple body incineration (Zimmerman 12).

Based on the abundance of testimony that cremating multiple bodies simultaneously was standard practice, as well as taking into consideration that the technology at the time supported such results, the ability for the crematories in question to process a corpse every 20 minutes emerges as the probable estimate. Therefore, Leuchter’s estimation that only three corpses could be cremated per oven per day is unrealistic. Piper’s calculations, on the other hand, allot 26 minutes per body, exceeding the widely recognized estimate of 20 minutes per body by adding an additional measure of six minutes (33% of the total time) per body to generously accommodate for the known downtime when ovens were being repaired (Piper 164-65). Furthermore, Piper’s figures are substantiated by the June 28, 1943, letter from the Zentralbauleitung to group C (Piper 165), whereas Leuchter fails to offer any documentation, let alone that from Auschwitz’s administration. The following table compares Leuchter’s unrealistic estimates for crematory output with Piper’s.

COMPARATIVE ESTIMATES FOR CREMATORY OUTPUT

"The Leuchter Report’s" revised estimates for the output of the homicidal gas chambers and crematories reveals a failure to adhere to the empirical method, something characteristic of Holocaust deniers. Leuchter does not adhere to scientific rules specifying mathematical accuracy, source accountability, and consideration of relevant evidence, all of which should be central to any scientific analysis.

FORENSIC ANALYSIS:

Leuchter’s most compelling evidence for the nonexistence of homicidal gas chambers in the Auschwitz area is his innovative analysis of the facilities for traces of hydrogen cyanide. However, even the impressive results of his test fade when put in proper perspective. His forensic analysis is scientifically flawed for two reasons: his means of testing the traces of hydrogen cyanide were not sufficiently sensitive and he failed to discriminate against an obvious bias that tainted his control, and thus basis for comparison. In contrast, the Institute for Forensic Research at Cracow (the IFFR) performed their own study wherein they rectified the flaws of Leuchter’s and abided by a more stringent scientific process, culminating in definitive proof that the facilities in question were systematically exposed to hydrogen cyanide.

Before getting to the specific sample results, the broader structuring of each study must first be addressed. Leuchter compared his 35 samples with 1 control sample taken from a known delousing chamber that utilized hydrogen cyanide (Leuchter 15). The IFFR compared their 99 samples with 8 control samples taken from dwelling accommodations "which were probably fumigated with Zyklon-B only once (in connection with the typhoid epidemic in 1942)" (IFFR 3). The IFFR clearly structured a stronger experiment by selecting a control, or basis for comparison, that was not exposed to concentrations of hydrogen cyanide in different concentrations and under different conditions, either of which could culminate in an unaccountable discrepancy. And in fact, Leuchter’s control, the fumigation chamber, was wrought with a rampant bias as a result of its distinct conditions. In comparison, the IFFR selected their control samples from places that were not regularly exposed to hydrogen cyanide, clearly a stronger choice.

The results of Leuchter’s forensic tests reveal low levels of cyanide ions in 40% of his samples. But what convinces him that his results reveal infrequent exposure to hydrogen cyanide in the homicidal gas chambers is that his control sample from the delousing chamber is almost 1000 times greater than his average sample from the other facilities (see Appendix I). The explanation for this discrepancy is simple: Leuchter introduced a visually detectable source of bias. As mentioned earlier, the results of Leuchter’s forensic tests detected traces of cyanide ions between 1.1 to 7.9 mg/kg in 14 of his samples from the homicidal gas chambers. But his control sample, taken from the delousing building at Birkenau, registered traces of 1050 mg/kg (Leuchter 15). It is the presence of the bias that Leuchter failed to discriminate against that accounts for his control sample reading between 150-1000 times the concentration of cyanide ions.

Hydrogen cyanide residue is exceptionally weak and is very susceptible to weathering; for one thing, it is highly water-soluble, meaning that any contact with water dissolves most, if not all, traces of hydrogen cyanide. One of Leuchter’s most consistent physical observations is that the homicidal gas chambers are extremely damp (Leuchter 13, 14, 16). While incorrectly suggesting that their current neglect and dilapidation resulting in dampness substantiates his argument that they could not have been used with hydrogen cyanide, Leuchter’s observations instead provide testimony to how much exposure to the elements these facilities faced. The IFFR even cites climatologically records that show that during the last 45 years, the homicidal gas chambers "have been rinsed rather thoroughly by a column of water at least 35 m in height" (IFFR 2). Clearly, there was much basis for the IFFR’s initial pessimism about being able to successfully detect any cyanide ions at all. But with diligence and the time available via legal authorization, the IFFR was able to strategically sample from areas comparatively more protected from weathering (Green2 2-3).

Whereas hydrogen cyanide is highly susceptible to weathering, the widely recognized blue staining on the walls of all the delousing chambers is not. The blue discoloration noted by Leuchter is the presence of Prussian blue, one among a group of compounds called the ‘Iron Blues.’ Prussian blue is insoluble and subsequently weathers away significantly slower than hydrogen cyanide and other forms of cyanides (Green1 1; Green2 2). Therefore, a sample of Prussian blue yields a very high concentration of cyanide ions since these traces have been, in effect, fossilized into a cyanide compound. It is unsurprising that Leuchter’s control samples read such dramatically higher traces of hydrogen cyanide than those of the homicidal gas chamber since his control samples introduced a different form of cyanide ions, one that barely wears away over time. Prussian blue and hydrogen cyanide residue are two different substances. The introduction of one substance (namely Prussian blue) as the control, against which the concentration of an entirely different substance (namely hydrogen cyanide residue) was compared with demarcates the failure to design a legitimate experiment. Universally criticized for introducing such a serious bias into his experiment, Leuchter’s entire basis for comparison (i.e. his control samples) was so thoroughly ruined by this bias that the comparison can hardly even be called an experiment.

Bailer anticipated an argument from Holocaust deniers questioning how the homicidal gas chambers failed to form Prussian blue while supposedly having been exposed to hydrogen cyanide also. In fact, the homicidal gas chambers at Majdanek do exhibit some deposits of Prussian blue (Leuchter 18), demonstrating that this phenomenon is not unique only to delousing chambers. However, Bailer uncovered how the conditions in the delousing facilities generally favored the creation Prussian. The presence of water, pH, or carbon dioxide generally retards the formation of Prussian blue. Furthermore, iron blues are commonly used in paint as a pigment, and it is not known whether or not the rooms with Prussian blue were administered such paint or not (Green2 3).

The introduction of water, even at 13% by volume, is one thing that impedes the formation of Prussian blue. And water was far more regularly applied throughout the homicidal gas chambers than the delousing chambers so as to wash away blood and excrement. Bailer believes that nearly 100 times the necessary level of dilution would be achieved every time these chambers were hosed down. Likewise, the presence of minimal levels of either pH or carbon dioxide will retard the formation of Prussian blue (Green2 4). Given the amount of people crammed into each homicidal gas chamber, both of these elements were strongly present during every homicidal gassing. Therefore, the homicidal gas chambers were consistently exposed to three different elements that the delousing chambers were free from. And any of these elements, present in the concentrations known to have existed through washing and the presence of people, could have been the reason for the absence of Prussian blue within most of the homicidal gas chambers. Therefore, it is futile to claim that Prussian blue should have uniformly formed within the homicidal gas chambers.

Leuchter’s introduction of such a strong bias as his control is only one of the flaws to his forensic analysis. The introduction of this bias only explains why his control sample is dramatically higher than his other samples, but it does not account for why so few of his samples from the homicidal gas chambers came up positive for cyanide ions. Only 40% of Leuchter’s 35 samples revealed readable traces of cyanide ions, whereas the IFFR sported 82% yield for 99 samples (see Appendix I compared with Appendix III). The percentage of positive IFFR samples is double that of Leuchter’s because of the IFFR utilized far more sensitive equipment.

The IFFR first experimented with a spectrophotometric analysis, but found that it was not sensitive enough (IFFR 2), so they opted for a microdiffusion analysis which could successfully "isolate cyanide compounds from the materials examined in the form of hydrogen cyanide" (IFFR 3). Using a microdiffusion analysis, the IFFR was able to establish their sensitivity at 3-4 ug of cyanide ion per kg of sample (3-4 ug CN- /kg) (IFFR 3). Leuchter’s analysis, on the other hand, was only capable to detect increments of 1 mg CN- /kg (Leuchter 15). This makes the IFFR’s analysis 300 times more sensitive than Leuchter’s, revealing why his samples failed to generate the quantity of positive readings that the IFFR’s did. Of the IFFR’s positive 81 readings (out of 99 samples), only 21 would have registered at Leuchter’s sensitivity (refer to Appendix III). Therefore, considering that with the IFFR’s samples, Leuchter would have only read 21% positive for cyanide ions, then it is surprising that his own samples read 41% positive (compare Appendix I with Appendix III).

Sensitivity in detecting cyanide ions matters only if the samples have a basis for comparison. The IFFR’s results undeniably prove that the homicidal gas chambers were regularly exposed to hydrogen cyanide because 82% of their samples detected cyanide ions far and above those totally absent from the control samples from the sleeping quarters that had presumably been fumigated once (compare Appendix II with Appendix III). Therefore, while sensitivity of detection is crucial to registering an adequate quantity of positive readings, it is the adept selection of a control that leads to strong conclusions. The control provides the crucial basis of comparison that reveals whether the forensic evidence substantiates the utilization of the facilities in question as homicidal gas chambers. Both Leuchter and the IFFR detected similar levels of cyanide ions (though Leuchter’s quantity was inaccurate due to his inadequate detection sensitivity) present in their samples, but the difference in controls accounted for the opposite conclusions. The greatest downfall of Leuchter’s forensic analysis was his selection of the delousing chamber as his control. It is unwise to introduce a control that is obviously riddled with different, influential variables (e.g. fumigations expose a chamber to hydrogen cyanide for about 24 hours, almost twice as long as homicidal gassings [IFFR 2]), but it is downright foolish to introduce a control in which such an obvious, visible bias as Prussian blue exists.

CONCLUSION:

"The Leuchter Report" falls far short of its aim to substantiate Zundel’s claims that six million Jews did not die in the Holocaust and that homicidal gas chambers never played a role in the alleged execution of "the final solution." Leuchter contends that the homicidal gas chambers could not have function in such a capacity due to the lack of surviving physical evidence that they adhered to the essential features of the design criteria of fumigation standards. His claim is unconvincing considering that the preponderance of documentation and testimony not only proves that the homicidal gas chambers were in fact equipped to meet the essential design criteria, but the abundance of evidence also explains that these facilities were systematically dismantled and demolished so as to conceal all traces of the machinery instituted to exterminate Germany’s Jewish population. Even the consequences Leuchter purports to be incurred by substandard gassing conditions demonstrate his ignorance in his specialty, if not his penchant for the unethical distortion of evidence.

The fact that Leuchter so lightly manipulates the output estimates for the crematories and homicidal gas chambers perpetrates perhaps his greatest dishonoring of both science and the human memories of the millions of people brutally executed. He shows no hesitation in manipulating ostensibly simple mathematical calculations as well as in ignoring all relevant evidence so as to diminish the record of the genocidal atrocities committed by Nazi Germany.

The aspect of Leuchter’s report that struck the world with its seemingly unequivocal evidence that the homicidal gas chambers did not exist is his innovative forensic analysis. But all that his forensic analysis has succeeded at is motivating genuine, scientific forensic analyses that instead difinitively prove the existence of homicidal gas chambers in the Auschwitz area. And certainly Leuchter’s own forensic examination would have produced the same results were its control not biased and were his equipment sensitive enough. While Holocaust deniers were sure that Leuchter’s forensic evidence gave them legs of iron to stand on, "the Leuchter Report" left them flat on their face.

"The Leuchter Report" and society’s subsequent recognition of its worthlessness, has closely mirrored the declining momentum of the Holocaust denial movement. Just like Leuchter, the Holocaust denial movement reached beyond its grasp. Holocaust deniers pushed too far for too long, and the opposition against them has attracted the world’s most reputable historians to mount an unstoppable offensive. Through their antics, Holocaust deniers have successfully helped to raise the public’s knowledge of the Holocaust to new heights, and for that we owe them a great deal of thanks.

WORKS CITED:

Czech, Danuta. Auschwitz Chronicle. NY: Henry Holt and Co., 1990.

Green1: Green, Richard J. "A Foreword to the IFFR Report." Holocaust Denial: Demographics, Testimonies and Ideologies. Ed. John Zimmerman. Lanham: University Press of America, 2000.