9. Conclusions

  • Even according to the statements of pharmacist J.-C. Pressac, who, in the late 80s and early 90s, was promoted as the technical Holocaust expert, eyewitness testimonies relating to the engineering of the installations and their capacity are, almost without exception, untenable. But even the corrections to the testimonies considered by Pressac to be necessary do not go far enough to make them credible. In particular, the testimonies relating to the duration of executions in the “gas chambers” (Morgue 1) of Crematoria II and III, as well as the ventilation times after the executions go completely awry. This is because of the over-estimation of the evaporation rate of hydrogen cyanide from the carrier of Zyklon B, as well as the incorrect concept of the effectiveness of the ventilation of the rooms. If the eyewitness testimonies relating to the quantities of Zyklon B used, and at least approximately relating to the rapidity of the execution procedure are to be accepted, then they are incompatible with testimonies, sometimes of the same witnesses, that the victims’ corpses were removed from the “gas chambers” immediately after the executions and without gas masks and protective garments. This is particularly true for those alleged “gas chambers” without ventilation installations (Crematoria IV and V and farmhouses I and II), since working in poorly ventilated “gas chambers” with high concentrations of poison gas is impossible without gas masks. The extreme danger to the sweating workers of the Sonderkommando, who are supposed to have worked without protective garments, makes the witnesses untrustworthy. The eyewitness accounts are therefore completely contradictory, illogical, contrary to the laws of nature, and therefore incredible. The witnesses engage in particular contortions when it comes to the cremations (amount and kind of fuel used, speed of cremation, development of flames and smoke), which furthermore fail to accord with the analyses of aerial photography.
  • The alleged installations for the mass murder of human beings are, in Pressac’s judgment, impractical for their purpose, but were, on the contrary, illogically constructed in parts, so that they would not have been suitable as instruments of mass extermination. Once one considers the actual technical requirements, the impression remains of the total inadequacy of the installations in question – which were deficient to the point of uselessness – in gross contradiction to the technically advanced disinfestation chambers in the immediate vicinity. The facts set forth here with relation to Zyklon B introduction pillars in the ceilings of the “gas chambers” (Morgue 1) of Crematoria I to III strengthen the suspicion of a subsequent manipulation almost to a certainty. These installations would have been even less suitable than Crematoria IV and V. It would have been impossible to introduce the gas into them.
  • Due to the proven, enormous environmental resistance of Iron Blue pigment, the slight cyanide traces in alleged homicidal “gas chambers,” which are demonstrable in places, but are not reproducible, cannot be explained on the basis of remaining residues of a disintegration process, since even on the weathered exterior side of the disinfestation wing large quantities of cyanide can be found even today. Towards the end of the operating period of the installations, therefore, the cyanide content must have been present in the same order of magnitude as it is today, as well as in the areas which were never exposed to weathering. But the cyanide values of protected areas in the alleged homicidal “gas chambers” are just as low as in places exposed to weathering. Weathering has, therefore, not actually diminished these slight traces. The low cyanide values cannot be explained by fumigation of the premises for vermin, as postulated by Leuchter, since such fumigation would probably have left greater quantities of cyanide in the moist cellars of Crematoria II and III. The cyanide values of the alleged homicidal “gas chambers” lie in the same order of magnitude as the results, among others, of the samples taken by myself from parts of other buildings (hot air disinfestation building 5a, inmate barracks, the washroom of Crematorium I). These values, however, lie so near the detection limit that no clear significance can be attributed to them, most importantly due to their lack of reproducibility. From the above, one can safely conclude that no cyanide residues capable of interpretation can be found in the walls of the alleged homicidal “gas chambers.”
    It was further possible to show that, under the conditions of the mass gassings as reported by eyewitnesses in the alleged “gas chambers” of Crematorium II to V, cyanide residues would have been found in similar quantities, coloring the walls blue, as they can be found in the disinfestation wings of building 5a/b. Since no significant quantities of cyanide were found in the alleged homicidal “gas chamber,” one must conclude that these installations were exposed to similar conditions as the above mentioned other installations (hot air disinfestation, inmate barracks, washroom of Crematorium I), i.e., that they most likely were never exposed to any hydrogen cyanide.

Final Conclusions

A. On chemistry

The investigation of the formation and stability of cyanide traces in masonry of the indicated structures as well as interpretation of the analytic results of samples of building material from these structures in Auschwitz show:

  1. Cyanide reacting in masonry to produce Iron Blue is stable over periods of many centuries. It disintegrates on the same time scale as the masonry itself. Therefore, traces of cyanide should be detectable today in almost undiminished concentrations, regardless of the effects of weather. The outer walls of the delousing chambers BW 5a/b in Birkenau, which are deep blue and contain high concentrations of cyanide, are evidence of this.
  2. Under the physically possible conditions of the mass-gassing of humans with hydrogen cyanide, traces of cyanide ought to be found in the same range of concentration in the rooms in question as they are found in the disinfestation structures, and the resulting blue discoloration of the walls should likewise be present.
  3. In the walls of the supposed “gas chambers” the concentrations of cyanide remnants are no higher than in any other building taken at random.

Conclusion to A:

On physical-chemical grounds, the mass gassings with hydrogen cyanide (Zyklon B) in the supposed “gas chambers” of Auschwitz claimed by witnesses did not take place.

B: On building technology

The investigation of the events of alleged mass gassings in the indicated rooms claimed by witnesses, from a technical and practical standpoint, including physical-chemical analysis, showed:

  1. The extensive documentation on the Auschwitz camp does not contain a single reference to execution “gas chambers”; rather it refutes such suspicions.
  2. The supposed main gas chambers of Auschwitz, the morgue hall of the crematorium in the main camp and the morgue cellars I (“gas chambers”) of Crematoria II and III, did not have any means for the introduction of poison gas mixtures. Holes in the roofs visible today were made after the war, and all other cracks are the result of the building’s destruction at the end of the war.
  3. The release of lethal quantities of hydrogen cyanide from the Zyklon B carrier requires many multiples of the asserted execution times.
  4. Providing the necessary ventilation for the supposed “gas chambers” of Crematoria II and III would have taken many hours, contrary to all witness testimony.
  5. It would have been impossible to provide an effective ventilation of the supposed “gas chambers” of Crematoria IV or V or of farmhouses I and II. The corpses could not have been removed from the rooms and carried away by the Sonderkommando without protective garments and the use of gas masks with special filters.

Conclusion to B:

The procedures of mass-gassing as attested to by witnesses during their interrogation before various courts of law, as cited in judicial rulings, and as described in scientific and literary publications, in any building of Auschwitz whatsoever, are inconsistent with documentary evidence, technical necessities, and natural scientific law.

Germar Rudolf, Certified Chemist, in exile, on September 13, 2002.

Edited by Dr. Wolfgang Lambrecht, December 2010.


The author of this report can refer only to the existing eyewitness testimonies and documents, which alone are the basis for the widespread historical viewpoint in the matters dealt with here.

If the conviction should nevertheless become prevalent that the eyewitnesses erred in their corresponding testimonies, then an expert can only confirm that there is no longer any basis upon which to draw up an expert opinion, and, in the opinion of this author, there will no longer be any basis upon which court judgments, a method of historiography established by criminal law, or criminal prosecution of certain statements could be based.