The latest effort to combat “Denial”, i.e., Holocaust Revisionism. (Part IV)

Published: 2011-03-15

By Wilfried Heink

The second chapter in the book: “Neue Studien zu nationalsozialistischen Massentötungen durch Giftgas” is captioned: “Technische und pharmakologische Aspekte und der Stellenwert der Überreste” (Technical and pharmacological aspects and how remnands should be rated)

The first essay in this chapter is titled: “Die todbringenden Gase” (The deadly [death carrying] gasses), by Achim Trunk, Dr. phil., historiographer, with a degree in biology – biochemicals.[1]

Mr. Trunk starts out by telling us that mass murder with poisonous gas is a characteristic of the National Socialist policy of mass murder, and that his essay will address the methods used. The questions to be answered: What poisons were used, where did they come from, how were they administered (eingesetzt) and what were the effects? The answer to those questions will allow us to better understand the sufferings of the victims – even though it is impossible to find the words to describe the horror. This will furthermore help us to understand what motivated the perpetrators. And lastly, it will allow us to disparage the chemical and technical assertions put forth by those who relativize or deny the Shoah. The origin-, application and effects of the poisons will be described, as well as some of the counter arguments by Revisionists.

Comments: We are told that it is of relevance to know what type of poison was used, its origin, and effect and how it was all applied. True, some of it we need to know, for instance what type of poison was allegedly used, the origin of same irrelevant. We then have the referral to victims, absolutely irrelevant when establishing guilt is the objective. Only after it has been established without doubt that poisons had been used for mass murder, something the previous authors failed to do, can victims be mentioned. By talking about victim hood up front we again have this attempt to influence readers, to soften them up. One can only hope that Trunk will address the relevant issues first -- by referring us to reports compiled by competent authorities, i.e., experts in the field of criminal investigations, to establish that gas chambers in whatever form could have been used as alleged -- before going into the obvious effects of poisonous gasses. We are also told that Revisionist arguments will be addressed.

In the introduction Trunk refers us to a chapter in “Nationalsozialistische Massentötung durch Giftgas” by Kogon et al, an essay by George Wellers captioned “Die zwei Giftgase”[2] (The two poisonous gasses). Wellers writes that two gasses were used, carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen cyanide (HCN), detailing the molecular structure of the former first. He tells us that Höß was ordered by Himmler, in the summer of 1941, to organize the destruction of Jews to be undertaken at Auschwitz. We are then informed about the molecular structure of HCN and that exposure to either of the two is deadly, suffocation the consequence.

Comments: Well done, Mr. Wellers, but we know that those two gasses are poisonous, what we are interested in are the exact details as to how they were applied. Thus, Wellers only states the obvious, not a good start.

Trunk now provides an overview of murder methods used:

  1. In the T4 facilities bottled CO was used, the method also used at first in the Aktion 14f13 by “Sonderkommando Lange” in the first so-called (sogenannten) gas wagons. Cause of death: acute carbon monoxide poisoning.
  2. In the “Action Reinhardt” extermination camps engine exhaust was used as a murder weapon. Cause of death: carbon monoxide poisoning.
  3. Since 1941 the pesticide Zyklon B was used, mainly in Auschwitz but also in Mauthausen alongside killings with bottled CO, as well as in Ravensbrück. Cause of death: HCN poisoning.
  4. A different form of HCN (common name ‘Prussian acid’[3]) was used from 1943-1945 in Sachsenhausen, and a still different form used for killings in Ravensbrück in 1943. Cause of death: HCN poisoning.

Three million people (Menschen) were killed by the National Socialists with poisonous gasses, about two million of them with engine exhaust, and around one million with Zyklon B. About 100 000 people were killed with pure (bottled) CO, and the number of those killed with different forms of Prussian acid should be in the thousands (dürfte vierstellig sein). Those figures are intended to show the dimensions and to make comparisons possible, the actualizing of them the task of researchers (eine Aufgabe der Forschung).[4]

Comments: Why start out with the T4/14f13 actions, no Revisionist denies them as Trunk later points out. Therefore, when “deniers” are mentioned the reference is to “The Holocaust”, so, why not provide evidence for this alleged crime and let it stand on its own, if it can? By continually mentioning T4 the authors admit that they are unable to make a case for “The Holocaust”, that it is necessary for them to suggest to the reader that if one happened, the T4/14f13 actions, a fact, the other, “The Holocaust” must be a logical extension. Well, it isn’t, so why not get on with substantiating what this is all about: the alleged mass murder of Jews with poisonous gas.

Also, is it necessary to detail all the effects of the gasses allegedly used? No, it has nothing to do with proving that the gasses mentioned were used to kill people, i.e., Jews -- so why bother? But Trunk tells us why he ‘bothered’ in the last part about the numbers, the intent again to condition the readers for them to accept uncritically what is to follow. And even though Trunk admits that the numbers he cites are not exact, he is however implying that they are horribly high nevertheless; and that without providing evidence that anyone was killed with poisonous gas!

In the following pages Trunk talks about the effects of poisonous gasses, that they paralyse breathing. We also learn that it has long been known that carbon monoxide will kill. He then goes into detail why that is so, hardly of any interest. Also, CO was picked as gas for T4 because it was a humane gas, allowing the patients to gently fall asleep (sanftes Einschlafen). Some witnesses testified to the patients gently falling asleep [5], but, so Trunk, this killing method had nothing to do with being humane when considering the circumstances.

He then informs us that as to the killing with bottled/pure CO, no objections are raised by deniers based on chemical analyses. Part of the reason for this might be the low numbers and that here we have a Führerbefehl, an order from Hitler. But it is also possible that Negationists are in agreement concerning the killing of life unworthy of life and furthermore the antisemitic background of denial does not exist, because the killed were mostly non-Jews.

Comments: Herr Trunk shows his true colors by asserting that a denier must be an antisemite. With this any pretence of objectivity goes out the window. Thank you for being honest, Herr Trunk.

But the part about the Hitler order is interesting: Trunk claims that it is impossible for deniers, he calls them also Negationists, to deny the T4/14f13 actions because a Hitler order exists, thereby admitting that nothing of the sort has ever been found regarding “The Holocaust”. He has obviously never concerned himself with Revisionism, has never read any of the literature produced by Revisionists. If he had he would know that the absence of a Hitler order, plan, or budget is only part of why Revisionism is alive and well. It is the absence of any substantial evidence that makes the story unbelievable; all is based on documents, some of them of dubious origin and of course witness tales and testimonies of accused perpetrators obtained under who knows what circumstances. And the stories told are not credible: we hear of crematories with ludicrous capacities, able to burn bodies with just a handful of coke, or bodies burning on their own; of never located burning pits where human fat was collected during the burning processes and used as additional fuel; on and on it goes. This is why Revisionists dispute the tale. Also, the T4 action was stopped because of public outcry, “The Holocaust” would also have been stopped had it happened. And the defenders of the story are aware of this, which is why we are told in the introductions that all became known only after the war, with this dismissing Hilberg and one of the newer studies re. the AA, in which it is claimed that officials of the foreign office were willing helpers who must therefore have known about the alleged mass killings of Jews. Another reason why this story comes across as untrue, for only a lie has many versions, the truth but one.

Trunk continues by writing about the T4 action in the annexed Polish territories, patients killed with bottled CO in so-called gas wagons, later with engine exhaust and he refers the reader to an article by Mathias Beer, to be discussed later. With this change of murder method, from pure CO to engine exhaust, the canard about ‘gently falling asleep’ was dropped, notifying the bereaved impossible anyway because of the dimensions, therefore it was just denied (nur noch eine schlichte Leugnung).

Comments: The T4 action again, then going over seamlessly into the alleged mass murder, which was however denied. How anyone can write nonsense as this is beyond me. If Trunk is talking about denial concerning the T4 patients, one has to wonder, for how is it possible to “deny” to a mom, for instance, that their sick child was killed. And if he is talking about the Jews, allegedly killed in gas wagons, this could never have been kept a secret either, and therefore impossible to “deny”.

And now it gets interesting, Trunk informs us that we have testimony about gasoline engines as murder weapon, but diesel engines are also talked about. He mentions the Gerstein testimonies, admitting that different versions exist. He then gets into details re. diesel exhaust, the subtitle: “Zur Giftigkeit von Dieselabgasen” (To the toxicity of diesel exhaust). It is not my intention to go into details here, beyond my knowledge anyway, and also Mr. Friedrich Berg has written about this subject extensively.[6]

Negationist critique centres on the question whether it is possible to produce high enough concentration of carbon monoxide with a diesel engine, they claim that it cannot be done, therefore mass killings in Belzec, Treblinka and Sobibor would not have been possible. This suggests that all reports about the Shoah are manufactured: the murder with diesel exhaust a “Myth within a Myth”. Trunk refers here to Mr. Berg.[7] But, he asserts, those arguments are folly, for, serious researchers are not claiming that diesel exhaust was used exclusively in the Aktion Reinhardt Camps (ARC),[8] therefore this argument is baseless. He admits however (p.32, footnote 28) that in older works diesel did play a role. Raul Hilberg, for instance,[8] writes that in Belzec and Treblinka diesel exhaust was used, gasoline engine exhaust in Sobibor. But nevertheless, the question about the toxicity should be addressed.

Comments: If anyone is confused by now, join the club. Trunk never goes into detail as to why earlier writings by Hilberg, or Martin, talk of diesel exhaust. In fact in the West German Treblinka Trial of 1965 killing by diesel exhaust was established, ditto for the Belzec Trial of the same year. Thus it is not just historians claiming diesel exhaust, judges also accepted that diesel exhaust, as murder weapon, was indeed used exclusively in those two camps. No plausible explanation has been offered to date why this has now been changed to gasoline engine exhaust, as Trunk suggest when he writes that “no serious researcher claims that diesel exhaust was used exclusively”. And whether it was used exclusively or just in some camps is also not the issue, the courts claims it was used, as did some historians. But to add to the confusion, Trunk then attempts to prove that diesel exhaust could indeed be deadly, when used under load (Please refer to the writings of Mr. Berg). So what is it? If diesel exhaust could have been used, in fact established in court proceedings, why not leave the diesel story intact, why make it sound as if “serious” historians -- demoting Hilberg to the lower ranks with this -- never considered diesel exhaust?

Trunk later tells us -- after having tried to make a case for the toxicity of diesel exhaust -- that it is most likely (naheliegend) that gasoline engines were used because of greater availability of them, and that they produced deadly gasses even when idling. He refers to Reder again who testified that the motor had been located in a small room next to the gas chamber and that it used 80 to 100 litres of gasoline daily.[10] For Sobibor we have precise testimony for gasoline engines, the only issue unclear whether they were of French or Russian origin. For Treblinka however, the last camp to be erected, research is assuming (geht davon aus) that diesel engines were used, raising the question why a changeover from a successful, uncomplicated method was made to one more complicated. It appears that a mix up could be possible: in every camp a diesel engine was used for generating electricity and that the gasoline engine, used for the killings, was installed right beside it. Trunk refers us to the testimony of SS Franz Hödl, who for a while operated the Sobibor death engine (Todesmotor) and stated: “That two engines were installed in the engine room, one a gasoline engine, possibly from a Russian tank, the other a diesel engine. The latter was never used”.[11] According to Kogon [12] a diesel engine was installed in a room adjacent to the gas chamber which produced poisonous gasses and next to it a generator for producing electricity.

Comments: More confused postulations. In the opinion of Trunk it was most likely that gasoline engines were used, he tries to support this supposition by claiming that they were more easily available and that they produce deadly gasses even when idling, a fact. That in contrast to diesel exhaust which is harmless when the engine is at idle and only toxic when the engine is under load and the injectors somehow manipulated, he refers to a test by Holtz/Elliot (p.33). Whenever machinery for digging, etc., is needed underground, for instance in the construction of underground  parking facilities, equipment with diesel engines is used, those engines nearly always working at full throttle, i.e., under load, with the workers nearby complaining about the soot but showing no ill effects. This is why it is claimed that the engines were manipulated to produce deadly exhaust. More nonsense, for surely the Germans were aware of that and would not have even considered using diesel engines. And Trunk admits this in a roundabout way, he is however unable to explain away the diesel engines mentioned by others. Thus, he is forced to talk out of both sides of his mouth, not making any sense at all doing it. He also admits that changing from gasoline engines to diesel engines, as was supposedly the case for Treblinka, would have been remedial, a technical disadvantage, a fact. He tries to get around it by having us believe that in Sobibor, two engines were used, one a gasoline engine for killing - the other a diesel which was not used (testimony by Hödl, see above). And Kogon et al have it that one diesel engine produced the deadly gas, the other not, also for Sobibor. One has to be mentally unstable to even consider this nonsense, but Trunk, unable to settle the issue, is forced to resort to those mental gymnastics. Demonstrating again that what is told is just not true, and portraying Germans as babbling idiots who would resort to these kinds of shenanigans will just not cut it. Thus, the diesel/gasoline matter still needs to be settled, if we are to accept that Jews were murdered en masse with engine exhaust, and Trunk only confused the issue.

We then learn that reports about gas wagons explicitly talk of gasoline engines, which is not true but will be discussed later. Trunk then goes into detail about “Massenmorde mit Zyklon B”(Mass murder with Zyklon B), an issue addressed by Mr. Germar Rudolf in his “Das Rudolf Gutachten”(The Rudolf Report).[13] A few pages on Trunk makes an effort to debunk deniers (Leugner) and writes that one of the issues raised by deniers is temperature, that it would have been too cold in the gas chambers for the hydrogen cyanide to release fast enough from the carrier substance to kill Jews within the times testified to. The other issue is the absence of Prussian Blue in the ruins of the morgue of Crematoria II, the alleged gas chamber. Revisionists conclude that because no Prussian Blue stains are visible in the remnants of crematorium II, no gassings with Zyklon B could have taken place if this facility. They point to the delousing chambers where the Prussian Blue is clearly visible, penetrating in some cases right through the wall.[14] But, so Trunk, this conclusion is erroneous, for it has not been established that the blue stains in the delousing chambers are indeed Prussian Blue. For instance, those stains could be spots of paint, many paints of that time contained those pigments. Thus, the missing blue coloring could mean that only the walls of the delousing chambers were painted blue, not those of the gas chamber (Rudolf addresses this issue[15]). But even if one assumes that the blue stains in the walls are Prussian Blue, this does not necessarily mean that similar spots must also be visible on the walls of the gas chambers. For there are vast differences between the two: whereas in the delousing chambers the walls were exposed to hydrogen cyanide (Prussian Blue) for many hours -- lice die slower than humans -- those in the gas chambers were exposed to it for only a short time. And because of less exposure the chances for Prussian Blue to form in the walls diminish, and most important, the gas chambers were hosed down after each gassing, removing blood and excrements, thus removing most of the hydrogen cyanide remnants. In fact, traces of cyanide were found on the walls: using highly sensitive methods of analysis in the 1990s, it was proven that the walls of the gas chamber had been exposed to hydrogen cyanide, see “The Rudolf Report” on that, he explains why the test results were erroneous.[16]

Comments: First the temperature: Trunk claims that the bodies of the victims, standing close together, would have warmed the room sufficiently, but to claim that the body heat of people will warm up a room with concrete floor, walls and ceiling, in the middle of winter and just hosed down with cold water, is a real stretch. He writes that this is why the victims were left standing “a few minutes” (einige Minuten), as is attested to, referring us to “Massentötungen…” by Kogon et al.[17] We read in that book that ten minutes after the doors were closed, the temperature in the room was sufficient for the hydrogen cyanide to release from the carrier substance, but this is about the so-called “Bunkers”, not the morgues of crematoria II and III, thus useless here because of the different construction materials used. But, Trunk is quote mining here again, using only what fits. Höß, whose testimony is also only used when convenient, says nothing about any wait. We read: “The door would be screwed shut and the waiting disinfection squads would immediately pour the gas (crystals) into the vents in the ceiling of the gas chamber, down an air shaft which went to the floor”.[18]  For the intended victims to heat a damp room with concrete walls - in the middle of winter - would only have been remotely possible if for every “gassing” the room would have been filled to capacity, and that is unlikely. This heat problem was considered earlier, the Polish judge Jan Sehn informs us: “…the gas chamber was being heated with portable braziers,”[19] The “Central Commission for Investigation of German Crimes in Poland’, repeated this in their report of 1946.[20] But, no mention of that by Trunk, why, when this had also been attested to? (The Polish report mentions interviewing witnesses). It is easy to see, however, why this has been dropped: heating the “gas chamber” with coke fired braziers would have filled the room with deadly fumes and if the room would have been vented with the existing ventilation system, the heat would have been sucked out – replaced by cold air from outside. But, it is altogether possible that braziers were used to keep the bodies in the morgue from becoming stiff, no pun intended, and thus harder to cremate. So, reality was mixed in with the story, but that part could not be maintained, and we are now to “body heat”, which is equally ridiculous.

Now to the Prussian Blue issue: No blue spots in the remnants of crema II, but if continued gassings had been undertaken in it, blue spots would be visible, that is the position of Revisionists. A logical conclusion when looking at the walls of the delousing chambers. At first, Trunk tells us that the blue in the delousing chambers could be paint, he refers us to a work by Bailer.[21] This is embarrassing, for I have yet to see paint penetrate a brick wall, right through that wall to make it visible on the other side (see footnote 14).

Trunk seems to realize this and moves on to plan B, i.e. the length of exposure to the cyanide gas. It is true that lice, especially their eggs, nits, are extremely hard to kill, this is why the producer/supplier of Zyklon B, DEGESCH, developed the circular system, i.e., Kreislaufsystem, F. Berg goes into detail about it.[22] Heated air is blown over the Zyklon B crystals, speeding up the release of cyanide from the carrier substance and also distributing the poisonous gasses throughout the room. But, this very simple system was never installed in any of the alleged gas chambers in which according to witness testimony hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed. What we have instead is this:

“Der Doseninhalt wurde in Auschwitz vom Mordpersonal, sogenannten Sanitätsdienstgraden (SDG) der SS, unter Aufsicht eines SS-Arztes über besondere Einfüllöffnungen in die Gaskammern hineingeschüttet. In den beiden Gaskammern, in denen die meisten Menschen vergiftet wurden - den als Keller angelegten Gaskammern der Krematorien II und III in Auschwitz-Birkenau - befanden sich je vier dieser Öffnungen auf ihrem begehbaren Dach. Das Granulat gelangte dann in aus Metallgitter gefertigte Schächte.57 Anschließend gaste die Blausäure im Innern der Kammer aus, was je nach Menge, Temperatur und Luftfeuchte unterschiedlich schnell erfolgte, und sie verteilte sich in ihr, was ebenfalls eine gewisse Zeit brauchte.“[23]

(Under the supervision of a SS Doctor the medical personnel poured the contents of the cans through special openings into the gas chambers. Four holes were present in each of the ceilings of the two chambers in which most of the people (Menschen) were poisoned – the gas chambers of the crematoria II and III, constructed as basements. The granules were delivered into shafts made from metal lattice.[24] The cyanide then outgassed inside the chamber, the time for this varied - depending on quantity, temperature and humidity, the gas dispersed as well, which also took time)

The blue staining issue has been discussed by Rudolf, I’ll just concern myself with the rest here, starting with the “shafts made from metal lattice”, here is one more view of them [25]. Trunk is not very clear on this, for good reason no doubt, for instance when referring to placing the pellets into the columns he writes “gelangte(n)”, why not say ‘poured into the basket’? This could be because we have different descriptions for those columns. The first question that needs to be asked, however, is this: Why would the Germans go to a system as this when they had the above mentioned circulation method already in use, successfully? The answer: They would not have, if mass murder was the intent they would have used the system used in the delousing chambers.

But, back to the columns, allegedly built by a Michal Kula, see footnote 25, here is what the authors of that article wrote:

“At Auschwitz-Birkenau, in the gas chambers of crematoria II and III, Zyklon-B was poured in through holes in the roof. After early experiments with this poison, the camp staff had learned that it was important to allow the pellets of Zyklon to be removed after the victims' death, and also to spread them to increase the speed of outgassing.

The solution to these problems was a wire mesh column, which ran from the floor up through the roof. An SS man, wearing a gas mask and standing on the roof, would pour the pellets into the top of the column and place a wooden cover over it. The pellets fell into an inner wire mesh basket, which held them as they released their poison into the gas chamber.

After the mass murder was complete, the cover was opened, the basket was pulled up, and the Zyklon expelled the remainder of its poison harmlessly into the open air. Meanwhile, the ventilation of the gas chamber and the cremation of the corpses could begin[…]”

We are told that at first, the pellets were just poured into the room, no columns, leaving no Prussian Blue stains, but then it was “learned” to remove the pellets and also that the pellets needed to be spread. No wonder Trunk provides no details, for the above is rubbish. The pellets were allegedly in a basket, how then does this aid spreading? It doesn’t, pouring them on the heads of the people would have spread them, this method did not. In the verdict of the Auschwitz Trial the judges talk of a column made from perforated tin, with a spiral inside to help spread the pellets.[26] The “judges” believed the nonsense, lies, Filip Müller told them.[27] Just one more description of those columns, this one by Shaul Chazan, who tells us that the columns did not reach the floor, but left a gap so the pellets could be swept up.[28] Not one of those magical (imaginary?) columns has ever been found.

The drawings by Kula (footnote 24), or McCarthy/van Alstine (footnote 25) show that the columns, measuring 70cm x 70cm, went right through the roof, had to, the columns 3m long, the ceiling only 2.40m high (footnote 25). Therefore, holes measuring at least 70cm x 70cm must exist in the roof of the ruins of crema II, no sign of them.[29] Mr. Carlo Mattogno goes into detail about those cracks and blemishes in the roof [30], identified as “Die Löcher des Todes” (The holes of Death) [31], by Sven Felix Kellerhoff in: Die Welt, 23.08.2004. The biggest opening found is 45cm, not nearly enough to accommodate one of those columns. We are now told that only the inner core stuck through the roof, but that is just an attempt to deceive, no evidence exists to back this up. Thus, unless some sense can be made out of this, the columns must be dismissed as a hoax.

The only other part of interest re. what Trunk wrote above is the mention of how much Zyklon B was used -- the reference to temperature and humidity. As for the first, he uses Höß as a reference, who stated that 5 to 7 one kilo cans were used for the murder of 1,500 people (Menschen), 2 to 3 cans more in cold and/or humid weather.[32] That per “gassing” and still no signs of Prussian Blue. As for removing the pellets before Prussian Blue can form, how would these people on the roof know when to pull the can up, considering what Trunk/Höß wrote/stated re. cold and humidity? As already pointed out, this column nonsense is rubbish, but impossible for Trunk et al to let go of this column tale for now.

In his conclusion Trunk tells us that both gasses allegedly used, CO and HCN, are very poisonous -- continued breathing of either of them is deadly inside of minutes. Both poisons were easy to obtain/manufacture and easy to handle, which is why they were used because their toxicity was known to the perpetrators. The mass murder of over three million Jews (Jews this time, not people) historically verified with overwhelming evidence (durch erdrückende Beweise historisch gesichert). No need therefore to investigate the chemical or technical aspects of the mass murder to debunk Revisionists who question the Shoah, the above only meant as an addition to what is known. But, having experts analyse the historical sources helps to refute Revisionists’ arguments, if only as an aside. Thus, even the most far fetched arguments of Negationists can be disproved.

Final comments: Trunk tells us that both poisons were easy to obtain and use, not so. Zyklon B was in short supply and because of its toxicity dangerous to handle: Especially so when it was used as is alleged -- pouring the pellets into baskets, raising them up, and letting them outgas in the open. That is just one example. Fact is the people handling this substance were specially trained. Then the repeated references to “historical” evidence/sources and the admission that there never was an experts involved in the investigation of crimes -- a fact. As for overwhelming evidence -- where? Trunk skips over this and only tells us that CO and HCN are highly poisonous, stating the obvious. But when it comes to how the Zyklon B was allegedly administered, all he can do is make a few general comments, later claiming that there is no need to look at the technical aspects, pretending that all has been proven.

He is wrong: for the purpose of this book is to fight Revisionism and stating that CO and HCN are poisonous will just not do, as the toxicity is not the issue. The technical and chemical aspects are, but Trunk feels those need not be addressed. A lot of pages filled with words, but nothing that will turn a doubter into a believer.

To be continued…



  1. Günter Morsch, Bertrand Perz, Neue Studien zu nationalsozialistischen Massentötungen durch Giftgas, Metropol Verlag, Berlin 2011, pp.23-49
  2. Eugen Kogon, Hermann Langbein, Adalbert Rückerl, et al, Nationalsozialistische Massentötung durch Giftgas, S. Fischer Verlag GmbH, Frankfurt am Main 1983, pp.281-287
  4. Neue Studien…, pp.23-25
  5. Kogon et al, Nationalsozialistische Massentötung…, pp.48f
  8. Neue Studien…, p.32, the German wording: “…da die seriöse Forschung überhaupt nicht davon ausgeht, dass in den Vernichtungslagern der „Aktion Reinhardt“ durchgängig mit Dieselmotoren gemordet wurde“.
  9. Raul Hilberg, Die Vernichtung der Europäischen Juden, Frankfurt a. M. 1992, p.941
  10. Morsch et al, Neue Studien…, p.31, footnote 35: Rudolf Reder, Belzec, Krakow 1946, p.44
  11. Ibid, p.35, quote from: Jules Schelvis, Vernichtungslager Sobibor, Münster/Hamburg 2003, p.118
  12. Kogon et al, Massentötungen…, p.163
  13. Germar Rudolf, The Rudolf Report
  14. Rudolf, The Rudolf Report
  17. Kogon et al, Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen…, p.211
  18. Rudolf Höss, Death Dealer: The Memoirs of the SS Kommandant at Auschwitz, Prometheus Books, Amherst New York 1992. Edited by Steven Paskuly and translated by Andrew Pollinger, p.43
  21. Josef Bailer, Die “Revisionisten” und die Chemie, in: Brigitte Bailer-Galanda/Wolfgang Benz/Wolfgang Neubauer (publishers), Die Auschwitzleugener. “Revisionistische” Geschichtslüge und historische Wahrheit, Berlin 1996, p.146; pp.142-149
  23. Morsch et al, Neue Studien…, p.39
  24. Morsch et al, Neue Studien…, p.39; reference to: Jean-Claude Pressac, Auschwitz, Technique and Operation of the Gas chambers, p. 487
  26. Zur Tarnung der in der Decke befindlichen Öffnungen, durch die das Zyklon B von aussen hineingeschüttet wurde, hatte man aus durchlöchertem Blech bestehende hohle Säulen installiert, die vom Boden bis zur Decke reichten und die Öffnungen verdeckten. In den Säulen befanden sich Spiralen, die das gekörnte Zyklon B nach dem Einschütten verteilten. (The site this was taken from, IDGR, has since disappeared, all I have is the printout)
  28. ; Die Einfüllöffnungen für Zyklon B – Teil 2., p. 31
  29. The Ruins of the Gas Chambers: A Forensic Investigation of Crematoriums at Auschwitz I and Auschwitz-Birkenau, Daniel Keren, Jamie McCarthy, and Harry W. Mazal,
  31. file:///D:/IDGR%20-%20Die%20L%C3%B6cher%20des%20Todes.htm
  32. Morsch et al, Neue Studien…, p.39; Höß affidavit of 20 May 1946, IMT document NI-034, p.2

Additional information about this document
Property Value
Author(s): Wilfried Heink
Title: The latest effort to combat “Denial”, i.e., Holocaust Revisionism. (Part IV)
Published: 2011-03-15
First posted on CODOH: March 15, 2011, 1:25 p.m.
Last revision:
Appears In: