From oneb!cs.ubc.ca!uw-beaver!news.tek.com!uunet!techbook!dgannon Sat Mar 27 12:31:15 PST 1993
Article: 18554 of alt.activism
Xref: oneb soc.history:10182 alt.censorship:9002 alt.activism:18554 alt.revisionism:1540
Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.censorship,alt.activism,alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!cs.ubc.ca!uw-beaver!news.tek.com!uunet!techbook!dgannon
From: dgannon@techbook.com (Dan Gannon)
Subject: The Leuchter Report Vindicated: A Response to J.-C. Pressac's Critique
Message-ID: 
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1993 11:27:00 GMT
Lines: 1211

>From _The Journal of Historical Review_, Vol. 12, Number 4 (Winter 1992-93):

                    The Leuchter Report Vindicated:
                 A Response to J.-C. Pressac's Critique

                              Paul Grubach

[All footnotes at end of article.]

In early 1988, American execution hardware expert Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.,
carried out the first-ever forensic investigation of the alleged
extermination gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek.  His
sensational conclusion--that these structures were never used as gas
chambers to kill people--set off an international controversy that is still
continuing.  In a detailed report, commonly referred to simply as _The
Leuchter Report_, the gas chamber specialist summed up the result of his
investigation:^1

    After a study of the available literature, examination and evaluation
  of the existing facilities at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, with
  expert knowledge of the design criteria for gas chamber operation, an
  investigation of crematory technology and an inspection of modern
  crematories, the author finds no evidence that any of the facilities
  normally alleged to be execution gas chambers were ever used as such, and
  finds, further, that because of the design and fabrication of these
  facilities, they could not have been utilized for execution gas chambers.

  Not suprisingly, indignant defenders of the orthodox Holocaust
extermination story have tried frantically to discredit Leuchter and refute
his findings.  Undoubtedly the most ambitious effort to impeach _The
Leuchter Report_ on scientific and technical grounds consists of two
articles by French pharmacist Jean-Claude Pressac in a book sponsored by
"Nazi-hunter" Beate Klarsfeld, and grandiloquently titled _Truth Prevails:
Demolishing Holocaust Denial: The End of the Leuchter Report_.^2  [A review
of _Truth Prevails_, which deals more generally with the book's
non-scientific criticisms of Leuchter, is published elsewhere in this issue
of the _Journal_. --Editor.]

  In _Truth Prevails_, Pressac is described as "one of the world's rare
research specialists in gas chamber extermination technique.  He is not a
Jew and nearly became a 'revisionist'." (p. 29)  At the conclusion of his
essay "The Deficiencies and Inconsistencies of 'The Leuchter Report',"
Pressac pronounces stern judgement on _The Leuchter Report_:

  ...Leuchter is the victim of his own errors: layout errors, location
  errors, measurement errors, drawing errors, methodology errors and
  historical errors.  Based on fake knowledge, inducing fake reasoning and
  leading to false interpretations, "The Leuchter Report" is inadmissible
  because it was produced in illegal conditions; because it overlooks the
  most basic historical data; because it is scuttled by gross errors of
  calculation, drawing and location; and because it is suspect of
  falsification.  "The Leuchter Report" lands in the cesspool of
  pretentious human folly. (p. 55)

  As this article will show, Pressac, by dismissing _The Leuchter Report_'s
scientific and technical method so intemperately, has cast a verbal
boomerang that returns to strike its author.


                                   I

  When Leuchter took forensic samples of brick, mortar and sediment from
the alleged extermination "gas chambers" in Auschwitz-Birkenau, as well as
a control sample from a camp delousing facility, he wore protective gear.
Pressac ridicules him for this:

  To prevent his "precious" samples from being polluted during their
  removal, Leuchter and his assistant...had agreed to wear protective
  surgical gloves and masks.  Since the analyses to be done on the samples
  were chemical and not bacteriological in nature, this was a perfectly
  ludicrous and totally useless precaution. (p. 62)

  Pressac is ignorant of the real reason why Leuchter and company wore
protective masks and gloves.  Potassium cyanide, a highly poisonous
solid,^3 is found in the walls of some of the facilities under study.^4  As
Du Pont chemists have pointed out: "Wear an approved dust respirator when
there is danger of inhaling cyanide dust...Wear protective gloves when
handling solid cyanide."^5  Thus, Leuchter and his team showed good sense
by wearing protective gear when extracting the samples.

  Leuchter stored his samples in cool, damp, and sunlight free locations.
But Pressac writes: "Since Leuchter placed the samples in transparent
plastic bags, it is difficult to accept his 'sunlight free locations'
claim." (p. 62)  In fact, although Leuchter first placed the samples in
transparent bags, he then transported them to America in closed,
sunlight-free suitcases.^6  The gas chamber expert wrote: "We boarded the
Polish airline plane after clearing customs--my suitcase containing twenty
pounds of forbidden samples, fortunately none of which was found."^7

  Leuchter is faulted for allegedly making misleading descriptions of the
specimens.  In Pressac's words:

  Thirty-one samples...were identified by laboratory analysis...as coming
  from "brick"--an inexact generalization.  If two-thirds really are brick
  fragments, either pure or mixed with a bit of mortar, the rest are
  composed of lime mortar or sometimes of pure cement (as in the case of
  two or three samples).  This abusive generalization leads one to have a
  major reservation about the very nature of the samples Leuchter took.
  Either Leuchter was mistaken in his assessment of the substratum, or the
  laboratory made an error. (p. 61)

  In one part of his report, Leuchter wrote: "...forensic samples of brick,
mortar, concrete and sediment were selectively taken from sites in
Poland."^8  In a letter to Alpha Analytical Laboratories (Ashland,
Massachusetts), the laboratory which analyzed the samples, Leuchter wrote:
"Samples No. 1 through No. 11; Samples No. 13 through No. 32.  Brick,
mortar and sediment.  Cyanate content."^9  Clearly, he did not use the
"inexact generalization" of "brick" to characterize the samples.^10


                                   II

  Pressac realizes the importance of the samples taken from the "gas
chambers" and the delousing facility.  Thus, discrediting Leuchter's method
of taking samples and his conclusions regarding their chemical content is
really the major purpose of Pressac's two essays in _Truth Prevails_.  He
writes:

  Since Leuchter's samples were obtained illegally, I will only concur with
  their cyanide concentration on the express condition that they be
  verified by official expert chemical evaluation.  Admitting their
  validity with reservations, certain results which may have been
  surprising at first glance can be logically explained. (p. 40)

  A subsequent "expert official chemical evaluation" has in fact strongly
corroborated Leuchter's findings.  In response to Revisionist claims that
Zyklon B was not used at Auschwitz-Birkenau to commit mass murder, the
Auschwitz State Museum asked Poland's Institute of Forensic Research (in
Krakow) to carry out a scientific investigation of the matter.  Its expert
report results buttress those of Leuchter: The institute's team found
significant cyanide residue in delousing facility samples, while next to
none in alleged "gas chamber" samples.^11  (As will be discussed below, the
Polish institute's conclusion regarding the significance of this finding
differs from Leuchter's.)

  Throughout both his essays, Pressac strongly implies that Leuchter
consciously falsified his findings in order to disprove the existence of
the gas chambers.  As a case in point--concerning sample 2 from Crematorium
II--Pressac insinuates that Leuchter planted a brick with no cyanide
residue in the "gas chamber" area in order to "prove" his case. (p. 65)

  At the 1989 conference of the Institute of Historical Review, Leuchter
publicly challenged the international scientific community to investigate
his findings--hardly the behavior of a man who is guilty of falsifying his
results.^12  A team of scientists could easily expose deliberate
deceptions, as well as methodological errors, by Leuchter.  All they would
have to do is retrace his path, take more samples from the same facilities,
and subject them to chemical analysis.

  Leuchter's 1988 investigation of the concentration camps, including his
inspection and sample taking, was recorded on videotape.  A videotape
cassette of his visit, which shows Leuchter taking some of his specimens,
is available to the public.^13  Pressac claims throughout his second essay
that this video is a "witness to a fraud." (pp. 61-73)  He writes, for
example: "Manipulation, substitution and trick photography are certainly
confirmed in the case of sample No. 6." (p. 68)  With reference to the
extraction of this sample, he writes at another point: "The deception seems
clearly obvious." (p. 67)

  Pressac writes further:

    Out of seven samples obtained from the Crematorium II gas chamber
  ruins, not a single one was shown upon analysis to contain cyanide.  This
  amazing result is contrary to everything known about the building's
  history.  Faurisson wanted this gas chamber to yield a perfect (for him)
  result across the board--that is to say, uniformly negative.  Playing his
  cards close to his vest, he succeeded all too well.  The results are too
  consistent, too perfect. (p. 68)

  Whatever defects there may be in the videotape record of Leuchter's
investigation, it seems unlikely that they are the result of conscious
fraud (let alone a plot orchestrated by his arch-enemy Robert Faurisson).
Any possible defects there may be are more likely to have been occasioned
by inexperience and the circumstances in which the gathering of evidence
and the videotaping was conducted.  As British historian David Irving has
written:

    I myself would, admittedly, have preferred to see more rigorous methods
  used in identifying and certifying the samples taken for analysis, but I
  accept without reservation the difficulties that the examining team faced
  on location in what is now Poland: chiselling out the samples from the
  hallowed site under the very noses of the new camp guards.  The video
  tapes made simultaneously by the team--which I have studied--provide
  compelling visual evidence of the scrupulous methods that they used.^14

  Furthermore, as already mentioned, Poland's Institute of Forensic
Research (Krakow) has provided independent corroboration of Leuchter's
findings.  The Institute's investigation team found no cyanide residue in
the "gas chamber" samples they took, except for one taken from the
Crematorium II ruins.  It measures 6 micrograms per 100 grams of material.
This is equal to .06 milligrams of cyanide per kilogram of material
(mg/kg).^15

  This is less than the minimum amount that could be detected by the
measuring instrument of the Alpha laboratory.  The minimum trace level of
cyanide that could be detected by Alpha was ONE mg/kg.^16  Anything below
this amount was rightly considered inconsequential.  Thus, Leuchter's
findings are consistent with those of Poland's Institute of Forensic
Research: there was no significant cyanide residue in material taken from
Crematorium II's "gas chamber."


                                  III

  Pressac asks:

    What decisive point of the [Leuchter] report leads the deniers
  [Holocaust Revisionists] to think they have "won" [the debate about the
  existence of extermination "gas chambers"]?  They compared the quantity
  of cyanide residue in the Birkenau BW 5a delousing building gas chamber
  (sample No. 32) yielding 1,050 mg/kg...and those varying from 0 to 7.9
  mg/kg in samples from the Auschwitz-Birkenau homicidal gas chambers.  The
  result triggers the following line of questioning.  How can it be
  believed that the areas supposedly used to asphixiate thousands daily by
  means of hydrocyanic acid over the course of a year or two retain only
  minute traces of cyanide while other places, used for delousing with the
  same gas over the same time period, yield traces one hundred and fifty to
  a thousand times greater? (p. 35)

As Pressac indicates, Leuchter did indeed conclude:

    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.^17

  In an effort to discredit this conclusion, three explanations have been
offered in response:

  Explanation 1.  After 45 years, virtually all of the cyanide residue in
the alleged extermination gas chambers has "weathered away."  Poland's
Institute of Forensic Research, for example, expressed the view that

  ...one can hardly assume that traces of cyanic compounds could still be
  detected in construction materials (plaster, brick) after 45 years, after
  being subjected to the weather and the elements (rain, acid oxides,
  especially sulfuric oxides).  More reliable would be the analysis of wall
  plaster [samples] from closed rooms which were not subject to weather and
  the elements (including acid rain).^18

  Writing in _Truth Prevails_, Pressac expresses a similar opinion: "As a
general rule, the more a sample's locale was exposed to the elements, the
lower--indeed, nil--the cyanide content."  He also wrote: "The ruins of
Crematorium II and III and the restored walls of IV and V have been exposed
to the elements for over forty years.  It's practically a miracle that any
measurable hydrocyanic compound traces still remain." (pp. 71, 44)

  However, in his 1989 book, _Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas
Chambers_, Pressac says something rather different.  In this detailed work,
he published a picture of the OUTSIDE wall of a delousing chamber.
Referring to this structure, he wrote: "...from ground level to just below
the chimney, bluish stains can be seen on the bricks of the wall, showing
that hydrocyanic acid was used there (in 1942-1944), for delousing
purposes."^19  He thus confirms that even though this wall has been exposed
to the elements since the Second World War, a significant amount of
Prussian blue is nevertheless still visible.  Pressac himself thus
discredits the claim that all or even most of the Prussian blue (ferric
ferrocyanide) would have "weathered away."

  If Pressac's view on this is correct, the OUTSIDE wall of this delousing
facility would have a LOWER Prussian blue content than the INSIDE walls of
the "gas chamber" of Krema I.  In fact, though, visible Prussian blue
stains can be seen on the OUTSIDE wall of the delousing facility, which has
been exposed to the elements since the Second World War.  By contrast,
there are only invisible and barely detectable amounts of Prussian blue in
samples taken from the INSIDE wall of the supposed homicidal "gas chamber"
of Krema I, which is inside an intact structure and has thus been protected
from the elements since the Second World War.^20  As Pressac himself notes:
"Its [Krema I] morgue/ gas chamber inside walls have never been exposed to
sun, rain, or snow (factors which contribute to cyanide content
diminishing) as the other crematoriums were and are." (p. 44)

  Referring to the absence of cyanide/Prussian blue traces in the samples
taken from Birkenau's Krema II, Pressac writes in _Truth Prevails_:
"Cyanide's solubility in rain water and the water layer accumulated
underground from infiltrating rain accounts for its absence from the
samples." (p. 41)

  This view is simply not correct.  Dr. James Roth, the chemistry expert
who analyzed Leuchter's samples, pointed out that Prussian blue cannot be
washed out of brick, mortar or cement by water.  The ferric ferrocyanide
compounds produced by the interaction of hydrogen cyanide with the iron
elements in brick (and such) are very stable, and remain in such substances
for a very long time.  As Roth testified under oath, the compounds can be
removed only by sand-blasting or the application of strong acid.^21  Nobel
Prize-winning chemist Linus Pauling similarly confirms that Prussian blue
is insoluble in water.^22  Finally, the authoritative _Handbook of
Chemistry and Physics_ notes that ferric ferrocyanide--or iron (III)
ferrocyanide--is insoluble in hot or cold water.^23

  It should be stressed here that whereas the Institute of Forensic
Research (Krakow) measured the amount of POTASSIUM CYANIDE,^24 Leuchter was
mainly concerned with PRUSSIAN BLUE (or ferric ferrocyanide).^25  As
previously noted, while Potassium cyanide is indeed water soluble,^26
ferric ferrocyanide is not.  Prussian blue is a very stable compound that
simply could not have been washed away by rain.

  Explanation 2.  Pressac suggests that when camp officials dynamited
crematory buildings (Kremas) II, III and V, this contributed to the removal
of cyanide residue. (pp. 40, 42, 43)  This explanation will also not hold
up.  While it is true that dynamiting breaks up the bricks of a structure,
it does not remove chemical stains on or within such bricks.  Nor, for the
most part, would it abrade Prussian blue on their surfaces.  Pressac
himself points out that a support pillar in Krema II's "gas chamber"
withstood the effects of explosion. (p. 65)  Any Prussian blue on the
surface of or within the pillar's pores would have remained.

  Explanation 3.  This is Pressac's principal explanation.  Even though the
delousing facility was exposed to a lesser amount of HCN than the "gas
chambers," the walls of the delousing facility were impregnated with warm
HCN for at least twelve hours a day.  He writes:

  This cyanide saturation of 12 to 18 hours a day was strengthened by the
  heat the stoves in the room emitted, providing a temperature of 30
  degrees Celcius [86 degrees Fahrenheit].  The walls were impregnated with
  hot HCN for at least 12 hours a day, which would induce the formation of
  of a stain: Prussian blue, or potassioferric ferrocyanide [SIC]... (p.
  37).^27

  As for the "gas chambers," Pressac alleges the HCN was in physical
contact with their walls "for no more than ten minutes a day," at a
temperature of about 30 degrees Celsius (86 degrees Fahrenheit).  Without
additional heat, the brief contact of high concentrations of HCN with the
walls of the homicidal installations was not able to induce the reaction
which led to the formation of significant amounts of cyanide residue.
Hence, the amount of ferric ferrocyanide in the "gas chamber" samples is
nil or nonexistent. (pp. 36-38)

  If Pressac had made an objective study of the chemistry of hydrogen
cyanide and Prussian blue, he would have learned how inaccurate this theory
is.

  The walls of the alleged gas chambers contain a large amount of iron.^28
And, as Dr. James Roth pointed out: "If iron is present with hydrogen
cyanide around, then you are going to get a reaction between the hydrogen
cyanide and iron."^29  Hydrogen cyanide dissolves very readily in water,
becoming hydrocyanic acid.^30  As Pressac and Leuchter have both noted, the
alleged gas chambers were very damp.^31  Enough moisture would have been on
the walls, floors and ceilings to dissolve at least some of the HCN
supposed to have been used during an alleged gassing.

  In the presence of water, iron in the walls and cyanide from the hydrogen
cyanide would readily combine to form an iron cyanide complex.  Aqueous
solutions of hydrogen cyanide are weak acids.^32  As Dr. Pauling notes:
"Iron is an active metal, which displaces hydrogen easily from dilute
acids."^33  Consequently, the iron from the walls would easily have
displaced the hydrogen [H+] in the hydrocyanic acid, bonded with the
cyanide [CN-], and formed an iron-cyanide complex, ferrocyanide ion
[Fe(CN6)]^4-.^34  This is what Dr. Pauling meant when he wrote that cyanide
ion [CN-] added to a solution of ferrous ion [iron (II) ion] forms
precipitates which dissolve in excess cyanide to produce complex ions.^35

  Finally, according to Dr. Pauling, the pigment Prussian blue is made by
the addition of ferric [iron (III)] ion to a ferrocyanide solution.^36
According to chemist James Brady: "The deep color Prussian blue is formed
when a drop of dilute solution containing Fe3+ [iron (III) ion] is added to
a dilute solution containing ferrocyanide ion, Fe(CN)6^4-.  After a few
moments, the blue precipitate, Fe4[Fe(CN)6]3.16H2O, settles to the bottom
of the test tube."^37  In plain language, the iron-cyanide complex,
ferrocyanide, combines with more iron to form ferric ferrocyanide (or
Prussian blue).

  What this whole reaction mechanism shows is that even if the HCN were in
contact with the "gas chamber" walls for less than ten minutes every day or
two for two years, significant quantities of Prussian blue still would have
formed.  (By a "significant amount" is meant an amount slightly less or
equal to that found in the delousing facility samples.)  At least some of
the HCN, upon contact with the diffuse wetness, would have dissolved
immediately.^38  This dissolved HCN, upon contact with the iron, would have
formed some ferrocyanide immediately.^39  The ferrocyanide, upon contact
with more iron, would have formed some Prussian blue almost immediately.^40

  But just as important, the application of heat to the walls and gas is
not at all necessary to form significant amounts of Prussian blue.
Relevant to this issue is the informative verbal exchange between attorney
Dougles Christie and Dr. James Roth during the 1988 trial in Toronto of
Ernst Zundel.  Referring to the reaction between hydrogen cyanide and the
iron in the walls of the alleged gas chambers, Christie asked Roth: "And
could you explain any way by which this would not happen or no such
reaction would occur?"  The chemist replied:

  ROTH: Well, one is the lack of water.  These reactions to--in a lot of
  cases have to take place in water or with some vapor around.  Now,
  chances are great [that with] NORMAL TEMPERATURES and rooms of normal
  humidity, there would be plenty of moisture present for this type of
  reaction to take place.  [Emphasis added]

  CHRISTIE: So in a normal room with normal humidity these quantities of
  iron in the wall, hydrogen cyanide in quantities of 300 parts per million
  [.36 g/m^3] or more, on a daily basis for two years or even two weeks,
  you would expect to see the formation of Prussian blue.  Is that correct?

  ROTH: I would expect to see detectable amounts of Prussian blue.  [If not
  visibly detectable, at least chemically detectable.]  That type of
  reaction is an accumulative reaction.  In other words, as it reacts it
  doesn't go away.  It stays...^41

  Pressac's theory that without additional heat the brief contact of high
concentrations of HCN with the walls of the gas chambers was not sufficient
to form significant amounts of Prussian blue is therefore false.^42  The
whole ensemble of physical and chemical conditions would have ensured that
significant amounts of Prussian blue residue would have been detectable in
Leuchter's samples if they had been exposed to the amount of gas Pressac
claims.


                                   IV

  The boiling point of hydrogen cyanide (HCN) is 26 degrees Celsius (or 78
degrees Fahrenheit).^43  That is, HCN vaporizes, or changes from liquid to
gas, at this temperature.  If the temperature is below 78 degrees F, there
will thus be condensation: Much of HCN will change from gas to liquid.  In
addition to being cool year round, the Auschwitz I and II (Birkenau) "gas
chambers" were supposedly operated during the cold weather months of fall,
winter and spring.^44  They were allegedly ventilated "naturally" or
"mechanically." (p. 72)^45  In either case, air from the outside
environment would have been used to expel poison gas from the chamber.
During the fall, winter and spring months, this outside ventilation air
would have been considerably cooler than 78 degrees F.  In addition, as
Pressac admits and Leuchter confirms, the "gas chambers" had no internal
heating devices to prevent condensation.^46  The temperature of the walls,
floors and ceilings for much of the year would have been well below 78
degrees F.

  During an alleged gassing operation, much of the poisonous HCN gas
therefore would have promptly condensed to liquid upon contact with the
frigid walls, floors and ceilings, or upon contact with cold air during
ventilation.  Because HCN gas naturally adheres to surfaces, it can be
ventilated only with difficulty and after considerable time.^47  Thus, even
if an alleged "gassing" lasted no more than twenty minutes, a considerable
amount of condensed, liquid HCN would have remained on the walls, floors
and ceilings after ventilation.  The cold air allegedly used to ventilate
the poison gas would simply have ensured that much of the HCN would have
changed to liquid and remained on the inside surfaces of the "gas
chambers."

  In this vein, Leuchter has noted:

  ...if the temperatures [of the gas chamber] is not above 78 to 79
  degrees, we get condensation of the gas on the walls, the floor and the
  ceiling.  When the hydrogen cyanide condenses into a liquid it will be
  absorbed by the brick and by the mortar...^48

  As Dr. Pauling has noted, "Hydrogen cyanide...is a gas which dissolves in
water and acts as a very weak acid."^49  In this regard, it is worth
pointing out that the Auschwitz-Birkenau "gas chambers" were always
damp.^50  Therefore, even during the warm weather months, when the ambient
temperature in the "gas chambers" may have been above 78 degrees F, some
gaseous HCN would have readily dissolved the moment it came into contact
with the natural moisture on the floor, walls and ceiling.  In this way,
the constant dampness or moisture in the "gas chambers" would ensure that
HCN would be held in solution even during the warm weather months.^51  This
HCN--dissolved in the moisture or condensed back to liquid--thus would have
remained in the "gas chambers" even after ventilation, and would have
reacted with the iron in the bricks to form Prussian blue.

  According to chemists of the German Degesch company (which manufactured
Zyklon), exposed porous surfaces of an authentic (delousing) gas chamber
must be coated with a sealant to make the facility impervious to HCN
impregnation.^52  Leuchter found that none of the alleged extermination
"gas chambers" in Auschwitz was coated with any sealant.^53  If these
facilities had actually been used as extermination gas chambers, their
walls, floors and ceilings would have absorbed significant quantities of
HCN.

[Photograph captioned, "Tourists at Auschwitz are routinely told that
thousands of Jews were killed with Zyklon B in this alleged extermination
gas chamber in the Auschwitz I main camp.  German camp authorities never
bothered to destroy this incriminating 'evidence.' (Photo: Samisdat
Publishers)"]

  Critical to Pressac's thesis is this claim:

    In a homicidal gas chamber, the action of highly concentrated HCN was
  rapid and intense (never more than 15 or 20 minutes), at a temperature
  below 27 degrees C. [80.6 degrees F], then the room was aired or
  artificially ventilated to get rid of the gas as quickly as possible...
  The acid had time to attack the metallic parts superficially, forming
  cyanide, but did not have enough time to impregnate and stain the brick.
  Conversely, the operation of a delousing gas chamber used much lower
  concentrations of HCN, but as a general rule and according to witnesses,
  the gas remained for a very much longer time, from 16 to 18 hours, and a
  higher temperature was maintained by heating the chamber by stoves...^54

  This is not accurate.  As we have already established, if the structures
in question had actually been used as homicidal "gas chambers," the walls,
floors and ceilings would have absorbed significant quantities of HCN.  The
physical and chemical conditions in the alleged "gas chambers" were such
that a significant amount of HCN would have remained after a "gassing,"
impregnating the brick and forming significant quantities of Prussian blue.

  Let us summarize Pressac's thesis with two quotations.  In the 1990 work,
_Truth Prevails_, he wrote:

    Without heat induction of long continuance, the cyanide doses [in the
  "gas chambers"], as high as they were, were not in contact with the walls
  of the homicidal installations long enough to provoke the reaction
  [forming Prussian blue] to an appreciable--that is to say visible--
  degree. (p. 38)

And in his 1989 work, _Auschwitz_, Pressac wrote:

    The "blue wall" phenomenon makes it possible now to distinguish
  visually, empirically, but with absolute certainty, between delousing gas
  chambers, where the phenomenon is present, and homicidal gas chambers,
  where it is not.  Without additional heat, the too brief contact of
  nevertheless high concentrations of hydrocyanic acid with the walls of
  the homicidal installations was not able to provoke the development of
  the reaction appreciable enough to be visible.^55

  To sum up here: as a consequence of all these factors, HCN would have
been in contact with the walls of the "gas chambers" for much more than
just ten or twenty minutes a day, and significant amounts of HCN would have
remained after gassing and subsequent ventilation.  Therefore--and contrary
to what Pressac claims--significant amounts of Prussian blue would have
been produced.

  Leuchter's comparison of samples taken from the "gas chamber" with
samples taken from the control/delousing facility samples is entirely
valid.  If the alleged extermination "gas chambers" had actually been used
to kill people as alleged, ferric ferrocyanide would have been found in
them in amounts comparable to those found in the delousing facility.  As
the American gas chamber expert has noted, the point is not that the
cyanide traces at the alleged gassing sites are "somewhat less" but that
they are

  negligible or nil.  The samples from the alleged gas chamber areas, most
  of them had totally no traces at all.  The few that did have traces were
  barely above detection level.  So, we're not talking about a situation
  that there was more or less.  We're talking about nothing and something,
  and in the area where there was something [the delousing facility], we
  had a very high content.  We had a thousand and fifty miligrams per
  kilogram, and the highest that we detected in any of the other areas [the
  alleged gas chambers] was seven milligrams per kilogram.^56


                                   V

  Pressac claims that only a select few of Leuchter's specimens were taken
correctly.  The rest are "worthless," allegedly because Leuchter "switched
samples" by planting rocks with no cyanide residues in the "gas chamber"
area in order to "prove" his case.  Pressac also charges that Leuchter
confused sample location.  (That is, samples designated by Leuchter as
coming from one area actually came from another.)  And, according to
Pressac, the American specialist used "trick photography." (pp. 42-43,
46-48, 61-73)

  Let us give Mr. Pressac the benefit of the doubt, and assume that his
designation of most of Leuchter's samples as either "worthless" or "valid"
is correct.  This would mean that remaining "acceptable" specimens include:

    Krema III: Sample 9 (p. 69)
    Krema V: Sample 24. (p. 71)
    Krema I: Samples 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30. (pp. 40, 46, 62)

  Fortunately, using just these samples, we can disprove Pressac's theories
and show that Leuchter's results are valid.

  Consider crematory building (Krema) I in the Auschwitz main camp.  The
supposed gas chamber there was adjacent to a washroom.^57  The washroom was
never part of the "gas chamber."^58  They were separated by a gas-tight
door.^59  Both rooms were apparently disinfested with hydrocyanic acid.^60
Pressac maintains that people were killed in the alleged "gas chamber"
there from the end of 1941 until 1942.^61  Prior to this, he believes, it
was used as a morgue, and afterwards it was used as an air raid shelter.^62
Hence, it would have been exposed to significant amounts of HCN not only
during the period when it allegedly functioned as a homicidal gas chamber,
but also as a result of periodic disinfestation treatment during the time
it functioned as a morgue and air raid shelter.

  According to Pressac, "probably" no more than ten thousand persons were
put to death in the alleged "gas chamber" of Krema I.^63  Consequently,
this room would have been exposed to significant concentrations of HCN for
extended periods of time.^64

  Leuchter found no evidence of any exhaust system, or any other way to
expel the gas in a short period.^65  For this reason, it would have taken
many hours after each alleged "gassing" operation to ventilate HCN from the
chamber.  For reasons already given, much HCN would have remained after the
ventilation phase of a "gassing" to permeate the walls, floor and ceiling.
By contrast, the washroom would have been exposed to the gas only during
periodic disinfestations.  Clearly, then, the alleged "gas chamber was
exposed to HCN for much longer periods of time than the washroom.

  Pressac's theory predicts that the amount of cyanide residue in a
structure would be proportional to the amount of time it was exposed to
HCN.  He writes:

    The considerable difference in hydrocyanic resideue between the
  delousing stations and the homicidal gas chambers is the result of the
  respective difference in time spent administering Zyklon (at least 12
  hours per day in the delousing versus 5 to 10 minutes every day or two in
  killing humans). (p. 63)

In the view of Revisionist researcher Enrique Aynat, though:

  ...Leuchter took one of his samples in an area that had been a washroom,
  which had never been a part of the supposed gas chamber, and was
  separated from it by a gas-tight door.  The partition wall that separated
  the washroom from the supposed gas chamber was eliminated by the Poles
  after the war.  The analysis of this sample reveals a presence of cyanide
  COMPARABLE to that of most of the other samples.  In short, the amount of
  cyanide found in a sample taken from a place that had NEVER served as a
  gas chamber was SIMILAR to that detected in the samples taken from the
  supposed gas chamber.  If the mortuary had really been a gas chamber,
  cyanide ought to have been detected in the samples taken there, and by
  the same token nothing should have been detected in the sample obtained
  from the former washroom; or rather a minute amount of cyanide should
  have been found in the former washroom (from contingent disinfestation
  with hydrocyanic acid) and a much larger quantity in the gas chamber.
  What proves to be inexplicable from the Exterminationist point of view is
  the findings of SIMILAR amounts of cyanide in both places.^66

  This finding strongly suggests that Pressac's theory is false.

  Pressac notes that "...sample 9 (Crematorium III, L-Keller 1), taken from
the base of a fifth central support pillar, exposed to every imaginable
meteorological turpitude for 45 years, still gives a reading of 6.9 mg/kg."
(p. 71)  Sample 24 was taken from the ruins of an alleged gas chamber of
Krema V.  Because the building which housed it was razed to the ground in
the 1940s, the foundation and floor were exposed to the elements for
decades. (p. 44)  Therefore, Pressac cannot contend that any difference
between the cyanide levels of samples 9 and 24 is due to the "weathering
process."

  The time periods during which the extermination "gas chambers" of
crematory buildings (Kremas) III and V were in operation are similar.  The
"gas chamber" in Krema III (Birkenau) allegedly operated during much of
1943 and 1944--almost two full years.^67  The "gas chamber" in Krema V
(also in Birkenau) supposedly operated from April 1943 until the summer
1944. (p. 43)

  According to Pressac, because there was a mechanical ventilation system
in Krema III, sample 9 would have been in contact with the HCN for only
five to ten minutes during an alleged gassing operation: "Considering the
poisoning time required to asphyxiate the victims in conjunction with the
ventilation, the time period during which the walls were exposed to the
hydrocyanic acid gas did not exceed 5 to 10 minutes every one or two days."
(p. 72)  By contrast, in the case of the supposed "gas chambers" of Krema
V, he writes:

    Crematorium V's (then 4) gas chamber bloc [SIC] was aired out
  naturally, with all the doors open.  It clearly took more time than the
  mechanical ventilation did.  The period during which the walls were
  exposed to the hydrocyanic acid, with the concentration progressively
  diminishing during the airing out time, had to be one or two hours. (p.
  72)

  According to Pressac's theory, then, sample 24 should have a
significantly higher cyanide content than sample 9, because of the former's
longer exposure time to HCN.  Yet just the opposite is the case.  Sample 9
has a measured residue of 6.7 mg/kg, while sample 24 has no measurable
residue.^68

  In an attempt to explain away this serious discrepancy, Pressac claims
that sample 9 stood one meter from one of the four wire mesh columns
through which Zyklon B was supposedly introduced into the chamber.  This
"privileged position," he speculates, could be the cause of the "unusual"
cyanide content. (pp. 71-72)

  This explanation will not withstand close scrutiny.  As noted above,
Pressac alleges that HCN was in contact with sample 9 of Krema III for only
five to ten MINUTES during a gassing, while sample 24 of Krema V was in
contact with the gas one or two HOURS during a gassing operation.  Pressac
himself wrote: "The substantial difference between the two exposure periods
(that of V being 10 to 30 times longer than that of II/III) shows that V's
bricks were saturated with hydrocyanic gas much longer than those of II and
III." (p. 72)  According to his own theory, the HCN would have had more
time to form significant amounts of Prussian blue in sample 24 than in
sample 9.

  The reader may understandably ask: "If the alleged 'gas chambers' were
never used for homicidal purposes, why was any cyanide at all found in the
samples taken by Leuchter?"  Dr. Robert Faurisson provides an answer: "The
extremely low levels of cyanide found in some crematoria was likely, in my
opinion, to have resulted from disinfection of the premises during the
war."^69

  Pressac rejects this explanation as an "often-used lie":

    Hydrocyanic acid is used first and foremost to exterminate such vermin
  as insect pests [lice] and rodents.  Classified as an insecticide and
  vermin killer, it has no bactericide or germicide properties for use as
  an antiseptic.  Places and things are disinfected with various kinds of
  antiseptics: solid (lime, lime chloride), liquid (bleach, cresol), gas
  (formaldehyde, sulfur anhydride).  To remove lice from clothing required
  either an insecticide, or dry steam disinfecting in an autoclave.  But a
  morgue is not disinfected with an insecticide or vermin killer like
  hydrocyanic acid, as Faurisson foolishly claims...Leuchter, who claims to
  be scientifically trained, whereas Faurisson is not, similarly used this
  stupidity in his report. (pp. 38-39)

  Here Pressac is straining to represent Dr. Faurisson and Leuchter as
having ignorantly confused "disinfection" with "disinfestation," although
he knows full well that the word "disinfection," in line with the German
usage (DESINFEKTION), is used for "delousing."

  A standard reference work makes this point about the disease typhus: "The
spread of typhus in communities results largely from the fact that infected
lice tend to leave persons with high fever, and they evacuate the corpses
of those who have died from the disease."^70  As both Revisionists and
Exterminationists agree, many thousands died in Auschwitz as a consequence
of recurrent typhus epidemics, and the supposed homicidal gas chambers were
used as morgues.  Because deceased victims of the disease are a direct
source of the infected lice, any place where the corpses of typhus victims
were kept would therefore be a logical place for disinfestation treatment
with Zyklon B.  Contrary to what Pressac maintains, it would make perfect
sense to periodically delouse the morgues (or supposed "gas chambers").
Indeed, a wartime German document on the use of hydrogen cyanide and Zyklon
B (Nuremberg document NI-9098) specifically states that Zyklon B should be
used for large-scale fumigations of storerooms.^71


                                   VI

  Finally, a few miscellaneous comments are in order.

  Pressac misrepresents what Leuchter writes about the danger of locating
HCN gas chambers adjacent to crematoria:

    Leuchter's last claim about the homicidal gas chambers in connection
  with the cremation furnaces is that they are incompatible under the same
  roof.  As soon as the door was opened to the area saturated with
  hydrocyanic acid, the same being without ventilation according to
  Leuchter, the gas would be spread throughout the crematorium, reaching
  the lit ovens, and, combined with the air, would have exploded,
  destroying the entire building.  HCN's flammability limits in air are
  from 5.6% (minimum) to 40% (maximum) in volume (6%-41% according to Du
  Pont).  This signifies that upon contact with a flame there is an
  explosion if the concentration of hydrocyanic acid in the air comprises
  between 67.2g/m^3, and 480g/m^3.  Below 67.2g/m^3 there is no risk, nor
  is there any at greater than 480g/m^3 because there is not enough
  remaining oxygen for burning to begin.  The SS used doses of 5g/m^3 in
  delousing and 12-20g/m^3 in killing, well under the 67.2g/m^3 threshold.
  Their gas chambers and crematoria were not about to explode.  Leuchter's
  "impartial" opinion is based upon an incorrect calculation. (p. 45)

  Leuchter was well aware of the very real explosiveness of HCN.  As he has
pointed out, no execution gas chamber system in the United States has ever
been designed for use with Zyklon B because

  ...a danger of explosion always exists.  The overall gas mixture [in a
  gas chamber] is generally below the lower explosion limit (LEL) of the
  gas air mixture...but the concentration of the gas at the generator (or
  as in the case of Zyklon B, at the inert carrier) is much greater and may
  well be 90% to 99% by volume.  This is almost pure HCN and this condition
  may exist at points of time in pockets in the chamber.^72

  Du Pont company chemists confirm this point: "Hydrogen cyanide is
extremely flammable and can be ignited by an open flame, hot surface, or
spark...Outside closed containers, the gas is likely to form flammable
mixtures because of its high volatility."^73  Even if the gas does no
explode, it can still burn.  Another authoritative source similarly notes:
"Small quantities of hydrogen cyanide can be burned in a hood in an open
metal vessel.  Large-scale burning in outdoor pans can be performed, but
special safety precautions must be employed."^74

  Leuchter has also pointed out the alleged extermination gas chambers were
not properly sealed.^75  Gas would have leaked out, and some of the
escaping HCN gas would have reached the ovens, ignited, and burned in the
air--all the way to the source of the leaks in the "gas chamber."  If the
burning HCN reached a pocket of the gas within the explosive limits, an
explosion would have occurred.  Because this scenario is quite plausible,
Leuchter stated: "...I wouldn't even want to be present within the vicinity
of the building [which housed the alleged gas chambers] if someone were
using Zyklon B and the crematory was functioning."^76  Simply put, it would
have been extremely dangerous to carry out a homicidal gassing operation
near a functioning crematory.  A disaster would be likely.

  With regard to another issue of contention, Pressac writes:

    The nature of the substrata is not sufficiently taken into account, to
  the extent of evading the issue, and is grouped under the heading of
  "brick" by the Analysis laboratory.  In the case of L-Keller 1 of
  crematoriums II and III, the German construction documents attest that
  the "cellar" walls were built with 400 bricks per cubic meter, with
  mortar mixed at the ratio of 1/1/5, which measures one part cement and
  one part lime for every five parts of sand.  The pillars were poured of
  1/5 reinforced concrete, meaning one part cement to every five parts of
  sand.  The interior partitions, pillars and ceiling all received a coat
  of roughcast (about 1 to 1.5 cm thick), comprising 17 liters of mortar.
  Its composition was 1/0.5/5, meaning one part cement and one half part
  lime for every 5 parts sand.  The L-Keller 1 wall bricks which are
  visible today were covered throughout the war with a roughcast which has
  since fallen off.  These bricks were never directly exposed to the gas.
  Leuchter's samples of the exposed bricks in the "cellar" are not worth
  very much in view of the feeble impression the hydrocyanic acid made on
  their surfaces. (p. 73)

  An official wartime information sheet on the use of hydrogen cyanide and
Zyklon B confirms that HCN has "extraordinarily great penetrative powers."
This sheet (Nuremberg document NI-9912) was issued by the public health
agency of Bohemia-Moravia.^77  Even if the roughcast had been present
during the alleged homicidal gassings, HCN would have penetrated through to
the iron in the bricks beneath it, ultimately producing a significant
quantity of Prussian blue.

  Also noteworthy in this regard is the observation of Poland's Institute
of Forensic Research concerning the Auschwitz delousing facilities:
"According to our information, these rooms were whitewashed during the war
years.  In some spots, a blue or dark blue stain shows through."^78  As Dr.
Roth pointed out, the reaction between HCN and iron will go fairly deep in
porous substances (like roughcast) unless perhaps the surface formation of
Prussian blue inhibited its further penetration.^79  Indeed, the OUTSIDE
wall of a Birkenau delousing facility had Prussian blue stains.^80
Apparently, the gas penetrated from the inside of the chamber to the
outside surface of the bricks.  Any paint or roughcast on the inside
surface did not prohibit HCN penetration.

  Another criticism of the _Leuchter Report_ has been made by Mr. Charles
Provan, an American lay theologian and contributor to the weekly _Christian
News_.  He has alleged that certain "eyewitnesses" have claimed that the
chambers were washed down with water after the homicidal gassings.  This
water supposedly would have washed away the HCN, preventing it from
reacting with the iron.^81

  Since HCN has great penetrating powers and the "gas chamber" surfaces
were porous, at least some hydrogen cyanide would have penetrated far
enough into the roughcast and brick to escape being washed away.
Furthermore, HCN is water soluble.  After the hosing down, numerous water
droplets, containing dissolved HCN, would have remained on the walls,
floors and ceilings to react with the iron, ultimately forming significant
amounts of Prussian blue.


                               Conclusion

  Based on spurious knowledge, inducing specious logic which leads to false
conclusions, Pressac's attacks on _The Leuchter Report_ stem from faulty
scientific and technical understanding, and thus utterly fail to demolish
it.  As already noted, since the publication of _Truth Prevails_, a study
by Poland's leading forensic institute has given strong corroboration to
Leuchter's findings, and thus to his methodology.

  Pressac's AD HOMINEM attacks on Leuchter and Faurisson, who by daring to
subject the gas chamber myth to scientific and technical investigation,
have risked their livelihoods, their personal freedom, and even their
lives, will, one hopes, strike future generations of readers as no less
obscurantist than the attacks directed at Galileo, at Darwin, or at the
geneticists who dared to defy Lysenko during the Stalin years.  May _The
Leuchter Report_ help to free, not only the Western world, but the entire
literate world from the chains of an oppressive illusion--the lie of the
Hitler gas chambers.


                                 Notes

  The author would like to express special thanks to a retired Standard Oil
research chemist who wishes to remain anonymous, and to Dr. William
Lindsey.  Their knowledge and expertise were very helpful.  Any mistakes or
errors in this article are, of course, the sole responsibility of the
author.

1. _The Leuchter Report: The First Forensic Examination of Auschwitz_
   (London: Focal Point, 1989).  With foreword by David Irving, and
   introduction by Robert Faurisson.  Page 10.  Hereafter, this work will
   be cited as _The Leuchter Report_.

2. Shelly Shapiro, editor, _Truth Prevails: Demolishing Holocaust Denial:
   The End of "The Leuchter Report"_ (New York: Beate Klarsfeld Foundation
   and Holocaust Survivors & Friends, 1990).  Distributed by: Holocaust
   Survivors & Friends in Pursuit of Justice, 800 New Loudon Rd., #400,
   Latham, NY 12110.  Pressac's two articles are "The Deficiencies and
   Inconsistencies of 'The Leuchter Report'," (pp. 31-60), and "Additional
   Notes: Leuchter's Videotape: Witness to a Fraud" (pp. 61-73).
   Hereafter, all page numbers cited in the main text of this article refer
   to _Truth Prevails_.  For a good review of Pressac's contribution to
   this book, see the May-June 1991 issue of _Remarks_, available for $3
   postpaid from Jack Wikoff, P.O. Box 234, Aurora, N.Y., 13026.

3. Robert C. Weast, ed., _Handbook of Chemistry and Physics: A Ready-
   Reference Book of Chemical and Physical Data_, 57th edition. (Cleveland:
   CRC Press, 1976), p. B-144.  Hereafter, this book will be cited as
   _Handbook of Chemistry and Physics_.

4. Institute of Forensic Research (Krakow, Poland), "An Official Polish
   Report on the Auschwitz 'Gas Chambers,'" _The Journal of Historical
   Review_, Summer 1991 (Vol. 11, No. 2), pp. 207-216.

5. "Sodium Cyanide: Properties, Uses, Storage and Handling," p. 7.  This Du
   Pont company information sheet is reprinted in facsimile in _The
   Leuchter Report_ (London: 1989), pp. 33-38.  See p. 37.

6. Leuchter letter to Alpha Analytical of March 9, 1988.  Reprinted in
   facsimile as an appendix in _The Leuchter Report_ (London), p. 31.

7. Fred Leuchter, "The Leuchter Report: The How and the Why," _The Journal
   of Historical Review_, Summer 1989 (Vol. 9, No. 2), p. 137.

8. _The Leuchter Report_ (London), p. 15.

9. Leuchter letter of March 9, 1988 to Alpha Analytical.  Reprinted as an
   appendix in _The Leuchter Report_, p. 31.

10. The term "cyanate content" is a mistake.  Leuchter wanted to know the
    CYANIDE content, not CYANATE content.  The two are different.

11. Institute of Forensic Research (Krakow, Poland), "An Official Polish
    Report on the Auschwitz 'Gas Chambers,'" _The Journal of Historical
    Review_, Summer 1991 (Vol. 11, No. 2), pp. 212-213.

12. See the videotape of Leuchter's lecture in the videotape recording,
    "Highlights of the 9th IHR conference" (Feb. 1989).  Available from the
    Institute for Historical Review, Videotape V-048.

13. Videotape "Fred Leuchter in Poland" (VT-003).  Available from David
    Clark, P.O. Box 726, Decatur, Ala., 35602.  This videotape, produced
    under the name of Samisdat (Toronto), does not show the entire visit.

14. See David Irving's foreword to the London (Focal Point) edition (1989)
    of _The Leuchter Report_, p. 6.

15. See footnote 11.

16. F. Leuchter, _The Leuchter Report_, p. 21.  See also: Robert Lenski,
    _The Holocaust on Trial: The Case of Ernst Zundel_ (Decatur, Ala.:
    Reporter Press, 1990), p. 394.  Hereafter, this book is cited as _The
    Holocaust on Trial_.

17. _The Leuchter Report_, p. 15.

18. Institute of Forensic Research (Krakow, Poland), "An Official Polish
    Report on the Auschwitz 'Gas Chambers'," _The Journal of Historical
    Review_, Summer 1991, pp. 213-214.

19. Jean-Claude Pressac, _Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas
    Chambers_ (New York: Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, 1989), p. 59.
    Hereafter cited as: Pressac, _Auschwitz_ (1989).

20. _The Leuchter Report_, pp. 21-22.

21. Robert Lenski, _The Holocaust on Trial: The Case of Ernst Zundel_
    (1990), pp. 395-396.

22. Linus Pauling, _General Chemistry_ (New York: Dover Publications,
    1988), p. 706.

23. _Handbook of Chemistry and Physics_, 57th ed., p. B-120.

24. See footnote 11.

25. Fred Leuchter, "The Leuchter Report: The How and Why," _The Journal of
    Historical Review_, Summer 1989 (Vol. 9, No. 2), pp. 138-139.

26. _Handbook of Chemistry and Physics_, 57th ed., p. B-144.

27. The scientific name of Prussian blue is ferric ferrocyanide.  The
    elemental potassium which Pressac says is part of the compound is
    actually an impurity.  See: _Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology_, 3rd
    ed., Vol. 13, p. 769.

28. See the compiled data from Alpha Analytical Laboratories given as an
    appendix to _The Leuchter Report_, p. 21.  See also Dr. Roth's
    statements in: R. Lenski, _The Holocaust on Trial_, p. 394.

29. R. Lenski, _The Holocaust on Trial_, p. 395.

30. "Zyklon B for Pest Control," Degesch company booklet, p. 5. This entire
    booklet is reprinted in facsimile as an appendix in _The Leuchter
    Report_ (London, 1989), pp. 49-62.  See p. 51.

31. J.-C. Pressac, _Auschwitz_ (1989), pp. 208, 215, 284-285.  Leuchter
    also observed that the "gas chambers" were cool and damp.  See _The
    Leuchter Report_, pp. 13, 16, 17.  See also R. Lenski, _The Holocaust
    on Trial_, p. 375.  Filip Muller, an alleged "operator of the gas
    chamber," claimed: "Normally the concrete floors in the gas chamber as
    well as in the changing room were damp."  See: F. Muller, _Eyewitness
    Auschwitz: Three Years in the Gas Chambers_ (New York: Stein and Day,
    1979), pp. 82-83.

32. "Hydrogen Cyanide: Storage and Handling," Du Pont company information
    sheet (1983), p. 2.  This sheet is reprinted as an appendix in _The
    Leuchter Report_, (London), pp. 39-44.  See p. 41.

33. Linus Pauling, _General Chemistry_ (1988), p. 690.

34. P.W. Atkins, _General Chemistry_ (New York: Scientific American, 1989),
    p. 780.

35. Linus Pauling, _General Chemistry_ (1988), p. 691.

36. L. Pauling, _General Chemistry_ (1988), p. 692.

37. James Brady, _General Chemistry: Principles and Structure_, 5th ed.
    (New York: John Wily, 1990), p. 704.  Dr. Brady also notes: "It is
    interesting that exactly the same compound is formed if a solution
    containing Fe^2+ [iron (II) ion] is added to a solution containing
    Fe(CN)6^3- ion [ferricyanide ion]."  _The Encyclopedia of Chemical
    Technology_, 3rd ed., Vol. 13, p. 769, provides clarification.  It
    lists the following reactions.

    excess Fe^3+ + K2[Fe(CN)6] --> insoluble Prussian blue

    excess Fe^2+ + K3[Fe(CN)6] --> insoluble Turnbull's blue

    They point out that insoluble Prussian blue and insoluble Turnbull's
    blue are the same substances.  See also James E. Huheey, 3rd ed.,
    _Inorganic Chemistry: Principles of Structure and Reactivity_ (New
    York: Harper and Row, 1983), p. 522.  The following are the chemical
    equations used to describe the formation of ferric ferrocyanide, or
    Prussian blue.

    1) Fe^2+           + 6CN-      --->     [Fe(CN)6]^4-
    Ferrous ion,       cyanide ion          ferrocyanide ion
    iron (II) ion

    2) 3 [Fe(CN)6]^4-  + 4Fe^3+    --->     Fe4[Fe(CN)6]3
    ferrocyanide       ferric ion           Prussian blue

    Sources: Linus Pauling, _General Chemistry_ (1988), pp. 673, 691-692;
    P.W. Atkins, _General Chemistry_ (1989), p. 780; James E. Brady,
    _General Chemistry_ (1990), p. 704; James E. Huheey, 3rd ed.,
    _Inorganic Chemistry: Principles of Structure and Reactivity_ (New
    York: Harper and Row, 1983), pp. 521-522; William Nebergall, Frederic
    Schmidt, Henry Holtzclaw, _College Chemistry with Qualitative
    Analysis_, 5th ed., (Lexington, Mass: D.C. Heath, 1976), p. 909;
    William Brown, Elizabeth Rogers, _General, Organic, and Biochemistry_,
    3rd ed., (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1987), pp. 561A-561B.

38. See footnote 30.

39. See footnotes 33, 34 and 35.

40. See footnote 36 and 37.

41. R. Lenski, _The Holocaust on Trial_, p. 396.

42. Pressac's theory is further undermined by the observation of Degesch
    company chemists: "Hydrocyanic acid dissolves very readily in water.
    Compared with liquid hydrocyanic acid, the gas is chemically very
    indifferent, and even in highly concentrated form under prolonged
    exposure it does not show a tendency to react with other substances."
    From: "Zyklon for pest control" Degesch company booklet, p. 5.
    Published in facsimile as appendix to _The Leuchter Report_ (London),
    p. 51.  This statement suggests prolonged exposure of the gas with the
    walls is not what would cause the formation of large emounts of
    Prussian blue.  The gas becomes reactive when it dissolves in water or
    condenses to liquid.

43. Information provided by the Dupont and Degesch companies, published as
    appendices in _The Leuchter Report_ (London, 1989), pp. 41, 51.;
    _Handbook of Chemistry and Physics_, pp. B-117, F-135.

44. J.-C. Pressac, _Auschwitz_ (1989), pp. 131-132, 183, 223, 224, 264,
    284-285, 289, 375, 379, 392; Fred Leuchter, _The Leuchter Report_, pp.
    13, 16, 17; Robert Lenski, _The Holocaust on Trial_, pp. 367, 375, 377.

45. Note also: J.-C. Pressac, _Auschwitz_ (1989), pp. 16, 183, 223, 224,
    284-285, 289, 355-376, 384-386, 489.

46. F. Leuchter, _The Leuchter Report_, pp. 13, 16, 17.  Nowhere in
    _Auschwitz_ (1989) does Pressac show the "gas chambers" had any
    internal heating devices to prevent condensation.

47. Nuremberg document NI-9912.  Published in English translation as an
    appendix to _The Leuchter Report_, (London), pp. 23-25, and in J.-C.
    Pressac, _Auschwitz_ (1989), pp. 18-20.  Original German-language text
    is published in: Udo Walendy, ed., _Auschwitz im IG-Farben Prozess_
    (Vlotho: Germany, 1981), pp. 66-72.
    Dr. Robert Faurisson was the first person to publish document NI-9912,
    and to stress the importance of both NI-9912 and NI-9098.  Writing in
    the Paris daily, _Le Monde_ (Jan. 16, 1979, p. 13), he stated: "The
    industrial documents [NI-9098 and NI-9912] establish that Zyklon B WAS
    NOT among those gasses which were described as 'ventilatable'; on the
    contrary, its manufacturers were obliged to admit that it was
    'difficult to ventilate since it adheres to surfaces'."  These two
    documents are referred to by Dr. Faurisson in his interview/essay,
    published in _The Journal of Historical Review_, Winter 1981, pp. 324,
    356-357.  See also Faurisson's essay in _The Journal of Historical
    Review_, Spring 1991, p. 39.

48. Lenski, _The Holocaust on Trial_, p. 377.

49. L. Pauling, _General Chemistry_, p. 288.  HCN is soluble in water in
    all proportions.  See _Handbook of Chemistry and Physics_, 57th ed., p.
    B-117.

50. See footnote 31.

51. That the humidity in the air would "collect" the HCN and make it react
    with the iron in the walls is suggested by this statement of Degesch
    chemists: "In case of high relative humidity of air, it may happen that
    blank-polished surfaces of metal get tarnished, particularly in case of
    somewhat higher concentration of gas."  See _The Leuchter Report_
    (London), p. 51.

52. "Zyklon For Pest Control," Degesch company booklet, p. 25.  Reprinted
    as appendix in _The Leuchter Report_ (London), p. 61.

53. _The Leuchter Report_, p. 13.

54. J.-C. Pressac, _Auschwitz_ (1989), p. 59.

55. J.-C. Pressac, _Auschwitz_ (1989), p. 53.

56. R. Lenski, _The Holocaust on Trial_, p. 366.

57. J.-C. Pressac, _Auschwitz_ (1989), pp. 131, 159.

58. J.-C. Pressac, _Auschwitz_ (1989), p. 131; R. Lenski, _The Holocaust on
    Trial_, p. 375.  Sample 28 was taken from the washroom.  It was never a
    part of the presumed gas chamber.  To confirm this, compare Leuchter's
    diagram of Krema I (p. 28 of _The Leuchter Report_) with Pressac's
    diagram of the same in _Auschwitz_, p. 159.

59. J.-C. Pressac, _Auschwitz_ (1989), p. 131.

60. Pressac evidently does not think the washroom or morgue/"gas chamber"
    was ever deloused with Zyklon B.  However, sample 28 (from the
    washroom) contains a miniscule amount of cyanide residue.  What
    accounts for this?  Since Pressac admits the washroom was never used as
    a "gas chamber," the presence of cyanide in this specimen can only be
    due to the fact that it was treated at least once with Zyklon B during
    delousing/disinfestation.  See footnote 58.  Pressac himself suggests
    that virtually every building in Auschwitz-Birkenau was deloused with
    Zyklon-B at one time or another.  See: J.-C. Pressac, _Auschwitz_
    (1989), pp. 188, 201.

61. J.-C. Pressac, _Auschwitz_ (1989), p. 132.

62. J.-C. Pressac, _Auschwitz_ (1989), pp. 131-132.

63. J.-C. Pressac, _Auschwitz_ (1989), p. 132.

64. 12 g/m^3 (grams per cubic meter) is the concentration of the HCN
    allegedly used in a homicidal gassing.  5g/m^3 was the concentration
    used in a disinfestation.  See J.-C. Pressac, _Auschwitz_ (1989), p.
    16.

65. R. Lenksi, _The Holocaust on Trial_, p. 375.  Pressac claims that one
    or two extractor fans may have been installed in the ceiling.  Even if
    this were true, much HCN would have still remained behind after the
    ventilation phase of an alleged gassing.  See J.-C. Pressac,
    _Auschwitz_, (1989), p. 132.

66. Enrique Aynat, "Neither Trace Nor Proof," _The Journal of Historical
    Review_, Summer 1991 (Vol. 11, No. 2), pp. 182-183.

67. J.-C. Pressac, _Auschwitz_, pp. 183, 264.

68. _The Leuchter Report_, pp. 21-22.

69. Introduction by R. Faurisson to _The Leuchter Report_ (London), p. 7.

70. "Typhus," by Herbert Kondo, in: _Grolier Universal Encyclopedia_, 1966
    edition.

71. See footnote 47.

72. _The Leuchter Report_, p. 12.

73. "Hydrogen Cyanide: Storage and Handling," Du Pont company information
    sheet, pp. 1, 8.  This sheet is reprinted as an appendix in _The
    Leuchter Report_ (London), pp. 39-44.  See pp. 40, 44.

74. Kirk, R.E. and Othmer, D.F., _Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology_,
    Third Edition, 7, p. 316.

75. _The Leuchter Report_, pp. 16, 17.

76. R. Lenski, _The Holocaust on Trial_, p. 367.

77. See footnote 47.  Specifically, see _The Leuchter Report_ (London), p.
    23.

78. "An Official Polish Report on the Auschwitz 'Gas Chambers'," _The
    Journal of Historical Review_, Summer 1991 (Vol. 11, No. 2), p. 211.

79. R. Lenski, _The Holocaust on Trial_, pp. 395-397.

80. J.-C. Pressac, _Auschwitz_ (1989), p. 59.

81. Audiotape, "Hoffman Interviews Provan," Summer 1991.  Available from
    Wiswell Ruffin House, P.O. Box 236, Dresden, NY 14441.


[end of article]


[Reprinted by permission from _The Journal of Historical Review_, P.O. Box
1306, Torrance, CA 90505, USA.  Subscription rate: $40 per year, domestic.
$50 per year, foreign.]


     This article was manually transcribed by the System Operator of the
"Banished CPU" computer bulletin board system, which is located in Portland,
Oregon, U.S.A.


                    Banished CPU supports Freedom of Speech!
          ___________________________________________________________
         |                                                           |
         |  For 300-9600 bps (3 lines w/V.32) call:  (503) 232-5783  |
         |  For 14400 bps (2 lines w/V.32bis) call:  (503) 232-6566  |
         |___________________________________________________________|

                        Sysop: Maynard "the Main Nerd"

[end of file]
-- 
dgannon@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-0636 (1200/2400, N81)


From oneb!cs.ubc.ca!utcsri!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!brunix!dzk Sat Mar 27 12:31:59 PST 1993
Article: 18557 of alt.activism
Xref: oneb soc.history:10186 alt.censorship:9004 alt.activism:18557 alt.revisionism:1542
Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.censorship,alt.activism,alt.revisionism
Path: oneb!cs.ubc.ca!utcsri!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!brunix!dzk
From: dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
Subject: Re: The Leuchter Report Vindicated..
Message-ID: <1993Mar27.155658.22423@cs.brown.edu>
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Sender: news@cs.brown.edu
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
References: 
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1993 15:56:58 GMT
Lines: 85

This stuff has been posted here months ago, and refuted. There is a long
file which addresses it more carefuly, but here are some major points:

1) Leuchter, who claims to be an "engineer", was exposed as a liar and
a fraud. His only education consists of a BA in history, 1964. He admits
to have no formal training in toxicology, biology, chemistry etc.

2) During his testimony at the Zundle trial in Canada, Leuchter not only
lied about his professional past, he also ridiculed himself by proving
not to have even a vague idea of what he is talking about. For instance,
one of the claims Holocaust deniers make again and again is that there
are less traces of cyanide compounds in the remains of the gas chambers
in Auschwitz than in the "delousing chambers" in which clothes were
deloused (using the same gas, hydrogen cyanide). As anyone with some
training in toxicology knows, it takes a much higher concentration
of the gas to kill lice, bugs etc than to kill humans and other warm
blooded creatures (the concentration has to be up to 16,000 Parts Per
Million; humans die when exposed to 300 PPM). Furthermore, to kill
lice etc an exposure time of many hours is needed, while people die
in minutes (like in the execution gas chambers in the US, which use
exactly the same gas). Hence, it is obvious that there would be more
cyanide traces in the delousing rooms.

When this fact was pointed out to Leuchter during his cross-examination
by Mr. Pearson, he made the following pathetic reply:

"I've never killed beetles.  I, you know, I don't know. I haven't made 
computations for killing beetles" [verbatim quote from the trial's
transcript].

Furthermore, he claims that it would be dangerous to house the furnaces
for cremating the victims in the same building in which the gas chambers
were located, because the "gas might explode". Of course, he didn't
even bother to check before exposing himself as a complete ignorant;
the gas explodes at a minimal concentration of 56,000 PPM - about 200
times more than the lethal concentration (check, for instance, "The
Merck Index" or any other text on flammability and toxicity).
 

Even more amazing is to read what he answered with regard to the
current situation of the gas chambers in Auschwitz (demolished by
the fleeing SS in an attempt to hide criminal traces):
__________________________________________________________ 

Q. Crematoria III has been demolished.

A. Um, there are still parts of Crematoruim III there, but for the
   most part, the roof of the alleged gas chamber has crumbled and is
   all lying in bits and pieces in the basement of what would have been
   the alleged gas chamber.

Q. So, it's no longer subterranean?

A. That's correct. There's a whole in the ground.

Q. With respect to the gas chambers at Crematorium IV and V, those
   are totally demolished.

A. With the exception of the foundation, yes.

Q. So, all that was there for you to examine was the foundation of
   the building. Is that right?

A. That is correct.
__________________________________________________________
 

Even more incredible is to see what Leuchter writes in his report:

"Evidence as to Krema function is non-existent since Krema's I
oven has been completely rebuilt, Kremas II and III are 
partially destroyed with components missing, and Kremas
IV and V are gone".

"Are gone"! Yet, he can still conjecture about how they functioned
before being destroyed...


The whole "report" is more or less the same - rubbish disguised as
"scientific research", written by an un-educated fool which doesn't
even bother to check the facts before writing his nonsense. 


-Danny Keren.



From oneb!cs.ubc.ca!utcsri!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!wupost!uunet!techbook!dgannon Thu Apr  1 10:14:24 PST 1993
Article: 18769 of alt.activism
Xref: oneb soc.history:10321 alt.censorship:9106 alt.activism:18769
Newsgroups: soc.history,alt.censorship,alt.activism,alt.revisonism
Path: oneb!cs.ubc.ca!utcsri!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!wupost!uunet!techbook!dgannon
From: dgannon@techbook.com (Dan Gannon)
Subject: The Botched Execution of Fred Leuchter
Message-ID: 
Summary: "Is There Life After Persecution?", by Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1993 03:18:45 GMT
Lines: 639



>From _The Journal of Historical Review_, Vol. 12, Number 4 (Winter 1992-93):



                    Is There Life After Persecution?

                 The Botched Execution of Fred Leuchter

        (Presented at the Eleventh IHR Conference, October 1992)


                         FRED A. LEUCHTER, Jr.



Many of you, I am sure, know who I am, where I've been, and what I've done.
Today I'm here to tell you what has happened to me since I addressed the
Tenth International Revisionist Conference in Washington, DC, in October
1990.

  One of my jobs as an engineer of execution technology has been to "post
mortem" executions from a technical standpoint, that is, to determine if
anything went wrong and, if so, to determine just how the execution was
botched.  This normally entails reviewing eyewitness accounts of how the
executees were tortured, mutilated, or otherwise dehumanized in society's
name.

  I will do that here today, except that, in this case, it is myself that I
post mortem--and the cadaver isn't dead!  Much to the dismay of my
executioners, the execution was so badly botched that I am able to stand
here before you to speak the truth, and to tell the world that it is not
myself, but the Holocaust story that is dead.  I repeat for the record: I
was condemned for maintaining that there were no execution gas chambers as
Auschwitz, Birkenau, Majdanek, Dachau, Mauthausen, or Hartheim Castle.
There's no proof for the charge, only innuendo, lies, and half-truths.
Robert Faurisson, Ernst Zundel and others said this first.  They, too, live
as victims of botched executions, but nevertheless free to speak the truth
in a strong and growing voice that repeats:  No gas chambers, no gas
chambers, no damn gas chambers!

  This address, then, is not a post mortem ON my cadaver but rather a post
mortem BY my cadaver.

  As you know, I was sent to Poland in 1988 by and for Mr. Ernst Zundel to
investigate the alleged execution gas chamber facilities at the three
concentration camps of Auschwitz, Birkenau, and Majdanek.  I was chosen for
this task from a field of experts numbering one, and recommended by those
states in the USA where lethal gas chambers are used to execute convicted
criminals.  My forensic analysis and subsequent report prove beyond any
shadow of a doubt that there were no gas execution facilities operated by
the Nazis at these sites.  I also entered these findings (which are also
detailed in my published report) into the court record in sworn testimony
in Toronto as a court-qualified expert.

  Because I was somewhat naive at the time, I was not aware that by so
testifying I was offending the organized world Jewish community.  By
providing final, definitive proof that there were no execution gas chambers
utilized for genocidal purposes by the Germans at these wartime camps, I
established the simple fact that the Holocaust story is not true.  What I
did not know was that anyone expressing such beliefs is guilty of a capital
crime: that of thinking and telling the unspeakable truth about the
greatest lie of the age.

  I would have to pay for this crime.  While I innocently told the truth in
Toronto, plans were made, and subsequently implemented, for a major effort
to destroy me.  If I could be destroyed and discredited--so the reasoning
went--no one would accept my professional findings, no matter how truthful.


                                Overview

  Since April 1988, when I testified in the second Zundel trial in Toronto
about my inspection of the alleged gas chambers in Poland, my life has been
turned upside down.

  I have been vilified both privately and publicly in all forms of the
media.  My clients have been cajoled and threatened into not dealing with
me.  High-level law enforcement officials, acting for personal reasons,
have lied about me and have prevented clients from dealing with me.  My
person and reputation have been defiled by lies and innuendo.  My family
and I have been repeatedly threatened.

  Behind this campaign to punish me and suppress the truth about the gas
chambers, have been several Jewish organizations, which have publicly vowed
to silence me by destroying my ability to make a living.

  At the forefront of this effort has been Beate Klarsfeld of the
Paris-based Klarsfeld Foundation.  In the United States, the campaign has
been orchestrated through the US-based "Holocuast Survivors and Friends in
Pursuit of Justice."  Associated with these two organizations have been the
Anti-Defamation League of the B'nai B'rith and the Jewish Defense League.

[Photograph captioned, "Fred A. Leuchter, Jr."]

  At Klarsfeld's initiative, these groups first carried out an extensive
one year investigation.  After they were unable to turn up any impropriety
or wrong-doing on my part, they began to threaten prison wardens with
political consequences if they dealt with me.  This first came to light
when the ABC television news program, "Prime Time," decided to do a network
television piece on myself and my work.  This involved filming at various
prisons.  Prison wardens advised the "Prime Time" personnel of the threats
and problems that resulted from my presence at the prisons for the filming.
ABC news was told not to air the program.  It refused to succumb to the
pressure, and consequently suffered vilification by the organizations
involved.

  To sum up here, this campaign has consisted of the following:

  1. Threats against prison officials who dealt with me.

  2. False and slanderous vilification through private channels, as well as
  publicly in newspapers and magazines.

  3. Legislation to prevent me from working at my profession.

  4. Criminal prosecution for working at my profession.

  5. Lies by public officials spread both officially and privately.

  6. Restriction of my personal freedom and right to travel by effecting my
  illegal arrest and imprisonment in England, from where I was finally
  deported.

  7. Interference with my right as an American citizen to help and
  protection from the US State Department, which refused to assist me
  during my illegal imprisonment in England.


  As a result of this campaign, my livelihood has been destroyed, and my
career has been ruined.  All this for telling the truth under oath.

  The organizations cited above also interfered with the execution in
Illinois of a certain Mr. Walker by threatening to pass legislation to
prevent that state from allowing me to complete an ongoing contract.  As a
result, Director McGinnis ultimately yielded to this pressure and proceeded
with the execution using equipment known to be defective.  Under pressure
from these groups, and through the efforts of Alabama Deputy Attorney
General, Ed Carnes, the State of Alabama did not purchase a new electric
chair.  Carnes wrote a lying memorandum to all Departments of Corrections
around the United States claiming that I was dangerous and held unorthodox
views on execution.  He caused the State to breach its contract.  Carnes
actually lied to me to get me to testify that a prior execution was humane.

  As a direct result of interference by these groups, at least one man was
tortured to death in Virginia.  Purchasing agents and wardens have been
mendaciously told that my equipment failed during an execution, which is
not true.  It has never failed.  Delaware Deputy Attorney General Silverman
breached my contract, which was already underway, because I wrote the
Zundel trial _Leuchter Report_.  This contract was for maintenance on their
lethal injection machine and gallows, previously fabricated by me, and for
training of their execution personnel.  Delaware has refused to pay me for
the work I completed, and has instructed me to keep the control module of
their lethal injection machine.  However, the protocol I wrote for
execution for hanging was submitted by them and approved by the court
system.  In Massachusetts, legislation specifically designed to put me out
of business has been filed for four years running.

  Finally, and also at the insistence of these same Jewish groups, a
spurious criminal complaint was filed against me in the Massachusetts court
system with the intent of destroying my reputation by putting me in prison
for three months.

  I was charged with practicing as an engineer without a license.  In point
of fact, a license is not required in Massachusetts, or any other state,
unless the engineer is involved in construction of buildings, and is
certifying compliance with specifications.  There is also a statutory
exemption for engineers who do not deal with the general public.

  As confirmation of the spurious nature of this charge, it should be
pointed out there are more than fifty thousand practicing engineers in
Massachusetts, of whom only five thousand are licensed.  Although the
state's licensing law has been in effect since 1940, there has been no
record of any prosecution for this offense.

  The charge was improperly brought.  Nevertheless, if it had been
successful, and I had been convicted, I would have been imprisoned for
three months.

   The Massachusetts state Engineering Board, under pressure from Klarsfeld
and her "Holocaust Survivors and Friends in Pursuit of Justice," filed this
criminal complaint in Middlesex County.  The name of the complainant was
denied me, and was not made available until the matter was brought before
the court.  Before the complaint was issued, and several times thereafter,
I was given the chance to recant in return for non-issuance or dismissal of
the complaint.  I also would have been obliged to give up my profession, in
order to discredit my _Report_.  I refused, and responded to the Board's
threat with a denial that any law had been violated.  The original clerk
magistrate who issued the complaint apologized for bowing to Jewish
pressure in prosecuting me under a statute that was being mis-applied.  A
representative of the ADL tried to force her testimony on the hearing, but
was denied access because she had no evidence to offer that was pertinent
to the matter.  The District Court judge, in an excellent imitation of
Pontius Pilate, summarily dismissed our motions for dismissal, allowed my
court-appointed attorney to withdraw, and instructed Kirk Lyons, Director
of the Cause Foundation and my out-of-state attorney, to re-file our
motions for dismissal, because they all had merit.  After it became clear
that there would be no justice for us in the Malden District Court, we
moved the case to Superior Court for a jury trial.

  With this charge hanging over my head, it was impossible for me to
consult, supply equipment, or even act as an expert witness in American
courts, as I had often done.

  The district attorney's office, under heavy pressure from various Jewish
organizations, selected its best prosecuting attorney to handle my case.
In the belief that he would be the person most likely to bring about a
conviction, he was pulled from a murder trial.  In June, just prior to the
trial, our motions for dismissal were heard.  The judge, also under heavy
pressure from Jewish groups, told the district attorney that this case was
not properly a criminal matter, and strongly suggested that the case be
resolved short of a trial.  With the ever-present possibility of conviction
and jail (faced by most political prisoners) we negotiated a settlement.

  A very special consent agreement was signed [on June 11, 1991] that made
legal history in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  The agreement was not
a promise by the defendant to the court, as is normally the case, but an
agreement between the State Engineering Board and myself.  The board which,
on two previous occasions, had refused to accept my application for
registration because they do not register people who practice my
discipline, was required to become a party to the agreement.  [For more on
this agreement, see the _IHR Newsletter_, July-August 1991, p. 3.]

  The consent agreement requires the board to accept my application and
process it with "due diligence."  Until the application is approved, or
until two years are up, I have agreed not to use the title "engineer" or
issue an engineering opinion in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  This
is, in effect, a temporary gag order imposed to satisfy the interested
Jewish groups.

  By removing the case from consideration by criminal courts, the
possibility of my imprisonment has been eliminated.  If the Engineering
Board fails to process and issue a license to me within a reasonable
period, and in due course, the matter should then move to the civil courts.
Attorney Lyons is presently preparing the necessary application.  However,
a new problem has arisen.  All applications must be accompanied by the
recommendations of three state-licensed engineers, but none is willing to
risk the wrath of the Jews in my behalf.

  The DE FACTO gag order, imposed by the settlement, applies only within
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and I am free to pursue my profession
anywhere else.

  Most of the execution equipment inthe United States is either worn out,
obsolete, or improperly fabricated, and is in need of repair or
replacement.  I am the only person who does this work, and states are being
denied the right to deal with me.  Although wardens and commissioners are
afraid to even speak with me, they often do so anyway through
intermediaries.  One state has a leaking gas chamber, but will use it,
endangering the lives of guards and witnesses, rather than risk discovery
in dealing with me.  How many more inmates will be tortured, or lives lost,
through the callous interference of these Jewish groups?

  Owing to the successful conspiracy of these Jewish groups, I am
completely out of business, unable to find work to feed my family.  In
spite of everything, though, I am still here, and I am still telling the
truth.  Furthermore, I intend to CONTINUE to tell the truth.  If the
organized Jewish community wants to stop me, it will have to try much
harder.

  Moreover, attempts to discredit the _Leuchter Report_ have failed, most
notably with Pressac's inept analysis.  Since the release of the _Leuchter
Report_ [in 1988], independent evidence has shown that the six million
death figure has been grossly exaggerated, and an investigation by the
Polish state forensic institute [among others] has corroborated that no gas
was utilized in the alleged execution chambers at Auschwitz.


                                England

  In the spring of 1991, David Irving asked me if I would consider a
speaking engagement in England later that year.  I said that I would, and I
was advised in mid-summer that this would take place during the second week
of November.

  Irving apparently announced the speech sometime later.  This apparently
enraged Jewish groups in London which protested to UK Home Secretary Mr.
Kenneth Baker in an effort to prevent me from traveling to London.  This is
a clear infringement of the rights of British people to hear me speak.
This certainly also curtails my right to travel to England as any other
American citizen.

  As a result of pressure by these Jewish groups, Mr. Baker apparently
promised to take action.  The _Jewish Chronicle_, a London weekly paper,
reported in its issue of October 4, 1991, that Home Secretary Baker had
banned my travel to the United Kingdom.  This was the only mention of the
ban in the British media, and was not a particularly reliable source.

  A week or so later, my father, Fred A. Leuchter, Sr., received a letter,
ostensibly from the Immigration and Naturalization Department of Her
Majesty's government, informing him that, by direction of the Home
Secretary, he was not permitted to travel to the United Kingdom.  My father
communicated this letter to me.

  Because my father had no such travel plans, my first assumption was that
this letter was meant for me.  However, a closer reading of it suggested
that it might be a fraud.  The signatory, Mr. "G.P.J. Catt," had no title,
and part of the date was written by hand.  Certainly, the Home Secretary
and Her Majesty's Immigration Office would not be so sloppy and
unbusinesslike as to send off an amateurishly prepared letter to the wrong
person.  My address is publicly known, and is easy to ascertain.

  I turned the questionable document over to my attorney, Kirk Lyons, to
authenticate.  He, in turn, formally protested the letter to the UK
Consolates in both Houston and Boston.  In each case, the Consulate advised
him that his protest was unfounded because htere was no ban on travel to
the UK by me (or my father, for that matter).  He was informed that the
letter must be fraudulent, and that it did not prohibit my travel to
Britain in any way.  Lyons was also informed that all Home Office documents
must contain a reference number, which this did not.  Based on all this, I
confirmed my travel plans to London.

  Because I had also arranged to visit Germany, I combined that trip with
my visit to London.  Accordingly, my wife Carol and I left for Germany on
November 2, 1991.  We planned to drive to Calais and take the ferry to
Dover from there on or about November 11, 1991.  We also planned to return
to Germany on or about November 15, immediately following my scheduled
speech in London.  Because our visit in Germany would be very hectic, we
intended to arrive in England several days prior to my speech, giving us a
few days to relax and see some of that country.

  As planned, we arrived in Dover on the ferry from Calais late on November
11, and spent the night in Dover.  The next morning we drove to London,
where we met with Irving.  We then left to see the country, leisurely
driving south to Salisbury to see Stonehenge.  We returned to London by way
of Wimbledon on November 15.

  On Friday evening, November 15, we arrived at the Town Hall in Chelsea
where I was to give my speech.  After Irving opened the program, Dr. Robert
Faurisson spoke.  I was then called to the podium, and began my
presentation.  At approximately 9:15 p.m., some five minutes into my
speech, I was interrupted by Irving, who told me that a "gentleman" wished
to speak to me in the anteroom to the stage.  I did not know it then, but I
would remain in illegal police custody, without interruption, until I was
expelled from England, and would not see my host, Dr. Faurisson, or the
audience again.

  In the anteroom I was greeted by Chief Inspector Philip Selwood and three
metro police officers.  I was asked to identify myself, which I did by
presenting my passport (which Selwood kept) and my driver's license (which
he returned).  I was told that two male technicians with the Thames
television news team had quietly spoken with him outside, and had insisted
(as citizens) that I be arrested as an illegal alien because I had sneaked
into the country contrary to a ban by the Home Secretary.  I responded by
pointing out that my passport was properly stamped, and that, as the two
British Consulates in the United States had indicated, there was no such
ban.

  I further informed Selwood that if it was indeed determined that I was in
the country illegally, I would leave immediately.  I told him that I had no
wish to stay where I was not wanted, and that I did not want to violate the
law.  Selwood told me that Thames television was trying to make news
instead of reporting it, and that my cooperation would be very much
appreciated.  He asked me to accompany him to the Chelsea police station,
without talking to the media, whilst he made an investigation.  If I
refused, I would be arrested on suspicion of illegal entry.  I agreed.
After he spirited me out of the building and into an unmarked van, away we
went.  Selwood was also afraid of violent Jews, who might attempt to break
up the speech, and that was the reason for the presence of himself and his
large contingent of men.  I asked him to bring my wife, who was at the back
of the hall.  He stopped the van, ordered his men to take me to the
station, and personally returned to collect my wife.  I arrived at the
station, and he soon followed with Carol.  We were placed in a visitors'
room.

  Selwood advised me that I was not under arrest, and that if the Home
Office determined that I was in the country illegally I would be permitted
to leave.  I was told that I was free to call the American consul, if I
wished.  I did not.

  At this point I asked to leave.  I was informed that I would have to wait
for my status to be determined, because it would be necessary to escort me
out of the country if I was there illegally.  Selwood further told me that
persons who were in the country illegally must be permitted to leave, if
they so wished, providing they had the means.  (In fact, we had ferry
tickets.)  Chief Inspector Selwood and the other police personnel were
cordial and accomodating, providing us with a toilet and refreshment.  We
advised the police that Carol was diabetic.  After first introducing us to
his second-in-command, and leaving instructions as to our treatment,
Selwood left before midnight.

  At approximately 12:05 a.m., early Saturday morning, November 16, the
Deputy Chief Inspector received a call, apparently from the Home Office.
We could not hear very much, but we did hear him say that we should leave
by way of Dover.  A few minutes later, shortly before 12:15 a.m., he again
received a call, to which he replied "Yes sir."  He then came to speak to
me.  "I'm sorry," he said.  "I have been ordered to arrest you."  He
informed me of my rights, and told me that I could talk with the US Consul,
or the Deputy Solicitor (Public Defender), or both.  When I asked if it had
been determined that I was in the country illegally, he said that he did
not know for sure.  I then asked to leave, and he told me that this was not
possible.  At this point I asked to speak with the US Consul, and was told
that this would be arranged.  I was then searched, booked, and locked in a
detention room with someone else, also under arrest.

  About an hour later I was removed from the detention room, and told that
the American Consulate was on the telephone.  I spoke with Under Consul
Christopher Randall who informed me that the Consular Corps was not there
to help US citizens.  He totally refused to help.  I asked to talk with the
Duty Solicitor, and was told he would be called.  I was taken to a cell
(instead of a detention room) for lock-up.  When I asked why I was being
moved to a cell, I was told that the other occupant of the detention room
was there for assault, and that I was being moved for my own protection.

  I now found myself in an isolation cell with one other occupant who
turned out to be there for theft.  Because I make execution equipment (and
criminals know this), I should never have been put in a cell with others.
To do so might put my life in danger.

  Moreover, the cell was freezing, and I had no coat.  The other inmate had
a blanket and mattress.  In an effort to keep warm, I wrapped my arms
around myself, but this didn't work.  I was unable to sleep.

  Some time later I was let out to accept a phone call from the Duty
solicitor, who told me he was unable to help because I had not committed a
crime.  He told me that I should call my Consul, who ought to be able to
help.  When I told him that my consul had refused to help, he urged me to
call back and insist, because he was obliged by law to help.  I was
returned to my cell.

  At approximately 3:00 a.m., I was removed from my cell for interrogation
by two Immigration Department personnel.  I was taken to an interrogation
room with recording equipment, and advised that my statement would be
taped.  I was also advised that I did not have to make a statement if I
chose not to.  I agreed to speak with them, but they first had to give me
time to warm up so that my teeth would stop chattering and I would be able
to speak normally.  I gave them the same information that I had given hours
earlier to Chief Inspector Selwood.  I affirmed that I was a legal entrant,
and once again requested permission to leave.  I was refused.  I was told
that I should call the American Consul and/or the Duty Solicitor.  I was
also informed that charges might be brought.  At this point I was served
with Immigration form IS 151-A.  I was also told that I would not be
allowed to leave by way of Dover, but would instead be sent out through
Heathrow airport (where they were from), and that my wife and our rental
car would have to stay behind.

  I asked about my wife, concerned that she had not eaten in over twelve
hours, which could be a problem because of her diabetes.  I was told that
they would make a decision later about my legal status, and that in the
meantime I would have to remain in the cold cell.  I asked to be allowed to
warm up, and to see my wife.  They agreed to this.  Carol had also asked to
see me.

  I met with Carol.  After talking with her, I once again asked to talk
with my Consul.  The Consulate official again gave me a hard time, but
after I told him of my discussion with the Duty Solicitor he said he would
at least inquire into the matter.  The guard rushed me to complete my phone
conversation.  Carol subsequently found out that the Under Consul had
inquired late that morning.  Carol had been removed while I was on the
telephone, and I was rushed back to my cell.  I froze again, but on 4:30
a.m. I was given a blanket.

  The day shift personnel who arrived at about seven o'clock proved more
difficult to deal with.  At 7:00 a.m., the other inmates were awakened to
be taken to court.  They were given coffee; I was not.  My cellmate asked
the guard to give me some coffee, which he did.  By 7:45 a.m., all the
inmates were gone, and new inmates began to arrive.

  I repeatedly asked about my wife to make sure that she was well.  I
inquired at 7:00, 8:00, 9:00, 10:00, 11:00, 12:00, and 1:00 o'clock, but no
one would tell me how she was.  Later I found out that just one officer had
checked on her.  She likewise had been asking about me, and was told
nothing.  At noon I was given a breakfast that consisted of cold eggs,
sausage, and toast left over from hours earlier.  It was inedible.  It
certainly would have made my ulcer worse.  Carol had been given nothing to
eat, even though she had been required to stay there by the Immigration
officers who knew of her medical problem.

  At about 1:20 p.m., I was again taken from my cell, this time to see Mr.
Phillips of the Immigration Department.  He met with Carol and me together.
Phillips told us that it had been determined that I was in the country
illegally, because I had entered in violation of the ban by the Home
Secretary.  I was told that I would be held until I was deported.

  He acknowledged that he could not understand why I had been arrested and
imprisoned after I had asked on three occasions to leave.  Once again I
asked to leave, but Mr. Phillips told me that this was not not possible
because I had been formally arrested.  This should not have happened, he
said, but, because it did, I would not have to be deported.  Carol asked
how it was possible for me to be in the country illegally if I had entered
legally at Dover and had a valid passport stamp.  Phillips replied that I
was not actually in the country illegally, but that an official
determination had been made that I was, and that was the law.  I asked why
those immigration officials who had interviewed me had made this
determination, and Phillips responded that they had not.  He further said
that the "decision has been made very high up in the Home Office," higher
than he would ever reach in his career.  He added that I could legally be
held for up to five days after my arrest, even though I wanted (and should
have been allowed) to leave earlier.


  Phillips also told us that the Immigration Department had contacted
French immigration about my possible deportation to France, but that I had
been refused entry there.  I responded by commenting that this is not
surprising, because no country would want a deportee unless it is one of
its own citizens.  Phillips agreed.

  He said that his next step would be to ask Belgium, and, if I was refused
there, Germany.  He did not expect Belgium to accept, but if Germany did, I
would be sent on the Hamburg Ferry that ran only twice a week, the next
time being on Tuesday [three days hence].  If I were to go this way, I
would have to remain incarcerated until that time.

  However, I was asked, in view of my desire to leave, would I consider
going to the United States?  Phillips informed me that if I officially told
him that I wished to return to the United States, he could not stop me, and
would put me on a flight that very evening.  I then formally asked to be
returned to the United States, and Phillips said that he would begin making
the necessary arrangements.  We would have to leave the rental car in
England and make some arrangement for its return to Germany (other than by
our driving it).  Furthermore, we would have to forego our remaining
commitments in Germany because time would not permit our return.

  After taking our airline tickets, he contacted Lufthansa to reschedule
our flight.  The only available flight that day was at 3:30 p.m., which was
too soon for us to get to the airport.  He returned our tickets, and
promised to make arrangements at the UK government's expense.  He booked us
on a British Airways flight to New York (not Boston) that departed at 6:30
p.m.  We were escorted in two cars.  Phillips' car went first, and we
followed in another police car, under guard.  We stopped for our luggage at
our car which was parked behind Selfridge's [in London], at a parking
meter, and proceeded to the airport in rush-hour traffic.  If we did not
make it on time, they would have to return me to my cell.

  After a stop at the Immigration office to pick up the necessary forms, we
arrived at the airport, passed through security, and reached the gate just
as the plane was being loaded.  The police officer had left us at the
entrance to the terminal.  After returning my passport (which noted my
detention on form IS 151 A), Mr. Phillips watched us enplane.  The people
at the ticket counter had been told that I was being deported, as were the
gate attendants.

  We took our seats, flew to New York, and arrived at about 9:45 p.m.  We
had to purchase air tickets to Boston at our own expense.  After barely
making this flight, we arrived in Boston at approximately 11:45 p.m.,
exhausted and hungry.

  In summary, I was detained and held in custody for some twenty one and
three-quarters hours, fourteen of them in an unheated cell.  I was given a
breakfast at noon, and was given one cup of coffee only at my cellmate's
insistence.  I was given no water, and there was none in the cell.  My
ulcer did not fare well under these circumstances, particularly because of
my anxious concern for Carol.

  For her part, Carol fared even less well than I did.  After my arrest,
she was given no food or water, even though she was not free to leave, and
the police knew that she was a diabetic.  After my arrest, she was allowed
to see me only once.  By the time we left, we were both cold and ill.  The
conduct of both Chief Inspector Selwood and Mr. Phillips, as well as that
of the police personnel on the evening shift, was exemplary.  By contrast,
the conduct of the day shift personnel was poor and careless.

  During the time that I was being held, Dr. Robert Faurisson went to the
US Embassy in London to see if he could obtain help for me.  He was
informed that neither I, nor any other American, had been arrested that
evening.  That the US Embassy would lie about the illegal arrest and
imprisonment of an American citizen is inexcusable.  Faurisson also went to
the police station where I was being held.  He was told there I had been
arrested and was being held in a cell in the station, but that I was not
permitted any visitors.  The police later told Faurisson that I had been
deported on Saturday at 6:30 p.m.

  As shown by the statements of the two British consular officials in the
United States, and the fact that my name was not on any list and was
legally permitted to enter at Dover, it is clear that no order barring me
from entering the UK was ever officially given.

  It is likewise clear that the difficulty started only when the Thames
television people lied about me to Chief Inspector Selwood, apparently in
order to make a "better" news story.

  It is also clear that the Home Secretary (or someone acting for him)
illegally ordered my arrest, imprisonment and deportation, knowing full
well that I had entered the country legally and should have been left alone
or, if later determined to be there illegally, at least permitted to leave.
This plain violation of international law by the Home Secretary's Office
was undoubtedly done to please the complaining Jewish groups which bear the
ultimate responsibility.

  By failing to uphold one of the prime responsibilities of the Consular
Corps--that is, to protect the rights of Americans abroad--the United
States Embassy in London, and Under Consul Christopher Randall in
particular, clearly failed in their responsibility to me as an American
citizen, as well as their responsibility to the nation as a whole.  It is a
shameful disgrace that the British duty solicitor and UK Immigration
Officer Phillips cared more for my rights than my own embassy.

  A formal protest to the State Department, and requests for help from our
Senators and Representatives, have resulted in nothing but lip service.


                               Conclusion

  Unfortunately, my clients--the state governments--are still intimidated
by my Jewish persecutors.  This continues to deprive me of my income, and
it is not at all clear whether this will ever end.

  I have been unable to apply for my state engineering license because no
engineers have been willing to sign papers recommending me (which is a
requirement), out of fear of retaliation.  Without some official change in
my status, such as a license, even the friendly state governments are
afraid to deal with me.  The major lawsuit we had planned against my
persecutors is stalled, perhaps permanently, because of a lack of funds.

  And, although my findings will ultimately be accepted by all, I still
have no contracts, have been unable to find work and have no income.  It
does not seem that this will improve in the near future.

[end of article]


[Reprinted by permission from _The Journal of Historical Review_, P.O. Box
1306, Torrance, CA 90505, USA.  Subscription rate: $40 per year, domestic.
$50 per year, foreign.]


     This article was manually transcribed by the System Operator of the
"Banished CPU" computer bulletin board system, which is located in Portland,
Oregon, U.S.A.


                    Banished CPU supports Freedom of Speech!
          ___________________________________________________________
         |                                                           |
         |  For 300-9600 bps (3 lines w/V.32) call:  (503) 232-5783  |
         |  For 14400 bps (2 lines w/V.32bis) call:  (503) 232-6566  |
         |___________________________________________________________|

                        Sysop: Maynard "the Main Nerd"

[end of file]


-Dan Gannon

-- 
dgannon@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-0636 (1200/2400, N81)



>From _The Journal of Historical Review_, Vol. 12, Number 4 (Winter 1992-93):


                      [From the REVIEWS section:]

                    Book-Length "Scholarly" Polemic
                      Fails to Discredit Leuchter


TRUTH PREVAILS: Demolishing Holocaust Denial: The End of the Leuchter
Report.  Edited by Shelly Shapiro.  New York, N.Y.: The Beate Klarsfeld
Foundation, and Holocaust Survivors & Friends in Pursuit of Justice, 1990.
Softcover.  135 pages.  Illustrations.  Index.  $15.00.  ISBN 1-879437-00-7.

                         Reviewed by Mark Weber

In response to Fred Leuchter's findings about the alleged wartime
extermination gas chambers, the Holocaust lobby has mounted a
well-orchestrated campaign of slander, distortion, half-truth and falsehood
to discredit him and destroy his career as a consultant to state
governments on execution technology.

     At the forefront of this effort have been the Paris-based Beate
Klarsfeld Foundation and a US-based group that calls itself "Holocaust
Survivors & Friends in Pursuit of Justice."  An important propaganda tool
in this international campaign is this angry, awkwardly written and poorly
organized 135-page polemic, which is perhaps the most ambitious effort so
far to discredit Leuchter and his findings.  Published jointly by these two
organizations in 1990, it bears the pretentious and rather bombastic title
_Truth Prevails: Demolishing Holocaust Denial: The End of the Leuchter
Report_.

     As _Journal_ readers know, this is not the first time that these two
groups have sought to discredit Holocaust Revisionism with a book-length
publication.  In 1989 the Klarsfeld Foundation released _Auschwitz:
Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers_, an ambitious 564-page work by
French researcher Jean-Claude Pressac.  (See the reviews of Pressac's book
in the IHR _Journal_ by Mark Weber, Summer 1990, and Robert Faurisson,
Spring and Summer 1991.)

     _Truth Prevails_ consists of a preface by editor Shelly Shapiro (who
is also director of "Holocaust Survivors & Friends"), six essays (including
two by Jean-Claude Pressac), and a short commentary by Serge Klarsfeld.  In
spite of its erudite pretension, this is a poorly written, edited and
organized work.  Its language is often snide and crude.

     All the same, _Truth Prevails_ has had a measurable impact.  Libelous
and error-ridden articles based on it have appeared in daily newspapers and
weekly Jewish community papers around the country.  In addition to the
usual and untruthful attacks against the IHR and Holocaust Revisionism in
general, these articles viciously attack Leuchter as a man.

     Throughout this book, Revisionists are routinely referred to as
"Holocaust deniers," a formulation that suggests a medieval Inquisition
against religious heretics who have blasphemed against a sacred dogma.  By
treating "Holocaust denial" as the most terrible sin that anyone can commit
these days, this book serves to underscore the way that the Holocaust has
become, for many, a kind of religion.

     In the preface, "Holocaust denial" is also compared to denying the
existence of slavery in 18th and 19th century America, or denying the
atomic bombing of Hiroshima.  However, one might reasonably ask, if
"Holocaust denial" is really so obviously absurd, why bother about it?  No
rational person wastes time refuting those who might deny the 1945 bombing
of Hiroshima.

     The preface also sets the tone of _Truth Prevails_, where the reader
is told: "The incomprehensible death factories 'with their bulging gas
chambers and smoke-belching crematoria eclipsed man's visions of hell.'
The name of Auschwitz means the epitomy [SIC] of evil."  Overlooking the
emotion-charged rhetoric here, it should be pointed out that, as anyone who
is even superficially familiar with the reality of Auschwitz knows, there
were no "smoke-belching crematoria" there (or anywhere, for that matter).
Like similar facilities elsewhere, the crematory facilities at Auschwitz
were structurally not able to "belch" smoke.  (Accordingly, Allied aerial
reconnaissance photos taken of the camp complex in 1944 -- at the height of
the supposed extermination process there -- show absolutely no trace of any
smoke whatsoever.)

     Editor Shapiro also expresses outrage at a reference (in the British
edition of the Leuchter Report) to an inmates' swimming pool at Auschwitz.
In point of fact, there was such a pool.  (On this see: R. Lenski, _The
Holocaust on Trial_, pp. 38, 132, 142, 358-359, 385, and, R. Faurisson, IHR
_Journal_, Summer 1991, pp. 133-134.)

     _Truth Prevails_ seeks to discredit the Leuchter report by, above all,
attacking its author's qualifications.  A main purpose of this book is to
prove that Leuchter lacks the expertise he claims, and to show, instead,
that he is a pretentious fraud.  "Our goal," the preface explains, "is to
show Leuchter's lack of expertise" as an execution hardware specialist, and
"to demonstrate that 'The Leuchter Report' is not a credible scientific
analysis..." (p. 1).

     Charging that "Leuchter does not have the scientific background or
experience despite his claims" (p. 11), _Truth Prevails_ insists that
Leuchter is simply not qualified to give an expert opinion about the
alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz and Majdanek.

     In this regard, much is made of the fact that Judge Ron Thomas
declined to accept the Leuchter Report as a defense exhibit during the 1988
Zundel trial.  Strictly speaking, this is true.  But _Truth Prevails_
essentially ignores the fact that Judge Thomas did decide to accept
Leuchter as an expert of homicidal gas chamber technology, and accordingly
permitted him to give opinion evidence.  During his testimony, Leuchter was
allowed to read extensively from his Report, which became part of the court
record.

     As detailed in an article published elsewhere in this issue of the
_Journal_, Leuchter's impressive expertise in the field of execution
hardware is a matter of public record, and has been authoritatively and
publicly confirmed.  For example, in a letter of January 13, 1988, Missouri
state prison director William Armontrout wrote: "Mr. Leuchter is an
engineer specializing in gas chambers and executions.  He is well versed in
all areas and is the only consultant in the United States that I know of."
Testifying in the 1988 Zundel trial, Armontrout also declared that he had
consulted with Leuchter on the design, maintenance and operation of the
Missouri state gas chamber, and reaffirmed that, to the best of his
knowledge, Leuchter is the only such consultant in the United States.

     As part of its vicious assault against Leuchter's character, this book
charges that financial greed was the motive behind his forensic
investigation of the alleged extermination gas chambers, and his conclusion
that they were never used as killing facilities.  Leuchter's motivation,
Pressac writes here, was "to collect the steep fee he asked of Zundel and
which the latter paid him." (p. 32)

     In another chapter, contributor Arthur Goodman provides a mendacious
explanation of how Leuchter was chosen to carry out his forensic
investigation (p. 76):

       Faurisson quickly applied himself to the task of finding an
     "engineer" who would testify for Zundel.  Very soon thereafter,
     Faurisson dug up the hitherto unknown Leuchter whom he contacted and
     who was only too willing to earn the money, gain the notoriety and
     establish a reputation as the one man whose investigation would
     sustain the [Revisionist] thesis...Leuchter [was] only too eager to be
     won over...

     In fact (and as explained in more detail elsewhere in this issue of
the _Journal_), Leuchter's motives in conducting his forensic investigation
of the alleged wartime gas chambers in Poland were entirely honorable and
professional.  Prof. Robert Faurisson and Ernst Zundel sought out Leuchter
not because of any pre-existing views or prejudices he may have had on this
issue, but solely because he was, at that time, the only acknowledged
execution gas chamber specialist in the United States.

     While it is true that he was paid a standard fee by Zundel, this is
not at all remarkable.  Any expert witness who testifies in a court case
under such circumstances is normally paid a fee in keeping with his or her
professional standing.  Christopher Browning, for example, the star
prosecution witness in the 1988 Zundel trial, received 150 (Canadian)
dollars an hour for his services.

     Shapiro and the Klarsfelds are understandably angry that, in spite of
their efforts, the major media continues to acknowledge Leuchter's
expertise as America's foremost expert of execution technology.  Shapiro
expresses outrage that "major news organizations" have given him "a
semblance of respectability and credibility."

     _The Atlantic_ monthly, for example, is taken to task for an
illustrated article about Leuchter in the February 1990 issue.  In this
piece, attorney and author Susan Lehman factually described Leuchter as

     the nation's only commercial supplier of execution equipment . . . A
     trained and accomplished engineer, he is versed in all types of
     execution equipment.  He makes lethal-injection machines, gas
     chambers, and gallows, as well as electrocution systems.  [He] . . .
     probably knows more about electric chair technology than anyone else.

     The Zionist Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith responded to this
rather flattering profile with an angry letter of protest.  In her reply to
the ADL, Susan Lehman correctly pointed out that Leuchter's findings about
the Holocaust "gas chambers," and his testimony in the Zundel trial, "have
no direct bearing...on the subject of my report."  In his essay in _Truth
Prevails_, Charles R. Allen, Jr., dismisses Lehman's reply as "insolence."

[Transcriber's laugh:  Ha ha ha!]

     An even greater calamity, in the view of Shapiro and her friends, was
a profile of Leuchter broadcast nationwide May 10, 1990, on the widely
viewed ABC television news program "Prime Time Live."  Co-host Diane Sawyer
described Leuchter as "the country's foremost expert at creating, designing
and maintaining execution equipment."

     Particularly galling to the Shapiro crowd is the fact that ABC news
television went ahead with its profile of "Dr. Death" even after it had
been "informed" of Leuchter's shocking views on the Holocaust extermination
story, and of his links with the infamous Institute for Historical Review.
Shelly Shapiro and Beate Klarsfeld had even met with producer Bob Currie to
urge him not to air the report.

     Finally, _The New York Times_ is castigated for prominently featuring
an article, October 13, 1990, which included a front-page photograph of
Leuchter, that describes him as "the nation's leading adviser to states on
capital punishment."  Leuchter, the article also reported, has "advised 16
states on every kind of execution equipment.  Four states have bought his
lethal injection systems..."

     This unequivocal acknowledgement of Leuchter's expertise by the
nation's most influential daily paper is all the more significant because
its author, and the paper's editors, were entirely aware of the
Shapiro/Klarsfeld team's criticisms of Leuchter when the article went to
press.

     And much more recently, Leuchter's standing as the premier expert of
execution hardware was affirmed in "The Execution Protocol," a television
report broadcast November 1, 1992, on the Discovery cable television
network, as well as on the session of the popular Phil Donahue show
broadcast nationwide November 13, 1992.

     _Truth Prevails_ tries to explain away these embarrassing tributes by
contending that Leuchter has somehow been able to trick or fool these savvy
periodicals into accepting his bogus claims of expertise.  If Leuchter was
actually able to somehow "take in" the media as this book suggests, he must
be gifted with truly extraordinary powers of persuasion.

     _Truth Prevails_ ruefully notes that Leuchter "is still sought by the
media as the only available spokesman on the technology of the death
penalty in the U.S." (p. 24).  One can be certain that if there is anyone
(besides Leuchter) in the United States who could plausibly be portrayed as
a "real" expert on execution hardware, Shapiro and her diligent colleagues
certainly would have found him.  Interestingly, though, the
Shapiro/Klarsfeld team has not produced any such person: To date, the best
they have been able to come up with is a confused and unqualified suburban
French pharmacist, Jean-Claude Pressac.

     Fittingly, much of this book consists of two essays by Pressac that
seek to refute the Leuchter Report on technical grounds.  (For a point by
point response to Pressac's critique of Leuchter's findings, see the
detailed essay by Paul Grubach in this issue of _The Journal_.)

     Shapiro and Klarsfeld use a grotesque double standard in deciding just
who qualifies as a gas chamber expert.  While Leuchter is dismissed as an
untrained fraud and crank, Pressac is praised here (by Serge Klarsfeld, on
page 29) as "one of the world's rare research specialists in gas chamber
extermination technique."  This description is almost laughable in light of
Pressac's lack of any formal training, credentials or recognized expertise
in architecture, engineering, history or document analysis.

     Leuchter is not this book's only target.  Prof. Faurisson is accused
of "intellectual dishonesty" (p. 36), and Ernst Zundel is referred to as
Canada's "prime practitioner of Holocaust denial" (p. 22), as if he is the
high priest of an evil satanic cult, and historian David Irving is called a
"Nazi propagandist" (p. 85).

     In a ten-page chapter by H.L. Silets, a specialist of legal history at
the University of Cambridge, the 1946 "Zyklon B" trial is cited as
irrefutable proof that German officials used hydrogen cyanide gas from
Zyklon to exterminate Jews in wartime concentration camps.  Dr. Bruno
Tesch, the German businessman who headed the company that supplied Zyklon,
and his assistant and business manager Karl Weinbacher were the two main
defendants in the 1946 trial in Hamburg.  They were found guilty by the
British military court, sentenced to death, and hanged.

     Revisionist scholars are familiar with this important trial, wich was
a travesty of justice.  (Retired American research chemist Dr. William B.
Lindsey provides a thorough examination of it in a carefully researched
article in the Fall 1983 IHR _Journal_.)  Even Jean-Claude Pressac has
rightly castigated this trial as unjust and probably a "masquerade." (J.-C.
Pressac, _Auschwitz_, 1989, p. 17.)

     A key witness in the trial was Charles (or Paul) Bendel, a Jewish
doctor who had been an inmate physician in Birkenau in 1944.  His
"eyewitness" testimony about extermination gassings in the camp helped to
send Tesch and Weinbacher to the gallows.  As even Pressac has confirmed,
Bendel's testimony is demonstrably wrong on numerous key points.  (J.-C.
Pressac, _Auschwitz_, 1989, pp. 469-472.)

     Perhaps most remarkably, this British court determined that, of a
grand total of six million people killed in the German camps, no less than
four and a half million were "systematically exterminated" with Zyklon B at
Auschwitz-Birkenau alone.  (United Nations War Crimes Commission, _Law
Reports of Trials of War Criminals_, London: HMSO, 1947, Vol. 1, p. 94.
See also Nuremberg document NI-12207.)

     As further proof of extermination gassings at Auschwitz, _Truth
Prevails_ contributor Silets cites the postwar "confession" of former
Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Hoss.  However, as even prominent Holocaust
historians (including J.-C. Pressac in his 1989 book) now concede, key
statements in this "confession" are quite demonstrably untrue.  Moreover,
it has been indisputably established that Hoss' infamous "confession" was
extracted by brutal torture.  (See: R. Faurisson, IHR _Journal_, Winter
1986-87, pp. 389-403.)

     Beate Klarsfeld has announced that Leuchter "has to understand that in
denying the Holocaust, he cannot remain unpunished."  (JTA dispatch,
_Detroit Jewish News_, March 1, 1991.)  In this spirit, Ms. Shapiro has
boasted about the measures that she and her collaborators have taken to
pressure public officials, prison wardens, state correction departments,
politicians and journalists into blacklisting Leuchter.

     In August 1990, for example, the Shapiro/Klarsfeld group succeeded in
pressuring the Illinois Department of Corrections into canceling its
$8,320 consulting contract with Leuchter to inspect and supervise
administration of its lethal injection equipment. (p. 17)  Complaints were
also made to Arizona and Maryland.  In one state, a lawmaker said that to
retain Leuchter as an execution consultant would conflict with the stat's
requirement of mandatory "Holocaust studies" for every public school pupil.
(For more on this campaign, see the _IHR Newsletter_, July-August 1991, p.
3.)

     Sadly, this insidious campaign to "punish" Leuchter for his insolent
refusal to toe the Holocaust line has been largely successful.  As he
explains in his essay elsewhere in this issue of the _Journal_, his
livelihood has largely been destroyed.

     Although it is actually little more than a mean-spirited, bigoted and
error-ridden polemic, _Truth Prevails_ is not ineffective as a work of
Holocaust propaganda.  It will undoubtedly continue to have an impact among
the ignorant.  All the same, its very existence is somewhat gratifying
because it is a tangible expression of the growing impact of Holocaust
Revisionism.


[end of article]

[Reprinted by permission from _The Journal of Historical Review_, P.O. Box
1306, Torrance, CA 90505, USA.  Subscription rate: $40 per year, domestic.
$50 per year, foreign.]

     This article was manually transcribed by the System Operator of the
"Banished CPU" computer bulletin board system, which is located in Portland,
Oregon, U.S.A.


                    Banished CPU supports Freedom of Speech!
          ___________________________________________________________
         |                                                           |
         |  For 300-9600 bps (3 lines w/V.32) call:  (503) 232-5783  |
         |  For 14400 bps (2 lines w/V.32bis) call:  (503) 232-6566  |
         |___________________________________________________________|

                        Sysop: Maynard "the Main Nerd"

[end of file]


-Dan Gannon

-- 
dgannon@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-0636 (1200/2400, N81)

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor