The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Quick Summary: In 1994, the Poles (Markiewicz et al) published a study responding to Leuchter (and Rudolf) who had shown that the fumigation chambers contained significant cyanide compounds while the "gas chambers" had at best only trace amounts. They did not want to say the revisionist results were correct, so they bent over backwards to contrive a silly test that excluded Prussian blue from the analysis. They got results that were near zero across the board so they could spin the results as being "similar," not massively different.

A Study of the Cyanide Compounds Content In The Walls Of The Gas Chambers in the Former Auschwitz and Birkenau Concentration Camps
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... port.shtml

The Numbers

One thing you will notice is that Holocaust defenders will talk in circles about this topic, but they never show you the actual numbers. This is because the numbers are so dramatic they cut right through a lot of their spin.


First thing to notice is that the Markiewicz results are really low, even for disinfestation gas chambers. That defies common sense. If we have a room where we know Zyklon B was used regularly and the walls are covered with Prussian blue, we should expect to find some cyanide compounds! If their test can't detect cyanide in a room where there's so much cyanide that we can see it, then it's not an adequate test. Period. According to Markiewicz, a room like the one below barely has any cyanide.



Outrageous Explanations

Here is the explanation they give for whey Prussian blue shouldn't be included.


They are just outright lying here. They know damn well why there's Prussian blue in the fumigation chambers. It's because Zyklon B was used in those rooms and, under the right conditions, the HCN in the Zyklon will react with iron present in the walls. And that's what happened. To suggest that this is "hard to imagine" or that perhaps it's blue paint is ridiculous to the point of being insulting.

If they were honest, they would have admitted that there is a massive difference between the actual gas chambers and the alleged gas chambers. From there, they could have tried to come up with technical reasons why the Prussian blue didn't form in the latter. But to rig the test in order to deliberately obscure a difference that is obviously there is simply dishonest.

Stability of Prussian Blue

Another significant point is that Prussian blue is very long-term stable. Once it forms, it's hard to get rid of. Here is what James Roth, the chemist who tested Leuchter's samples, said at the Zundel trial.

Roth was shown Exhibit 144, a colour photograph of the blue staining on the wall of Delousing Facility No. 1 at Birkenau from which sample 32 had been removed. He indicated that the blue colour was what was commonly referred to as "Prussian blue." (33-9289) The chemical definition of Prussian blue was ferro-ferri-cyanide. (33-9297) Prussian blue was an iron cyanide produced by a reaction between iron and the hydrogen cyanide. It was a very stable compound which stayed around a long time. If hydrogen cyanide came into contact with bricks or mortar containing iron, it was fully conceivable that a reaction of the iron and hydrogen cyanide would take place, leaving behind the Prussian blue. (33-9290) In porous materials such as brick and mortar, the Prussian blue could go fairly deep as long as the surface stayed open, but as the Prussian blue formed, it was possible that it would seal the porous material and stop the penetration. If all surface iron was converted to Prussian blue, the reaction would effectively stop for lack of exposed iron. (33 9291)

Roth testified that the iron/cyanide reaction capabilities of samples 9 and 29 were no different from that of sample 32. If samples 9 and 29 had been exposed continually everyday for two years to 300 parts per million of hydrogen cyanide, Roth testified that he would expect to see the formation of the iron cyanide compounds; the so called "Prussian blue" material, in detectable amounts. The reaction of the two substances was an accumulative reaction; the reaction continued with each exposure. One way for this reaction not to occur would be a lack of water. These reactions, in many cases, required water or vapour in order to occur. However, in rooms of normal temperatures and normal humidity, there would be plenty of moisture present for this type of reaction to take place. (33-9293, 9294)

Prussian blue did not normally disappear unless it was physically removed. To be removed from a porous material like a brick it would have to be removed by sandblasting or grinding down the surface or by the application of a strong acid such as high levels of sulphuric, nitric or hydrochloric acid. It would be more difficult to remove from porous surfaces because of the fact that the formation would have taken on depth. (33-9297, 9298) This ended the examination-in-chief of Roth, and his cross-examination commenced.

https://www.ihr.org/books/kulaszka/34roth.html

"Anything Above Zero Proves It's a Gas Chamber"

I've have seen this argument online. People will say (without showing you the actual numbers, of course), that they "found cyanide" in the homicidal gas chambers, i.e., there were some non-zero samples. They are seriously trying to hang their hat on 0.6 parts per million.

1) Do these people not understand how little <1 ppm is?
2) You will get tiny amounts like that even in random rooms
3) Small values can be due to carbonates (see below)

Cyrus Cox, Auschwitz Forensically Examined, pg. 37


Nonsense Arguments in the Wild

This stuff came up the other day on X and there was some clown on there who made the following very poor arguments, among others.

-Leuchter's samples were too "diluted"
-Leuchter "lied" to the lab about the samples
-Leuchter was not a historian and hadn't spend enough time in the archives



It's hilarious to complain about sample dilution while simultaneously defending Markiewicz whose results are near zero. Dilution would bias the results downward. This means Leuchter's readings for the fumigation chamber samples would be too low. In fact, Leuchter's method worked just fine for finding cyanide, if it was actually there. Saying Leuchter "lied" to the lab is just silly. Blind testing is better scientific practice. If they don't know what it is, they will be objective. If the people testing know it's from Auschwitz, there would be pressure to get the "correct" result. Leuchter's lack of knowledge of Auschwitz at that time is also not terribly important. As if you need to be an expert Auschwitz historian to chip off wall samples and put them in bags. Faurisson and others were there to help him know what rooms were relevant. That basic historical knowledge was all that was needed for the sampling.

These arguments are what you might call the "throw spaghetti at the wall" approach.

The "dilution" argument only works if you assume the cyanide doesn't penetrate deep into the wall. But this was disproven in Rudolf's book and just by looking at the blue stains on the other side of the wall. Also Rudolf didn't have his samples diluted anyway, so that's moot. Focusing on Leuchter and potential flaws in his method is completely outdated, they need to address Rudolf's results.

Thank you for this thread. This has been somewhat of a sensitive topic for more than two decades now. The only serious attempt at refuting Rudolf's findings was made by prof. Green, to whom Rudolf famously responded in one of the later editions of The Chemistry of Auschwitz.

I'd just like to add a few thoughts. The "any cyanide at all proves it was a gas chamber" argument, as stated, doesn't really hold up. Vanishingly small levels of HCN are detectable in lots of mundane everyday environments and originating from things like fumes, gravel, atmospheric pollution, etc. Another thing to keep in mind is that Markiewicz dishonestly neglected to inform his readers that some of his readings were low enough to fall below the threshold for what the measuring instrument are even capable of detecting. Normally you'd render such results as "ND" (not detected), but Markiewicz decided to print the exact value to give the impression that significant levels of HCN had indeed been found in the alleged gas chambers. Because of the exceedingly infinitesimal values of his readings, they may also simply be false positives. All that being said, some revisionists have pointed out that the alleged gas chambers were probably deloused at some point, perhaps even regularly. Because these rooms were in fact morgues for (among others) dead typhus victims, delousing them is routine procedure. Mattogno even furnished us with a document specifically asking for dead typhus victims from the Myslowitz Prison to be deloused at Auschwitz (HH#22, p 91):

"The bodies of persons who have died of typhus are to be treated with a disinfecting agent and an anti-lice solution and placed in coffins as soon as possible. The coffin must be closed at once and moved to a special hall. For incineration, the corpses will be transferred to Auschwitz by hearse."

fireofice wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 12:25 pm The "dilution" argument only works if you assume the cyanide doesn't penetrate deep into the wall. But this was disproven in Rudolf's book and just by looking at the blue stains on the other side of the wall. Also Rudolf didn't have his samples diluted anyway, so that's moot. Focusing on Leuchter and potential flaws in his method is completely outdated, they need to address Rudolf's results.

I believe prof. Roth confirmed the penetration depth of the cyanide during the aforementioned trial.

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 9:31 am The revisionist argument is that since traces of the use of Zyklon B in the Leichenkellers are lower than they should be, if it was in regular use for gassings, therefore it was not used to gas people and the people who worked at the Kremas in 1943-4, who all say they were used for gassings, are liars.

The problems with that argument are;

1 - it presumes revisionist calculations are correct. Those calculations are based on a lot of uncertainty and no actual experimentation with Zyklon B in an enclosed space.

2 - bias amongst revisionists, who investigate with a desired result in mind.

3 - the witness, documentary and circumstantial evidence about the operation of the Kremas in 1943-4, that mass gassings did take place.

4 - revisionist inability to agree on, let alone evidence what did happen, with theories about bomb shelters, delousing chambers, corpse storage and mass showering.

5 - revisionist inability to evidence the people they say were not gassed, leaving Birkenau and being transported anywhere else. That is c900,000 people documented to have arrived, but not left the camp.

6 - the unlikeliness of the conspiracy they allege, where Germans, both civilian and SS, along with Jews from various nations, who spoke different languages, often never met and had no reason to cooperate, colluded to all lie about what happened. Since hundreds of thousands of people are evidenced to have entered each Krema, they all need to lie by omission, and knowing the gassing allegations, all fail to come forward with the truth as to what did happen inside those places.

Logically and evidentially, when event A is argued for and event B is evidenced to have happened, then event B is by far the most likely to have happened. Revisionists claim that is wrong, and event A is more likely, even when they cannot agree on what event A was.

Nothing about Markiewicz. Nothing about Prussian blue. This reply is off topic and unresponsive. You have ignored the original topic and launched into your own preferred talking points. Not acceptable.

ETA: Nessie, I have disapproved two more posts which also did not address the results of these studies. Don’t bother posting in this thread if you don’t have anything relevant. If you think these chemical tests are merely “theoretical”(??) and of no significance and don’t want to discuss them, then please bow out of the thread and leave the discussion to others.

The excuse for this discrepancy is that the SS saved Ziklon B for gassing because they knew that the amount required to kill a person would be much less than that required to kill lice. Even if this were true, the Kremas were exposed to much more Ziklon B than the delousing rooms and therefore should have had quantities very similar to those rooms and not the same as the camp dormitories.

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 6:19 pm The excuse for this discrepancy is that the SS saved Ziklon B for gassing because they knew that the amount required to kill a person would be much less than that required to kill lice. Even if this were true, the Kremas were exposed to much more Ziklon B than the delousing rooms and therefore should have had quantities very similar to those rooms and not the same as the camp dormitories.

It's not true. Rudolf demonstrated that to kill that many people in the timeframe that is claimed, more Zyklon B would be needed for the homicidal gas chambers than the delousing chambers.

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 6:19 pm The excuse for this discrepancy is that the SS saved Ziklon B for gassing because they knew that the amount required to kill a person would be much less than that required to kill lice.

This argument has always been pure conjecture and an argument of convenience. Not only is there significant disagreement between orthodox historians on how much of the Zyklon B supply was used for delousings as opposed to gassings (I think Van Pelt said something like 90% was used for delousings whereas Pressac indicated 80%, and Piper claimed something like 90% was used for gassings), but there's also no evidence the Germans would have used a significantly lower amount of Zyklon B for gassing humans compared to delousings. In fact, Rudolf Hoess indicated a quantity of Zyklon B similar to that used for delousings. During the Lipstadt Trial, Van Pelt invented the 'low amount of Zyklon B' argument to cover for the fact that there simply would not have been enough Zyklon B in the camp to execute so many people, given what the Germans knew of the toxicity of hydrogen cyanide at the time. The Zyklon B deliveries have actually been preserved for large periods of the camp's history (see HH#40), and while it's correct that humans are more susceptible to hydrogen cyanide poisoning than insects, what was 'known' during the 1930's has since been revised, and we know today that toxicity tests carried out on rabbits don't translate well onto humans, and humans would have been able to withstand significantly higher concentrations of HCN than what the expert literature at that time indicated. Nevertheless, Hoess and his colleagues at the camp never consulted any expert literature on the subject. Instead, they kept dumping similar quantities as that used for delousing clothes.

Diving deeper into the question of the quantities of Zyklon B used for gassing humans, there's no witness testimony or evidence, as far as I'm aware, that the Germans or the SS ever did any testing on how much Zyklon B was necessary to efficiently execute, say, 2000 people. Instead, Hoess simply asserted that they dumped X amount of cans into the room, seemingly based on the amount used for delousings. This despite the fact that the SS had their own Hygienic Institute working with lethal toxins. They could have easily carried out tests or measurements to ascertain the most efficient amount of Zyklon B to be used, especially considering Zyklon B was a valuable resource (especially by mid-1942 and going into 1943 when the death rates across the concentration camps was very high).

And you're obviously correct. As a whole, the gas chambers would have still been exposed to significantly more Zyklon B than the regular delousing chambers.

There is also the argument that fewer people died in Krema I than in Birkenau and that in the Birkenau ones the weather washed away the waste, ignoring the fact that in Madjanek the alleged gas chambers have evident Prussian Blue and a similar number died there as in Krema I if we are to be guided by orthodoxy.

curioussoul wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 9:27 pm

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 6:19 pm The excuse for this discrepancy is that the SS saved Ziklon B for gassing because they knew that the amount required to kill a person would be much less than that required to kill lice.

This argument has always been pure conjecture and an argument of convenience. Not only is there significant disagreement between orthodox historians on how much of the Zyklon B supply was used for delousings as opposed to gassings (I think Van Pelt said something like 90% was used for delousings whereas Pressac indicated 80%, and Piper claimed something like 90% was used for gassings), but there's also no evidence the Germans would have used a significantly lower amount of Zyklon B for gassing humans compared to delousings. In fact, Rudolf Hoess indicated a quantity of Zyklon B similar to that used for delousings. During the Lipstadt Trial, Van Pelt invented the 'low amount of Zyklon B' argument to cover for the fact that there simply would not have been enough Zyklon B in the camp to execute so many people, given what the Germans knew of the toxicity of hydrogen cyanide at the time. The Zyklon B deliveries have actually been preserved for large periods of the camp's history (see HH#40), and while it's correct that humans are more susceptible to hydrogen cyanide poisoning than insects, what was 'known' during the 1930's has since been revised, and we know today that toxicity tests carried out on rabbits don't translate well onto humans, and humans would have been able to withstand significantly higher concentrations of HCN than what the expert literature at that time indicated. Nevertheless, Hoess and his colleagues at the camp never consulted any expert literature on the subject. Instead, they kept dumping similar quantities as that used for delousing clothes.

Diving deeper into the question of the quantities of Zyklon B used for gassing humans, there's no witness testimony or evidence, as far as I'm aware, that the Germans or the SS ever did any testing on how much Zyklon B was necessary to efficiently execute, say, 2000 people. Instead, Hoess simply asserted that they dumped X amount of cans into the room, seemingly based on the amount used for delousings. This despite the fact that the SS had their own Hygienic Institute working with lethal toxins. They could have easily carried out tests or measurements to ascertain the most efficient amount of Zyklon B to be used, especially considering Zyklon B was a valuable resource (especially by mid-1942 and going into 1943 when the death rates across the concentration camps was very high).

And you're obviously correct. As a whole, the gas chambers would have still been exposed to significantly more Zyklon B than the regular delousing chambers.

You are correct, no know really knows the quantities and it is all "conjecture and an argument of convenience", but from BOTH sides. Those who want to believe in no gassings, believe Rudolf, those who disagree believe Markiewicz. Since neither have conducted any experimentation, whether homicidal gassings took place cannot be deduced from the uncertain evidence of traces found in the Leichenkellers.

Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2024 8:25 am
You are correct, no know really knows the quantities and it is all "conjecture and an argument of convenience"

All organisms are different but the average lethal dose for humans is well known. Turnagain clearly mentioned the amount to kill half the population within a given period. 110–135 ppm: Can be fatal after 0.5–1 hour or later though the toxic dose should be 300 ppm; death should be a few minutes after exposure.
link

Giving a scientific illerate person scientific information has little meaning, due to lack of comprehension. Similar to giving trig reasoning to a 5 year old.

Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2024 8:25 am

curioussoul wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 9:27 pm

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2024 6:19 pm The excuse for this discrepancy is that the SS saved Ziklon B for gassing because they knew that the amount required to kill a person would be much less than that required to kill lice.

This argument has always been pure conjecture and an argument of convenience. Not only is there significant disagreement between orthodox historians on how much of the Zyklon B supply was used for delousings as opposed to gassings (I think Van Pelt said something like 90% was used for delousings whereas Pressac indicated 80%, and Piper claimed something like 90% was used for gassings), but there's also no evidence the Germans would have used a significantly lower amount of Zyklon B for gassing humans compared to delousings. In fact, Rudolf Hoess indicated a quantity of Zyklon B similar to that used for delousings. During the Lipstadt Trial, Van Pelt invented the 'low amount of Zyklon B' argument to cover for the fact that there simply would not have been enough Zyklon B in the camp to execute so many people, given what the Germans knew of the toxicity of hydrogen cyanide at the time. The Zyklon B deliveries have actually been preserved for large periods of the camp's history (see HH#40), and while it's correct that humans are more susceptible to hydrogen cyanide poisoning than insects, what was 'known' during the 1930's has since been revised, and we know today that toxicity tests carried out on rabbits don't translate well onto humans, and humans would have been able to withstand significantly higher concentrations of HCN than what the expert literature at that time indicated. Nevertheless, Hoess and his colleagues at the camp never consulted any expert literature on the subject. Instead, they kept dumping similar quantities as that used for delousing clothes.

Diving deeper into the question of the quantities of Zyklon B used for gassing humans, there's no witness testimony or evidence, as far as I'm aware, that the Germans or the SS ever did any testing on how much Zyklon B was necessary to efficiently execute, say, 2000 people. Instead, Hoess simply asserted that they dumped X amount of cans into the room, seemingly based on the amount used for delousings. This despite the fact that the SS had their own Hygienic Institute working with lethal toxins. They could have easily carried out tests or measurements to ascertain the most efficient amount of Zyklon B to be used, especially considering Zyklon B was a valuable resource (especially by mid-1942 and going into 1943 when the death rates across the concentration camps was very high).

And you're obviously correct. As a whole, the gas chambers would have still been exposed to significantly more Zyklon B than the regular delousing chambers.

You are correct, no know really knows the quantities and it is all "conjecture and an argument of convenience"

That's correct, but it's only a conjectural argument from the orthodox perspective, since they literally invented fake quantities of Zyklon B without evidence, contradicting their own main witness (Hoess). Revisionists aren't alleging Zyklon B was used for homicidal gassings at all.

That being said, attempting to muddy the waters here by invoking an alleged "uncertainty" is really not going to work. The tests have been made and they're pretty unequivocal. Markiewicz excluded iron-based, long-term stable cyanide compounds (Prussian Blue) from his analytical method, which Rudolf and Leuchter did not. Other than that, the numbers are in and they don't favor the orthodoxy one bit. And so far, no one from the orthodoxy really has an explanation for this.

I know it's off-topic and I apologize to Archie, but claiming that physical evidence can't be trusted because it would contradict the witnesses simply isn't a really good argument, let alone logical. Ever heard the famous Arthur Conan Doyle quote?

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

curioussoul wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2024 9:31 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2024 8:25 am ...

You are correct, no know really knows the quantities and it is all "conjecture and an argument of convenience"

That's correct, but it's only a conjectural argument from the orthodox perspective, since they literally invented fake quantities of Zyklon B without evidence, contradicting their own main witness (Hoess). Revisionists aren't alleging Zyklon B was used for homicidal gassings at all.

That being said, attempting to muddy the waters here by invoking an alleged "uncertainty" is really not going to work. The tests have been made...

My argument is that neither side has conducted relevant testing, to establish what residue is left behind, after repeated gassings, for a certain period of time, in a vented chamber, full of people, with plaster walls that were washed and even painted. Therefore, neither side can say, with any real authority, what the expected levels would be.

I am not a chemist, so cannot say which side is correct, regarding the test results and what they mean. I see revisionists who are also not chemists claiming they know who is correct, but I do not find them to be credible. It is their biased opinion.

... and they're pretty unequivocal. Markiewicz excluded iron-based, long-term stable cyanide compounds (Prussian Blue) from his analytical method, which Rudolf and Leuchter did not. Other than that, the numbers are in and they don't favor the orthodoxy one bit. And so far, no one from the orthodoxy really has an explanation for this.

I know it's off-topic and I apologize to Archie, but claiming that physical evidence can't be trusted because it would contradict the witnesses simply isn't a really good argument, let alone logical.

It is not an argument I have made, or seen being made. Physical evidence is generally more reliable than witness evidence. When Hoess is remembering how much Zyklon B was used and that does not fit with the physical evidence, go with the physical evidence. I have long and repeatedly argued that recall is not great for things like quantities. I have also explained why Hoess is not a very credible witness and the details he provides are not reliable (but he is telling the truth about mass gassings).

Ever heard the famous Arthur Conan Doyle quote?

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

Revisionism's prime argument is about the physical impossibility of gassings. In this case, the evidence of HCN residue is disputed, with revisionists of course favouring the level of residue found mean mass gassings was impossible. I say neither side has a convincing argument, due to the lack of experimentation.

full of people, with plaster walls that were washed and even painted

Piper said the opposite to David Cole.

TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2024 12:15 pm full of people, with plaster walls that were washed and even painted

Piper said the opposite to David Cole.

That is the problem, there is differing information and that often comes from witnesses, who are estimating things like the time a gassing took and are more likely to be wrong, or at least a few minutes out. Add that up over potentially hundreds of gassings and that is days worth of a difference.

Markiewicz is as likely to be wrong as Leuchter or Rudolf and the actual answer to how much residue would be left, is an unknown. That is why I argue against the use of that type of argument, and in favour of contemporaneous evidence.

I'm confused by this thread, what are you trying to show? That a research study was conducted using questionable methodology? Ok, but this just leads us back into the main discussion. Even if we accept Rudolf's numbers even he doesn't think that the chemistry "seals the deal" so to speak.

"Furthermore, I am convinced that chemistry is not the science which can prove or refute any allegations about the Holocaust »rigorously«. We have several circumstantial evidences which, especially together with all the other evidence, allow us to come to the conclusion that the homicidal mass gassings as stated by the eye witnesses can not have taken place. But on the chemical argument no absolute certainty can be built."

I'm not a scientist, so I see no reason to dig too deeply into this, but even Rudolf doesn't see his findings as being definitive. And back to the Polish study

Let me walk you through a clear statistical analysis comparing control samples versus samples from alleged gas chamber sites using the data from Markiewicz's study.

Control Samples (from residential blocks):
All 10 samples showed 0 μg/kg of cyanide

Gas Chamber Samples (averages from triplicate measurements):

Crematorium I:
27, 79, 0, 0, 289, 0, 80 μg/kg

Crematorium II:
617, 28, 0, 8, 17, 164, 292 μg/kg

Crematorium III:
68, 9, 11, 15, 9, 16, 55 μg/kg

Crematorium IV:
43, 35, 497, 0, 13 μg/kg

Crematorium V:
241, 32, 95, 12, 117, 59, 0 μg/kg

Let's make this comparison easy to understand:

Control Group:
- Number of samples: 10
- Average (mean): 0 μg/kg
- Highest value: 0 μg/kg
- Lowest value: 0 μg/kg
- Number of zero readings: 10 (100%)

Gas Chamber Group:
- Number of samples: 31
- Average (mean): 89.5 μg/kg
- Highest value: 617 μg/kg
- Lowest value: 0 μg/kg
- Number of zero readings: 6 (19.4%)

To determine if these differences are statistically meaningful, we can use a simple non-parametric test called the Mann-Whitney U test, which works well when comparing groups with different sizes and when the data isn't normally distributed.

The test shows that the difference between the control group and gas chamber group is statistically significant (p < 0.05). In plain language, this means that the higher cyanide levels found in the alleged gas chamber samples are unlikely to have occurred by chance.

So the Polish study, if the results are accurate, does seem to indicate *some level* of cyanide use at the Crema. Revisionists might argue there were delousing chambers at the Crema or the building was regularly fumigated. Documents like the one for requesting HCN detectors indicate that the use of HCN there was more intense than this.