This article seems ridiculous, no? Karmasyn repeatedly alleges that Rudolf falsified something, but in the attempt to explain what, he says that Rudolf reproduced graphics from other sources and also created one based on correspondence with Detia Freyberg, the Zyklon company. Assuming that is true, why should it be off limits to make a graph from the chemical company's information? Karmasyn complains for example that Rudolf doesn't explain what mathematical formula should govern the curve, but obviously it matches the curves from Irmscher and the US Army and the data from Degesch, so what is the nature of the complaint? He's just mad over nothing.
Karmasyn then "fabricates" his own graphs. E.g. Karmasyn claims that Rudolf's curve, which is also reproduced on the page, shows "50% [HCN] release in 44 minutes", but in Karmasyn's own graph he drew Rudolf's curve to 50% at 65 minutes. This is an actual falsification!
Adding to that, the whole text is filled with the venom of someone who clearly does not want this issue to be investigated by anyone. This person frankly seems deranged.
Monsieur Sceptique wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 4:25 pm
On page 237 of Germar Rudolf’s book, Germar Rudolf cites Irmscher to establish his graph except that he misquotes Irmscher.
I'm struggling to see what the misquote is. Rudolf's reproduction of Irmscher's graph seems accurate. His commentary on the graph and text seem accurate. Is the issue that he quoted Irmscher saying that at high humidity evaporation was "seriously delayed", where your translation is "significantly diminish the rate of evaporation"? That seems like the same meaning with different words, which makes it an ordinary translation.
Karmasyn writes a lot about Irmscher. I assume you want a response to this part:
All of this is even more ludicrous given that Rudolf then invoked two reasons for further lowering the evaporation rate to 30°C in the gas chambers: the inadequate distribution of the Zyklon B granules and high air humidity. [...] Regarding the second point, humidity, it's important to note Rudolf's source: the same article by Irmscher, which specifies that:
"Measurements could not be taken in cases where the humidity in the room was high, inducing a deposition of water or snow (depending on the temperature) on the evaporation surfaces, which significantly reduces the evaporation rate."
Therefore, it is not humidity itself that can slow down the evaporation rate (and we are only talking here about the conditions studied by Irmscher below 15°C), but rather condensation or a snow deposition (clearly referring to low temperatures).
Karmasyn interprets Irmscher to mean that humidity by itself
might not affect HCN evaporation, while still accepting that the condensation
from humidity
would. Will he demonstrate that this distinction would have had any meaning at Auschwitz? No.
Germar Rudolf, who repeats the influence of humidity at least four times (he insists on it) in his text (but always attributing it solely to Irmscher), obviously avoids citing Irmscher specifically.
"Attributing" but not "citing"? This is nonsense. Rudolf does cite Irmscher.
Why? Because, upon reading Irmscher, one understands that the situation he describes does not, in fact, apply at all to the conditions prevailing in a gas chamber. For condensation to occur, the air must be saturated with moisture, that is, 100% humidity.
This is obviously untrue. Most humans in the first-world observe condensation every day at considerably less than 100% humidity.
However, the higher the temperature, the more difficult it is to achieve such a level. Moreover, the condensation that limits the rate of evaporation occurs at low temperatures, below the boiling point of hydrogen cyanide. Would condensation due to human respiration (as Rudolf suggests) in a room above 30°C have a negative impact? There is no evidence to suggest so; quite the contrary.
Karmasyn has taken his incorrect understanding of condensation and his novel interpretation of Irmscher's work to say that not only would humidity
not do what Irmscher explicitly stated, but that it would actually do
"the contrary"! Absurd.
For one thing, Rudolf never proves that the humidity necessarily reaches 100% under the high-temperature conditions that prevailed in gas chambers (once again, he avoids studying this fundamental factor: temperature). On the other hand, even if such a value were reached, wouldn't the condensation of droplets at a temperature above 30°C have the same effect on liquid hydrogen cyanide as a hot iron on water droplets, namely promoting almost instantaneous evaporation (and rather a transition to the gaseous state by boiling)? In fact, and we should have emphasized this point back in 2016: when exposed to temperatures above 30°C, the hydrogen cyanide contained in Zyklon B is no longer primarily subject to evaporation, but rather primarily to boiling, a radically different phenomenon (it is no longer a simple surface phenomenon), much more violent, and inducing a much faster release of gas.
In addition to all the errors listed above, here Karmasyn claims that HCN at temperatures above boiling should evaporate even faster than expected from the lower temperature curves. To back this up, Karmasyn has no data of any kind, just speculation.
Moreover, his argument is that this is something that would apply to the gas chambers, but the gas chambers would not normally have been "above 30°C" (or 86° F). In actuality gassings are claimed to have been conducted even in the coldest months of winter, and under other unfavorable conditions, but he ignores all that to instead seek out the most ideal possible conditions as a defense for the whole theory. (A proof must be universal, whereas a debunk can be specific.)
I will stop here, at least for now. I do think it is possible that Karmasyn discovered real errors in Rudolf's first report. Did Rudolf originally cite the wrong author for one sentence where he wrote about evaporation rates? Maybe he did. But Karmasyn blows this error out of proportion, making it difficult for readers to even see what he's clamoring about, while he himself engages in deceptions that could much more easily be called "falsification".
