The CODOH Revisionist Forum

https://phdn.org/negation/rudolf/rudolf ... tml#note29

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... 036.htm.en

https://phdn.org/negation/rudolf/rudolf ... tions.html

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's what demonstrated Richard J. Green. It should be noted that Polish scientists found significant quantities of hydrocyanic acid residues...

Karmasyn's critique is mostly outdated—it attacks flaws in Rudolf's pre-2017 work that Rudolf himself fixed in later editions. For instance, Rudolf drops the problematic "US Army" graph (calling it "unfounded and misleading"), corrects Irmscher's data (45% HCN release in 30 minutes, not 50%), and refines evaporation models using real 1942 Degesch charts (from Zyklon B makers). He adds an exponential curve (τ=47 min) for accuracy, not guesswork.

Rudolf extrapolates to hot chamber conditions (30°C+ from body heat: 15% release in 5 min, 60% in 30 min) but stresses "serious delays" from 100% humidity—dew forms, binding HCN to wet pellets and floors, slowing evaporation. Karmasyn says Rudolf wrongly applies low-temp Irmscher data here, but Rudolf's simulations (Section 7.3.2) show short gassings (e.g., 5 min) would need impossible Zyklon amounts (64kg—way beyond witness claims like Höss's), factoring in slow ventilation and oxygen drop (victims suffocate faster in stuffy rooms).

Karmasyn's 2020 post-script accuses Rudolf of dodging (e.g., no direct boiling-point talk in his TRS interview), but ignores how Rudolf openly calls for high-temp/CO2 experiments in Section 10 to test unknowns—he admits gaps and invites verification, while Karmasyn doesn't suggest any and doesn't fully engage Rudolf's humidity models or simulations.

Karmasyn weakens his case by skipping Rudolf's 2017 updates: no look at the new graphs or simulations, and he leans on unproven quotes (Peters' "extraordinary rapidity," Rauscher's lab claim of 28% in 5 min at 20°C) without experiments or papers. Rudolf uses verified Irmscher data and models humidity countering heat (e.g., humid chambers act like cooler ones). Karmasyn argues this wrongly applies low-temp Irmscher effects to high-temp scenarios (where boiling might dominate), but without tests, it's just his word against Rudolf's evidence.

Overall, Rudolf's work is stronger now—backed by real data, honest fixes, and calls for more research—while Karmasyn's feels like an old attack ignoring progress. Independent tests (high-temp/humidity) could settle it, as Rudolf urges.

HansHill wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 10:03 pm I remember coming across this paper before, likely in my Twitter days. I asked the person who was circulating it at the time, who I had assumed was the author, whether this paper would be made available in English for my own convenience. This was not available at the time, so i used a machine learning translation tool for my review.

I will admit that I could not really understand any of the points being made, and at the time I had given the benefit of the doubt to the paper / author, and decided my machine learning translation was incompetent.

I'm glad to see this paper re-emerge. I see Wetzelrad is encountering some of the same confusions I had come across too.

Monsieur Sceptique 1) welcome, 2) I note you personally are not in a position to translate this paper which is understandable, however if you are familiar with the author, and to remove any possibility that the paper is being obfuscated by poor translations, will it be possible to get a competent translation of this paper as commissioned by him?

Introduction
Germar Rudolf is a German Holocaust denier who trained as a chemist. He was very early associated with the hardest German extreme right, he produced in the early 1990s a "report" allegedly demonstrating the impossibility of gassing human beings at Auschwitz, translated into French in 1996 and published by the Belgian Nazi group, VHO. Contrary to what he himself and the sycophant Holocaust deniers claim, Germar Rudolf does not do true science and uses the usual negationist processes, lies and various falsifications, and this from his first publications. A profile and full biography can be found in this section.

Germar Rudolf’s 'demonstrations' were very early refuted in English, notably by a professional chemical engineer (which is not Germar Rudolf), Richard J. Green:
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... chemistry/
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... stry/blue/
https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... e-science/

The second study mentioned above has been translated into French: https://phdn.org/negation/rudolf/green_cyanures/

This article is very important, because Rudolf’s main postulate is refuted there: Rudolf had samples taken (illegally) at Auschwitz analyzed for the presence of a specific derivative of hydrocyanic acid, the family of hydrogen ferrocyanides, commonly called Prussian blues. Not finding in the samples taken (he says) in the ruins of the old gas chambers, Rudolf claims to deduce the absence of gasings with hydrogen cyanide in these places. The reasoning and conclusion are false for the following reason: it is not at all established (and rather very unlikely) that Prussian blue must necessarily be formed in case of the use of hydrocyanic acid. That is what Richard J. Green demonstrated. It should be noted that Polish scientists found significant quantities of hydrocyanic acid residues in the old gas chambers, but targeting residues not belonging to the Prussian blue family. This obviously corroborates the reality of mass killings by gassing committed in these places, known both by documents and testimonies.

This is enough to completely disqualify Rudolf’s production. Nevertheless, Germar Rudolf has produced many other statements and 'analyses' in his report, always going in the direction of an impossibility of gassing. If some of Rudolf’s technical "arguments" have been refuted in English, there is no article on the web in French examining other points of his "report". This is the subject of the present text, devoted to Germar Rudolf’s statements on the evaporation rate of hydrocyanic acid. On this subject alone, he illustrates how Rudolf is a manipulator who does not care about the truth, ready to falsify scientific data to advance his negationist discourse. We will moreover show that Germar Rudolf is scientifically incompetent.

It should be emphasized that this is not at all about establishing the reality of the genocide of the Jews, perfectly studied, described and documented, but rather to demonstrate that even the "jewel" of the "scientific" deniers is a vulgar impostor. (there is a link inside and this link is the following https://phdn.org/histgen/index.html )

We base this study on the French edition of the «Rudolf report» published by the Belgian Nazi officine VHO1 in 1996, translation very close to the original German of 1993. Rudolf has continued to republish, modify, and extend his report in editions (at least eight in 2024) in which he notably more or less subtly camouflaged, even removed some of his first manipulations and falsifications (but not all of them, far from it), obviously informed by the numerous demonstrations related to them, without ever taking note of it, obviously. Some negationists have used these later editions as a pretext to claim that the criticisms we make here against the "Rudolf report" would be unfounded (if not "false"). This process of avoiding our explicit mention of the version on which we rely (the first, the most «sincere», the one that founded the sensational entry—one should say smashed — of Rudolf in the circle of the relentless negationist propadandists) is obviously a spectacular and pitiful manifestation of bad faith, if not of incompetence and stupidity, in short, of negationism.

It is necessary to be equipped with a scientific background to detect Rudolf’s falsifications and scientific training facilitates the understanding of their refutation. The author of this article was trained in scientific preparatory classes and holds an engineering degree.

Negationists who play on technical 'expertise' bet on the inability of readers to evaluate their lies and on the fact that scientific dressing imposes it. The following demonstration is provided only to illustrate this point and show how vain it is to play on that field and risky to let oneself be impressed.

Context
At Auschwitz, the Nazis used Zyklon B which diffused hydrocyanic acid, HCN (hydrogen cyanide), a devastating poison for humans, of which Zyklon B (porous granules) was impregnated in a liquid state. It was the transition to the gaseous state and the diffusion in the form of hydrogen cyanide that caused the rapid death of the Jews who breathed it.

One of the «technical» arguments of Germar Rudolf, later taken up by the little soldiers of negationist propaganda, is to claim that lethal concentrations in HCN could not be reached quickly, that is to say that the release of gaseous hydrocyanic acid would be a very slow process. Rudolf does not show any originality: he only recycles a lie that the negationist Robert Faurisson already hammered in 1979. Rudolf deduces from this the impracticability of the murder by gassing at the HCN.

Rudolf manipulates documents and calculations to arrive at this «result», a spectacular factual untruth(or against the truth), as we will see. It is interesting to note that these calculations are in no way related to what is theoretically the core of his demonstration, his alleged analysis of samples. We are dealing here with a classic syndrome among the negationists: they certainly emphasize the impossible nature (according to them...) of this or that aspect of the assassination process, but strive to show that every aspect, every step, every detail of this process constitutes an impossibility. Thus, the report Rudolf is devoted in its major part to such demonstrations, without links with his sample analyses, a significant part of these "demonstrations" having moreover no scientific dimension and content to take up classical negationist arguments.

The keystone of Germar Rudolf’s arguments in his report about the amounts of hydrocyanic acid released is based on a single figure: according to him, no more than 10% of HCN would be released from Zyklon B within 10 minutes (p. 59). With this «result», Germar Rudolf then claims to demonstrate that the rate of release of cyanhydrique acid (the gas, deadly poison) from Zyklon B is too slow to kill anyone in a few minutes, according to numerous testimonies. Again, is it necessary to establish beforehand the reality of this figure. To achieve this, Germar Rudolf will manipulate data, diagrams, and documents. That’s what we will see.

However, the reader, if he wishes to spare himself the long and tedious demonstration of the various falsifications by Germar Rudolf, can content himself with the graph below which summarizes what we are arriving at. The evaporation law proposed by Rudolf corresponds to the lower curve in Bordeaux(Bordeaux can be use to designate
a variety of Red), the documented reality corresponds at a minimum to the upper curve in blue:

I. How Rudolf made his HCN evaporation rate curve
Rudolf presents himself as a scientist and claims to perform scientific demonstrations. To affirm that the rate of evaporation is slow, concrete measures are needed. Rudolf does not have one but will nevertheless propose a curve. We need to examine how and the nature of this curve.

He claims (p. 59) to have two sources, one of which emanates, claims Rudolf from the «US-Army Chemical Corps». We will examine it later because, although interesting for our purpose, it is little exploited by Rudolf.

This one mainly insists on a letter that he would have received from the firm Detia Freyberg, which took over from the company Degesch in the marketing of products like Zyklon B. It would be about the rate of release of hydrocyanic acid. This letter, Rudolf gives absolutely no extract from it, and he is the only one who has ever seen it. The support of the modern product of the Freyberg, from which hydrocyanic acid is released, we know nothing about it and Rudolf says nothing about it: yet it has a decisive influence on the evaporation rate of HCN. Nothing says that it is close to the granules of Zyklon B. Drawing quantitative conclusions regarding the evaporation rate of Zyklon B from this letter is therefore impossible. This does not hold back Rudolf who dares to pose insistently to the impartial scientist.

The precise content of the letter is in no way cited, but only vaguely evoked to say that:

'the SARL Detia Freyberg only gives approximate indications(A SARL is Private limited company)(p. 58)
It was indeed read: «approximate indications». Rudolf does not specify explicitly which ones. He writes, however, that 'according to these data the support releases at a temperature of more than 20 oC [...] 80-90 % of hydrocyanic acid in 2 hours' (p. 58). Germar Rudolf does not provide us anywhere «this data» and does not cite the content of the letter. It is reasonable to assume, however, that this range (80-90% after two hours) is in fact contained in the letter and that it is probably the only quantitative ("approximate") information therein. Rudolf may also have extrapolated this range in a completely unfounded way, but it is obviously impossible for us to know, since quite incredibly, the content of the letter is not cited.

Starting from there, Rudolf allows himself an astonishing sleight of hand by multiplying, as we will see, the quantitative affirmations. He begins by referring to a graph (graph 13 p. 59), as if to justify these figures, but it is clear that this graph does not come from the letter of Detia Freyberg (Rudolf would obviously have mentioned it and would not have spoken of approximate indications), that it was created from all parts by Rudolf himself on the basis of the 'approximate indications' (not cited, not accessible...) in this letter, so as to be compatible with the claim that after 2 hours 80 to 90% of the hydrocyanic acid was released... Note also that Rudolf really does not facilitate reading since he talks about the total quantity released, but provides a graph of residual quantity. It’s really not serious. Here is this graph:

Let’s take a closer look at this curve: it is a diagram describing a chemical kinetics (a reaction rate, in this case the release of HCN, namely its transition from the liquid state to the gaseous state). Or to draw an evolution curve in chemical kinetics it is essential to know:

is many points on the curve (that is, couples of elapsed time - residual HCN rate, resulting from precise measurements in real conditions).
is one or two points of the curve and the (mathematical) law of evolution of the reaction.
Rudolf obviously does not have a set of precise points (again, he would have provided this data without speaking about the «approximate» character of the letter from the Detia Freyberg), and nowhere indicates to which evolution law the release of the HCN from the support of Zyklon B should obey!

The curve in question has a shape that Rudolf never scientifically justifies. He provides no indication of how it was established. This is a real magic trick on the part of Rudolf. But certainly not science. Now, it is indeed from this curve that he will deduce (he will claim) a certain number of precise quantitative data, justifying his theory of a slow release of hydrogen cyanide.

However, a trained eye acknowledges that Germar Rudolf decided to make the release speed of hydrogen cyanide obey a simple and classical law: Rudolf decides that the release must obey a kinetics following a decreasing exponential law. This is easily deduced from the shape of the curve and we will prove it, scientifically for once. An exponential law (classic in chemical kinetics) expresses a simple case: the rate at a time t of evolution of the quantity of HCN, or its remaining percentage, (its derivative with respect to time) is proportional to the quantity of HCN at that time. This reflects in particular that this speed decreases (the less hydrocyanic acid remains, the slower its evaporation rate). Let us note that, per se, the hypothesis of such a law for the evaporation of Zyklon B is not unreasonable. Still, it should be stated clearly. This law is expressed mathematically by the following derived equation (with respect to time), taking K as a constant coefficient of proportionality (rate constant of release, in this case independent of the quantity of HCN at time t
(I will not reproduce the different equation )

However, to the extent that Rudolf constantly speaks, in a rather natural way, of the total amount of hydrogen cyanide released over time, we must reason by the total percentage of HCN released. Firstly, it is very easy to return the cumulative clearance curve [%HCN]d of hydrocyanic acid, corresponding to the curve provided by Rudolf, by a vertical symmetry of the curve, corresponding to the operation

From now on, following by the way Rudolf, we will talk about the total amount of HCN released. This translates into our equation, with
[%HCN]d = 100 [%HCN]r:
[%HCN]d=100 100.10( k.T)

where [%HCN]is the total percentage of HCN cleared at the end of duration T. To continue, we must first test our hypothesis on this law. We begin by placing the total clearance curve according to Rudolf on a much more detailed graph, finely squared, where the durations are expressed in minutes and on which one can easily read the values corresponding to the points on the curve (click to zoom):

If our hypothesis is valid, it is enough to find a point on the curve, to calculate the coefficient
k corresponding and to draw the corresponding exponential distribution curve. If the obtained theoretical curve is close to the Rudolf curve, our hypothesis will be fully validated.

For this, we need a point on the Rudolf curve and calculate the coefficient
k . If for the nth minute we read on the graph the total percentage Pn of HCN cleared, k is easily obtained by the following calculation:

k= log((100 Pn) 100)n

It turns out that the curve provided by Rudolf goes through 60% of HCN cleared in total for 60 minutes. We find:

k = log((100 60) 100)60= log (0.4) 60 = 0.0066323335

Let’s plot the corresponding curve on the same graph, in red(pourpre is red):


It’s quite spectacular: the correspondence is perfect during the first 90 minutes and the maximum divergence is 2% after 240 minutes (4 hours)! This is not a coincidence. Our intuition was the right one: Germar Rudolf built his curve using an exponential law. In fact, Rudolf gives the key to his approach when he writes that according to the letter of the Detia Freyberg, «the support releases at a temperature of more than 20 oC [...] 80 to 90% of the hydrocyanic acid in 2 hours» (p. 58). Although he does not say it explicitly, it most likely corresponds to the only quantitative content present in this letter. Rudolf arbitrarily decided that this corresponded to 85% of HCN cleared in 2 hours and built his curve from there, using, as we assumed, an exponential law, but without saying it. Our positioning on the grid of Rudolf’s curve corresponds to a position between 85% and 86% at 120 minutes, literally in the line thickness. In fine, this explains both the position and the shape of the curve.

Even if it is a reasonable hypothesis, Rudolf completely ignores it and, inevitably, does not justify it. Above all, it provides no data justifying the position (85% or the value of k) of its curve. It remains that it is scientifically unacceptable not to inform the reader that he uses a precise equation to construct his curve. Also remember that we know nothing about the product of the Detia Freyberg, that it is a modern compound, and not the original Zyklon B. Rudolf nowhere justifies the validity of the comparison (it would be necessary to demonstrate the strict identity between the modern compound and Zyklon B; such a demonstration is absent).


Even if it is a reasonable hypothesis, Rudolf completely ignores it and, inevitably, does not justify it. Above all, it provides no data justifying the position (85% or the value of k) of its curve. It remains that it is scientifically unacceptable not to inform the reader that he uses a precise equation to construct his curve. Also remember that we know nothing about the product of the Detia Freyberg, that it is a modern compound, and not the original Zyklon B. Rudolf nowhere justifies the validity of the comparison (it would be necessary to demonstrate the strict identity between the modern compound and Zyklon B; such a demonstration is absent). All this is the most shameless dishonesty and has only a distant connection with the scientific rigor of which Rudolf claims. The hysterical enthusiasm that Rudolf had triggered in the negationist circles is simply risible. As we were saying, his choice of 85% rather than 80% or 90% is arbitrary and only reflects his lack of data. However, we will see that these uncertainties are not without consequences.

In the following, to study the evaporation law provided by Rudolf, we will use (like Rudolf!) the theoretical curve corresponding to 85% at 120 minutes, or, finally, a coefficient (multiple equation)


Graphically, this gives the following:

The correspondence is excellent to less than 2%.

To compare the different values successively put forward by Rudolf (whose goal is always to corroborate his figure of 10% in 10 minutes) we will each time draw the corresponding curve, obeying an exponential law, because it is reasonable and it is the very postulate (even if well passed over in silence) of Germar Rudolf. Let us recall here the general formula that will be used to make these comparisons and detect Rudolf’s frauds and inconsistencies:

(Equation)

And let us note that the inverse equation which allows to calculate the duration T allowing to obtain a given clearance
(equation)

Finally, let us recall the method allowing to calculate the coefficient k when we have the total percentage data
Pn of HCN cleared in a minute n(Factor):
(Equation)
One of the quirks of the curve proposed by Rudolf is to cover 4 hours, which, in the context of gassing human beings, has absolutely no interest. Only the first minutes interest us. Also, we will limit ourselves in the next diagrams to the first hour and a half, which will allow us to be more precise. The curves proposed by Germar Rudolf over several hours are indeed ultimately unusable by the ordinary reader. It is only a staging of science and not true science.

The next part is
II. First falsifications and incompetence of Germar Rudolf

HansHill wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2025 10:03 pm I remember coming across this paper before, likely in my Twitter days. I asked the person who was circulating it at the time, who I had assumed was the author, whether this paper would be made available in English for my own convenience. This was not available at the time, so i used a machine learning translation tool for my review.

I will admit that I could not really understand any of the points being made, and at the time I had given the benefit of the doubt to the paper / author, and decided my machine learning translation was incompetent.

I'm glad to see this paper re-emerge. I see Wetzelrad is encountering some of the same confusions I had come across too.

Monsieur Sceptique 1) welcome, 2) I note you personally are not in a position to translate this paper which is understandable, however if you are familiar with the author, and to remove any possibility that the paper is being obfuscated by poor translations, will it be possible to get a competent translation of this paper as commissioned by him?

Monsieur Sceptique wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 12:37 pm Sorry to ask you that you was the guys who debated with, and i will translate it but it's will be a little bit long and i can't continue today to translate it