New Revisionist
Voices

Kenneth Stern's Critique of The Leuchter Report:
A Critical Analysis

By D.D. Desjardins, March 23, 1997

When The Leuchter Report was first published in April 1988, there was immediate and enthusiastic welcome by the revisionists, while nary a word from the holocaustians. Indeed, it was some two years before the publishing of their first rebuttals. These consisted primarily of ad hominem arguments, such as lack of proper credentials, incoherence, or inferring that because samples taken from the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz-Birkenau were purloined, Leuchter's honesty in submitting the actual samples was also doubtful.[1] Understandably, a problem with critiquing the Leuchter Report was the necessarily technical nature of the discussion. No longer was it sufficient to rely on subjective eyewitness testimony or cite circumstantial evidence in terms of concentration camps, protocols or bills of lading. Comprehension and discussion now depended on persons with scientific or engineering backgrounds who could understand chemical analysis, retort rates and the functionality of structural design.

An early counter-analysis which claimed to attack the Leuchter Report on the basis of scientific and historical data was "Truth Prevails: Demolishing Holocaust Denial - The End of The Leuchter Report," by Shelly Shapiro.[2] As opposed to Fred A. Leuchter, a Massachusetts engineer who specialized in the design and fabrication of execution hardware for American prisons and the first to undertake a thorough forensic study of alleged Nazi gassing facilities (including those at the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp), Shapiro relied heavily on the work of Jean-Claude Pressac, a French pharmacist who had published earlier works in support of gassing claims.[3] Remarkably, however, neither Shelly Shapiro, who attempted to attack Leuchter's scientific methods, nor Jean-Claude Pressac, who claimed to be a scientist, efforted to conduct their own forensic analysis.

That no anti-revisionist had conducted on-site, scientific research of alleged homicidal gas chambers was still true in 1993 when Kenneth Stern, a specialist on anti-Semitism and extremism for the American Jewish Committee, published Holocaust Denial.[4] Taking his lead from the above cited work by Shelly Shapiro, Stern's principal points in attempting to discredit the Leuchter Report are:

1. Leuchter's brick and mortar samples were taken "illegally";

2. The samples were taken "... from ruins that had been exposed to the elements since 1945" (claimed to be "... hardly scientific practice since cyanide is soluble in water");

3. "... the rubble he collected may or may not have been residue from the gas chambers," citing, for instance, and parenthetically, "... the SS blew up Crematorium II in January, 1945."[5]

Let us consider these criticisms in the order presented. First, it is true Fred Leuchter did not ask permission to remove the samples. Even if such a request would have been granted, this infraction has no bearing on the authenticity of the samples nor the validity of their analysis. Viewed from a purely scientific standpoint, this criticism is without merit.

As to the fact Fred Leuchter took his samples from ruins exposed to the elements since 1945, this criticism, while certainly more germain, does not apply to at least ten of the 32 samples, and furthermore misses its mark through misidentification of the substance in question. To whit, Mr. Stern speaks of "cyanide" being soluble in water. True, hydrogen cyanide (HCN) is miscible in all proportions with water.[6] Sodium cyanide (NaCN), on the other hand, is 58.3% soluble in water, by weight, at 20 degrees Centigrade (68 degrees Fahrenheit).[7] Yet the substance in question, the cyanide residue found in the brick and mortar samples Fred Leuchter collected, is neither hydrogen cyanide nor sodium cyanide, but the more complex ferric ferrocyanide (Fe₄[Fe(CN)₆]₃), otherwise known as "Iron Berlinate" or "Prussian Blue." And this substance, according to The Merck Index, is "... practically insoluble in water."[8] Accordingly, this compound is used as a pigment in printing inks, paints, carbon papers, typewriter ribbons, rubbers, plastics and artists' colors. It is also quite stable, not only to water, but air, ultraviolet radiation and the elevated temperatures of summer.[9] Furthermore, if we look at Leuchter's samples, numbered 25 through 31, extracted from Crematorium I, Stern's initial argument does not apply. These samples, taken from a facility which was not destroyed and has remained intact since the end of the war, were not exposed to the elements. The same might be said for samples 4, 5 and 6 taken from Crematorium II. Leuchter removed these samples from a pillar, wall and ceiling which, though accessible, were nevertheless well protected against wind, rain and sun. The foregoing ten samples then, nearly a third of Leuchter's total, must be excluded from Stern's argument a priori.

Regarding the concern "the rubble" Fred Leuchter collected "may or may not have been residue from the gas chambers," one can readily ascertain what manner of samples Fred Leuchter extracted from which archaeologic locations by reviewing the on-site, real-time video of the collection process.[10] On May 30, 1996, this author retraced Fred Leuchter's steps and visually identified the exact locations from which samples 25-31 were extracted relative to Crematorium I. With a reprint of Mr. Leuchter's map showing reference measurements for each extraction, I was able to visually confirm sample removal by identifying corresponding blemish marks.

Of course, one may choose to be skeptical as to whether the collected samples were actually the basis for the certified results concluded by Alpha Analytical Laboratories[11], but in the absence of a rationale for such skepticism, one may reasonably depend on these results as a starting point. This, in fact, is exactly what Mr. Stern does in referring to Jean-Claude Pressac, as we shall soon see. Mr. Stern's parenthetical remark about Crematorium II having been blown up (also true for Crematoria III-V), seems intent to imply that the residual structure is so completely obliterated as to make it impossible to identify and therefore extract samples from the alleged gassing chamber walls, pillars, floor and ceiling. Yet Mr. Stern is demonstrably wrong in this implication, not only in regard to Crematorium II, but I and III as well, and at least partially mistaken in regard to Kremas IV and V. In the first instance, the Germans did not attempt to destroy Crematorium I at Auschwitz main camp, and, as mentioned earlier, it remains standing today. As to Crematoria II and III, although most of the above-ground structure was destroyed and is now removed, the alleged gas chambers, situated below-ground, still retain their associated walls, floors, pillars and ceilings. And while the respective ceilings are indeed collapsed, it is for this very reason there is no mistaking what part of the original facility they are associated with. I might add that the Auschwitz State Museum assists its visitors in regard to identifying each room with an on-site floor-plan. One presumably knows, for example, which rooms were used for gassing and which were used as morgues, coke rooms, et cetera. Floor-plans are also provided with regard to Crematoria IV and V, but here a caveat applies. For although the floors still exist and cannot be mistaken, there is the possibility that what exists of the remaining walls is a reconstruance rather than part of the original structure.[12]

Before proceeding to a discussion of Jean-Claude Pressac, an oversight regarding Fred Leuchter's sample-gathering must be conceded with respect to Kenneth Stern's and the Beate Klarsfeld Foundation's skepticism: it appears that only sample 20 relative to Crematorium IV, and sample 24 relative to Crematorium V, were actually removed from locations currently designated as "gas chambers," while the various other samples from these two sites were removed from Sonderkommando quarters[13], undressing rooms, and, in the case of Krema IV, the chimney room. This can readily be seen by comparing the documented removal locations as cited in The Leuchter Report with the current Auschwitz State Museum on-site schematics. Yet this is anything but a triumph for the Holocaust establishment. The anomaly instead allows for an extraordinary insight. For it turns out that sample numbers 20 and 24 reveal levels of cyanide residue either less than or nearly equivalent to what was found, on average, across all the samples taken throughout each of the two facilities. For example, there were nine cyanide analyses carried out on the eight samples extracted from Crematorium IV. If we allow each non-detection (ND) to indeed be 0.99 mg/kg (ND being anything below 1.0 mg/kg) and sum across the nine samples analyzed, we obtain (0.99 + 0.99 + 2.3 + 1.4 + 0.99 + 0.99 + 0.99 + 0.99 + 1.4 =) 11.04 mg/kg, which, when divided by the number of samples, gives 1.23 mg/kg average cyanide residue per sample. It so happens Fred Leuchter's sample #20, the one from what is still claimed to be a "gas chamber," was partitioned and analyzed twice, giving two results, the average of which being 1.195 mg/kg, slightly less than the average taken across the facility as a whole. But at these trace levels the difference is so negligible as to suggest a rather dramatic conclusion: the entire facility, including not only the alleged gas chamber but undressing room, chimney room and Sonderkommando quarters, were exposed to essentially the same gassing levels! So far as concerns Crematorium IV then, the results of quantitative analysis tend to support the rationale for the presence of cyanide residue offered by both Fred Leuchter and Robert Faurisson to begin with, i.e., the premises, as a whole, were subjected to fumigation one or several times during their operational existence.

If we now look at Crematorium V, the situation is even more ironic (from the homicidal point of view) in that the overall sample average is 2.02 mg/kg, whereas sample #24, the only one extracted from a location currently identified as a "gas chamber," (as of 31 May 1996) is a worst case of 0.99 mg/kg (it was, in fact, "ND"). Sample numbers 21 and 22, from what the on-site floor plan reveals to be the Sonderkommando quarters were, by contrast, 4.4 and 1.7 mg/kg, respectively! Recall that all else is equal here: sample age and exposure to the elements. Either the Holocaust establishment's current understanding of the identity of these rooms is incorrect, or something other than homicidal purposes for cyanide presence must be considered.[14]

To respond to these facts, Stern depends on French pharmacist Jean-Claude Pressac, who serves as the Holocaust establishment's chief representative in the physical sciences. Pressac's proposition, according to Stern, is that the lack of blue stain (Prussian blue) relative to the alleged homicidal gas chambers "proves" rather than refutes the existence of the gas chambers. How so? According to Pressac:

A hydrocyanic gas concentration of 0.3 g/m³ - a lethal dose - is immediately fatal to man[15], while killing lice requires a concentration of 5 g/m³ for a period of at least two hours... The dose used at Birkenau was lethal 40-70 times over (12-20 g/m³), which infallibly killed a thousand persons in less than five minutes.

... The HCN was in physical contact with the gas chamber walls for no more than ten minutes per day at a temperature of about 30 degrees Celsius. In the delousing chambers, a minimum concentration of 5 g/m3 was used over the course of several daily cycles... This cyanide saturation for 12 to 18 hours a day was strengthened by the heat of the stoves in the room emitted, providing a temperature of 30 degrees Celsius. The walls were impregnated with hot HCN for at least 12 hours a day, which would induce the formation of a stain: Prussian Blue, or potassioferric ferrocyanide...[16]

The appearance of blue walls in the delousing chambers now allows us to distinguish them visually from the homicidal chambers, where the phenomenon did not occur, in an empirical but absolutely certain manner. Without heat induction of long continuance, the cyanide doses, as high as they were, were not in contact with the walls of the homicidal installations long enough to provoke the reaction to an appreciable--that is to say visible--degree.

Despite the fact this akwardly translated description may at first appear both logical and compelling, I shall attempt to show several key faults in Pressac's rationale.

Fault one: No sources cited.

One might begin by questioning what sources Pressac used to establish his estimation of homicidal HCN concentrations, for indeed, no sources are cited. This is key fault number one. By contrast, Dr. Franciszek Piper, Chief Curator for Auschwitz State Museum, bases the official museum position on the testimony of former Auschwitz Commandant Rudolf Höß, who described the dosage at four to six kilograms Zyklon (i.e., 4-6 kg HCN) per every 1,400 victims.[17] Using this figure, we can construct the following table:

Note that we are here accepting the extraordinary but persistent claim that one square meter of floor space could accommodate 10 persons. At first glance then, Pressac has immoderately assessed larger gas concentrations than those given by Piper or Höß. Yet, let us now take into account the fact our alleged victims, by their very presence, effectively occupied a part of the original chamber volume. In order to account for this contribution, or rather, diminution, let us assess an average height of 1.5 meters (4.92 feet), recalling the fact we are presumably dealing with a significant population of women and children.[18] We will also suppose the population density of 10 persons per square meter effectively occupies its allotted volume. By this assumption, we see that the overall volume of each chamber is reduced by half, while the gas concentration is consequently doubled. Rather than the concentration range given by the foregoing table, we now arrive at the following gas concentrations:

Krema		Theoretical HCN Gas Concentration (g/m3)

I,IV,V						19.0-28.6
II,III						23.8-35.7

In actuality then, Jean-Claude Pressac has somewhat under-estimated the intensity of hypothetical HCN exposure relative to the alleged homicidal gas chambers. What is more, the situation becomes even worse if one considers that the number of grams Zyklon per victim population is derived by mathematical proportion, applying the ratio of 4-6 kilograms per 1,400 persons, whereas in truth, the Zyklon came in canisters of specific quantity, e.g., 100, 200, 500, 1,000 and 1,500 grams,[19] and one might, without fear of contradiction, presume the Germans always poured the full contents of a can, rounding upwards in so doing. In regard to Crematorium I, for example, the applicable quantities of Zyklon would not be 2229 to 3343 grams relative to 780 persons, but something more on the order of 2300 to 3400 grams, given whole-can quantities. I now present, therefore, a revised table of HCN gas concentrations based on a consideration of whole-can quantities:

Lastly, we must also realize that some quantity of HCN is consumed by each hypothetical victim due to inhalation. In his book Auschwitz: Technique and operation of the gas chambers (p. 16), Pressac dismisses this factor as "negligible" relative to the total quantity of gas, but we shall account for it regardless. To calculate the reduction in gas concentration relative to inhalation we again appeal to Sax's Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials to determine the lowest lethal concentration of HCN in air over time known to kill humans, this quantity being 200 mg per cubic meter over 10 minutes. To calculate the amount of consumed HCN per victim, we must also appeal to Black's Medical Dictionary to learn that (1) normal, rhythmic respirations occur at the rate of approximately 18 per minute, and (2) the tidal air of quiet breathing involves the flow of roughly 500 milliliters per inhalation. It is to be realized that a person under conditions of fear and excitation would neither breathe rhythmically nor calmly, yet for purposes of rough estimation let us assume this equilibrium. Doing so, and performing the simple arithmetic, we have:

(10 min.)(200 mg/m³)(18 breaths/min.)(0.5 liters/breath)(m³/103 liters) = 0.018 g/victim.

So, we now adjust our HCN concentration table once again, downward this time, by subtracting out the total amount of consumed HCN [20] according to the hypothetical maximum number of victims for the given crematorium. The results are seen in the following table:

In sum, we conclude that the homicidal gas concentrations are theoretically greater than what Pressac set forth, primarily because he did not commence with usage figures founded on any firm basis, and further, did not take into account any of the foregoing considerations. Yet this is not the primary case against him. The true "rub" lies elsewhere.

As to Pressac's statement that "... the dose used at Birkenau... infallibly killed a thousand persons in less than five minutes," I would agree. In fact, given that it requires approximately 0.018 grams HCN to kill an average human (averaged across man, woman, child), the smallest concentration cited in the foregoing table would theoretically do the job in under seven seconds (approximately two tidal breaths)! Yet, let us recall this situation obtains once the cyanide has reached the specified atmospheric concentration, which may take a variable number of minutes from the time Zyklon B pellets are first introduced into the chamber.[21]

Fault two: Gassing duration.

I do not agree, however, with Pressac's assumption that "... the HCN was in physical contact with the gas chamber walls for no more than ten minutes a day..." In the first place, Pressac again offers no explanation to support how he arrived at this figure: key fault number two. By contrast, a survey of existing testimonies regarding the operation of the homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau typically cites three to ten minutes for death, but 20-30 minutes overall gas duration from the moment of introduction till the beginning of the aeration process. In cases where there were ventilators, and these apparently existed in Crematoria I, II and III, we can conceive a non-linear reduction in gas concentration during de-aeration, a period of roughly three to four minutes (accepting 8,000 cubic meters per hour)[22], but for purposes of simplicity - again, to favor Monsieur Pressac's thesis - we shall discount the presence of gas altogether during this de-aeration period. Given the prevalence and consistency of references, however, and particularly on the authority of museum curator Franciszek Piper, we shall accept a relatively stable period of 20 minutes per application.

Nevertheless, I think we can again do Jean-Claude Pressac, and his impresario, Kenneth Stern, a favor here. For Pressac speaks of HCN being in "physical contact with the gas chamber walls for no more than ten minutes a day...," while I propose the gas chambers were not used every day, and instead claim we can approach the actual usage in a different and hopefully more reasonable manner. In the absence of official knowledge as to how many deaths are attributable to a given gassing facility, and without benefit of monthly transport data, one must devise secondary means of assessing approximate throughputs for Kremas I - V and Bunkers I and II. We shall begin by accepting Dr. Piper's figure of 985,671 deaths at Auschwitz due to gassing (1,095,190 deaths total, of which 90% gassing victims) and Pressac's estimate of 10,000 gassing victims for Krema I. We shall also subtract 850 victims relative to Block 13.[23] This leaves 974,821 victims respective to Bunkers I & II and Kremas II - V. At this juncture, a major assumption must be made as to how to apportion the number of theoretical victims according to the number of operational facilities. For this purpose, I have chosen to assign chamber throughputs according to their respective time-in-use.[24] Accordingly, I now present the following periods of operation for the crematoria of Auschwitz-Birkenau:[25]

Because we have already accounted for the number of hypothetical gassing victims relative to Block 13 and Krema I, it is necessary to normalize victims per month relative only to total victims and total months for Bunkers I and II, and Kremas II - V. On this basis, a given chamber's average throughput is 974,821/100.5 = 9,700 victims/month. This number may now be used to predict the total number of victims for each chamber:

	
Bunker I:  14 months x 9,700 victims/month = 135,800 victims;
Bunker II: 14 months x 9,700 victims/month = 135,800 victims;
Krema II:  19 months x 9,700 victims/month = 184,300 victims;
Krema III: 16 months x 9,700 victims/month = 155,200 victims;
Krema IV:  18.5 mo.  x 9,700 victims/month = 179,450 victims;
Krema V:   19 months x 9,700 victims/month = 184,300 victims.

In actuality, we are interested in only those facilities for which there are comparable archeologic remains and shall hereinafter exclude Bunkers I & II. The following table now computes the minimum HCN exposure time for Kremas II - V, assuming each iteration entailed use at maximum capacity (the number of iterations is rounded upwards, however, which allows the final iteration to account for a less-than-maximum capacity remainder):

Given the number of days per month, Pressac's estimated time exposure of 10 minutes per day would give:

One readily observes, when comparing Jean-Claude Pressac's HCN exposure times with the ones I have derived, that mine are more conservative. Certainly, the Holocaustians, Pressac and Stern, have no reason to complain so far, as I have only made their case stronger than what they had advanced on their own. But now, the "rub." Kenneth Stern reiterates Jean-Claude Pressac's criticism of Fred Leuchter's "poor scientific procedures," but what is one to think when he asserts that the lack of blue stain "... proves, rather than refutes, the existence of the gas chambers"? This, too, is not very scientific. In fact, the absurdity is readily made apparent by pointing out that, according to Stern's sterling premise, every building at Auschwitz-Birkenau, other than those with blue stains, is "proven" to be a gas chamber! Patently, Stern's and Pressac's argument suffers from "non-causa, pro-causa," or the fallacy of attributing causes which are insufficiently or falsely premised. Pressac's argument is valid only to the extent he perceives a relation between temperature, gas concentration and HCN exposure time relative to producing various levels of cyanide residue in delousing or "homicidal" gas chambers, yet there is a crucial part of the equation he does not know, and has not established, and that is this: what duration of HCN exposure to the specific surfaces of the delousing and "homicidal" gas chambers, at a given temperature and concentration, causes a given level of ferric ferrocyanide residue? What is the rate of reaction between HCN gas and the particular mortar of the "homicidal"/delousing chamber walls? In the absence of possessing this critical knowledge, it is fallacious to base conclusions solely on the visibility of blue stain or even spectrographically determined levels of cyanide residue. It is quite possible, for instance, that even the more modest concentration-exposure times I have calculated would have produced much larger residues than what was found by Fred Leuchter. We will not know, of course, until such work has been undertaken and completed.

But we do know, thanks to Leuchter's sample numbers 13-19 taken from Crematorium IV, and sample numbers 21-23 from Crematorium V, that Zyklon B was used in areas of the building complex other than what is now designated as the execution gas chambers. Kenneth Stern was chagrined over Robert Faurisson's "annoyance" relative to the trace amounts of cyanide found in Leuchter's analysis, claiming he drew upon "one of the most often-used lies in explanation." To use Faurisson's own words:

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.[27]

And while it may have been an unfortunate choice of words on the part of Faurisson or his translator to use the word "disinfection" (in Holocaust Denial, Stern spends half of page 74 taking him to task for it), the thrust of the opinion, because of Leuchter's fortuitous sample gathering, has greater plausibility of truth than falsehood. For the uncanny fact is that the cyanide levels within and without the alleged execution gas chamber rooms are of the same order of magnitude, while indeed, certain samples from without, in both cases, measure slightly higher.[28]

Because this situation prevails for Crematoria IV and V, we might plausibly presume (although not conclude) it does as well for Crematoria I - III. But the point is this: what is the meaning of gas residue in undressing rooms and Sonderkommando quarters relative to Crematoria IV and V? If not from periodic delousing, then what is the explanation? In contradistinction to Faurisson, it is now up to Stern and Pressac to offer their hypothesis.

The foregoing text covers what I believe to be the most salient criticisms leveled by Kenneth Stern et al. relative to the work of Fred Leuchter. Certainly, it is important to the reader to know what these criticisms are. But it is further necessary the reader understand the mechanisms of analysis and physical truths which lead to more plausible conclusions on this score. One now has, for the first time I believe, a more thorough interpretation of Fred Leuchter's original findings, coupled with a more precise set of premises for concluding the reality or irreality of homicidal gassings at Auschwitz-Birkenau. Unfortunately, I do not believe we are there yet, but the way has been pointed and it is only a matter of time and additional effort before the issue of homicidal use of Zyklon B at Auschwitz-Birkenau can be laid to rest once and for all.