Continued from 2nd Leuchter Report, Part B
Introduction
In March of 1989, I was asked by Mr. Ernst Zündel of Toronto, Canada,
to investigate three (3) alleged execution gas chambers and crematoria
in Germany and Austria. These locations, allegedly operated by the Germans
in World War II, were Dachau, in Germany, and Mauthausen and Hartheim Castle,
both near Linz, Austria.
The findings of these investigations and forensic analyses at Dachau, Mauthausen
and Hartheim were to result in an engineering report and forensic study
on the efficacy of these afore-mentioned facilities to function as execution
gas chambers. Although these facilities seem now accepted by many established
historians to have never functioned as execution gas chambers, Mr. Zündel
wanted to dispel any future doubts and scientifically prove beyond any
question whether these facilities were or were not used, and if they could
ever have been utilized, as gas execution facilities. Resultant to Mr.
Zündel's direction, I undertook this scientific investigation and
evaluation. On Sunday, April 9th, 1989, I arrived at Dachau with the following
team: Carolyn Leuchter as secretary/technician; Dr. Robert Faurisson, advisor
and consultant; Mark Weber, historian and author of contemporary European
history; Tijuda Rudolf, interpreter; Steven Devine, technician; Eugen Ernst,
cinematographer; and Kenneth Ernst, assistant cinematographer. The following
day, Monday, April 10th, we inspected Mauthausen and Hartheim Castle, near
Linz, Austria. This report and my findings are resultant to these investigations
conducted at Dachau, Mauthausen and Hartheim.
Purpose
The purpose of this report, and the investigations antecedent to it, is
to determine whether the alleged gas chambers at three (3) specific locations,
one (1) in Germany and two (2) in Austria, specifically, Dachau, Mauthausen
and Hartheim Castle, respectively, could have operated in any manner resulting
in single or multiple gas executions. Although cognizant of the fact that
many established historians presently seem to concur that none of these
installations ever functioned as a gas execution facility, the author is
also aware that immediately after American capture of these locations during
World War II a mass gas execution function was ascribed to these facilities,
an assertion which was widely published in the international mass media
at the time. It is to eliminate any further doubt or question that this
investigation was undertaken and this report written.
This purpose includes the investigation and on-site inspection of physical
facilities, design of these facilities and a description of the alleged
gassing procedures utilized at the alleged executions. The purpose also
includes estimates of the maximum number of inclusions (persons) who could
possibly have fit into these alleged gas chambers and estimated venting
times. This purpose does not include a determination of any numbers of
persons who died or were killed by means other than gassing, or as to whether
an actual "Holocaust" occurred. It, further, is not the intent
of this author to redefine "Holocaust" in historical terms, but
simply to supply scientific evidence and information obtained at the actual
sites and to render an opinion based on all available scientific, engineering
and quantitative data as to the purpose and usages of the alleged execution
gas chambers and crematory facilities at the investigated locations.
Background
The principal investigator and author of this report is an engineer and
a specialist on design and fabrication of execution hardware and specifically
has worked on and designed hardware in the United States used in the execution
of condemned persons and by means of hydrogen cyanide gas ("Zyklon
B" gas).
The investigator has inspected the alleged execution gas chambers in Poland
and is the author of the report on these facilities: An Engineering Report
on the Alleged Execution Gas Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek,
Poland (1988, Samisdat Publishers Ltd.). The author has been recognized
by a Canadian court as an expert on gas chamber technology, and has testified
as to the non-existence of execution gas chamber facilities at these sites.
The investigator has inspected the facilities at Dachau, in Germany, and
Mauthausen and Hartheim Castle, in Austria, made measurements and taken
forensic samples. Further, he purchased official printed brochures published
and offered publically for sale at the three (3) museum sites and reviewed
this literature. He also reviewed the procedural literature on delousing
with hydrogen cyanide ("Zyklon B") gas. Scope
The scope of this report includes a physical inspection and quantitative
data obtained at Dachau, Mauthausen and Hartheim, literature obtained at
the three (3) museum sites, and a consideration of forensic samples taken
at Mauthausen. For reasons explained below, no samples were removed from
Dachau or Hartheim. Further, data on the design of U.S. gas chambers and
the operational protocol utilized in gas executions in the United States
coming from the investigator's own personal knowledge and experience in
the field, as well as, knowledge gained in the investigation of the alleged
Polish gas chambers was utilized in the production of this report. Additionally,
operational procedures and equipment utilized at delousing facilities was
considered. Utilizing all of the above data, the investigator has limited
the focus of this study to a determination of the capability of the alleged
gas chambers in question at Dachau, Mauthausen and Hartheim Castle to accomplish
the mass murder (extermination) of human beings by the use of "Zyklon
B" (hydrogen cyanide) gas.
Synopsis and Findings
After a study of available literature, examination and evaluation of the
existing facilities at Dachau, Mauthausen and Hartheim Castle, with expert
knowledge of the essential design criteria for gas chamber operation and
the expert knowledge gained in the production of the previous study on
the alleged gas chambers in Poland, the author finds no evidence that any
of the these installations, i.e., Dachau, Mauthausen or Hartheim Castle,
frequently alleged to have been gas execution facilities, were ever utilized
as such, and further finds, that because of the design and fabrication
of these installations, they could not ever have been utilized as execution
gas chambers.
Methodology
The procedures involved in the study and forensic analysis which resulted
in this report were as follows:
1. A general background study of available material.
2. An on-site inspection and forensic examination of the facilities in question which included the taking of physical data (measurements and construction information), and a considered removal of physical samples (tile and mortar) which were returned to the United States for chemical analysis.
3. A consideration of recorded and visual (on-site) logistic data.
4. Data acquired on the previous study of the alleged gas chambers in Auschwitz I, Birkenau and Majdanek, Poland.
5. A compilation of the acquired data.
6. An analysis of the acquired information and comparison of this information with recognized and proven design, procedural and logistic information and the requirements for the design, fabrication and operation of actual gas chambers currently in use in the United States.
7. A consideration of the chemical analysis of the materials acquired on-site.
8. Conclusions based on the acquired evidence.
The Leuchter Report
The Leuchter Report, which formed the basis of the author's expert testimony
at the trial of Ernst Zündel, Toronto, Ontario given on April 20,
1988, is a study of the existing alleged gassing facilities in Auschwitz,
Birkenau and Majdanek, Poland. This report contains the definitive data
for gas chamber application purposes for hydrogen cyanide, "Zyklon
B", fumigation design and procedures, execution gas chamber design
and protocol, U.S. gas chambers, medical and toxic effects of hydrogen
cyanide, a brief history of the alleged German gas chambers with an emphasis
on design characteristics, and a consideration of crematory technology,
including a discussion of maximum cremation rates. Additionally, there
is a discussion of forensic considerations of cyano-compounds and crematories.
The materials contained in the above paragraphs of the Leuchter Report
(1988) are a necessary complement to this report.
The Sites: Dachau, Mauthausen and Hartheim Castle
These sites are considered separately and together, in that Dachau and
Mauthausen have been at times described as camps which supplied prisoners
to the Hartheim Castle site where they were allegedly executed.
-Dachau-
The alleged execution facility at Dachau is located in a building called
"Baracke X". This installation was erected in 1942 and contained
a crematory consisting of four (4) retorts. It was constructed primarily
as a replacement for the older and smaller two (2) retort crematory located
nearby. The facility also housed a morgue, fumigation cubicles (delousing
chambers), related work areas and a room identified by a sign over the
door as a "Brausebad" (shower room). It is this shower room which
has been alleged to be the gas chamber and which tourists today are informed
was the "gas chamber".
The alleged gas chamber has an area of some 427 square feet and a volume
of some 3,246.7 cubic feet. It originally was a shower room but appears
to have been modified sometime after Dachau's capture by the Americans.
The present ceiling is some 7.6 feet in height and contains some seventeen
(17) pseudo-shower heads, fabricated out of what appears to be soldered
sheet zinc. Additionally, it contains some eight (8) recessed lighting
fixtures which are not explosion proof. It also contains two (2) alleged
gas inlet ports (dumps) with internal grates measuring 15.75 inches x 27.25
inches which are welded open to the outside. This alleged gas chamber also
contains a ventilation port clearly added after construction. The walls
are of tile and the ceiling of concrete painted white. There are two (2)
20.5 inch x 26 inch floor drains connected to the other floor drains throughout
the building and the camp. It has two (2) doors with provision for gasketing,
as do many European doors.
It appears from construction that the alleged gas chamber was originally
a shower room, as found in all the other investigated camps. The pseudo-shower
heads are fabricated from sheet metal of a cylinder and a cone with a sprinkler
type head as found on a garden type watering can. The end is sealed and
not threaded. They are not connected, nor are they capable of being connected
to any piping system. They are designed to appear as functional shower
heads when observed from below. The ceiling with the phoney shower heads
seems to have been added at a time later than original construction, apparently
after capture of the camp. The ceiling is fabricated of poured concrete,
cast around the pseudo shower heads. It is typical suspended-slab concrete
construction. Document No. 47 of the 79th Congress, 1st Session, of the
United States, includes an investigation of Dachau. In this document, the
gas chamber is described as having a 10 foot ceiling containing brass fixtures
for introducing gas into the chamber. The present ceiling, as noted, is
only 7.6 feet high and has none of the gas inlet fixtures described in
Document No. 47.
Directly over the shower room are the steam and heating pipes, which is
consistent with good and standard design for supplying hot water to the
shower area. These pipes cannot be seen in the shower room today. Their
existence, however, can be confirmed by observing the pipes entering into
the shower room area from an off-limits corridor behind the shower room
and visible only from a rear window of the building. It is an inept and
extremely dangerous design to put hot, high pressure steam pipes over a
chamber containing potentially explosive gas. At one end of the chamber
the ventilation port was clearly added. The ports alleged to have been
"Zyklon B" introduction ports, not different from apartment incinerator
garbage shutes, were obviously added after the original tiling. Both these
modifications are clearly discernable from the uneven replacement of the
interior tiles and the exterior brick.At one end of the room there are
two (2) recessed electrical boxes with grates, something which should not
be in a room containing potentially explosive gas. There is no means for
sealing the room to prevent gas leakage and there is no system for exhausting
the gas after use or any suitable vent stack (40 foot minimum is standard).
The doors are not gas proof, or even water proof. They are only water resistant.
There is no system for evaporating (heating) or distributing a gas into
or within the chamber. The use of the improperly designed "Zyklon
B" introduction port would prevent proper evaporation of the gas from
the "Zyklon B" pellets because of insufficient surface area exposure.
Most, if not all, of the "Zyklon B" pellets would remain in the
dumping mechanism due to insufficient angular motion of the gas pellet
dump.
On a sign posted within the alleged gas chamber, Dachau Museum officials
state: "GAS CHAMBER - disguised as a 'shower room' - never used as
a gas chamber". An examination of the alleged gas chamber clearly
shows, however, that this facility was constructed as a shower room, used
only for this purpose. The modifications to the room which include the
addition of the ceiling, pseudo shower heads, air intake and gas inlet
ports were made at a time much later than the original construction of
"Baracke X" and the shower room, and for reasons and by persons
unknown to this author. No samples were taken at this location due to excessively
heavy tourist traffic inside the alleged gas chamber.
For the record, this alleged gas chamber would have held only forty-seven
(47) persons utilizing the nine (9) square foot inclusion rule as accepted
by standard engineering practice for air handling systems. Without an exhaust
system or windows, it would require at least one week to vent by convection.
This estimate is based on American gas chambers requiring twenty (20) minutes
to vent with two complete air changes per minute, and a minimum of forty-eight
(48) hours to vent a fumigated building with an abundance of windows.
An inspection of the four (4) new crematory retorts at "Baracke X"
revealed that, although fired, none of these ever experienced much use,
if any. These retorts were coal fired.
After an indepth investigation of the alleged gas chamber at "Baracke
X", Dachau, this investigator, in his best engineering opinion, categorically
states that this installation could not have ever been utilized as an execution
gas chamber. It was in fact a shower room (Brausebad) as originally labelled
by the Germans.
-Mauthausen-
The alleged gas chamber at Mauthausen Concentration Camp was located between
the hospital, the crematory and the jail. Like Dachau, it is generally
considered by some established historians and the Revisionists to have
never been utilized for executions.
The alleged gas chamber has an area of some 150 square feet and a volume
of 1,164 cubic feet. It has a ceiling height of some 7.8 feet containing
piping and working shower heads. It has a floor drain of some eight (8)
inches by eight (8) inches and steam pipes on the north-west wall for heating.
The walls are finished in ceramic tile. It has two doors and provision
for gasketing as do many European doors. It has an alleged gas vent in
the ceiling of the north wall but the purpose of this alleged gas vent
cannot be verified since the ground above has been repaved. Additionally,
an adjacent room is alleged to have been a control room for inletting gas
(apparently not solid "Zyklon B" but actual hydrogen cyanide
gas). There is no hardware in place for this function nor is there any
evidence of its removal. The museum officials are very confused and incoherent
about the operating function and offered a succession of varying explanations
on how the gas was introduced into the chamber. It has been stated by museum
officials that the gas was introduced: (1) through overhead shower heads;
(2) through a shaft in a remote corner of the room; and (3) through a perforated
pipe, which does not exist today. The lighting is not explosion proof but
merely water resistant. There is nothing to indicate the alleged control
room ever existed. The facility is entirely underground, as is the morgue,
the hospital and the jail. The facility also housed the area for the condemned
prisoners where they were executed by shooting.
It appears from the construction that this facility was constructed as,
and further was utilized only as, a shower room. The installation has no
provision to prevent gas leakage, the lighting is not explosion proof,
the floor drain would allow leakage into the sewer system and there is
no provision for inletting gas or for exhausting the air gas mixture after
an execution. Further, there are steam heating pipes (radiator) on the
northwest wall of the chamber, which would most likely result in an explosion
if hydrogen cyanide gas were deposited in the room. Additionally, all shower
heads are working and the overall design is unquestionably that of a shower
room.
-Forensic Considerations at Mauthausen-
Four (4) forensic samples were selectively removed from the alleged
gas chamber at Mauthausen and returned to the United States for chemical
testing. Detailed analysis was completed on each sample for both iron and
cyanide in accordance with the standard procedures utilized in the prior
testing of samples from Auschwitz I and Birkenau. Resultant to this testing
and comparison with known test results for insoluable iron cyanide compounds,
it is demonstrated that this alleged gas chamber facility has never been
exposed to repetitive concentrations of cyanide necessary for execution:
referencing the delousing chamber control sample #32 (from Birkenau) as
having 1050 mg/kg, the greatest concentration found at Mauthausen was 32
mg/kg, indicating fumigation of the building at some point in its history.
This clearly indicates that this facility was not a gas chamber.
Resultant to an indepth investigation of this installation, this investigator
has determined that this facility was not capable of conducting executions
by gas. In the best engineering opinion of this investigator this facility
could never have supported gas executions and was never utilized as a gas
execution chamber.
Adjacent to this facility is the morgue area, which contains a refrigeration
unit for cooling the cadavers. This morgue also contains a dissection room
and a crematory, all adjacent and connected to the hospital. The existing
crematory contains a furnace with one (1) retort. In an adjacent room,
there are indications of another crematory furnace of one (1) retort which
has been removed. This existing retort shows signs of considerable use,
which is expected in a camp of this size with only two (2) retorts. Both
units were coal fired.
For the record the alleged gas chamber would have held only seventeen (17)
persons, utilizing the nine (9) square foot rule. Without an exhaust system,
this investigator estimates that it would require at least a week to vent
for the same reasons as explained for Dachau. -Hartheim Castle-
This facility consists of a masonry room adjacent to a tower of a centuries
old castle. This castle was donated by the monarchy to the mental health
service of Austria and was later placed under the control of the German
Government when it acquired control of the Austrian Government and the
mental health service. The facility had been utilized as a mental hospital
and under German control it continued as such. Allegedly, mass gas executions
were conducted at this location on prisoners transferred from Dachau and
Mauthausen for this purpose.
The alleged gas chamber was a lower level room adjacient to one of the
castle towers. This room has an area of 192 square feet and a volume of
1,728 cubic feet. It has a vaulted ceiling of some 8.9 feet at the highest
point. The installation had one (1) door and one (1) window, although a
rectangular aperture has now been made into an adjacent room. There are
no facilities to inlet "Zyklon B" or evacuate the gas after use.
The room now has been completely remodeled. It has recently plastered walls
and ceiling. There are three (3) new floor surfaces, one on top of the
other. Even the door has been changed to a modern conventional mental institution
cell door with a shuttered view port . The window is alleged to have been
original, but would leak gas if used for this purpose. Neither the door
nor the window has any provision for gasketing. Allegedly, all gassing
apparatus was removed by January, 1945. In truth, there was no gassing
equipment in that the walls are very thick as characteristic of castle
architecture and construction and not easily cut to accommodate the installation
of gas vents or gas inlet ports. It and the adjacent room contain memorial
plaques to those who allegedly died in gassings here. The castle is presently
used as an apartment building.
It appears by construction that this facility would not lend itself for
use as a gas execution installation, the walls being too thick for the
installation of gassing equipment. Certainly, because of the construction,
any changes would be visible, and not easy to conceal. There is no provision
for a gas stack for evacuation of the gas-air mixture and no way to install
one. The window would certainly leak, allowing large volumes of deadly
gas to escape. No samples were taken at this location because of the extensive
remodelling to the facility which decidedly would obscure any test results.
For the record, the alleged gas chamber would have held only some 24 persons,
utilizing the nine (9) square foot rule. Without an exhaust system this
room would require at least one week to vent (refer to Dachau).
Resultant to an indepth investigation of this installation, this investigator
categorically states that in his best engineering opinion this facility
was not ever utilized for, and could never have supported gas executions.
The actual use of this room is unknown to the investigator. Based on a
comparison with its mirror image on the other side of the facility, it
could have been a store room.
There are no crematoria extant at this location.
It is perplexing to note that the official museum literature states that
Dachau and Mauthausen, both having facilities equal to, or better than
those at Hartheim Castle, sent inmates to Hartheim for gassing. It is unclear
why this should occur since Hartheim's alleged facility would have been
so difficult to construct, was so small and so distant from Dachau (200km).
Based on all the available evidence it becomes abundantly clear that no
gassing facilities ever existed at any of these locations.
Specialized Hardware: Non-existence
In all the author's investigations in Poland, Germany and Austria, hardware
or construction remarkable to gas chambers has never been found. There
are no forty (40) foot stacks, no ventilators, no gas generators, no intake
air preheaters, no special paint or sealants on walls, floors or ceilings,
no safety devices for the operators, and no coherent design consistently
utilized throughout the alleged gas chambers. It is inconceivable that
the Germans, having the highly developed technology utilized on the delousing
chambers, would never have applied this technology to the alleged execution
gas chambers.
Conclusion
After reviewing all the material and inspecting all of the sites at Dachau,
Mauthausen and Hartheim Castle, this investigator has determined that there
were no gas execution chambers at any of these locations. It is the best
engineering opinion of this investigator that the alleged gas chambers
at the above inspected sites could not have then been, or now be, utilized
or seriously considered to function as execution gas chambers.
Prepared this 15th day of June, 1989 at Malden, Massachusetts.
Fred A. Leuchter Associates, Inc.
Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.
* * *
This report is taken from the Zundelsite
|
|