Before the publication of the Leuchter Report, discussion relating to the reliability of eyewitness testimony of National Socialist mass murder was confined to groups describing themselves as 'revisionists', usually termed 'Neo-Nazis' or 'right-wing extremists' by the media. But in fact, the labels used by the media were wide off the mark, as can be seen in the case of four of the most well-known revisionists: Paul Rassinier, French Socialist and former member of the French Resistance, who was an inmate of the concentration camps Buchenwald and Dora-Mittelbau;[30] German Jew, Josef Ginsburg, who suffered from anti-Jewish measures taken during WWII by other countries as well as Germany.[31] The two most notable revisionists, Professors Arthur R. Butz, USA,[32] and retired Prof. Robert Faurisson, of France, can certainly not be accused of being political extremists, and nobody ever seriously tried to do this.[33]

The discussion on the technical problems of the National Socialist mass-murder of the Jews was begun in the late 1970s by Robert Faurisson, then Professor of French, Greek and Latin, and an analyst of documents, texts, and witness statements at the University of Lyon II. He began to question the standard historical version of the Holocaust after he had made numerous critical studies concerning witness testimony and on documents that supposedly supported the claims of mass-murder. In 1978 for the first time, he advanced the argument that "there had not been one single gas chamber under Adolf Hitler".[34] Later he supported this claim with physical, chemical, topographic, architectural, documentary, and historical arguments. He described the existence of the homicidal gas chambers as "radically impossible".[35] At the end of 1979, the largest French daily newspaper, Le Monde, decided to publish Professor Faurisson's provocative thesis, so he was given the opportunity to summarize it in an article.[36] The establishment historians reaction was characteristic[37] and is best illustrated by a passage from a declaration signed by Pierre Vidal Naquet and 33 other researchers:[38]

Such a dogmatic explanation is equivalent to a capitulation, which was well understood. Hence, they reconsidered their standpoint and went back to the drawing board.

Over the years that followed, establishment historians took up the questions raised by Robert Faurisson and others, at least to some extent, although they doggedly refused to permit him, or any one else who even remotely voiced similar thoughts, to participate in any academic activities. In the early 1980s, two large Holocaust conferences were held in the cities of Paris[39] and Stuttgart.[40] One of the more important reasons for these conferences certainly were the works of Faurisson, Butz, and others.[41]

In 1983, as a counter-measure against the ongoing successes of revisionists, a compilation was published, principally the work of French and German establishment historians.[42] While this book ridiculed and insulted revisionists and cast political aspersions against them, and at the same time was intended to refute their claims, it does neither address any particular revisionist argument, nor are any revisionist publications quoted or authors named, so that it is impossible to the reader of this book to verify the polemic accusations made against the revisionists. This book also repeats the mistake often emphasized by revisionists: quotations from 'eye-witness' testimony and passages from documents were taken out of context and pasted uncritically into a predetermined historical schema.

The publication of the Leuchter Report at the end of the 1980s gave a significant boost to revisionism. From that time onward, there has been an unending stream of publications.[43] The number of persons involved in 'revisionism' increases steadily; although in France and in German-speaking countries, this development has been curtailed by the enactment of laws threatening heavy penalties.[44]

A fact-oriented discussion of the technical arguments brought into the public by the Leuchter Report was started in France by an attempt at refutation by the pharmacist Jean-Claude Pressac in the periodical Jour Juif.[45] His work could hardly qualify as an expert discussion in view of the absence of any references to his sources and any exact scientific argumentation. Though he did point out several deficiencies in the Leuchter Report, he made several errors himself in chemical and engineering questions due to his lack of expertise.[46]

The first response from Germany came from the Institut für Zeitgeschichte (IfZ, Institute for Contemporary History).[47] It was based on Pressac's work and was hardly useful due to the lack of technical expertise in the same.[48]

A little later, a contribution on the Leuchter Report appeared in an anthology on the Third Reich, authored by retired social worker Werner Wegner, who had no qualifications in chemistry or civil engineering either.[49] Instead of seeking the advice of qualified people on these matters, he drew his own conclusions-to his own massive embarrassment.[50] One may question why Dr. Rainer Zitelmann, the responsible editor of this anthology, included this ridiculous piece in his otherwise well-researched compilation.[51]

At the end of 1991, chemist Dr. J. Bailer critiqued the Leuchter Report in a little booklet published in Austria.[52] This work is notable for largely ignoring the witness testimony on the procedures supposedly used during the gassings at Auschwitz and for the author's lack of understanding of the process by which hydrogen cyanide reacts with masonry. Despite criticism directed at his study,[53] Bailer repeated his unsustainable objections in a later publication, without responding to his critics.[54]

At approximately the same time as Bailer's first publication, G. Wellers also published a study of the Leuchter Report. Wellers' position was superficial, and is characterized by lack of technical and scientific knowledge.[55]

Finally, the Auschwitz State Museum itself ordered an expert report to be compiled. The Institute for Forensic Research, Toxicology Division, of Cracow, Poland, named after Prof. Dr. Jan Sehn, prepared this report under Prof. Dr. J. Markiewicz on September 24, 1990, which confined itself to the analysis of masonry samples.[56] The report concluded that the reason why Leuchter's samples from the homicidal gas chambers were mostly negative with respect to traces of cyanide was because the cyanide compounds had been exposed for more than 40 years to weathering, which these compounds allegedly could not have withstood. Three of these authors from the Jan Sehn Institute later published additional findings,[57] which were, however, based on a verifiably incorrect analytical method-as was the first series of analyses-so that their results were flawed.[58] Correspondence with the authors failed to elucidate the reasons for the deliberate use of an incorrect method.[59]

In 1997 in France, distribution of the French edition of the present report produced two notable reactions, only one of which addressed factual arguments,[60] but which nevertheless failed to discuss the technical problems in a scientific manner.[61] The Chemical Department of the French Academy of Sciences chose not to make a comment publicly on factual arguments, but rather to resort to polemic phraseology and personal attacks.[62]

In 1998, in the United States, in answer to the present report, a paper appeared on the Internet, consisting partly of discussion of technical issues and partly of political name-calling.[63] In related correspondence,[64] however, the author of the paper avoided any discussion of the central issues.[65]

In 1999, cultural historian Prof. Robert Jan van Pelt produced an expert report on Auschwitz for the defense in the libel case of British Historian David Irving against American writer Deborah Lipstadt.[66] This report represents a retreat to the argumentative situation before Jean-Claude Pressac's first book, published in 1989,[67] ignoring almost all arguments brought forward by revisionists since that year.[68] In 2002, however, Prof. van Pelt published a summary of the evidence presented at said trial and his interpretation of it.[69] This book is the first in English to intensively discuss various revisionist arguments, for which he mainly relies on the works of J.-C. Pressac.[70] It is a pity, though, that the cultural historian van Pelt tries to address many chemical, toxicological, engineering and architectural questions for which he simply lacks both expertise and experience.

Most of the above-mentioned attempted refutations of the Leuchter Report, and subsequent discussion with other revisionists, are marred by personal insinuations about the motivations of persons making use of revisionist arguments, or by polemical excursions, neither of which contribute to the scientific discussion.

The question of whether or not systematic mass-killings of Jews in homicidal gas chambers specifically constructed for the purpose of accomplishing their extermination took place under the National Socialist regime is apparently viewed as a political issue. Whether or not a moral appraisal of the National Socialist regime depends on the existence or non-existence of gas chambers is disputable. A political evaluation of the Third Reich is not significantly dependent upon this moral evaluation. Since the present discussion contains neither a moral, nor political, evaluation of a long-dead regime, I shall make no moral or political statements. Personally, I am inclined to judge a politician, or political system, on the basis of what he, or it, was able to leave behind for their respective population-everything else follows. That must suffice at this point.

To everyone who has ever suspected that revisionists are motivated by a desire to whitewash National Socialism, or restore the acceptability of right-wing political systems, or assist in a breakthrough of Nationalism, I would like to say the following:

While researching, our highest goal must at all times be to discover how historical events actually occurred-as the 19^th century German historian Leopold Ranke maintained. Historians should not place research in the service of making criminal accusations against, for example, Genghis Khan and the Mongol hordes, nor to whitewash any of their wrong-doings. Anybody insisting that research be barred from exonerating Genghis Khan of criminal accusations would be the object of ridicule and would be subject to the suspicion that he was, in fact, acting out of political motives. If this were not so, why would anyone insist that our historical view of Genghis Khan forever be defined solely by Khan's victims and enemies?

The same reasoning applies to Hitler and the Third Reich. Both revisionists and their adversaries are entitled to their political views. The accusation that revisionists are only interested in exonerating National Socialism and that such an effort is reprehensible or even criminal, is a boomerang: This accusation implies that it is deemed unacceptable to partially exonerate National Socialism historically, and by so doing, always also morally. But by declaring any hypothetical exoneration based on possible facts as unacceptable, one admits openly not to be interested in the quest for the truth, but in incriminating National Socialism historically and morally under any circumstances and at all costs. And the motivation behind this can only be political. Hence, those accusing revisionists of misusing their research for political ends have themselves been proven guilty of exactly this offense. It is therefore not necessarily the revisionists who are guided by political motives-though quite a few of them certainly are-but with absolute certainty all those who accuse others of attempting to somehow historically exonerate a political system which has long since disappeared.

As a consequence, our research must never be concerned with the possible 'moral' spin-off effects of our findings in relation to politicians or regimes of the past, but solely with the facts. Anyone who argues the opposite does not understand scientific research and should not presume to condemn others on the basis of authentic research.

Next Chapter
Previous Chapter
Back to Table of Contents