Denying the Holocaust

by Deborah E. Lipstadt

  As citations from Leuchter’s report were read, the judge’s impatience intensified. He characterzed Leuchter’s methodology as “ridiculous” and “preposterous.”46 Ruling that “this report is not going to be filed,” the judge dismissed many of his conclusions as based on “second-hand information.” He refused to allow Leuchter to testify about the impact of Zyklon-B on humans because he was neither a toxicologist nor a chemist and had never worked with the gas.47 Again and again the judge kept coming back to Leuchter’s capabilities and credibility:

  THE COURT: His opinion on this report is that there were never any gassings or there was never any exterminations carried on in this facility. As far as I am concerned, from what I’ve heard, he is not capable of giving that opinion. . . . He is not in a position to say, as he said so sweepingly in this report, what could not have been carried on in these facilities.48

  On the question of the functioning of the crematoria, despite the defense attorney’s opposition, the judge’s decision was unequivocal. He could not testify on this topic for a simple reason.

  THE COURT: He hasn’t any expertise.49

  The judge might have been even more irritated had he known that Leuchter misrepresented the extent of his familiarity with the operation of hydrogen cyanide. He told the court that he had discussed matters relating to the gas with the largest U.S. manufacturer of sodium cyanide and hydrogen cyanide, Du Pont, and that such consultation was “an on-going thing.” Leuchter was again being less than accurate. He may have obtained Du Pont’s published guidelines about the care needed in using hydrogen cyanide or any other of the myriad of substances the company manufactured. But Du Pont, denying Leuchter’s claims of ongoing consultations, stated that it had “never provided any information on cyanides to persons representing themselves as Holocaust deniers, including Fred Leuchter. Specifically, Du Pont has never provided any information regarding the use of cyanide at Auschwitz, Birkenau, or Majdanek.”50

  But it was not only Leuchter’s scientific expertise, or lack thereof, which was questioned by the court. The judge also expressed serious doubts about Leuchter’s historical knowledge, which, as it emerged at the trial, was limited and often flawed. Leuchter was unaware of a host of documents pertaining to the installation and construction of the gas chambers and crematoria. He did not know of a report filed in June 1943 by the Waffen-SS commandant of construction at Auschwitz on the completion of the crematoria. The report indicated that the five crematoria had a total twenty-four-hour capacity of 4,756 bodies.51 Leuchter had stated that the crematoria had a total capacity of 156 bodies in the same period of time.52 Even if the SS’s calculation was overly “optimistic,” the difference between it and Leuchter’s was staggering. He also had to admit that he did not know that there existed correspondence and documentation regarding powerful ventilators installed in the gas chambers to extract the gas that remained after the killings. After hearing these and other admissions by Leuchter, Judge Thomas expressed his dismay that Leuchter had reached his conclusions despite the fact that he had only a “nodding acquaintance” with the history of the gas chambers. To suggest that he had any more than that, the judge declared, would be an insult.53

  Leuchter told the court that his findings regarding Auschwitz were based on the supposition that the physical plant at the camps was the same today as it had been throughout the war.54 He did not seem to know or take into account the fact that certain areas at Auschwitz had been rebuilt after the war. At Majdanek, Leuchter reached his conclusions knowing that he was looking at something that had been completely reconstructed. Hearing this, the judge dismissed the credibility of Leuchter’s analysis of the Majdanek facility.

  THE COURT: We have no plans; we have a reconstruction. This witness is in no better position than I will be to give evidence on this point. He went to Majdanek; he has seen something and it is really just speculation. This is creating a tourist attraction. I’m not going to have evidence in this court about tourist attractions.55

  Leuchter claimed that his scientific conclusions were based, in great measure, on the residue left by Zyklon-B. In addition to being used by the Nazis to murder people, the gas was used to delouse clothing and combat insects and rodents.56 The samples Leuchter took from the delousing chambers contained a far higher residue of hydrogen cyanide than those from the homicidal gas chambers. The bricks of the delousing chambers generally showed far more of the blue coloration often left by hydrocyanic acid than did those in the homicidal gas chambers. Leuchter argued that this lower-level residue and stain were conclusive proof that the structures presented to visitors as homicidal facilities could not have been used for that purpose.

  But both Faurisson and Leuchter either ignored or did not know a number of critically important facts. Lice, which were destroyed in the delousing chambers, have a far higher resistance to hydrogen cyanide than do humans. It takes a more concentrated exposure to cyanide gas over a longer period of time to kill lice than to kill humans, hence the more intense blue stain. When the Crown Counsel asked Leuchter about this, he declined to answer because it was an area about which he was not qualified to testify.57 Yet he used the delousing chamber as a “control” for his findings.

  Furthermore, the amount of hydrogen cyanide used in the homicidal gas chambers was lethal to humans forty to seventy times over. Because of the intensity of the gas, only a limited amount of it was inhaled by the victims. The remainder was quickly extracted from the chamber by the powerful ventilation system. Consequently the gas was in contact with the walls of the gas chamber for a very brief time each day it was in operation.

  In the delousing chambers the situation was quite different. According to both technical manuals and the accounts of former prisoners, the cyanide gas was in contact with the walls for between twelve to eighteen hours a day. One would, therefore, logically expect a higher residue of cyanide in the delousing chambers, and the blue stain that indicated presence of the cyanide was more likely to be found on the bricks of a delousing chamber than those of a homicidal gas chamber.

  Both Leuchter and Faurisson argued that “it would be insanity” to operate a gas chamber in close proximity to crematoriums because of the danger of explosion. But records show that the amount of gas used by the SS was well below the threshold of explosion.58 The Crown Counsel also pointed out that the manufacturer’s manual stated that three times as much of the substance was required to kill rats than to kill humans, and twenty times as much to kill beetles as to kill rats.59 The Crown argued that if it had been safe to use these much larger amounts for beetles without the threat of explosion then it would certainly have been safe to use the far smaller amount for humans.60

  There was also a basic contradiction inherent in Faurisson and Leuchter’s argument that the crude construction of the gas chambers proved that they could not have served as homidicial units without causing serious harm to the SS personnel operating them. The delousing chambers were constructed in the same fashion as the homicidal gas chambers. Irrespective of whether people or clothing would be contained therein, if one facility posed a threat of leakage the other would as well. Theoretically the delousing chamber would have been even more dangerous because it needed a higher concentration of hydrogen cyanide for a longer period of time.

  In a certain gas chamber no cyanide traces were found.61 Leuchter cited this as proof that this facility was never used as a gas chamber. But this particular gas chamber had been dynamited in January 1945. Its ruins were inundated with thirty centimeters of water in the summer and up to one meter of water in spring. The exposure to the elements lessened the presence of hydrogen cyanide.62 Moreover, documents in the archives indicate that tests done on the grilles of the crematorium by Polish authorities shortly after the war showed residue of hydro-cyanide compounds. Three of these grilles are in the Auschwitz museum. Had Leuchter asked museum officials, with whom he claimed to have consulted, they might have shown him the test results.63

  This was not the only time th
at Leuchter was tripped up by history. In one crematorium some samples were negative and some were positive. Logically all should have been either positive or negative. (In fact, they should probably have been negative, since this gas chamber had hardly been used.) Had he asked the authorities in the Auschwitz museum, they could have told him that this crematorium, which had been destroyed in the wake of the abortive inmate uprising of October 1944, had been rebuilt with both original bricks as well as bricks from other buildings. Consequently, Leuchter’s test was conducted on some bricks that did not even come from that particular crematorium. Nor did Leuchter seem to consider that the building had been exposed to the elements for more than forty years so that cyanide gas residue could have been obliterated.64 He also took samples from a floor that had been washed regularly by the museum staff.65

  In a move apparently calculated to enhance the drama of Leuchter’s escapade, a cameraman had videotaped the collection of samples. On the tape Leuchter stressed that he had used protective gloves in order to collect his samples. Since the tests he was conducting were chemical and not bacteriological the gloves served relatively little purpose other than a theatrical one. He and his associates also wore protective masks. But the masks were dust masks, which do not prevent chemical contamination (a closed-respirator system would be needed for that). Moreover, Leuchter and his associate were not consistent. The videotape of this sample-collecting enterprise reveals that sometimes they had the masks on and sometimes they did not. This haphazard approach suggests that the masks were primarily for show, not protective purposes.66

  By the end of his testimony in the Toronto courtroom on April 20 and 21, 1988,4* Leuchter had been exposed as having virtually no educational training as an engineer, and his historical knowledge had been shown to be even more limited. His historical knowledge was based on two hundred pages of Raul Hilberg’s book, The Destruction of the European Jews; articles by deniers; conversations with Faurisson, Irving, Zundel, and Christie; and documents Leuchter claimed, but the director of the Auschwitz museum categorically denied, had been given to him at the site by museum authorities. Judge Thomas ruled that Leuchter could testify before the jury about what he saw on his trip and compare it “within his area of expertise” to what he “normally worked with.”67 Although it did not emerge until after the trial, what Leuchter “normally worked with” was not only far more limited than what the court assumed but likewise the subject of significant controversy.

  On July 20, 1990, Alabama Assistant Attorney General Ed Carnes sent a memo to all capital-punishment states questioning Leuchter’s credentials and credibility. Carnes stated not only that Leuchter’s views on the gas-chamber process were “unorthodox” but that he was running a death-row shakedown scheme. If a state refused to use his services, Leuchter would testify at the last minute on behalf of the inmate, claiming that the state’s death chamber might malfunction.68 According to Carnes, Leuchter made “money on both sides of the fence.”69 Describing Leuchter’s behavior in Virginia, Florida, and Alabama, Carnes observed that in less than thirty days Leuchter had testified in three states that their electric-chair execution technology was too old and unreliable to be used. In Florida and Virginia the federal courts had rejected Leuchter’s testimony because it was unreliable. In Florida the court had found that Leuchter had “misquoted the statements” contained in an important affidavit and had “inaccurately surmised” a crucial premise of his conclusion.70 In Virginia, Leuchter provided a death-row inmate’s attorney with an affidavit claiming that the electric chair would fail. The Virginia court decided that the credibility of Leuchter’s affidavit was limited because Leuchter was “the refused contractor who bid to replace the electrodes in the Virginia chair.”71

  After the dissemination of Leuchter’s report, yet another blow was delivered to his reputation as America’s leading expert on gas execution chambers. Despite his claims to the contrary, it appears that he had no actual experience with their building or installation. His claims to have advised states on this execution methodology were denied by officials from the very states with which he said he had worked. According to Leuchter’s testimony at the Zundel trial, the Department of Correction in North Carolina, a state that permits gas chamber executions, consulted with him regarding the functioning of its gas chamber. In the Leuchter Report he reiterated his claim to have been a consultant to North Carolina.72 Gary Dixon, the warden of the Central Prison in Raleigh, North Carolina, where the gas chamber is located, contradicted Leuchter’s claims. According to Dixon the former warden “vaguely recalled” that he had received a telephone call from Leuchter trying to sell the prison a lethal injection machine. Dixon denied Leuchter’s contention that he had consulted with North Carolina prison officials on gas-chamber matters: “Our records do not support that Mr. Leuchter performed either consultation or any service during the installation of our execution chamber.”73

  There were, in fact, six states in the United States at the time of the publication of Leuchter’s report that permitted executions by gas chambers: Arizona, California, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Missouri used to permit executions by gas, but recently switched to lethal injection. Representatives of each of these states provided crucial information on Leuchter’s connections with them. Despite Leuchter’s claim to the contrary, according to these officials, he had not advised them on executions. A spokesman for Mississippi, Ken Jones, stated that while Leuchter had visited Mississippi’s execution facility and commented on it, the visit had been initiated at Leuchter’s request. Moreover, the state had not entered into “any financial agreement” with him. According to Shelly Z. Shapiro, the head of a Holocaust education center in Albany, New York, who coordinated an investigation into Leuchter’s background, he has not worked for either Arizona or Maryland. Maryland used Eaton Ironworks to check its chamber prior to an execution. State officials reported that Leuchter had “never worked or consulted” with the Maryland Penitentiary.74 An official of the Arizona Corrections Office also stated that they had “never used” Fred Leuchter’s services.75 In fact, the official observed, Arizona does not even maintain its gas chamber in working order, and any maintenance done in the past was performed by the state’s service personnel.

  Leuchter may have misrepresented his technical expertise in areas other than gas chambers. At the Zundel trial he claimed to have consulted with Warden Daniel B. Vasquez of California’s San Quentin prison about a heart-monitoring system that would replace the oldertype mechanical stethoscope then being used. Subsequently Vasquez denied that San Quentin had ever contracted with Leuchter for either the “installation of a heart monitoring system or for any other work.”76

  The credibility of Leuchter’s report was founded on his expertise in building gas chambers. Missouri was the only state Leuchter actually advised on gas execution chambers. The closest his company had apparently come to building one was a proposed blueprint it prepared for refurbishing the state penitentiary. He submitted a plan that was never used because the state switched to lethal injection for executions.76

  But it was not only his educational record, historical knowledge, business integrity, and professional experience that were subjects of controversy. According to an affidavit by Dr. Edward A. Brunner, chair of the Department of Anesthesia at Northwestern University Medical School, Leuchter’s lethal injection system caused excruciating pain but rendered victims incapable of screaming to communicate their distress.78 Based on Brunner’s findings, some death penalty opponents argue that Leuchter’s lethal-injection system constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Others, particularly those who support capital punishment, dismiss this point as moot because pain and suffering are part of capital punishment. Ironically, Leuchter is not one of the latter. He believes that no execution system should be a cause of pain and says he slept well at night because his work resulted in fewer people being “tortured.”79

  In 1989 Leuchter formed an engineering firm and incorporated in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. The firm’s purpose was to “engage in the practice of engineering” and consult in all areas of engineering.80 The company provided electrocution hardware, charging $35,000 for an electrocution system, $30,000 for a lethal injection system, and $85,000 for a gallows. (The gallows is disproportionately expensive because it is infrequently requested.) Gas chambers were listed at $200,000. For states without an existing execution facility, Leuchter designed a self-contained “execution trailer” that cost $100,000 and came complete with a lethal-injection machine, a steel holding cell for the inmate, and areas for the witnesses, medical personnel, and prison officials.81

  In April 1990 Shelly Shapiro, director of a Holocaust education center—Holocaust Survivors and Friends in Pursuit of Justice—and Beate Klarsfeld filed a letter of complaint with the Massachusetts Board of Registration of Engineers in Boston about Leuchter’s erroneous claim to be an engineer and his use of this designation to “mislead the public” about gas chambers.82 The commonwealth investigated and found sufficient grounds to charge him with “illegally” practicing or “offer[ing]” to practice engineering.83 In June 1991, two weeks before he was to go on trial for practicing without a licence, Leuchter signed a consent agreement with the commonwealth admitting that he was “not and never had been” a professional engineer and had fraudulently presented himself to Massachusetts, New Jersey, Alabama, and other states as an engineer with the ability to consult on matters concerning “execution technology.” In addition he acknowledged that although he was not an engineer and had never taken an engineering licensing test, he had produced reports, including the “ ‘Alleged Execution Gas Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau, and Majdanek,’ containing my engineering opinions.” He agreed to “cease and desist” presenting himself as an engineer and issuing any reports, including the one on Auschwitz, in which he provided engineering opinions.84