Home       Contact     Charlestown Prison       Writings   Interviews    Articles     Controversy

Homage to Fred Leuchter, the Alleged Impostor and True Engineer

By Andrea Carancini
Published: 2018-01-28

This document is part of a periodical (Inconvenient History).
Use this menu to find more documents that are part of this periodical.
Abstract

This year, 2018, marks the 30th anniversary of the Leuchter Report, the expert report compiled by Fred A. Leuchter on the rooms at the Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek Camps commonly referred to as “gas chambers.” In this contribution, I will not deal with the merits of Leuchter’s Report, on which rivers of ink have been poured out. In this regard, I limit myself to pointing all
interested parties to the critical edition of Leuchter’s reports edited by Germar Rudolf. What I propose, instead, is to examine Leuchter’s professional qualifications, about which many falsehoods have been promoted in an attempt to denigrate and discredit the aforementioned Report.

The Genesis of the Leuchter Report

It all started with the trials staged in the 1980s against Canadian revisionist of German origin Ernst Zündel. In 1981, Zündel – who died a few months ago, in August 2017 – had republished Richard Harwood’s revisionist brochure: Did Six Million Really Die?. During a first trial,
in 1985, Zündel was sentenced to fifteen months in prison. The verdict was overturned in 1987. A new trial began in January 1988. Zündel instructed his lawyer’s assistant Barbara Kulaszka to contact the chief wardens of several U.S. prisons in an attempt to convince them to come to court and to explain to the jury the operation of a homicidal gas chamber. Bill Armontrout, head warden of the Jefferson City (Missouri) penitentiary agreed to come and testify that no one in the United States knew more about how gas chambers worked than the Boston technician Fred
Leuchter. Subsequently, the French professor Dr. Robert Faurisson, who at the time was Zündel’s defense advisor, went to visit Leuchter.

Leuchter agreed to come to Toronto to examine the documentation on the Nazi “gas chambers” collected by Zündel and Faurisson. Then, as Faurisson writes:[1]

“After that, at Zündel's expense, he [Leuchter] left for Poland
with a secretary (his wife), a draftsman, a video-cameraman and an
interpreter. He came back and drew up a 192-page report (including
appendices). He also brought back 32 samples taken, on the one hand,
from the crematories of Auschwitz and Birkenau at the site of the
homicidal ‘gassings’ and, on the other hand, in a disinfection gas
chamber at Birkenau. His conclusion was simple: there had never been any
homicidal gassings at Auschwitz, Birkenau, or Majdanek.

On April 20 and 21, 1988, Fred Leuchter appeared on the witness stand in
the Toronto courtroom. He told the story of his investigation and
presented his conclusions.”
Fred Leuchter According to Wikipedia

Some falsehoods on behalf of Fred Leuchter can be found in the
homonymous entry at Wikipedia. Before examining them, however, it is
pertinent to make a caveat. The Wikipedia text contains expressions such
as “practicing engineering” and “professional engineer.” It must be kept
in mind that in most other languages, the term engineer refers
exclusively to individuals who have an academic degree in engineering,
whereas in the English language it has a far broader meaning. In
addition to academic engineers, the term can also refer to any kind of
technician.[2]

Let’s now see what Wikipedia writes in the paragraph “Education and
career” (all emphases are mine):

“Leuchter received a Bachelor of Arts degree in history from Boston
University in 1964. He holds patents for a geodetic instrument and an
electronic sextant. In 1991 Leuchter faced charges of practicing
engineering without a license issued by the Board of Registration of
Professional Engineers and of Land Surveyors, which regulates
professional engineers, a violation of Massachusetts law. As a result of
those charges, Leuchter signed a consent decree with the board, in which
he stated that he was not and had never been registered as a
professional engineer, despite having represented himself as one. He
settled with prosecutors by serving two years of probation and agreeing
to stop disseminating documents in which he presented himself as an
engineer, including the Leuchter Report. In a speech given over a year
later, Leuchter claimed that:

a spurious criminal complaint was filed against me in the
Massachusetts court system with the intent of destroying my reputation
by putting me in prison for three months.

In point of fact, a license is not required in Massachusetts, or
any other state, unless the engineer is involved in construction of
buildings, and is certifying compliance with specifications. […]

As confirmation of the spurious nature of this charge, it should be
pointed out there are more than fifty thousand practicing engineers in
Massachusetts, of whom only five thousand are licensed. Although the
state’s licensing law has been in effect since 1940, there has been no
record of any prosecution for this offense.”

On all this, I contacted – via Facebook – the same Leuchter, and here’s
what he answered:[3]

“I was illegally charged with practicing as a licensed engineer.
You needn’t be licensed to be an engineer. I never represented myself as
licensed. There was a consent agreement between myself, the DA [District
Attorney] and the Board of Engineers. Since I never represented myself
as licensed, that did and does not apply. The Agreement prevented the DA
and the Jewish organization from persecuting me. I agreed never to say I
was licensed for a two year period unless I became licensed. The
Licensing Board was required to accept my application for licensing and
to issue said license based on my background, if I applied. I did not
wish to be licensed then or now (state interference).”

So much from Leuchter. For my part, I observe that the document signed
at the time by Leuchter was a consent decree, a settlement agreement
that does not include an admission of guilt on the part of the person
concerned. Therefore, it seems unlikely that he was given “probation,”
which instead presupposes guilt (and a conviction).
Francesco Rotondi’s Slanders

In November 2005, Francesco Rotondi, cardiologist at the San Giuseppe
Moscati Hospital in Avellino, published a book titled Honeymoon at
Auschwitz: Reflections on Holocaust Denial.[4] It is a full-fledged
anti-revisionist libel, filled not only with falsehoods, but also with
pure slander against revisionists. At the time, Carlo Mattogno responded
to this book for his part. Mattogno’s answer, however exhaustive it may
be, concerned almost exclusively the objections brought against his own
work. It did not take into consideration the poisonous ad hominem
attacks made by Rotondi against Zündel and Leuchter.[5] I try to respond
to these, despite the time that has passed, first of all because
Rotondi’s book was favorably received by Italy’s academia (before being
published by an Italian science publisher, it had been presented as a
thesis) and also because I think it is always useful to show the bias of
revisionism’s detractors.

The two sections of Rotondi’s book that interest us here are as follows:

“The Leuchter Report or the Honeymoon at Auschwitz by a So-called
Engineer” (“Il Rapporto Leuchter ovvero la luna di miele ad Auschwitz di
un sedicente ingegnere,” pp. 67-70) and
“Leuchter’s credibility” (“La credibilità di Leuchter,” pp. 70-73).

Rotondi begins as follows (all emphases are mine):

“It is the well-known French revisionist, the scholar Robert
Faurisson, who comes up with the idea of scientifically demonstrating
the inexistence of the gas chambers, a subject he had been working on
for some time. He chooses as an ‘expert’ the American Fred A. Leuchter,
who called himself a chief engineer, although he never graduated in
engineering, and who presented himself as a ‘specialist in the design
and manufacture’ of gas chambers intended for the implementation of
capital punishment in the USA. In February 1988, thanks to a large sum
paid by neo-Nazi Ernst Zündel, he was sent to Poland. His fresh bride
Carolyn, an industrial designer who incredibly speaks of it as her
honeymoon, an interpreter and a cameraman, a friend of Zündel, also
participate in the expedition.”

In a footnote, Rotondi defines the agreement between Leuchter and the
Board of Engineers as “judicial plea bargain.”

In the second section under review here, Rotondi’s claim that Leuchter
boasted to have a degree in engineering is the first slander in that
section. From the text of the agreement it is clear that the dispute did
not concern a graduate degree but Leuchter’s failure to register with
the Board of Engineers. If Leuchter had indeed boasted of such a degree,
there would have been no agreement, and he would have gone straight to
prison. From this point of view, it is also tendentious to have defined
the aforementioned “Consent Decree” as a “judicial plea bargaining,”
which instead presupposes both an admission of guilt and a subsequent
conviction.

From the choice of sources on which Rotondi based his study, I conclude
that he knows the English language. But then, he should know that the
English term “engineer” corresponds only partially to what Europeans
mean when using that term. That the English term “engineer” can also
refer to a “specialized technician” is stated in all dictionaries.
Hence, Rotondi has no excuse whatsoever. As to the fact that Leuchter
has defined the expedition to Poland as his honeymoon, we need to
clarify: Rotondi’s source for this is evidently Errol Morris’s movie Mr.
Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter Jr., a documentary that has
Leuchter as its protagonist. Well, Rotondi omits to report the full
sentence stated by Leuchter (starting at 31:04):

“We were married for less than a month when we went. Although she
doesn’t like to hear it, I normally tell her: that was her honeymoon.
That’s not a particular good place to go for a honeymoon – Poland.”

When it comes to putting a revisionist in a bad light, they evidently
latch on to everything. Rotondi then continues by targeting the person
who had commissioned the Leuchter Report (all emphases mine):

“Ernst Zündel is a folkloric and boisterous German neo-Nazi
fugitive in Canada, who was being prosecuted at the time for spreading
Harwood’s negationist booklet Did six million really die?, a big man who
likes to perform in public dressed up in various carnival attires and
who protests, surrounded by equally ridiculous bodyguards, by parading
with a cross on his shoulders or even by wearing a Jewish camp uniform,
with the telephone number on a hard hat.”

To complete his denigration of Zündel, Rotondi adds in a footnote that
“Zündel is, among other things, the author of two curious volumes:
UFO’s: Nazi Secret Weapons, and The Hitler We Loved and Why, whose
titles alone are indicative.”

First of all, Zündel did not “flee” to Canada but emigrated there (from
Germany). Rotondi could have easily found this fact even on Wikipedia’s
entry dedicated to Ernst Zündel. In fact, it seems unlikely that he did
not consult that entry, but as Francesco Bacone used to say: “slander,
slander, something will remain.” To fathom the pettiness of Rotondi’s
polemics, however, we need to say a few words about Zündel’s life. Ernst
Zündel was a talented (and successful) graphic designer who could have
comfortably enjoyed the fruits of his profession (even financially), but
because of his intellectual generosity, he ended up being persecuted and
prosecuted for a good part of his life. In 1984, Sabina Citron, a Jewess
who is the founder and spokesman of the Canadian Holocaust Remembrance
Association, provoked violent demonstrations against him in Canada. As
Prof. Faurisson wrote:[6]

“The Canadian postal service, treating Revisionism the way it
treats pornography, refused him all service and all right to receive
mail. Zündel only recovered his postal rights after a year of judicial
procedures. In the meantime, his business has failed. At the instigation
of Sabina Citron, the Attorney General of Ontario filed a complaint
against Zündel for publishing a ‘false statement, tale or news.’ The
charge was based on the following reasoning: the defendant had abused
his right to freedom of expression; by distributing the Harwood
pamphlet, he was spreading information that he knew was false; in fact,
he could not fail to be aware that the ‘genocide of the Jews’ and the
‘gas chambers’ were an established fact.”

Rotondi speaks of boisterous behaviors and “carnival” attire, but we
must understand that at the time Zundel was fighting for his life. He
survived at least three attacks on his person, including a devastating
arson attack against his home. It is true that he paraded with a cross
on his shoulders (as you can see in the aforementioned film by Morris),
but Rotondi “forgets” to mention a significant detail: on the cross
brought by Zündel there was a scroll saying “Freedom of Speech,” the
very freedom of speech that Jewish organizations wanted and still want
to deny anyone who dares to challenge their power. Zündel’s bodyguards
were anything but ridiculous, since every time he entered the court,
Zündel risked physical assault. But I am unaware that he ever wore a
Jewish camp uniform; there is no trace of it in Morris’s film. As for
the two volumes “whose titles alone are indicative” according to
Rotondi: the first one on UFOs “was nothing more than popular fiction to
build publicity for Samisdat,” as Zündel stated in an interview:

“I realized that North Americans were not interested in being
educated. They want to be entertained. The book was for fun. With a
picture of the Führer on the cover and flying saucers coming out of
Antarctica it was a chance to get on radio and TV talk shows. […] And
that was my chance to talk about what I wanted to talk about."

As to the second book, the Italian Wikipedia entry on Zündel states that
he denied authorship of that book. It is not easy to be more biased than
Wikipedia when it comes to revisionism, but Rotondi evidently succeeded
in that.

Let’s go back to Leuchter. Rotondi wrote (p. 69):

“Leuchter’s ‘expert report’ would not suffice to save him [Zündel]
from a 9-month prison term, because it was to be rejected by the judges
of the Toronto Court for the following reason: He was not any expert
(was not competent).”

In a footnote, Rotondi reports: “Official transcript of the Zündel
Trial, p. 9052.”

In this regard I contacted Rotondi via Facebook and I asked him to send
me a scan of the aforementioned transcript page, but Rotondi evidently
believed it was better not to respond. The reason for this may be,
because he culled that quote from another source without due
verification? In any case, reading Barbara Kulaszka’s book ‘Did Six
Million Really Die?’ (not to be confused with Harwood’s booklet), which
is a meticulous and very extensive documentation of that trial, reality
seems to be a little different. As for Fred Leuchter’s testimony, there
are three paragraphs that deserve to be quoted in full:[7]

“[Judge] Thomas held that Leuchter could give oral evidence but
that the report itself was not going to be filed. (32-9032) He held
Leuchter was not a chemist or a toxicologist. (32-9034) He further held
that Leuchter was an engineer because he had made himself an engineer in
a very limited area. (32-9048)

Thomas stated that Leuchter’s opinion in the report was that there
were never any gassings or exterminations carried on in the facilities.
He held that Leuchter was not capable of giving that opinion. (32-9049)
Nor was he capable of testifying regarding the results of the analysis
of the samples. His testimony was restricted to the taking of the
samples and who he turned them over to. (32-9047, 9048) Leuchter was
allowed to testify with respect to his own work, his observations of the
camps and the information he had gathered concerning the facilities, and
whether the facilities were feasible as gas chambers. (32-9054) Defence
counsel was instructed not to refer to the Leuchter Report during the
in-chief examination. Thomas held that Leuchter had no expertise
whatsoever in crematories and disallowed any testimony relating to
crematories. (32-9052, 9054)

Fred A. Leuchter was qualified as an expert in the design,
construction, maintenance and operation of execution gas chambers. He
was allowed to give opinion evidence on the operation of gas chambers
and the suitability of the facilities he inspected in Poland to operate
as gas chambers. (32-9062, 9063)”

“Thomas held that Leuchter had no expertise whatsoever in crematories
and disallowed any testimony relating to crematories.” This is the
entire sentence that Rotondi speciously truncated in half. Moreover, the
same Judge Thomas, although far from being well-disposed toward the
defense, recognized that Leuchter had the qualification of an engineer
and was expert on gas chambers. And Rotondi cannot claim that he does
not know Kulaszka’s book, since he mentions it in a note on page 68!

But that’s not all. As for his qualifications as an engineer, Leuchter
specified during the cross-examination conducted by the public
prosecutor[8] that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Department
of Drug Enforcement had recognized him by issuing two medical licenses,
and also “the United States Navy in all of the work he had done with
them on navigational instrumentation.”

Continuing with what Rotondi wrote, we find another slander against the
American engineer on p. 71 of his section on Leuchter’s credibility:

“Even the simple qualification, which is self-attributed, of being
an ‘expert specializing in the design and manufacture of devices for
capital punishment,’ above all by means of gas chambers, belongs into
the realm of fairy tales.”

We have just seen how Leuchter’s qualification in this regard was
recognized by Judge Thomas. But, also during the Toronto trial, there
was yet another element that Rotondi hides from his readers: the
testimony of Bill M. Armontrout, at that time chief warden at the
Missouri State Penitentiary in Jefferson City:[9]

“Armontrout testified that there was only one consultant in the
United States that he knew of in the design, operation, and maintenance
of gas chambers. That consultant was Fred Leuchter. (32-8896)”

Even the New York Times recognized Leuchter’s expertise in this regard
in a prominent article of October 13, 1990, and in a follow-up article
on June 13, 1991 about the settlement between Leuchter and the
Massachusetts Board of Registration of Professional Engineers and Land
Surveyors, the New York Times wrote, “was once one of the nation’s
leading advisers on the administering of capital punishment.” The
problem for Leuchter was that, the NYT writer stated right afterwards,
that Leuchter “angered Holocaust survivors with articles in which he
contended that historians had inflated the number of victims of the
Nazis.”[10]

Rotondi, however, insists (p. 71):

“In his Report and later in his testimony during the Zündel Trial,
he had declared before the Court that he had worked, by virtue of his
skills, as a consultant for Missouri, California and North Carolina. The
director of the St. Quentin prison (California), Vasquez, quoted by
Leuchter, stated instead that his prison had never had any relationship
with him, and Gary T. Dixon, director of the North Carolina prison,
argued that his penitentiary had never used Leuchter’s assistance either.”

Let’s start by saying that, in his Report, Leuchter does not name any of
the prisons cited by Rotondi. He claims only that he designed hardware
in the United States used in the execution of convicts using hydrogen
cyanide gas. As for his testimony during the Zündel Trial, Leuchter
testified:[11]

“Leuchter testified that he was a consultant to the states of South
Carolina and Missouri with respect to the operation of gas chambers used
for prisoner executions, and was currently under contract with the state
of Missouri to completely reconstruct their gas chamber.”

Kulaszka’s documentation contains neither a trace of Vasquez’s testimony
nor of Dixon’s testimony. Rotondi refers in this regard to an entry of
the anti-revisionist Nizkor website, which claims to quote the persons
in question without, however, giving any sources for it. Rather, it must
be kept in mind that at that time the prison wardens with whom Leuchter
worked were warned and threatened by Jewish organizations, as Leuchter
himself reported:[12]

“I have been vilified both privately and publicly in all forms of
the media. My clients have been cajoled and threatened into not dealing
with me. […]

At Klarsfeld’s initiative, […] they began to threaten prison
wardens with political consequences if they dealt with me.”

Revisionist historian Mark Weber wrote in the same vein:[13]

“The most insidious (and effective) effort has been a
behind-the-scenes campaign to destroy his livelihood by pressuring state
governments to stop employing him as their execution hardware engineer.
To allow Leuchter to continue working for the state, declared Illinois
Representative Ellis Levin (D-Chicago), ‘would be an affront to the
Jewish community.’ (Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, August 17, 1990.)”

There is no trace of all this in Rotondi’s book. He instead writes (pp.
71f.):

“Leuchter is a strange guy, has a raspy voice and chuckles
continuously for no reason, showing his teeth yellowed by nicotine ...
He takes selfies without restraint with a noose around his neck and tied
up in an electric chair, boasting with contract relationships, expert
reports and degrees without worrying the least about being exposed as a
liar.”

That sentence is not criticism but real character assassination. And
yet, in this case it is Rotondi himself who is not the least worried
about being exposed as a liar. Even in this sentence, there is no dearth
of lies. Anyone who has watched Errol Morris’s documentary will have
noticed that Leuchter’s voice is absolutely normal, and that he does not
chuckle continuously for no reason. (I am also unaware whether Leuchter
has ever been photographed with the noose around his neck).

Finally, I venture to doubt that Faurisson, in an article for the French
weekly Rivarol, spoke of Leuchter as a “genius” (p. 72). Rotondi
provides neither the issue nor the page number. Another copied and
pasted quote without verification?
Rotondi’s Libels Regurgiated by Prof. Aldo Giannuli

In 2009, Italian scholar Aldo Giannuli published a book titled The
Public Abuse of History: How and Why Political Power Falsifies the
Past.[14] As we read on the Book’s flaps, Prof. Giannuli is a researcher
of contemporary history at the University of Milan.[15] He was a
consultant for the prosecutor’s offices in Bari, Milan (on the Piazza
Fontana massacre), Pavia, Brescia (on the Piazza della Loggia massacre),
Rome and Palermo. From 1994 to 2001, he collaborated with the Italian
Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry on Terrorism in Italy and on the
causes of the failure to identify those responsible for the massacres.

Therefore, he is not an “amateur” (as is the self-confessing Rotondi)
but a scholar of clear fame. Unfortunately, however, the level of his
approach to revisionism (and, in particular, to Leuchter) is identical
to that of Rotondi, and indeed, it seems that he took cues from him. In
Giannuli’s book, the third chapter, which is dedicated to the (alleged)
refutation of revisionism is titled “The Tribunalization of History”
(“La tribunalizzazione della storia”). Giannuli deals with the Leuchter
Report on pages 115-117, from which I take the following quote (all
emphases are mine):

“On examining its merit, this report has been taken apart
completely. Moreover, Leuchter admitted not to be an engineer but a
graduate in philosophy, that he based his research exclusively on the
works of Robert Faurisson, and that the publisher Zündel commissioned
and financed his trip to Poland. In short, Leuchter was merely an
indisputable crook. In spite of this, his report has nevertheless
remained one of the deniers’ basic texts. Leuchter’s affirmations
prompted understandable indignation of camp survivors; his false
credentials moreover attracted the mass media’s attention, overshadowing
the issue of merit. On the other hand, this is in the logic of the mass
media: saying that a certain guy is an impostor who boasts to have
titles he does not possess takes a headline of two lines, but in order
to say that in the gas chambers of Auschwitz five times more people
could enter than Leuchter counted, a headline is not enough.”

One single observation is due here: if anyone is a crook and an impostor
here, it surely is not Leuchter. Moreover, it is not true that Leuchter
based his research exclusively “on the works of Robert Faurisson.”
Actually, Leuchter wrote four expert reports in total, and his fourth
report is dedicated to a technical evaluation of Jean-Claude Pressac’s
magnum opus, Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers.[16]

To conclude, although it certainly is true that a headline does not
suffice to elaborate on the problems raised by the (first) Leuchter
Report, the three paltry – and pitiful – pages dedicated to it by
Giannuli aren’t enough either, just as the other three pages dedicated
by Giannuli to revisionism in general (his pages 112-114) are not enough
compared to the monumental historiographical and scientific work
published in recent years by authors such as Carlo Mattogno and Germar
Rudolf.

Rather, one wonders: how come, when it comes to revisionism, even
authors like Giannuli (but I also think of Giovanni Fasanella) who are
used to “flying high,” end up sinking below sea level?
On Leuchter’s Competence



F.A. Leuchter, R. Faurisson, G. Rudolf, The Leuchter Reports: Critical
Edition, 5th ed., Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield 2017. Read it online
free of charge, download a free PDF file, or purchase a hard copy at
www.HolocaustHandbooks.com.

Fred Leuchter is not only an engineer but also an inventor who owns
several patents. I found interesting news about him in the article by
Mark Weber titled “Fred Leuchter: Courageous Defender of Historical
Truth”:[17]

“Since 1965, he has worked as an engineer on projects having to do
with electrical, optical, mechanical, navigational and surveying
problems. He holds patents in the fields of optics, navigation,
encoding, geodetic surveying and surveying instrumentation, including
patents on sextants, surveying instruments and optical instrument encoders.

From 1965 through 1970 he was the technical director for a firm in
Boston, where he specialized in airborne, opto-electronic, and
photographic surveillance equipment. He designed the first low-level,
color, stereo-mapping system for use in a helicopter, which has become
an airborne standard.

In 1970, he formed an independent consulting firm. During his
period with this firm, he designed and built the first electronic
sextant and developed a unique, light-weight, compact and inexpensive
optical drum sector encoder for use with surveying and measuring
instruments. He also built the first electronic sextant for the US Navy.
He has worked on and designed astro trackers utilized in the on-board
guidance systems of ICBM missiles.

Because of his work in navigational devices he has had hands-on
experience with surveying and geodetic measuring equipment and a
thorough knowledge of map-reading and cartography. He is trained in
reading and interpreting aerial photographs. He designed a computerized
transit for surveying use, and several years ago he developed the first
low-cost personal telephone monitor.”

Conclusion

Since it was written, the Leuchter Report has been the object of many
criticisms: sometimes honest, often dishonest. Of course, it contains
some flaws which the revisionists themselves have detected, but being a
pioneering work, this was inevitable. What I wanted to point out here,
however, is that it is still the work of an expert who had every right
to express his dispassionate opinion, a right that Jewish organizations
and many societies have tried ruthlessly to infringe upon as a warning
to everyone, experts and non-experts alike, who dares to speak out
freely and frankly on the greatest taboo of our time.


Notes

Translated from the Italian by Germar Rudolf. The original appeared with
the title “Omaggio a Fred Leuchter, presunto millantatore e vero
engineer” at
www.andreacarancini.it/2018/01/omaggio-fred-leuchter-presunto-millantatore-vero-engineer/;
Jan 27, 2018.

[1] Robert Faurisson, “The Zündel Trials (1985 and 1988),” The
Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 8, No. 4 (Winter 1988), pp. 417-431,
here p. 428f.; see also R. Faurisson, “Preface,” in: F.A. Leuchter, R.
Faurisson, G. Rudolf, The Leuchter Reports: Critical Edition, 5th ed.,
Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield 2017, p. 16.
[2] Mario Soldati, La sposa americana, A. Mondadori, Milan 1980, p.
55; English: The American Bride, Hodder & Stoughton, London 1979.
[3] Leuchter also told me that the aforementioned agreement and the
details of the same should never have been made public by court order
and that the parties – Leuchter, the prosecutor, the Jewish
organizations and the technical council – would never have to discuss
publicly the agreement or its contents. But a few days after the
formalization of the agreement, the Jewish organizations spread some of
the contents and added lies to the rest with the approval of the public
prosecutor.
[4] Francesco Rotondi, Luna di miele ad Auschwitz: Riflessioni sul
negazionismo della Shoah, Edizioni scientifiche italiane, Napoli 2005.
[5] Carlo Mattogno, Ritorno dalla luna di miele ad Auschwitz:
Risposta ai veri dilettanti e ai finti specialisti
dell’anti-“negazionismo,” Edizioni Effepi, Genova, 2006;
http://aaargh.vho.org/fran/livres7/CMluna.pdf
[6] Robert Faurisson, “The Zündel Trials (1985 and 1988),” The
Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 8, No. 4 (Winter 1988), pp. 417-431,
here p. 418.
[7] Barbara Kulaszka, ‘Did Six Million Really Die?’: Report of the
Evidence in the Canadian ‘False News’ Trial of Ernst Zündel – 1988,
Samisdat Publishers, Toronto 1992, aaargh.vho.org/fran/livres3/KULA.pdf,
p. 733.
[8] Ibid., p. 743.
[9] Ibid., p. 729.
[10] AP, “Execution ‘Engineer’ Settles Criminal Case,” New York
Times, June 13, 1991;
www.nytimes.com/1991/06/13/us/execution-engineer-settles-criminal-case.html
[11] B. Kulaszka, op. cit. (note 7), p. 734.
[12] Fred A. Leuchter, “Is There Life After Persecution? The Botched
Execution of Fred Leuchter,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 12,
No. 4 (Winter 1992), pp. 429-444, here p. 430f.
[13] Mark Weber, “Fred Leuchter: Courageous Defender of Historical
Truth,” The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 12, No. 4 (Winter 1992),
pp. 421-448, here p. 423.
[14] Aldo Giannuli, L’abuso pubblico della storia: Come e perché il
potere politico falsifica il passato, Guanda, Parma 2009.
[15] Wikipedia states instead that at that time he was a professor
of political sciences at the University of Milan.
[16] F.A. Leuchter, R. Faurisson, G. Rudolf, op. cit. (note 1), pp.
227-245; Jean-Claude Pressac, Technique and Operation of the Gas
Chambers, Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York, 1989.
[17] Op. cit. (note 13), p. 425.
Additional information about this document
Property Value
Author(s): Andrea Carancini
Title: Homage to Fred Leuchter, the Alleged Impostor and True Engineer
Sources: Inconvenient History, Vol. 10, No. 1 (winter 2018)
Contributions:
n/a
Published: 2018-01-28
First posted on CODOH: Jan. 28, 2018, 6:26 p.m.
Last revision:
n/a
Comments:
n/a
Appears In:
Mirrors: