Cyanide Chemistry at Auschwitz

[offline Kiwichap]

I am very impressed with astro3. His posts are concise, clear and very informative. They ring out with sincerity and humble scientific conviction. I am left with an overwhelming thought; Where is the investigation into these sensational scientific questions? Oh, I forgot, pigs don't fly.

Like astro3, I love astronomy. The stars and the heavens are the next big eye-opener for planet earth. Yet, true to form, the jewish press called him an astrologer. Talk about adding insult to injury.

[offlinenathan]

Astro3 suggests that James Roth was ousted by Alpha Laboratories. Is there a source for that surprising claim? Roth’s 1988 Zuendel trial appearance, if some accounts are to be trusted, did help the defence in so far as he testified that cyanide traces would not weather away when the cyanide bonded with iron; that iron cyanide could penetrate porous damp materials; that the mortuary walls' brickwork was no less porous than that of the fumigation chamber. But he also testified that the formation of iron cyanide might seal the surface of the porous material, apparently by bonding up all the surface iron. In the movie Dr Death, safe from cross-examination, he more confidently claimed that the residue would “probably” not have penetrate more than 10 microns.

This was a factor in the Lipstadt trial judgment, Mr Justice Gray said:

“In regard to the chemical analysis, Irving was unable to controvert the evidence of Dr Roth (summarised at paragraph 7.106 above) that, because the cyanide would have penetrated the brickwork and plaster to a depth of no more than one tenth of the breadth of a human hair, any cyanide present in the relatively large samples taken by Leuchter (which had to be pulverised before analysis) would have been so diluted that the results on which Leuchter relied had effectively no validity.”

Gray needs a dictionary. Irving did “controvert” the said claim and when disputing it it he referred to the walls of the fumigation chambers where the iron cyanide is known to have fully penetrated the walls. That did not seem worth answering to Gray, but I suspect that he knows as little about chemistry as I do. The obvous question is why the surface sealing reaction “probably” occurred in the mortuary but not in the fumigation chamber. Has any expert explained in baby-talk how and why this sealing might “probably” ” happen?

Perhaps the obvious test would be to take a chunk from mortuary 1 Krema II wall and refrain from pulverising it. If Roth is right, and if I have not misunderstood, there will be iron cyanide residue on the split-hair surface only, and none elsewhere. Is there anything (technically) objectionable about such a test? Has it been done?

[offlineWahrheit]

The obvous question is why the surface sealing reaction “probably” occurred in the mortuary but not in the fumigation chamber. Has any expert explained in baby-talk how and why this sealing might “probably” ” happen?

Hello nathan,

Your question unfortunately begins with a fallacy. The reaction you suspect to have taken place (sealing of gas chamber walls to prevent spreading of iron cyanide compounds) never took place, as there was no iron cyanide compound created in the gas chamber. Iron cyanides were present, insignificant traces of them, but they failed to produce an Iron Blue-type reaction. This suggests that cyanide was not in well contact with the gas chamber walls, i.e. no gassings.

Anyway, for more check out Rudolfs comments on Roth below.

8.4.3. The Memory Hole

At the end of chapter 6.6.5., I already referred to the bold lies of Albert Meinecke from the German press agency dpa regarding the alleged short life term of hydrogen cyanide in masonry. A new corny joke was recently added to this debate by Prof. James Roth from the Alpha Analytic Laboratories, Ashland, Massachusetts. I discuss this event here because Prof. Roth's allegations were widely publicized by the international media in connection with the libel case of British historian David Irving against Deborah E. Lipstadt.[515]

For his documentary movie Mr. Death on Fredrick A. Leuchter, Errol Morris also interviewed Prof. Dr. James Roth. In 1988, Roth's laboratory had analyzed the masonry samples from the alleged 'gas chambers' taken by Leuchter in Auschwitz for their cyanide content. During the trial against Ernst Zündel in Toronto that same year, for which the Leuchter report had been produced, Prof. Dr. Roth himself was interrogated as an expert witness. Ten years later, Errol Morris interviewed Roth about this event. During this interview, Prof. Roth did all he possibly could to distance himself from the possible consequences of the analyses performed by his company. His interview gained importance only due to the fact that the Dutch architectural Historian Prof. Robert van Pelt quoted Roth in his 1999 expert report prepared for the Irving trial. In it, van Pelt wrote about Roth's statements in Morris' movie:[516]

"Roth explained that cyanide will react on the surface of brick or plaster, penetrating the material not more than 10 microns, or 0.01 mm, or one tenth the thickness of a human hair [...]. In other words, if one wants to analyze the cyanide concentration in a brick sample, one should take a representative sample of the surface, 10 microns thick, and no more."

It can be shown that Prof. Dr. James Roth is wrong for the following reasons:


1. It is a fact that the walls of the disinfestation chambers in Auschwitz, Birkenau, Stutthof, and Majdanek are saturated with cyanide compounds, and this not only superficially, but into the depth of the masonry, as I have proved by taking samples from different depths of the wall, compare in this regard especially my samples no. 11, 13, 17, 19b, and 23 in Table 19. They prove that hydrogen cyanide can rather easily reach deep layers of plaster and mortar. But even the other samples taken from the surface prove that Prof. Roth's allegation is wrong: Provided that most of the cyanide detectable today is present in the form of iron cyanide (Iron Blue and other cyanoferrates), as Prof. Roth assumes himself, his thesis would mean that 10% to 75% of the iron content of these samples are located in the upper 10 micrometer of my samples (0.010 mm), i.e., they are located in less then 1% of the entire sample mass, and the rest of the sample would have been massively deprived of iron. How this migration of a major portion of iron to a thin surface layer would have happened is inexplicable to me.


2. Furthermore, expert literature is detailed in that
hydrogen cyanide is a extremely mobile chemical compound with physical properties comparable to water,[322]
which can quite easily penetrate through thick, porous layers like walls.[409]

3. In addition, it is generally known that cement and lime mortar are highly porous materials, comparable for instance with sponges.[517] In such materials, there does not exist something like a defined layer of 0.01 mm beyond which hydrogen cyanide could not diffuse, as there can also be no reason, why water could not penetrate a sponge deeper than a millimeter. Steam, for example, which behaves physically comparable to hydrogen cyanide, can very easily penetrate walls.


4. Finally, the massive discolorations of the outside walls of the disinfestation chambers in Birkenau and Stutthof, as shown in this expert report, are clearly visible and conclusive evidence for the fact how easily hydrogen cyanide and its soluble derivatives can penetrate such walls.
As a professor of analytical chemistry, Prof. Roth must know this, so one can only wonder why he spreads such outrageous nonsense. That Prof. Roth is indeed a competent chemist can be seen from what he said during his testimony under oath as an expert witness during the above mentioned Zündel trial:[518]

"In porous materials such as brick or mortar, the Prussian blue [recte: hydrogen cyanide] could go fairly deep as long as the surface stayed open, but as the Prussian blue formed, it was possible that it would seal the porous material and stop the penetration."


Prof. Roth might have felt obligated to attack Leuchter in order to avoid becoming himself a target of certain lobby groups who already managed to destroy Leuchter's career. That would explain why the truth temporarily dropped into a hole in Prof. Roth's memory while being interview by Errol Morris. It is also revealing that Prof. Roth mentioned during this interview, if he had known where Leuchter's samples originated from, his analytical results would have been different. Does that mean that Prof. Roth manipulates his result according to whether or not he likes the origin of certain samples? Such an attitude is exactly the reason why one should never tell an 'independent' laboratory about the origin of the samples to be analyzed, simply because 'independence' is a very flexible term when it comes to controversial topics. What Prof. Dr. Roth has demonstrated here is only his lack of professional honesty.

http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/8.html#8.4.2.

Let me know if you still have questions.

[offlinenathan]

There could be no surface reaction if there were no gassings. True. But that is not Rudolf’s argument. Rudolf argues that there would have been no 10 mcron surface reaction even if there had been lots of gassings. Therefore such a reaction cannot explain the relative scarcity of iron cyanide residues. Therefore thas scarcity remains good evidence that lots of gassings did not happen.

Rudolf offers a technical l argument which I do not understand and a commonsense argument which I, unlike Judge Gray, find compelling. The commonsense question is one that Gray should have put, not to Rudolf but to his adversaries. Why did a surface reaction not take place in the porous fumigation walls? There must be a more plausible and simple reason than any I have so far heard, and one which does not involve yet more ad hoc hypotheses brought in to save the phenomona . Roth after all is a highly qualified chemist; he cannot be just saying, vacuously, that cyanide can penetrate porous materials except when it can’t. Perhaps VALLON, that lucid champion of orthodoxy, can find time to bend his mind to the problem.

Our assumption – not a fallacy, an assumption made for argument's sake - is that over some eighteen months, on hundreds of occasions, a crowded chamber, 210 square metres in area, received concentrations of poison gas strong enough to kill all inside within fifteen minutes or so.

I shall go on presuming that the surface reaction hypothesis would in principle be very easy to test.

[offlineIks]

Hello, wanted to comment on that Zyklon-B test on humans video. That video is a very crude fake. When I first watched it I became very suspicious so I looked closely and wondered why the people who made it didn't took that into account for their fakery. Judging from the shadow on the cabin they were in there for maybe 3-5 minutes. You would have seen a very noticable change of the shadow in 30 minutes. I checked it even with 3D animation software that has a sun simulation down to milliseconds. They never were 30 minutes in there. Probably went in, guy shut the door, guy leaves, guy comes back and knocks at the door, guy leaves, guy comes back and opens the door to let them out. Cut it together and say they were in there 30 Minutes. They could have put more effort into it...

If you get one of those annoying "This video is not available in your country." messages you can try http://www.vtunnel.com to go around that. Also for German visitors who like using Google but hate those messages that some results cant be displayed because of certein laws try this one: http://66.249.93.147/ or http://www.google.com/intl/de/ which seems to be the same but I'm not sure. Or http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm

[offlinenathan]

Scientists are suckers for hoaxes: human mischief is too uninteresting an explanation to occur to them. Perhaps the japers were hoping to exterminate one or two revisionists by inducing them to try things at home.

It should not distract from the serious question of whether or not all victims would have been killed between three and fifteen minutes depending on, among other things, the weather. Any error by Hoess on this point cannot be extenuated as a lapse of memory or an eyewitness exaggeration or a bit of misinformation credulously accepted from Eichmann.

Rudolf and his adversaries both use a 1942 article by R. Irmscher. Rudolf reproduces the graphs.

http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/Image273.gif

If Graph 4 is any guide then the use of standard Zyklon B pellets cannot have been very cost effective, even at a Leichenkeller temperature of 15 C. When the screaming stopped after fifteen minutes, only 20 percent of hydrocyanide would have been released. When ventilation began and body removal started after 30 minutes, the gypsum pellets would still have half their expensive poison yet to discharge. The graph apparently assumes normal or zero humidity. Heat would speed up the evaporation, but humidity would slow it down. Human bodies would increase warmth, but also generate fluids. Counteracting variables give ample scope to people who want to prove what they want to prove.

From some review of Jan Sehn ‘s 1957 book Auschwitz-Birkenau Concentration Camp I once I noted the quote: “the gas chamber was being heated with portable braziers .... this was done to give better conditions for the evaporation of the hydrogen cyanide.” An memorable image. I think this actually related to mortuary 1 of Krema II but I cannot remember. Anyone with access to Sehn’s book will get half my kingdom for telling me Sehn’s source.

[offlineWahrheit]

Few notes, Nathan:

1) The screaming in nearly all accounts was said to have been silenced nearly immediately, not 15 minutes during the gassings. This means that a high enough concentration of poison gas would have necessarily been dispersed throughout a majority of the chamber within seconds for the victims to begin inhaling. This debunks the story by numerous ways (missing Prussian Blue stains, lack of Zyklon-B shipped to Auschwitz, higher concentration to be extracted, etc.)

2) On the effect that humidity would have upon the release of HCN, Irmscher wrote that it "significantly diminishes the rate of evaporation".

3.) I have not read Sehn's book, but I have seen several witness descriptions of these alleged portable heaters, namely Shlomo Dragon and Leon Cohen. Both can be found in Gideon Greif's Sonderkommando testimonial book.

[offlinenathan]

Hoess is the surely the witness who counts. Shorter times found in other accounts – most seminally in the 1944 Vrba report - can be ascribed to the confusions of hearsay or to partial knowledge or perhaps to equating loss of consciousness with death. On this last it is suspicious that Hoess himself testified at Nuremberg that “we knew that people were dead when the screaming stopped.” As the chief executive who sometimes personally supervised the alleged process he should have known very well that silence did not signify death. Unless I have misunderstood the following account, unconsciousness typically lasted several minutes:

http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/gascham.html

From the first poisoned inhalation to the last breath took an “average” of over nine minutes, implying that things sometimes took longer. These wretches in St Quentin were killed as quickly as possible, of course, not with pellets especially designed to release their poison slowly from four piles in a big room.

Hoess or his Polish captors added new details in his November 1946 deposition in Cracow, and therewith new implausibilities. Implausiblities, however, do not add up to proof that his claims as to the timing of things was scientifically impossible.

Humidity may well have slowed down the evaporation “significantly” - by condensing onto cold pellets piled up on a cold floor. But “signficantly” does not give us anything to measure. Contrarily, the body heat of 2000 victims may well have increased the room temperature “significantly” but there too we do not know by how much.

Thanks for he references. Unfortunately I only have access to online sources.

[offlineWahrheit]

Hoess is the surely the witness who counts. Shorter times found in other accounts – most seminally in the 1944 Vrba report - can be ascribed to the confusions of hearsay or to partial knowledge or perhaps to equating loss of consciousness with death. On this last it is suspicious that Hoess himself testified at Nuremberg that “we knew that people were dead when the screaming stopped.” As the chief executive who sometimes personally supervised the alleged process he should have known very well that silence did not signify death.

While Hoess is surely very useful in debunking the hoax, I would not say that the entire revisionist case rests upon his shoulders. Many other witnesses are said to have been actively and continually involved in the gassing process, more often than Hoess is said to have been. These same witnesses speak of near immediate times of "death".

Your point on hearsay from some is correct, but not in contradiction to quick gassing times.

Humidity may well have slowed down the evaporation “significantly” - by condensing onto cold pellets piled up on a cold floor. But “signficantly” does not give us anything to measure. Contrarily, the body heat of 2000 victims may well have increased the room temperature “significantly” but there too we do not know by how much.

Yes, we do not know just what these variables would be under a gassing situation. Humidity, as well as any moisture, seems to be a well known ingredient to stay away from hydrogen cyanide with. Also, humidity greatly increases the likelihood for the formation of Prussian Blue.
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4600


I believe the poster 'PS' has at least attempted to calculate the body heat, however I do not have their figures on hand right now. Do remember though that huge concrete basements are well known to be giant losers of heat.

Thanks for he references. Unfortunately I only have access to online sources.

I could provide you with quotes, if it becomes necessary. They are able to be found through Google.

[offlinenathan]

We are considering what science has to say about two claims, of which the second is the more serious.

1 The pellets released their gas too slowly to kill everyone within the alleged time.

2 The amount of poison gas needed to do the job within the alleged time would have left iron cyanide residues in the walls.

What was the alleged time? My own aim is not to “debunk” the more improbable testimonies. My aim is to test the least improbable testimony. That is the spirit of science. On the matter of timing Hoess’s testimony seems to me the strongest. If anyone can name anything better I shall be glad to consider it.

[offline Hannover]

suggested reading:

'Those Prussian Blues Just Won't Wash'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4600
and:
'What those 'eyewitnesses' actually say'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4544

You'll love liars like Daniel Bennahmias.

- Hannover

[offlineWahrheit]

What was the alleged time? My own aim is not to “debunk” the more improbable testimonies. My aim is to test the least improbable testimony. That is the spirit of science. On the matter of timing Hoess’s testimony seems to me the strongest. If anyone can name anything better I shall be glad to consider it.

In his Nuremburg testimony, speaking generally of all the gas chambers Hoess stated that it took "3 to 15 minutes" for all the alleged victims to be DEAD, not just knocked out. He also stated that it took only a matter of "a few seconds or a few minutes" for the Jews to become unconscious. Note that it still takes a high concentration to so quickly cause unconsciousness, one that is effectively lethal for those who do not receive immediate first-aid treatment.

Specifically for Kremas II and III, Hoess wrote in his memoirs that:

"Those who were standing next to the air shaft were killed immediately. I can state that about one-third died immediately. The remainder staggered about and began to scream and struggle for air. The screaming, however soon changed to gasping and in a few moments everyone lay still. After twenty minutes at the most no movement could be detected ...The victims became unconscious after a few minutes, according to their distance from the air shaft. Those who screamed and those who were old, sick, or weak, or the small children died quicker than those who were healthy and young."

So from Hoess we have a "few moments" and a "few minutes" for all the victims locked into a 210 sq. m chamber to be unconscious.

This very quick timing, say under or at 5 minutes, is generally supported through the testimony of others. Dr. Bendel spoke of two minutes, while Dr. Nyiszli spoke of five. Both were medical personnel, and allegedy viewed the gassing processes across Birkenau.

[offlinenathan]

I no longer know quite what is at issue. Does anyone? Last Sunday I said that what ought to be probed was Hoess’ claim that everyone was killed between three and fifteen minutes. This, Warheit infers, would mean that everyone was dead at the end of fifteen minutes. I agree. (Twenty minutes tops, Hoess added later). I also defied anyone to name a less improbable gas chamber testimony than that of Hoess. Warheit nominates Nyiszli and Bendel.

Hoess’ presence at Nuremberg was so impressive that it convinced (and dumbfounded) some of the biggest Nazi bosses. Nyisli’s presence was so shadowy that his very existence was for some time in question. Bendel was a disturbed person who apparently believed that the adult gas chamber victims were all dwarfs.

I rest my case.

[offlineWahrheit]

Hoess’ presence at Nuremberg was so impressive that it convinced (and dumbfounded) some of the biggest Nazi bosses. Nyisli’s presence was so shadowy that his very existence was for some time in question. Bendel was a disturbed person who apparently believed that the adult gas chamber victims were all dwarfs.

I rest my case.

You are more than welcome to tie yourself to torture-plagued Hoess, who is no doubt one of the flagbearers for the hoaxter cause in Auschwitz. Suggesting, however, that Hoess' writings and testimony are the "least improbable" is nonesense; main point is they still are "improbable", like so many others.

In what world can people enter a Hydrogen Cyanide filled room without gas masks, all the while eating and smoking, and be expected to drag out thousands of corpses? Remember that companies always warn customers about the dangers of sweating around Hydrogen Cyanide.

This in addition to many numbers of other problems with Hoess, likely already pointed out on this forum, such as the supposed collecting of human fat to pour over cremated bodies.

I choose instead to take a collective look at numerous testimonies (both the crazies and not so crazies), and analyzing the aspects on which they converge. Timing is one of them. Sticking just to Hoess is all fine and dandy, but realize there are testimonies from people who were allegedly around the gas chambers 24/7 (as compared to a camp commandant with many other items on his agenda), and who are also highly regarded by true believers. The point is magnified if you begin looking at numerous testimonies, as compared to just disproving one.

Germar Rudolf did just this, and compiled a decent list in a footnote to his work. Some are stronger than others, ranging from eye-witness to rumor and hearsay testimonies:

With relation to the killing times, see in, for example: Schwurgericht Hagen, verdict from July 24, 1970, ref. 11 Ks 1/70, p. 97 (5 min.); Final Trial Brief of the Prosecution, quoted acc. to U. Walendy, Auschwitz im IG-Farben-Prozeß, op. cit. (note 157), pp. 47-50 (3 to 15 minutes in extreme cases); E. Kogon et al., op. cit. (note 42), ubiquitous (immediately up to 10 min., more rarely, up to 20 min.); J. Buszko (ed.), Auschwitz, Nazi Extermination Camp, Interpress Publishers, Warschau 21985, in cooperation with the Auschwitz State Museum, pp. 114 + 118 (a few minutes); H.G. Adler, H. Langbein, E. Lingens-Reiner (ed.), Auschwitz, Europäische Verlagsanstalt, Cologne 31984, pp. 66, 80 + 200 (a few minutes, up to 10 minutes); Hamburger Institut für Sozialforschung (ed.), Die Auschwitz-Hefte, vol. 1, Beltz Verlag, Weinheim 1987, pp. 261ff. +294 (instantly, up to 10 min.); C. Vaillant-Couturier, in: Der Prozeß gegen die Hauptkriegsverbrecher vor dem Internationalen Miltärgerichtshof Nürnberg (IMT), vol. VI, p. 242 (5 to 7 min.); M. Nyiszli in: G. Schoenberner (ed.), Wir haben es gesehen, Fourier, Wiesbaden 1981, p. 250 (5 min.); C.P. Bendel in: H. Langbein, Menschen in Auschwitz, Europaverlag, Vienna 1987, p. 221 (end of screaming of victims after 2 min.); P. Broad in: B. Naumann, Auschwitz, Athenäum, Frankfurt/Main 1968, p. 217 (4 min.), opening of doors after 10-15 minutes: A. Rückerl, NS-Verbrechen vor Gericht, C.F. Müller, Heidelberg, 21984, pp. 58f.; K. Hölbinger in: H. Langbein, Der Auschwitz-Prozeß, Europäische Verlagsanstalt, Frankfurt/Main 1965, p. 73 (1 min.): R. Böck, ibid., p. 74 (screaming victims for 10 minutes following closure of doors, followed by opening of doors, cf. note 297); H. Stark, ibid., p. 439 (screaming victims for 10-15 minutes); F. Müller, ibid., p. 463 (8-10 min.); E. Pyš, ibid., p. 748 (ventilators switched on after only a few minutes); K. Lill, ibid., p. 750 (a scream a few seconds after the introduction of Zyklon B, pall of thick smoke exiting the chimney a few minutes later); transcript of the expert opinion of Prof. Dr. G. Jagschitz, 3rd-5th hearing days of criminal proceedings against Gerd Honsik, April 4., April 30, May 4, 1992, ref. 20e Vr 14184 and Hv 5720/90, District Court Vienna, p. 443 (2-3 min); Dokument 3868-PS, IMT volume 33, pp. 275ff., quoted according to L. Rosenthal, "Endlösung der Judenfrage", Massenmord oder "Gaskammerlüge"?, Verlag Darmstädter Blätter, Darmstadt 1979 (2 to 15 minutes in exceptional cases); R. Höß, op. cit. (note 295: 30 minutes for the entire procedure, including ventilation); Hans Münch, in G. Rudolf, "Auschwitz-Kronzeuge Dr. Hans Münch im Gespräch", VffG, 1(3) (1997), pp. 139-190 (2 to 5 min. in winter) (online: www.vho.org/VffG/1997/3/RudMue3.html); Salmen Lewenthal, Hefte von Auschwitz, Sonderheft 1, Handschriften von Mitgliedern des Sonderkommandos, Verlag Staatliches Museum Auschwitz, 1972, p. 155 (sudden silence); Dov Paisikovic, in: Léon Poliakov, Auschwitz, René Julliard, 1964, pp. 159ff. (3-4 minute), Franke-Gricksch Report, in: J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), p. 238 (one minute to kill the victims, another until the doors were opened); Rudolf Vrba alias Walter Rosenberg, Alfred Wetzler, ref. M 20/153, Yad Vashem (acc. to War Refugee Board, "German Extermination Camps-Auschwitz and Birkenau", in David S. Wyman (ed.), America and the Holocaust, volume 12, Garland, New York/London 1990, p. 20 (everyone in the room was dead after three minutes); Jerzy Tabeau, in: The Extermination Camps of Auschwitz (Oswiecim) and Birkenau in Upper Silesia (10 minutes, quoted according to Enrique Aynat, Los protocolos de Auschwitz. i Una fuente historica? Verlag Garcia Hispan, Alicante 1990); André Lettich, Trente-quatre mois dans les Camps de Concentration, Imprimerie Union Coopérative, Tours, 1946 (a few moments). Janda Weiss, in David E. Hackett, (ed.), The Buchenwald Report, Beck, Munich 1997, p. 394 (3 min.). If longer killing times appear in the eyewitness testimonies, they refer, not to crematoria II and III, but, rather, to crematoria IV/V, bunkers 1-2, or crematorium I in the Main Camp. The killings in crematoria II and III are therefore alleged to have been committed very quickly.

http://germarrudolf.com/work/trr/7.html#ftn465

But, you have already made your choice. Just how do you plan to "test" Hoess' testimony?

BTW, have you read much of Rudolfs work?

[Moderator]

Nathan:
You appear to be avoiding Wahrheit's challenging specifics while making statements such as:

Hoess’ presence at Nuremberg was so impressive that it convinced (and dumbfounded) some of the biggest Nazi bosses.

You have failed to address the issues about Hoess's 'confessions' which have been raised at this forum, in this thread.
Please address the points.
M1