The Holocaust was an event that occurred in Nazi Germany from 1933-1945. The majority of the historical and scientific community agrees that the Holocaust did occur. However, a sect of people still refuses to accept the historical and scientific evidence that the Holocaust did indeed occur. It is sad that in our present day and age a topic such as this must be defended as historical proof. The purpose of this essay will be to address major Holocaust denial points and refute them using historical and scientific evidence.

First, I will go over Holocaust denial methodology. Michael Shermer in his book Why do People Believe Weird Things gives a brief outline of Holocaust denial methodology as well. The first thing Holocaust deniers do is concentrate on their opponent’s weak points while rarely saying anything definitive about their own position. The second thing Holocaust Deniers attempt to do is exploit errors in scholars who are making opposing arguments. They will attempt to use the disproven “soap story,” or the “shrinking Holocaust” because the estimated number of people murdered at Auschwitz was lowered from 4 million to 1 million. The third thing Holocaust deniers attempt to do is take quotes severely out of context in an attempt to salvage their floundering position. The fourth thing Holocaust deniers do is focus on what is not known instead of what is known. They ignore what is known and discount any data that does not fit such as what is not known about the gas chambers. The fifth thing Holocaust deniers do is mistake a genuine, honest debate among scholars about certain points within a field for a dispute about the existence of the entire field. [1] I believe that if Paul Krugman were to weigh in on this topic he would call such deniers cranks. But what is a crank? Paul Krugman writes in his book Peddling Prosperity what a crank is using Martin Gardner’s definition from his book, In the Name of Science.F A crank using Gardner’s definition is one who challenges scientific orthodoxy, but not in a sensible, well-informed way. Instead, he is an outsider who fails to understand what the orthodoxy is about, and/or is determined to refute the current wisdom for personal or political rather than scientific reasons. Now, though Holocaust denial isn’t exactly a science per say. The definition of a crank I believe suits Holocaust deniers quite well; their position is worthy of about as much serious study as the Phlogiston Theory of Fire.

The first point to be addressed is the supposed Jewish population increase after the Holocaust. According to deniers, the 1940 edition of the World Almanac listed the total Jewish population at about 15.3 million. In the 1948 edition of the World Almanac the population is listed at about 15.7 million. Holocaust deniers cry out that such a population increase disproves the notion that Jewish genocide occurred. However, this figure used to push Holocaust denial propaganda is nothing more than a simple lie and ignorance of the true facts. The answer is quite simply that the World Almanac was not updated for that year. The next year’s edition of the World Almanac featured a corrected number. The 1948 World Almanac relied on the 1938 figures and had not been updated due to the war. The already shaky ground of this claim is further corroded when Holocaust deniers attempt to use a New York Times article from 1948 which featured the inflated estimates. Deniers claim that the New York Times article is proof that there was no Holocaust. However, in a letter to Morris Kominsky the author of the piece wrote that the data had come from the old 1948 estimates and was indeed incorrect. This mode of attack fits quite nicely into the first and second method of attack that Holocaust deniers use; they exploit errors in scholars making opposing arguments instead of attempting to make any form of coherent defense of their own stance.

The second point I would like to address is yet another flow in denial methodology. Because there is such a sheer quantity of evidence-many years, the amount of the world involved, thousands of accounts, thousands of documents, millions of tiny bits and pieces-it is not surprising that every piece of evidence does not fit nicely together like a puzzle. In fact, I believe that since each piece does not fit nicely and perfectly together strengthens the notion that there was a Holocaust. If every piece fit perfectly together the Holocaust would almost seem staged. The sheer amount of evidence in some cases could even be seen to support the denier’s points. But again, these points are simply taken out of context in the exact manner as described by method 3 above. The way deniers treat the testimonies from the Nuremberg trials is typical of the way a crank would handle evidence. On the one hand, deniers dismiss the Nuremberg confessions as unreliable because it was a military tribunal run by the victors. After all victors are the authors of history, right? A champion of Holocaust denial Mark Weber claims,

“consists of largely extorted confessions, spurious testimonies, and fraudulent documents. The post war Nuremberg trials were politically motivated proceedings meant more to discredit the leaders of a defeated regime than to establish truth.”

There is a slight problem with Weber’s claim; well not slight, more like massive gaping hole in their theory. Weber nor anyone else has been able to credibly prove that the confessions were extorted, spurious, or fraudulent. On the other hand, deniers will have no problems citing the Nuremberg trial evidence when it conveniently supports their position. For example, Holocaust deniers will adamantly deny any testimony of Nazis who said there was a Holocaust and that they participated in it. However, deniers will handily eat up the testimony of Nazis such as Albert Speer who claimed to know nothing about it. Deniers take this testimony at face value without any form of deeper analysis required by any form of credible or academic research. Though it is true that Speer stated at his trial that he had no knowledge of the extermination program; his Spandau diary speaks volumes to the contrary.

December 20, 1946. “Everything comes down to this: Hitler always hated the Jews; he made no secret of that at any time. He was capable of tossing off quite calmly, between the soup and the vegetable course, ‘I want to annihilate the Jews in Europe. This war is the decisive confrontation between National Socialism and world Jewry. One or the other will bite the dust, and it certainly won’t be us.’ So what I testified in court is true, that I had no knowledge of the killings of Jews; but it is true only in a superficial way. The question and my answer were the most difficult moment of my many hours on the witness stand. What I felt was not fear but shame that I as good as knew and still had not reacted; shame for my spiritless silence at the table, shame for my moral apathy, for so many acts of repression.” [2]

In addition to the already crumbling foundation established by high levels of cherry picking and faulty methodology, Matthias Schmidt, in Albert Speer: The End of a Myth details Speer’s activities in support of the Final Solution. In addition to other things, Speer organized the confiscation of 23,765 apartments from Jews in Berlin in 1941; he knew of the deportation of more than 75,000 Jews to the east; he personally inspected the Mauthausen concentration camp, where he ordered a reduction of construction materials and rerouted supplies needed elsewhere; and in 1977 he told a newspaper reporter, “I still see my guilt as residing chiefly in my approval of the persecution of the Jews, and the murder of millions of them.” [1] Deniers will cite Speer’s testimony as though it were the holy word of God, yet choose to ignore all of Speer’s elaborations about that testimony. The entire methodology deniers use on the Nuremberg trial and almost every other position they take is reflective of a floundering notion that does not hold up to academic scrutiny.

No matter what we wish to argue, we must bring additional evidence from other sources that corroborates and supports our conclusions. Historians and other academics know the Holocaust happened by the same general method scientists in other historical fields such as archeology or paleontology use. This method is what William Whewell called a “consilience of inductions,” or put simply, a convergence of evidence. Deniers falsely believe in their fantasy world that if they can find a tiny crack in the Holocaust structure that the entire edifice will come tumbling down. However, this is a fundamental flaw in their reasoning. The Holocaust was not just a singular event. The Holocaust was thousands of events in tens of thousands of places. The million bits of data discussed previously all converge on one simple conclusion. The Holocaust simply cannot be disproved by minor errors, pinholes, and inconsistencies here and there. The reason behind this is simply that it was never proved by these tiny bits on their own in the first place. The convergence of evidence includes hundreds of thousands of written documents, thousands of eyewitness testimonies from survivors, Kapos, Sonderkommandos, SS guards, commadants, local townspeople, and even upper-echelon Nazis, official military and press photographs and films including secret photographs taken by prisoner, aerial views, German and Allied film footage, physical evidence such as artifacts found at the sites of concentration camp, and finally demographics themselves such as the simple fact that people deniers claim survived the Holocaust are missing. Holocaust deniers deny and ignore the convergence of evidence, and pick out what suits their theory and dismiss or avoid the rest. Historians and scientists do this too, but there is a difference. History and science have “self-correcting” mechanisms whereby one’s errors are “revised” by one’s colleagues in the true sense of the word. Revision is the modification of a theory based on new evidence or a new interpretation of old evidence. Revision shouldn’t be based on political ideology, religious convictions, or other human emotions. Of course, historians and scientists have emotions as they are human, but they are the true revisionists because eventually the collective science of history separates the emotional chaff from factual wheat. [1]

In order to demonstrate this convergence of evidence I will use an example, and will demonstrate how deniers select or twist the data to support their claims. An account from a survivor says he hears about Jews being gassed at Auschwitz. The denier will dismiss this and say the account is exaggerated and their memory unsound. Another survivor gives an account with different details, but with the core fact that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz. The denier will claim a case of contagious rumors that were floating around the camp, and that the survivors simply wove them into their memory. An SS guard confesses after the war that he physically saw people being gassed with his own eyes and then cremated. The denier will claim the confessions were forced out of the officer by the Allies. Now, a member of the Sonderkommando (Jews who helped the Nazis) helped the Nazis move the dead bodies from the gas chambers and into the crematorium. He didn’t just hear about the atrocities occurring, but actually helped and participated in the process. The denier will say that the Sonderkommando account makes no sense; that the figures of numbers are exaggerated and their dates are incorrect. Finally, what about the commandant who not only participated, but saw, heard, oversaw, and orchestrated the project. The denier will say that he was tortured. But what about the autobiography written after the trial, conviction, and death sentence? What would the commandant have to gain by lying after his fate had been sealed? The denier will say that people confess to ridiculous crimes all the time. No one singular testimony has “Holocaust” branded on it. But when pieced together a bigger picture is revealed that creates a pattern. The pattern turns into a story that holds together, while the deniers story unravels. Instead of the historian presenting “just one proof,” the denier now must disprove 6 pieces of historical data, with 6 different methods of disproof.

There is more to this intricate pattern however. There are blueprints of gas chambers and crematoriums. The denier claims they were used strictly for delousing and body disposal. Since the Allies went to war with Germany; the Germans didn’t have the opportunity to deport the Jews to their homeland and had to put them in overcrowded camps where disease and lice were rampant. But what about the huge orders for Zyklon-B gas? The denier claims it was for strictly delousing all the diseased inmates. What about the speeches by Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Hans Frank, and Joseph Goebbels talking about the extermination of the Jews? The denier will claim they were simply meaning a “rooting out.” Adolf Eichmann’s confession at trial? Simple coercion claims the denier. The German government confessed that the Nazis attempted to exterminate European Jews correct? Yes, but the government lied to rejoin the family of nations. Now, the denier must rationalize no less than 14 different bits of evidence that converge on one singular conclusion. Let’s travel even further down this rabbit hole shall we? If 6 million Jews did not die, where did they go? Siberia, Peoria, Israel, and Los Angeles claims the denier. Why can’t they find each other? They do claims the denier; long lost siblings making contact after many decades. What about the photos and newsreels of the liberation of the camps with dead and starving bodies shown in clear view? Those people were well taken care of until the Allies cut off supply lines and relentlessly bombed the Germans. What about the numerous accounts of prisoners on the brutality of the Nazis? Random shootings, beatings, deplorable conditions, freezing temperatures, death marches, etc. Just war the denier responds. War is hell. The Americans interned the Japanese-Americans. The Japanese imprisoned the Chinese. The Russians tortured the Poles and the Germans. The Nazis were no different. However, the denier faces a growing problem. There are now 18 sets of evidence converging towards one conclusion. The denier chips away at them proud of his work (though his work is about as intellectual as the toddler who eats glue). The denier is relying on what is known as post hoc rationalization-after-the-fact reasoning to justify contrary evidence. The denier then demands the Holocaust historian disprove each of his rationalizations. But the convergence of positive evidence supporting the Holocaust means the historian has already met the burden of proof. The denier demands each piece of evidence independently proves the Holocaust, but he ignores the fact that no historian ever claimed that the Holocaust hinged on one singular piece of evidence. The Holocaust is composed of a web of millions of bits of evidence. Therefore, we must examine the evidence as part of a whole. And when we do view the evidence as parts of a whole; the Holocaust reveals itself.

Now, to address a major pillar of denier thought, Zyklon B (hydrogen cyanide) Zyklon B also known as Prussian Blue was not found in the gas chambers, but it was only found in the delousing chambers. Therefore, Zyklon B was not used, or at least in fatal quantities. This erroneous claim comes from the Leuchter report. The Leuchter report was conducted by Fred Leuchter in 1988 after investigating the gas chambers at Auschwitz. He took multiple brick samples from the camp without permission, and he sent them to the United States for chemical analysis. Leuchter was a self-proclaimed “engineer” with no background in science. He only received a degree in history in college. When Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel was tried in Germany; Leuchter’s testimony was used. During the trial Leuchter was asked, “You don’t have a Master of Science; you don’t have a Ph.D in science? You don’t have a degree in engineering?” Leuchter replied correct to both. The argument doesn’t simply fall apart due to Leuchter’s lack of education (or his methodology which has been discredited), but because it doesn’t comply with chemistry. The precursor to Zyklon B is is iron (II) hexacynate. The chemical formation for iron (II) hexacynate is as follows.

Fe+2 + CN-1 à FeCN+1

FeCN+1 + CN-1 à Fe(CN)2

Fe(CN)2 + CN-1 à [Fe(CN)3]-1

[Fe(CN)3]-1 + CN-1 à [Fe(CN)4]-2

[Fe(CN)4]-2 + CN-1 à [Fe(CN)5]-3

[Fe(CN)5]-3 + CN-1 à [Fe(CN)6]-4

The final product is not Zyklon B, but it is absolutely required for Zyklon B to form. The process is very slow however. [3] The entire process can take up to 30 hours to fully complete. According to the testimonies of Hans Stark, Auschwitz Commandant Rudolph Hoss, and inmate Marie-Claude Vaillant-Couturier, it would only take about 30 minutes to complete the gassing process and ventilate the chamber. 30 minutes is not nearly long enough for iron (II) hexacynate to form, and thus Zyklon B could not be formed. Delousing chambers are quite different however. It take much longer and requires higher concentrations of hydrogen cyanide to kill insects such as lice. Lice need approximately 4,600 PPM to be killed while humans only need about 300 PPM. According to Zyklon B manufacturer Degesch fumigation takes 16 hours or more to complete, and a minimum of 6 hours if it is very warm. With the higher concentrations of cyanide and considerably longer gassing periods; significant amounts of iron (II) hexacyanate would have time to form. Large amounts of Zyklon B would result in the delousing chambers. According to Jean-Claude Pressac, the process was also conducted much more often. One more thing to note is that Zyklon B is only mildly soluble. It will dissolve completely in a solution with a pH above 6, and begins to dissolve in a solution above 4. In northern Europe the pH of rain is about 5.4. Enough to partially dissolve remaining stains of Zyklon B over time. However, in the delousing chambers, the substance can infiltrate into the surface of the brick. This explains why some of it is still visible.

Perhaps no aspect of Holocaust denial is more hotly debated than that of body disposal at Auschwitz. Deniers will adamantly argue that it was impossible to dispose of 1.1 million killed at Auschwitz. They then claim that this many people were not killed at Auschwitz. This criticism is almost understandable. Deniers center their arguments on the impossibility of Auschwitz using gas chambers. Robert Faurisson was their “expert.” Faurisson was a French literature professor. He made a number of arguments in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. His ideas became incorporated into Leuchter’s report who I went over in the previous section. The report proves that Leuchter knew almost nothing about the Auschwitz gas chambers. Faurisson and Leuchter were colleagues and Faurisson wrote the forward to The Leuchter Report. I will again revisit the Leuchter report as it will prove crucial to this next section. In 1994 the Institute for Forensic Research in Cracow, Poland undertook a comprehensive examination of the structures identified by numerous eye witness accounts as gas chambers. The Institute found traces of hydrocyanic acid in the 6 structures tested. The structures were the remains of 5 crematoria and an execution block. An unsettling truth for deniers is that the Institute found the greatest concentration of poison gas in the samples in tested from Crematorium II. 6 out of 7 samples were positive. Leuchter claimed he could not find any hydrocyanic acid in this structure. From this one can conclude that either Leuchter was completely incompetent, or just dishonest. The findings in Crematorium II also substantiated an earlier obersvation by Jean Claude Pressac. Pressac viewed a tape of Leuchter’s sample gathering. The tape revealed that Leuchter had purposely avoided the areas of Crematorium II that would test positive. An important piece of information to note is that the Institute had permission to take samples from places likely to collect residues. The total discrediting of Leuchter’s report has led deniers to switch their focus to body disposal arguments. On the side of deniers, Italian denier Carlo Mattogno. His arguments were first presented in a 1994 monograph where he advanced his ideas on Auschwitz body gas chambers and crematoriums. Mattogno has a slight advantage over other deniers in the sense that his sources are often difficult to verify. He has used obscure German sources and archival material. Although Mattogno is more sophisticated in his writings over most deniers; he reverts to same common denier tactics of omission and misrepresentation.

In 1941 Auschwitz had 2 double muffle coke fired furnaces. In the spring of 1942 and additional double muffle oven was added. Each muffle can be considered an oven. The total amount of ovens at this time was 6. The 6 ovens were in the main camps at Stammlager or Auschwitz 1. These 6 ovens were housed in a crematorium known as Krema I. Auschwitz began to build 4 new crematoria in the Birkenau area of Auschwitz. The 4 new crematoria housed an additional 46 ovens. Kremas II and III each had 5 triple muffle furnaces which equates to 15 ovens in each. Kremas IV and V had single 8 muffle furnaces which equates to 8 ovens in each. All of the ovens were built by the Topf and Sons firm and used coke as fuel.

A common place of dispute is the amount of bodies that could be burned in a 24 hour period, and why so many crematoriums were built. A common denier answer is that typhus was the reason for the large quantity of furnaces. It is undeniable that typhus was a major problem for Auschwitz. How many died from typhus however? Polish historian Dr. Franciszek Piper did the most comprehensive demographic study of Auschwitz ever undertaken. His study traced approximately 1.3 million prisoners to the camp. His study found that 1.1 million had been killed including 200,000 of the registered prisoners and 900,000 prisoners that who never received registration numbers because they were killed upon arrival. In 1989, the Auschwitz Archives in Moscow were opened to the public for the first time since the Soviets liberated Auschwitz in 1945. The Auschwitz Death Books were among the items discovered and contained the death certificates of registered prisoners only. The Death Books contain records only from August of 1941 to December of 1943. Although the records from prior to 1941 and after 1943 are either missing or destroyed, the books provide us a record of what was killing registered prisoners. Of the nearly 69,000 deaths recorded in the book, only 2060 were from Typhus. Although Typhus can be lethal, it is not necessarily so. There are many accounts of prisoners and staff contracting Typhus and surviving. An early Auschwitz memoir written in 1947 recounts an experience with Josef Mengele also known as the “Angel of Death” for the medical experiments he performed. Mengele was disturbed by the typhus epidemic. A former prisoner wrote:

“Alas, typhus epidemics did rage in the camp, but at this time we had comparatively few victims. The same day Mengele sent us a large quantity of serum and directed mass vaccinations.” A Ukrainian prisoner by the name of Petro Mirchuk wrote that a delousing in August of 1942, “eliminated the epidemic and billions of fleas and lice ceased to exist.”

What was the main cause of death for prisoners if not typhus? The Death Books claim that most causes of death were various forms of heart failure such as heart attacks, heart muscle degeneration, and heart and circulatory collapse. There are over 25,000 heart problem related deaths. People under 50 account for approximately 59,000 deaths. People under 40 account for more than 44,000 deaths. It is simply not possible for those under the ages listed to have died from the stated causes. With rare exceptions, young people do not die of heart failure. Some other cases stated the cause of death for children was decrepitude which is an affliction for elderly people. The deaths do not conform to a plausible physical reality. Wieslaw Kielar, a Polish prisoner, was one of those tasked with falsifying the death certificates. He writes that a common method for getting rid of sick people was to simply kill them. His memoirs written in 1972 were 17 years before the discovery of the death certificates. In his memoir he writes,

“My work consisted of writing out death certificates. The description of the illness for which the prisoner had died also applied to those who had been murdered in the camp. Shot, killed by injection, gas chamber. Each one had to have his case history – a fictitious one, of course. That was what the camp authorities demanded, and that was what I was ordered to do. I must admit that, to begin with, I wrote “heart failure” in the case of prisoners who I knew had been shot. Later, though, I decided that there had been too many of these heart failures… In the case of a man who had been shot, for instance, I wrote diarrhea… In brief it was nothing but a barefaced falsification of the death records, an obliteration of all traces of mass murder that had been committed on defenseless prisoners.”

Ella Lingens Reinger a German medical doctor wrote that typhus patients were killed by an injection of phenol. Reinger writes,

“The result was that we, the prisoner-doctors, simply disguised typhus as influenza in our lists.”

Another account by Pery Broad, an SS private first class assigned to Auschwitz, wrote in his memoirs after the war,

“Death certificates were written by a medically trained prisoner whose job in the hospital it was to concoct such reports in the case of each prisoner who had died in the camp, whatever the cause. All the countless victims, those who…had been shot in Block 11 [the execution block], or the sick who had phenol injected into their hearts, the victims of starvation or of tortures, they had all regrettably lost their lives, according to the Deaths [sic] Book by succumbing to some ordinary disease.”

Another prisonder known as Jenny Ashnauer, an Austrian, who also testified at the Auschwitz trials in Germany wrote,

“Most of the recorded causes of death were fictitious. Thus, for example, we were never allowed to enter “shot while escaping” in the book; I had to write “heart failure.” and “cardiac weakness” was the cause listed instead of “malnutrition.”

Although since deniers reject post war testimony their only recourse is that ailments which prisoners were not at risk for were responsible for so many deaths. The conclusion they reach is illogical and inconsistent. Mattogno and others simply spout the myth that typhus was responsible for the high mortality rate of inmates.

The biggest point deniers point out is the cremation capacity of ovens. Cremation ovens were first put in use sometime in the 1870’s. From cremations conducted in 1874 a 47-pound child could be cremated in 25 minutes, a 144-pound woman in 50 minutes, and a 227-pound man in 55 minutes. Mattogno cited a participant from a British cremation conference in 1975 who stated that the “thermal barrier” for cremation was 60 minutes. Mattogno ignored the comments of another participant who suggested most burning occurred in the first 30 minutes. Again, Mattogno reverts back to the simple illogical methodology as described earlier by ignoring any evidence he doesn’t like. The Topf double muffle furnaces envisioned a design that the body could and would be added into the oven during the last 20 minutes that it took to fully cremate a corpse that had been previously inserted. The instructions were as follows,

”As soon as the remains of the corpses have fallen from the chamotte grid to the ash collection channel below, they should be pulled forward towards the ash removal door, using the scraper. Here they can be left for a further twenty minutes to be fully consumed….In the meantime, further corpses can be introduced one after the other into the chambers.”

The result was an approximate 25-minute burning cycle. The problem with Auschwitz is that because of the unique circumstance surrounding it, and the lack of official documents recording cremation or how the ovens worked; we are forced into a certain amount of speculation. It is impossible to replicate the conditions that Auschwitz operated under. It is almost impossible that there will be an opportunity for 52 ovens in the same location to dispose of bodies in the same conditions that Auschwitz hosted. For this reason, comparing Auschwitz furnaces to a modern furnace is fallacious and any attempt to do so should simply be discarded. Modern cremations are subject to many rules and regulations that the Germans were not bound by. The ashes of those cremated cannot intermingle with the ashes of others. German concentration camps were not subject to this rule, and they were even encouraged to not follow this rule due to the furnace design. Furthermore, this practice does not include simultaneous burning which was quite common. The combination of the furnace design to put one body in 20 minutes before another was completely finished and putting multiple bodies in at once could easily account for massive amounts of bodes being burned. Another important factor is that the average weight of a Holocaust victim at Auschwitz was approximately 60-70 pounds. On top of furnace burning, the Germans also employed open air burning to burn bodies en mass. Using these figures and estimates it is not at all unreasonable to assume that mass burning of bodies could occur at Auschwitz during the given time frame. [4]

A final note I would like to add is that many people like to bring up that only around 270,000 Jews died as a result of the Holocaust. The official red Cross Document is below. Screenshot_5

Though there are many other technicalities and factors I could include; I will conclude here as I am approaching the 5,000 word mark. The conclusion that I have reached along with a large part of the scientific and historical community is that the Holocaust did indeed occur. There are millions of bits of evidence all converging on one central point. The claims of Holocaust deniers are riddled with fallacies and flawed methodology that simply don’t hold up to academic scrutiny. Holocaust deniers as mentioned before are quite simply cranks. The little bits of “evidence” they present is heavily cherry picked ignoring all other relevant facts that go into making an assertive stance on a level further than that of a middle schooler. Holocaust deniers have never been relevant in modern academia, nor should they be taken seriously. Those who still deny the Holocaust ignore the facts of history, and those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Krugman, Paul R. Peddling prosperity: economic sense and nonsense in the age of diminished expectations. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1995. Print.

Shermer, Michael. Why people believe weird things: pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time;. New York: St. Martins Griffin, 2002. Print.

Sharpe, A.G., The chemistry of cyano complexes of the transition metals

Speer, Albert. Spandau: the secret diaries. Bronx, NY: Ishi Press International, 2010. Print.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s