Talk:Zyklon B/Archive 1

Archive 1

Krakow

The link "Krakow" leads to a city where there should be a person. It makes it seem as if this person doesn't exist, thus discrediting anything that paragraph asserts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.39.68 (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That's because Krakow is indeed a city and not a person. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Chemical Warfare

Zyklon B was not used on chemical warfare (see c.w. on wiki). It was a means to execute/murder people. Or would you call the electric chair an instrument of electric warfare? 141.13.8.14 10:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

From Ed Poor's talk page:

And I don't admire his censorship! Why did You remove: "It is doubtful wheter "Zyklon B" has been used to kill humans in Auschwitz or elsewhere: http://www.codoh.com/found/fndgcger.html from: http://www.codoh.com/found/found.html " ??? from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Zyklon_B&action=history

Such links should be included, since the THHP link is included as well. I'd like to suggest: http://germarrudolf.com/work/trr/index.html

If you want to mention such doubts, please follow our guidelines. Say, for example, that Mr. X of the Y organization say, etc. --Ed

Please either ban me, Wik, or protect extermination camp and death camp. Lirath Q. Pynnor Also, in the future, try not to remove POV statements like the Zyklon B linkl; rather, just NPOV them. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Much as as the thought of banning you tempts me, I think I'll pass. I'd rather assign you more work! ;-)

Now, Wik, on the other hand, there's an idea! :-)

As for the Zyklon B thing, I was just doing as secretlondon requested. Why make such a big deal about it? It's fixed now.

Im not making a big deal out of it. The page has been unprotected, there is no reason since there is no edit war. Lirath Q. Pynnor

---

Now I believe that Zyklon was used as a poison gas. What I don't understand is why we shouldn't have links to the doubters on this page. I would rephrase the text about the link to something more explanatory. Rmhermen 17:51, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)

Fully agree BOTH (or more, if there are more) sides on the Holocaust issue should be present. The Germar Rudolf page would be such a case. I think there is a zyklon-b.info page as well. --197.228.24.19 (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Broken Link

That was me who removed the link that appeared to be broken; I forgot to log on. If that link actually *does* work, put it back in, but I've tried several times already, so I don't think it's just me. TheProject 04:26, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Broken Links...

The links are/were indeed broken: But there are other links with exactly the same contents: http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/found.html and http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndgcger.html

So please simply replace those links! Regards George...

Those are dead, too. --84.128.183.218 19:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

These last two links work just fine, they are not dead. --83.103.132.96 17:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tested and at least the first one is working fine.--41.242.207.217 (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. vho is not an acceptable source. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Lack of verifiable sources and references

This article contains numerous statements and claims but provides no references or sources for verification. Is the article not about a chemical substance that can kill lice? What is the chemical formula, the specific gravity, atomic weight, etc. of this compound? How about providing more NPOV facts and information along with citations of sources?Kenny56 09:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

As the first para says :'It consisted of hydrocyanic acid (prussic acid), a stabilizer, and a warning odorant that were impregnated onto various substrates, typically small absorbant pellets, fiber discs, or diatomaceous earth. It was stored in airtight containers; when exposed to air, the substrates evolved gaseous hydrogen cyanide (HCN).' It is meaningless to ask for the formula, sp grav, or atomic weight. The compounds mentioned are linked, so you can look at the article for HCN.

It is beyond despute that it was used to kill millions of people at Auschwitz and Majdenek. There is a link to a page discussing the Leuchter report (and 2 others) on the page. There is a link to a paper on the prussian blue staining at the end of one of the paras you added disputed tags to. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It is definitely not beyond dispute. Where do you get such an arrogant attitude to think that the belief that you hold, and all the while still refusing to provide verifiable sources or references, is beyond dispute?

How did you obtain this knowledge? Were you an eyewitness? If not then you must supply statements of fact from sources that can be checked and verified. This is a fundamental principle for Wiki content.

By the way i don't appreciate your removing the disputed and unsourced tags without providing the requested verifiable sources first. You have acted in violation of Wiki guidelines. i will give you this warning before taking action to have you sanctioned.Kenny56 07:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The people who dispute the use of Zyklon B in gas chambers are Nazi apologists. No serious historian disputes the facts of the Holocaust. This has been supported in the court cases of David Irving and Ernst Zündel. If you want some reference books, try

1. Bresheeth, Hood and Jansz, 'The Holocaust for Beginners', Icon Books, 1994, ISBN 1-874166-16-1
2. Lucy Dawidowicz, 'The War Against the Jews', Penguin, 1990, ISBN 0-14-013463-8
3. Martin Gilbert, 'The Holocaust', Fontana, 1990, ISBN 0-00-637194-9

You might also want to take a look at Deborah Lipstadt's 'Denying the Holocaust'.

If you are using the {{disputed}} tag, you should say what you think the truth is. If you only want sources to be cited, use {{fact}} or {{citation needed}}, but note that WP:CITE says ' This should be used sparingly; Wikipedia has a lot of undercited articles, and inserting many of instances of {{citation needed}} is unlikely to be beneficial.' --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 08:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It says there's no citation for the claim that the sales were separated by region, yet one of the links says this: "The chief gas involved was Zyklon B, a highly dangerous poison gas, 99 per cent. of which was prussic acid. The gas was manufactured by another firm. Tesch and Stabenow had the exclusive agency for the supply of the gas east of the River Elbe, but the Zyklon B itself went directly from the manufacturers to the customer." http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/zyklonb.htm

JWhiteheadcc (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Zyklon B poisonous?

Last time I checked it was a pesticide, and pesticides although harmful do not kill humans.

wowee, hold all calls folks, we have a winner. Gzuckier 14:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You might want to check this out:

http://pubweb.northwestern.edu/~abutz/di/dl/zyklon.html

Maybe the doubting user accepts statements by Gerhard Peters, manager of Degesch, the inventor of Zyklon B, made 1941 in a respected German language scientific journal (Zeitschrift für hygenische Zoologie und Schädlingsbekämpfung (Journal of Hygienic Zoology and Pest Control, No. 8/9, 1941)) as evidence that the temperature range of Zyklon B application is unlikely to be limited by the low temperature in "half-underground mortuaries of the Auschwitz-Birkenau crematories":

Die in beiden Richtungen durchgeführten Untersuchungen erbrachten die eindeutige Bestätigung der auf langjährigen praktischen Beobachtungen gegründeten Annahme, daß die Wirksamkeit der Blausäure und die Eignung des Zyklons-Verfahrens ein Temperaturgebiet umfassen, das mit Bestimmtheit noch bis mindestens 10°C unter Null reicht. (The analyses in both directions decisively support the assumption based on many years of practical observations that the effectivity of prussic acid and the applicability of the Zyklon-method includes a temperature range which does with certainty reach down to at least 10°C below zero.")

Best regards, --Trinitrix (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Take, for instance, the deposition of Wolfgang Froelich during the recent trial of Swiss revisionist Jurgen Graf (condemned to 15 months imprisonment and 18,000 SwF in monetary penalties for investigating the "Holocaust" in Russian archives and publishing the results, as well as a booklet titled "On the Decline of Swiss Freedom").

Froelich is an Austrian engineer and an expert witness whose field of expertise are process engineering and gas applications. He told the court he has carried out numerous gassings to exterminate pests and infectious microbes. Here is how he answers the questions by public prosecutor Aufdenblatten:

Aufdenblatten: "In your opinion were mass gassings with Zyklon B possible?"

Froelich: "No".

Aufdenblatten: "Why not?"

Froelich: "The pesticide Zyklon B is hydrocyanic acid absorbed in a granular-shaped carrier substance. It is released though contact with the air. The evaporation point of hydrocyanic acid is 25.7 degrees (Celsius). The higher the temperature, the more rapid is the rate of evaporation. The delousing chambers in which Zyklon B was used in NS (German wartime) camps and elsewhere were heated to 30 degrees and higher, so that the hydrocyanic acid would be released rapidly from the carrier granules. However, in the half-underground mortuaries of the Auschwitz-Birkenau crematories, where witnesses claim that mass killings with Zyklon B took place, the temperatures were much lower. Even if one allows for the warming of the spaces by the body warmth of the hypothetical prisoners, the temperature would not have been more than 15 degrees, even in summer time. Consequently, it would have taken many hours for the hydrocyanic acid to evaporate.

"According to eyewitness reports, the victims died very quickly. The witnesses mention time frames of 'instantaneous' to '15 minutes'. To be able to kill the gas chamber prisoners in such a short time, the Germans would have had to use ridiculously large amounts of Zyklon -- I estimate from 40 to 50 kilograms for each gassing. This would have made any work in the gas chamber fundamentally impossible. The special detachment (Sonderkommando) people, whom the witnesses say were assigned the task of clearing out (dead bodies) from them (the gas chambers), would have collapsed immediately upon entering the rooms, even if they were wearing gas masks. Enormous amounts of hydrocyanic acid would have streamed out into the open, and would have poisoned the entire camp".

Froehlich's statement corroborates the investigations and declarations of such specialists as gas chamber expert Fred Leuchter, Austrian engineer Wlater Lueftl, American research chemist William B. Lindsay, German chemist Germar Rudolf, and German engineer Wofgang Schuster.

I'm afraid you've given too much credibility to Holocaust deniers like Butz and Leuchter. They make up lies to fit their neo-Nazi political agenda. This is well covered in the article on Holocaust denial, and at the Nizkor Project [www.nizkor.org].

The argument is beyond circular. you couldn't use Zyklon because it's not poisonous enough so you would have had to use so much that it would have been too dangerous, because it's poisonous. Presumably, the argument would then be that you have to use a more poisonous gas so that it would be less dangerous. Gzuckier 14:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the Polish research groups study on Zyklon B has imploded. They invalidated their own work when the pressure got too high. So far noone has refuted Leuchter and the German Koch?'s work was too precise to deny ( sorry about that word ). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Leuchter the one that had little or no qualifications in chemistry? The guy who thought that it takes more cyanide to kill Humans then lice? (it's the other way around) When you make a fundamental and obvious error like that, how can any of your "conclusions" be taken seriously? Cantankrus 03:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it may be surprising that I myself don't place much stock in what an unsigned anon "believes" when he states that he also believes that nobody's refuted Leuchter. As you say, Leuchter goofed in many ways, also including taking thick samples of brick when a beginner in chemistry will figure out that cyanide doesn't penetrate brick to any depth. As the guy who ran the lab that Leuchter sent the samples to testified in court, stating that if Leuchter had told him in advance the plan he would have informed him. And note that, nevertheless, he found traces of cyanide in the gas chamber samples, which Leuchter dismissed, even though his control found zero cyanide. Bad thinking. Kind of like finding "traces" of plutonium in somebody's luggage and dismissing it because it wasn't as high as you expected. The reasonable explanation is that the cyanide/plutonium had been there and your expectations regarding how much it would leave behind are wrong. Gzuckier 15:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Leuchter did goof in several (few,maybe 1 or 2)details. However, his method was scientific. Remember those Cracow guys - similar method. Zyklon is very poisonous, but very slow release ( under Polish conditions particularly ). Leuchter should have written more concisely - ie if you want to kill x hundreds of people in a cool cellar in y minutes you would need z amount at the outgassing rate of Zyklon B used in the 1940s. The amount used to kill lice might have killed a human eventually - hours, if not days later. But to get enough to kill humans ( in minutes ) would require a massive dose - the columns connected to the holes that don't seem to be around anymore are way,way,way too small. The quantity of Zyklon needed would require that the columns be the gas chamber and the gas chamber be the column. Leuchter is not an out of the box thinker it appears so he stumbled into logical thinking, but still several other researhers seem to have arrived at his same conclusion - except of course the Cracow group. They seemed to think that Prussian blue on the outside of gaschambers ( for lice - why did they give up that piece, why not have the place with lots of Prussian blue be the "real" gas chamber ( obviously Leuchter isn't the only one who doesn't think outside the box) was from mattresses leaning on the outside wall). These guys - Cracow - seem to have some chance but they decided not to test the blue stuff - don't send your kids to Poland to take chemistry is the moral to this story.159.105.80.63 18:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

PS Cracow group says that blue color is not related to cyanide ( which of course they don't feel complied to test )and in the next breath they say the mattress ( airing out its cyanide ) colored the wall - the world's chemists let them get away with this logic ( they must all be scared to death of someone - wonder who).159.105.80.63 11:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, HCN is more toxic to humans than to lice etc. Every chemist, every scientist comes to the same conclusion, the one which fits in with countless eyewitness accounts. The Germans killed, gassed, murdered the jews and everyone else deemed worthless in their ideology.

And I'm not really surprised you imply that the jews scare "the world's chemists" to death, it fits just perfectly to your rambling. --!nnovativ (talk) 08:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

References

Millions? Thousands?

I find it doubtful that Zyklon B is single handed responsible for killing 10%+ of all those who died in the holocaust, assuming 10 million total. It is seems logistically impossible. Perhaps the "millions" should be "thousands" or "hundreds of thousands" until more firm numbers can be established.

The number killed at Auschwitz, where Zyklon B was used, are 1.1 million +, and Z-B was also used at Majdanek, where 80,000 to 250,000 were killed. I've reworded the sentence, see what you think. I don't like 'thousands', because it gives the impression of a number between 2 and 10 thousand. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree with your wordings in the article. We know approx. 1 to 1.3 million people died at Auschwitz, however, not all of this was done through Zyklon B. In you article you write: "notorious for its use by Nazi Germany to kill over one million people in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and Majdanek during the Holocaust." I think the sentence needs revision, since Zyklon B itself was not responsible for the total death at Auschwitz, but your sentence is more inclined to perhaps make others to assume that Zyklon B was almost solely responsible. Other factors led to the death of people at Auschwitz that included starvation, disease, forced long labour, individual executions (such as shooting), medical experiments, suicide, and so much more. It is therefore wrong to assume, or to state a figure incling to state "notorious for its use by Nazi Germany to kill over one million people" when that figure shows the total dying at Auschwitz and not that by Zyklon B.--Waqas1987 14:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have decided to remove the numbers, which now reads: "notorious for its use by Nazi Germany against civilians in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and Majdanek during the Holocaust." I think this is a much more historically accurate and proper sentence to use --Waqas1987 14:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

there is not one single solitary shred of physical evidence that anyone died of gas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.226.95.18 (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

1.2 million people gassed is inconsistent information with "The prosecution case stated that Zyklon B was used for <<systematically exterminating human beings to an estimated total of six million, of whom four and a half million were exterminated by the use of Zyklon B in one camp alone, known as Auschwitz/Birkenau>>" sentence found in Bruno Tesch article. --Mirekrusin (talk) 12:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Four and a half million did not die in Auschwitz/Birkenau, it was 900,000 to 1.5 million. Many Jews (about 1.3 million) were shot or killed in gas vans (carbon monoxide) by the Einsatzgruppen, and Zyklon B was not used at Bełżec, Sobibor, and Treblinka; carbon monoxide was used there as well. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

hard facts

I too would like to see some hard facts. How long does it take Zyklon B to kill people? What are the variables?

Something more than eyewitness testimony would be nice, btw.

See Hydrogen Cyanide and Cyanide. You will find answers there. --Jklamo 23:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You cannot have hard facts, they don't exist. If the eye witness accounts are made availabe by wikipedia to the general public they could be sued for causing the deaths of thousands - maybe millions - from laughter.

Really? What would be funny about that? Please elaborate; is the extermination of people something that you find as a source of mirth? If so why?

Nevermind. I think we are starting to understand. . . .

Facts

Hydrogen cyanide gas is lethal at 300 parts per million and explosive at 56,000 parts per million. Below room temperature (25.7C, 78F) it tends to revert to liquid or solid. Normally a gas chamber would be hermetically sealed and constructed of non-porous material in order to avoid hazards to those operating the chamber, and removal of the gas is achieved by ducting and fans. Depending on temperature, this could take anywhere from one to twenty-four hours. Workers would need to wear gas masks to avoid potentially lethal exposure. In colder temperatures, hydrogen cyanide is slow to dissipate (though lighter than air) and would require aggressive measures for removal. Few physically intact gas chambers survived the war, though several delousing chambers remained in existence. These were installed in various locations to rid piles of clothing, even entire train cars, of lice, which spread typhus, an acknowledged principle cause of death of civilians and camp prisoners throughout Europe during the war. The reconstructed gas chamber at Auschwitz on view today lacks the various mechanisms for heating, dispersal, and removal of Zyklon B.

Some basic facts for free. Here we go:

"Below room temperature (25.7C, 78F) it [HCN] tends to revert to liquid or solid."

HCN has, under atmospheric pressure, a boiling point of 25.7°C and a melting point of -13.24°C. This does not mean, however, that it forms no gaseous phase (known as vapor, already heard of?) below its b.p., or as a liquid. In fact, liquid HCN at 0°C (the freezing point) has a vapor pressure of 264 Torr (mm Hg), or about 0.347 bar, or about 35,171 Pa. This means that at full saturation by its vapor in the air at 0°C, there are over 300,000 ppm (yes, that's three hundred thousand), or about 30% hydrogen cyanide. Given that this full saturation is practicaly achievable only under lab conditions and even more so, not necesarry (remember, that 3,000 ppm kills a human in about a minute), the boiling point or the absolute temperature in the gas chamber at the point of immersion of Zyklon B pellets are irrelevant. In fact, any temperature above 7 - 10°C is fully sufficient to rapidly evaporate lethal concentrations of hydrogen cyanide off the solid carrier, as is known from the practice of fumigation by applying Zyklon-B-like products (Cyanosil, Uragan, Cyatox), which are all copies of Zyklon B and are still being used by professional pest control operators around the world.

"Normally a gas chamber would be hermetically sealed and constructed of non-porous material in order to avoid hazards to those operating the chamber, and removal of the gas is achieved by ducting and fans."

Gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau ("Krema II - V") were made of high-quality reinforced steel concrete, equipped by doors with synthetic rubber lining, 4 immersion shafts for Zyklon B pellets each and venting systems. All these were to a great extent demolished by exlosives in january 1945 by the SS. The only structurly intact gas chamber in the whole Auschwitz complex that can be seen from within is the one next to Auschwitz I "Stammlager", within the old crematory. It was used in 1941, later abandoned for this use due to its low capacity, (as the "Red House" and "White House" went into use in early 1942 and Kremas II - V were built in 1942 - 1943) and rebuilt into a bomb shelter for the SS staff for the rest of the war.

"Depending on temperature, this could take anywhere from one to twenty-four hours."

In Krema II and III, there were undergroud gas chambers with dimensions of 8 m wide × 40 m long × 2.2 m high, having internal volume of some 700 + m³. For one "special operation" (gassing), 4 cans of Zyklon B of 1.5 kg each = 6 kg total of Zyklon B = ~ 4 kg of available hydrogen cyanide were thrown down the four immersion shafts (which fell into "baskets" made of tight wire mesh, surrounded by protective steel lattices, within the gas chambers themselves). By temperatures over 10°C, most of the HCN available in full contact with air due to the basket/lattice constructed shafts, evaporated within few minutes. If we consider only 10% the amouth of HCN (= 0.4kg or 400 grams) to become airborne within the chamber of some 700 m³ internal volume, we get an average concentration of over 570 mg HCN /m³ air, which is well over 500 ppm. Granted there were not ideal conditions for instantenous intimate mixture of HCN vapors with air, yet the concentrations achievable in the chambre in matter of minutes at any temperature (which would be regardless of the weather outside somewhere around 10 - 12°C without heating, as in most basement-like structures) were sufficiently high to kill everyone inside within minutes.

Good analysis Spiperon, but the concentration of airborne HCN you calculated is valid for an empty gas chamber. Now subtract from that the volume displaced by hundreds of human bodies and the concentration of cyanide increases dramatically.Gumbootchiton (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"Workers would need to wear gas masks to avoid potentially lethal exposure."

They did (SS as well as the Sonderkommando).

"In colder temperatures, hydrogen cyanide is slow to dissipate (though lighter than air) and would require aggressive measures for removal."

Chambers were vented by ventilators (as is evident from the construction blueprints as well as witness testimonies) after each gassing. If the temperature outside would be lower than that in the chamber, this would, along with thermal convection of the crematoria exhausts right next to ventilation outlets, only help to dissipate the contaminated air from the chamber.

"The reconstructed gas chamber at Auschwitz on view today lacks the various mechanisms for heating, dispersal, and removal of Zyklon B."

This gas chamber was the first one within the Auschwitz complex, its located just south to the "Stammlager" and was dismantled by the SS themselves by the end of 1941; it was used for the rest of the war as an airraid shelter of the camp SS staff. The ultimate reason for dropping the use of this structure as a gas chamber was its unfavourable construction, lacking any sophisticated Zyklon introduction methods and effective ventilation, making it, along with its relative small dimensions, rather an "ineffective" site of genocide.--Spiperon (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please provide reliable secondary sources for your Holocaust denial original research before attempting to re-insert it into any article. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Why would Germany use Zyklon B when they had thousands of tons of VX gas on hand? They never used their VX gas on anyone as far as I know, not even the Allies, but they had thousands of tons of it right on hand. VX would have been far more efficient a killer, and Germans are not known for being ignorant of chemistry. I'd imagine you'd have to inhale grams and grams of Zyklon B to be in danger of dying, while drops of VX gas would do the job by itself.

Dear anonymous. VX was first synthetised in 1952 in the british military research facility at Porton Down. Third Reich had not a single gram of this agent. They had stockpiles of the agent GA (Tabun), manufactured for potential CW purposes from 1942 onwards in Dyhernfurth/Oder and some experimental batches of the agents GB (Sarin) and GD (Soman). There are two points more I'd like to explain to you: 1. Why Zyklon B? Because it was cheap, plentiful, rapidly acting, predictable and many operators were familiar with it. It could be made in vast quantities even towards the end of the war, with most of resources cut off and the industry bombed down to rubble, from natural/agrotechnical/rudimentar sources at hand. It was easy and safe to transport, store and handle, if the operators have made a two-week course of good work practice at Testa/Degesch/SS Hygiene Services. It could be stored and imported to the camps in large quantities without raising suspicions as it was the most widely used insecticide for delousing of large structures/complexes. Not the last, antidotes for cyanide poisoning were known at the time, in contrary to nerve agents. 2. No, nerve agents wouldn't be more effective and certainly not cost-effective. Manufacture of these was orders of magnitude more expensive and complicated, than that of HCN, these substances are all liquids with lower vapor pressures, therefore not as effective for gassing operations and it would be far more complicated to decontaminate the chambers after use of some of the G-agents. And as for your "figures" on toxicity of HCN vs. nerve agents: you have no clue apparently. Lethal dose of pure HCN for a man is about 50 - 100 mg (~1 mg/kg BW). Grams of Zyklon B, containing grams of hydrogen cyanide, present lethal doses for dozens of people.--Spiperon (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually they could have used the exhaust gas of the cremation ovens.

Only a very small fraction of the Zyklon used in any of the camps would have been capable of killing all the victims claimed - if there was a gas chamber. It appears that almost all the gas was used to kill lice 99% and that leaves about 1% to kill people ( which would have been enough ).

This is roughly correct. Reliable sources cited in the text show that more than 95% of the Zyklon B was actually used for delousing, and less than 5% for mass murder. --Trinitrix (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

However, it seems strange to use 99% to save the inmates and then use 1% to kill them - not a terribly effective operation.

You miss a basic point in the setup of Auschwitz. Look at the main article: It was actually a combination of an extermination camp and a camp for **huge** slave labor population. That is why the notorious selections took place: Those apparently nor fit for work were exterminated immediately; those fit for work were assigned to slave labor. It would not have been 'economical' to have the slave workers die of typhus before they were scheduled to. Also the SS was afraid of catching typhus as well. --Trinitrix (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The lack of the warning agent must have also applied to the lice - the warning agent was produced by a different company, there may be more than one interpretaion of why warning agents and Zyklon were not combined during wartime conditions. The dire warning agent idea seems more like wild conjecture than a citable fact.159.105.80.141 13:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Minor question - why use Zyklon ( designed to make it safe to use - also slow release ) when the stright cyanide could have been shipped in small vials, etc and would have killed almost instantly in an enclosed ares - not slow release granules. Germans must have all been dumb as rocks.159.105.80.141 13:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they were quite smart if this was an admissible term here. Pure HCN has many disadvantages in handling and storage. That is why it went out of use for pest control in Germany already during the 1920s and was widely replaced by Zyklon B. I have expanded the respective section of the article. Zyklon B had been a safe, popular and highly effective pest control agent for years before the holocaust - and continued to be one for many years more. The high porosity and surface area of the adsorbents used in Zyklon B made sure that a high HCN concentration would be available within minutes - even at low temperatures. --Trinitrix (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If Zyklon needs to be 78 degrees F to become a gas then wouldn't you need a heating system in the winter - even in the summer - in Poland. Naturally 78+ days must be rare and unpredictable in Poland - how could you go from the train to the gas chamber in winter if the previous trainload was waiting for summer.159.105.80.141 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This question is answered already at great length above. Check your basic physical chemistry book! Even much below the boiling point, liquids such as HCN have a substantial vapor partial pressure. --Trinitrix (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

DuPont's literature on the topic is enlightening:

Specific HCN air quality standards for the OSHA Short Term Exposure Limit (STEL) are 4.7 ppm, 5 mg/m3. The ACGIH Threshold Limit Value (TLV) is 10 ppm, 11 mg/m3, Time Weighted Average (TWA). This is also a ceiling value. The Du Pont Acceptable Exposure Limit (AEL) is 10 ppm-8-hour TWA, 5 ppm-12-hour TWA. [27]

OSHA is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which sets workplace safety guidelines for the U.S. Department of Labor.

DuPont lists furthermore the following safety thresholds:

2-5 ppm Odor threshold

4-7 ppm OSHA exposure limit, 15 minute time weighted average

20-40 ppm Slight symptoms after several hours

45-54 ppm Tolerated for 1/2 to 1 hour without significant immediate or delayed effects

100-200 ppm Fatal within 1/2 to 1 hour

300 ppm Rapidly fatal (if no treatment)

Cracow Report a Fraud?

The following statement is nonsense:"Modern Holocaust deniers assert that Zyklon B gas was not used in the gas chambers, as evidenced by the lack of Prussian Blue residue in the chambers themselves. The Institute for Forensic Research in Krakow, however, refuted this claim, finding substantial concentrations of cyanide in the buildings in 1994.[1]" TH cyanide found was within natural, normal range for those materials. The concentrations were less then 1 ppm! To refute the claim, they also would have to proof that Zyklon B. had indeed been used against humans. In fact they haven't. Rudolf exposes the cracow report as fraud

Except that the barracks, where you would expect no cyanide, showed zero point zero residue. "within natural normal range" my ass. in fact, Leuchter and the Cracow report both found cyanide in the fumigation rooms, cyanied in the execution chambers, and no cyanide where there wasn't supposed to be any cyanide. Gzuckier 14:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This is where the science behind gassig seems to elude most folks. Barracks are not airtight so not finding traces where it would have been stupid ( ie a waste ) to use Zyklon is not unexpected. Finding lots in a delousing chamber is to be expected ( lots was found - except by Cracow using their new method ). Not much was found ( nearly the same as the barracks ) in the supposed gas chambers - not airtight etc ( this is the rub - why would a German engineer all of a sudden build a gas chamber that was a stupid design when not far away he had a delousing chamber that worked - maybe the good engineers all were dead? Alzheimers?...)159.105.80.63 11:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fritz Haber is not the inventor

The following sentence is not correct: Zyklon B was originally developed by Fritz Haber. Erfinder: Dr. Walter Heerdt / Patentschrift vom 27.12.1926 für DEGESCH / Patent rückwirkend zum 20. 6. 1922 erteilt / Please have a look at Diskussion:Fritz Haber in Wikipedia (german) - Holgerjan

Holgerjan is right, "Dr. Fritz Haber" is not the inventor of Zyklon B.(He 'only' invented the Haber process) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process

Zyklon B was invented at his institute, but not from himself.

citation: During the 1920s, scientists working at his institute developed the cyanide gas formulation Zyklon B, which was used as an insecticide, especially as a fumigant in grain stores, and also later, after he left the program, in the Nazi extermination camps.[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber

In the german Wiki "DR WALTER HEERDT" is the inventor.

for verifikation see this links:

http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=DE&NR=438818C&KC=C&FT=D&date=19261227&DB=&locale=en_V3

http://www.zyklon-b.info/produkt/geschichte.htm

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.zyklon-b.info/menschen/heerdt.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=3&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDr.%2BWalter%2BHeerdt%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

http://www.zyklon-b.info/menschen/heerdt.htm

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.zyklon-b.info/menschen/heerdt.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=3&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDr.%2BWalter%2BHeerdt%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyklon_B

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyklon_B&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyklon_B%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

Kodiak666 (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue is fixed now. --Trinitrix (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Faurisson argument

Robert Faurisson was the first to describe the technical impossibility of the mass gassings in the areas designated as gas chambers with Zyklon B, as testified to by eyewitnesses. The following sentence is a clear statement of the core of Faurisson's argument:

"If the Nazi gas chambers were to work at all, they would have needed the following: absolutely perfect hermetic sealing; a special introduction and distribution system for the gas; a fantastic ventilation system to eliminate the gas from the chambers after the mass murders; a system to neutralize the exhausted gases; and then, quite separately, a device, incredibly clever in design and construction, to eliminate the gas which would adhere stubbornly to the bodies, making touching and carrying them a deadly business. The ventilation and exhaustion of cyanide gas is very time-consuming and difficult. It adheres to the human body, and penetrates the skin so easily that it would be hazardous to touch the body of a person killed with high concentrations of cyanide gas with the bare hands. Contact through the skin alone may lead to intoxication."

See articles by Juergen Graf. I believe it is impermissible to delete discussion entries, so please don't do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.125.139 (talk) 16:09, July 8, 2006

So, given the above, I take it you believe that the tales told by "revisionists" regarding use of zyklon for delousing couldn't possibly be true, eh? Gzuckier 14:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That is bogus. No such system would be needed. When used to kill bugs you just put paper tape around doors and windows. He compares the gas chambers with modern gas chambers and that's hardly relevant. For instance compare how plutonium was handled in the Manhattan project with how it's handled today. // Liftarn

I tried your first link but was unable to locate any "handling" section. I would love to read about these two concepts! Would you be kind and further delineate the actual locations of this information? Thanks.... (Duane44 (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC))

Of course bugs can't use the doorknob, tear off the tape or open the window. I suspect a person - but probably not a bug - would try the door, then maybe the window,..... Plutonium kills you later - cyanide kills you now,, slight difference.159.105.80.141 18:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Irritants

When I first researched this topic around four years ago, it seemed clear to me that the removal of the irritant component in Zyklon-B (which had made it a more effective insecticide, by stimulating bugs into frantic breathing) was a bit of a "smoking gun". It made the gas less effective at killing bugs, and more hazardous to humans, yet that's what the SS apparently wanted. The "only delousing stuff, honest, guv'nor" story explaining its use seemed unsustainable. Since then, two things have happened: I've lost track of the website at which I saw a photostat of the memo from the SS to Degesch ordering the batch without the irritant; and revisionists have started coming up with explanations for why Zyklon-B might have lacked the irritant at some points (to do with shortages of chemical supplies), denying any evidence that the SS wanted it that way. Help? Adhib 23:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen anything about the addition or removal of an irritant. It would be interesting if you could find a source. Doremifasolatido 07:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If you'll just Google Zyklon-B with irritant you'll unearth a gazillion sources. The problem is finding that one source I recall which actually includes the photostat of the decisive memo. Without it, the 'debate' on that topic is somewhat too nebulous in both directions. Adhib 19:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been a so-called "Holocaust Denier" most of my life, due mostly to exaggerated figures. When I was young, 100,000,000 Jews killed was the figure usually quoted. In high-school, I was told 3-6 million (which seems reasonable, given Wiki's quote of 9-11 million total, and the fact that many victims were not Jewish). I used to be anti-semetic, but later realized that racism is just a way for people to feel better about themselves at the expense of others (thanks in part to watching 'American History X'). I'm still not willing to believe that most, or even a large percentage of those who died in concentration camps were gassed.... However this is to me a peripheral issue, as the cause and ultimate effect in this chain of events remain the same. Providing documentation of a request or order for irritant-free Zyklon-B, or a memo suggesting its use, would put this issue to rest for those who find it significant. A shipping manifest or delivery receipt wouldn't quite kill the wartime scarcity argument tho.--BlackFlag30 (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If such a memo exists, it should have surfaced here by now - yes?

• Depends if anyone else has actually tried to find it. Adhib? You been looking? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, forgive me for dampening the debate, but insects don't breathe. spiracles. Gzuckier 14:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

They do take in air, though. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

A quick googling gives http://www.h-ref.de/vernichtung/zyklon-b/zyklon-b-warnstoff.php It has some kind of receit, but it's blurry and I don't read German, but I can guess that "Vorsicht, ohne Warnstoff" means "Carefull, without warning stuff". // Liftarn

Thanks, Liftarn, I took that to babelfish.altavista.com - it's close, but not precisely the item I was looking for. You've found an invoice demonstrating that Degesch were indeed supplying Z-B minus the irritant additive, adding a warning note on the invoice to that effect. What I recalled seeing was a photostat of the memo making the original order to Degesch. This I have either forgotten the research skills I had to search with back then, or it has been taken down (perhaps even shown to be a forgery, who knows?). But if anyone wants to get to the bottom of the irritants angle, that would still be a worthwhile prize. Alternatively, if a would-be revisionist were able to demonstrate that the irritant ceased to be supplied in Z-B for any of Degesch's other pesticide clients, that would be informative, too.

BTW, Gzuckier, I can confirm it's my understanding that the relevant insects do have a capacity to increase or decrease their respiration rate, spiracles and all, and that the irritants in Z-B were designed to stimulate just such functions. Adhib 19:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the irritant was a form of tear gas - didn't affect toxicity. The irritant and the gas were made by separate companies I read. In war shortcuts are/were taken ( unarmored Hummers for one example ) for murder or for lice ??? probably no smoking gun unless some document shows up - maybe Irving will clear this up someday. RE above snappy retorts ( love'm )if a meaningful memo existed it would be significant enough to probably have its own wiki article, we wouldn't have to find it or remember it. 159.105.80.141 18:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Zyklon B and generics usualy contain an admixture (about a per cent) of a lachrimatory subsatnce (eye irritant), in Zyklon B this was methyl bromoacetate or methyl chlorocarbonate. Some other hydrogen cyanide-based products of this sort contain chloropicrin as a warning additive. This is do as to warn people potentially being exposed to hydrogen cyanide by causing a strong irritation even in minute concentrations. However, batches of carrier-adsorbed hydrogen cyanide were made and used e.g. for fumigation of empty rooms in food-processing facilities (with food production and storage cancelled during the gassing for obvious reasons -- hydrogen cyanide dissolves in moisture in foods and so could make these poisonous). The reason for doing so is/was not to interfere with foodwares aroma and taste. Some batches are trackable to be delivered to Auschwitz-Birkenau e.g. upon order from Kurt Gerstein. The irritant-less Zyklon B was mentioned to be specifically ordered from the manufacturer out of "human considerations" (i.e., not panicking people exposed to gas until they observed its rapid toxic effects). --84.163.110.147 (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The subject of the SS ordering irritantless Zyklon B is discussed in one of the section of this page from the Holocaust History Project, with quotes from and references to a number of sources. -- ToE 18:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

There was speculation in one source that the SS asked for irritantless Zyklon B so that the Sonderkommandos could enter the gas chambers quicker after a gassing, and thus the rate of killings could be sped up. Another possibility would be to keep people from panicking, but this seems less likely imo, because if people panicked once they were already being gassed, it would already be too late. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Manufacture

Should the process of manufacture be written in this article? Vader1941 18:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Vader1941

• Sure, why not? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit re the Soviet photo

I removed an edit questioning the identification of the serviceperson in the photo. I've no doubt that the prior edit had been done in good faith, but it was not done as an edit to the article... in its then-current form, it was more an item which would have been expected to appear on the Talk Page. I don't have the expertise to know whether the edit was correct in its assertions. Perhaps the same material could be redone as an actual edit to the article itself. Xenophon777 02:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

RE source on using Zyklon for Mexican immigrants in the 1920s. Any source - pictures, etc - of the facilities to do this spraying? The story sounds farfetched, but possible, as is. Spraying would have meant cyanide - not Zyklon - and spraying out in the open would have been a very interesting procedure - the death rate in the INS employees would put a stop to this practice fairly quickly one would think. If enclosed facilities etc existed there must be some records etc around.159.105.80.141 13:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Some poorly worded or unsupported statements...

You're probably referring to modern diesel engines. Older diesels were much more ineffective. Furthermore, CarbonDIoxide levels will also become rapdily toxic in the case of breathing humans + diesel exhaust. for example the chinese refugees enclosed in the container died this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.53.253.50 (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

First: "At the other extermination camps, engine exhaust was used in the gas chambers."

As someone whose job is to prevent deaths from engine exhaust in confined spaces on a daily basis, I have looked at this estudiously. As an anal retentive engineer, I cannot fail but to point out that the witnesses' statements and alleged confessions which comprise the source of the sentence above specified a "diesel" engine and none of the witnesses' descriptions ever alleged a gasoline engine, as far as I've read. The most likely component present in diesel exhaust which could kill in a short amount of time is carbon monoxide (CO). However, CO is only a trace component of diesel engine exhaust. To kill within 25-30 minutes, 6200 ppm is required (http://biology.about.com/library/blco.htm), which a diesel engine even at full load is incapable of providing (max. 5000 ppm)(http://www.kiprc.uky.edu/abstracts/npeer4.pdf). Although diesel engine exhaust is not without risks (OSHA, NIOSH), short-term death is not one of them. The sentence in the article is not referenced, and is probably not needed in a Zyklon B article.

Second: "The pesticide was used by Nazi Germany as a chemical weapon to poison prisoners in the gas chambers of the largest extermination camp, Auschwitz Birkenau, and also at Majdanek, one of the Operation Reinhard camps."

"Chemical Weapon" in this sentence is ridiculous. The whole phrase "as a chemical weapon" should be deleted, as it doesn't add anything to the remainder of the sentence. If anything, a pesticide was used as a homicide (grammatically speaking.)

Let those whose egos require editing power of these wiki pages, do whatever they will regarding my comments.

Charles

71.41.57.60 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:06, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

"which a diesel engine even at full load is incapable of providing (max. 5000 ppm)(http://www.kiprc.uky.edu/abstracts/npeer4.pdf)."

That article doesnt even begin to say such a thing. It merely tests the CO output of one particular vehicle at one particular time. CO output in vehicle exhausts spans a very wide range, depending on how well the engine is designed and set up. Needless to say 1930s & 40s vehicles had much higher CO output than modern equipment, and CO output can be extremely high if an engine mixture is set poorly. The fact that people can kill themselves by inhaling vehicle exhaust was established a very long time ago. (Note this is no longer true with most recent vehicles, which are usually self regulating enough to mostly avoid this risk.) Tabby (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hydrogen cyanide gas in air is explosive

Hydrogen cyanide gas in air is explosive at concentrations over 5.6% How did the Germans prevent their gaschambers from exploding? Especialially since some of them are build near large furnaces, that were supposed to burn night and day.

And if it is true what Charles said above, about engine exhausts. Then how did the Germans kill so many people in so short a time, in those camps where they used engine exhausts?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.45.233.105 (talk) 11:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC) 

Hi, anonymous. I assume you're not a chemist, are you? Now let's do some maths. HCN forms explosive mixtures with air at over 5.6% HCN, that is 56,000 ppm (parts per million, here milliliters per m³). Yet lethal inhalative concentrations are about 270 ppm HCN in the air, death following after about 8 minutes exposure, and about 3,000 ppm within a minute of exposure. Now, 3,000 ppm kills a human in about a minute. This is equivalent to 0.3% concentration, which is well (almost 20-fold) below the lowest explosive concetration. All clear now? Cheers, --Spiperon (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Latin_cutie raed this , you should too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.146.67 (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, Some interesting research and conclusions about diesel engine toxicity vs petrol (gasoline) engines. In particular, "Asphyxiation from diesel exhaust is more likely to be caused by acute lung injury from soot particles, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide than by carbon monoxide. This is different from gasoline exhaust, which contains 28 times more carbon monoxide than diesel exhaust.30" (Ref: http://www.jabfm.org/cgi/content/full/21/1/55#T2) 58.172.57.175 (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't all clear. It sounds like nonsense to me. Putting an explosive gas near an open flame? were the German's really that dumb? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.226.95.18 (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear IP, it may be helpful for you to actually read the article about Zyklon B ;-). It is a preparation of HCN that was especially developed to be an effective means to deliver HCN gas while very safe in handling. In contrast to you, the operators of the gas chambers were smart enough to understand this. Best regards, --Trinitrix (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Fritz Haber is not the inventor of Zyklon B

Hi all, why is in this article "Dr. Fritz Haber" the inventor of Zyklon B? (He 'only' invented the Haber process) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process

Zyklon B was invented at his institute, but not from him. citation:

During the 1920s, scientists working at his institute developed the cyanide gas formulation Zyklon B, which was used as an insecticide, especially as a fumigant in grain stores, and also later, after he left the program, in the Nazi extermination camps.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber

In the german Wiki "DR WALTER HEERDT" is the inventor.

for verifikation see this links:

http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=DE&NR=438818C&KC=C&FT=D&date=19261227&DB=&locale=en_V3

http://www.zyklon-b.info/produkt/geschichte.htm

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.zyklon-b.info/menschen/heerdt.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=3&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDr.%2BWalter%2BHeerdt%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

http://www.zyklon-b.info/menschen/heerdt.htm

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.zyklon-b.info/menschen/heerdt.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=3&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDr.%2BWalter%2BHeerdt%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyklon_B

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyklon_B&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyklon_B%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

The issue is fexed now. --Trinitrix (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Kodiak666 (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Contradictory text

Under "Production," first paragraph: "Zyklon B was manufactured by the German companies Degesch..."

under "Production," third paragraph: "Degesch's role at this point was limited to acquiring patents and intellectual property: it did not itself produce Zyklon B" Could this be slightly rephrased to avoid the contradiction? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

History and Production sections need citations

Please add sources and citations for those two sections to improve the article. Citation needed tags will guide you as to the areas needing a sources/citation. --94.193.135.142 (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Zyklon B, Zyklon A

I'd long wondered, given the name "Zyklon B", what "Zyklon A" was. The start of this article says that the "B" in Zyklon B indicates Blausäure (prussic acid). However later Zyklon A (a redirect to Methyl cyanoformate) is mentioned with no reference to Zyklon B. So is the "B" in Zyklon B coincidental, or was Zyklon B an "advance" (if one can call it that) on Zyklon A? Tonywalton ^Talk 23:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Zyklon A was the first product, a pressurized container with prussic acid, combined with a strong smelling warning chemical. As prussic acid is also highly explosive this was a dangerous form of handling it, so they invented Zyklon B which is adsorbed prussic acid that can be handled much safer and releases the poison slowly, just like nitroglycerin that was made safe into dynamite by absorbing it in a matrix. Zyklon A = Prussic Acid + Warning Chemical, Zyklon B ("Version 2") is the improved Formula Prussic Acid + Warning Chemical + Absorbing Medium. Today the preparation is sold just under the brand name Zyklon and used for heavy pest control. Jochen Löblein, 4.8.2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.164.109 (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

"In quantitative terms, more than 95% of the Zyklon B delivered to Auschwitz was used for delousing and less than 5% in the homicidal gas chambers.[18]"

Less than 5%? Can someone explain this?--andreasegde (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The source cited (Pressac) says "By far the greater part (over 95 percent) was destined for delousing (effects and buildings) while only a very small part (less than 5 percent) had been used for homicidal gassings." Pressac is a good source, but that page doesn't go into further detail.

The reason is probably that lice are much more resistant to cyanide than humans (requiring longer exposure to higher concentrations), and if all the clothes of the victims were also de-loused, plus barracks etc. then I'm not surprised about this figure. The report de-bunking the Leuchter report (IIRC) found slight cyanate staining in homicidal gas chambers, and deep blue cyanate staining in de-lousing chambers. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 20:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Rollercoaster name

It seems that Pinfari rollercoasters is still using "Zyklon" as a model name despite occasional complaints. Elsewhere on Pinfari's website it uses other spellings (Cyclon, Ciclone), which some unreliable Googling hints might be an attempt to avoid giving offence. I'm not sure whether they made a half-baked renaming, or have a half-updated website. jnestorius^(talk) 22:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

flamable

was the gas produced by dropping the pelets into the chamber flamable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.226.95.18 (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK it's flammable in high enough concentrations, but the lethal concentration for humans is much lower than that. 22:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

so the Germans didnt care and put the gas chambers right next to the ovens? what concentration makes it flammable and how to we know how much was used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.73.239.164 (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Without Odorant

I have tried to clarify what I think editors have been meaning to say on zyklon B without odorant, it's the purpose for which it was used rather than the location. If anyone wishes to revert please could they explain. That statement in all cases needs a citation. I don't find it a very tenable view, removing the odorant wouldn't make victims less compliant but would increase risks to perpetrators. I wonder how widely the view is held in mainstream quarters today - it may be easy enough to find one 'mainstream' source some years old to support it but that wouldn't make it up-to-date mainstream consensus. 86.166.78.254 (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)sceptic1954

Reworked correction. Not all Zyklon B used on humans was without odorant. Hardicanute (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute

First Use on humans

In January or February 1940, 250 Gypsy children from Brno in the Buchenwald concentration camp were used as guinea pigs for testing the Zyklon B gas.[24] The references for this is dated 1968 - is there nothing more recent? Mainstream views on such details can change over time. There is no record of this experiment leading anywhere. Hardicanute (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute (formerly known as Sceptic1954, but lost my log in for previous name.)

Incomplete detail on use at Auschwitz

I'm not going to spend time doing major edits on this myself but there is no indication that the first experiments were carried out in Block 11 and that subsequent gassings took place in various locations. The two bunkers are presumably the 'Little White' and 'Little Red' Houses. Most of the gassings took place in Birkenau in one of four crematoria buildings which are not mentioned. Hardicanute (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute

Physical form

I have corrected the description of Zyklon-B as "crystalline" prussic acid. In fact this is not correct. Hydrogen cyanide (a.k.a. prussic acid) is a highly volatile liquid at room temperature (it boils at 26 °C), not a solid. In Zyklon-B HCN, was adsorbed onto a solid carrier and immediately desorbed when the can were opened (where they had been in equilibrium with a saturated air/HCN mixture.

What happens to Zyklon B after it's been deployed?

does it desintegrate? does it remain in the area? does it have to be neutralized with something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.194.186.128 (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe it is only effective as a gas and is not stable - the hydrogen cyanide article indicates light alone will break it up. I.e. it decomposes and reacts with the environment and forms something like Prussian blue or other cyanide compounds which for the most part (I failed chemistry twice...) will not be toxic. It shouldn't be hard to find some a reference about this. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 18:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If anyone does find a reliable source, this would be relevant content to add to the article. Otherwise, sounds like a good question for the Reference Desk. Rivertorch (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a source, but HCN is a weak acid, and thus it reacts with many organic and inorganic substances to farm various compounds. In addition it is very volatile, and thus quickly diluted by the air if it is not in an enclosed space. That's part of the reason why it's not used as a chemical weapon. 95.109.104.45 (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

'Holocaust Deniers' is a pejorative term

We don't call those that believe the Holocaust occurred as 'Holocaust believers' so why call a group that does not as 'deniers?' A more appropriate and technically accurate unloaded term would be 'Holocaust revisionist.' Malv (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Nor do we call murderers "lifespan revisionists". If "Holocaust revisionist" ever becomes the standard term used by reliable sources, we'll cheerfully switch. Rivertorch (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Second that. Not only is it the established term, alternative terms are inherently POV-loaded, and whatever one might think of it, putting Holocaust under doubt is a legal issue in quite a few European countries. benjamil ^talk/_edits 19:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I know this is a bit of a late reply, but I don't entirely agree with the "two wrongs make a right" argument. The fact that holocaust denialism is outlawed in some European countries does not mean that the restriction on the civil liberties of speech and expression based on one's personal opinion are right, nor does it mean that the term "denier" isn't loaded. By the same token, the theory of evolution has a shaky status in many US states. --benlisquare_T•C•E 00:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand your analogy. The legal status of any viewpoint, whether mainstream or fringe, seems pretty much irrelevant to its coverage on the English Wikipedia. Rivertorch (talk) 05:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to the original sentence "putting Holocaust under doubt is a legal issue in quite a few European countries". Killing large numbers of Jews is wrong, but silencing people who don't believe it happened using laws and through media demonization is also wrong (a trespass of civil liberties), hence "two wrongs don't make a right". The term "denier" adds a negative slant towards people who have an opinion, regardless of how fringe the opinion is. On Wikipedia, this is when we need to balance out between what reliable sources say, and what would really be NPOV; this however is getting distant from my main point, which isn't specifically to do with how Wikipedia should do things. One might argue that "denier" is not NPOV, and favours a certain position, like the original poster of this section has. Responding that because certain European countries have laws regarding Holocaust denial isn't really valid in my opinion, because who's to say that this was the right decision made by lawmakers? It would be better to debate something based on logical reasoning, as opposed to saying "this powerful organization says this, therefore it is right". It's kind of like an argument from authority. My original point wasn't specifically addressing the use of "denier", it was more in disagreement with the idea that something definitely is true because important governmental bodies follow a specific position. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I see your point now. Thanks for clarifying. Rivertorch (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Could you point to anywhere in this article where anyone argues, "Governments say the Holocaust happened, and therefore the Holocaust happened"? One can argue one way or another about this and other kinds of laws forbidding hate speech -- something Holocaust denial is only one category of -- but laws or no laws, the historical evidence is more than clear that the Nazis used Zyklon B as part of a genocidal program against the Jews of Europe, the voices of WP:FRINGE notwithstanding. Frizzmaz (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

use today

apologies for the strange and probably inappropriate question but is this gas ever used today (obviously not for the purpose the fash used it for but for pest control etc?) should there be a section detailing post-war usage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.63.6 (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph of the Production and marketing section may answer your first question. As to your second question, I'd say it's not a high priority, but if you find a reliable source, a minor expansion of the article wouldn't hurt. Rivertorch (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It's a bit disturbing that they've kept a name which means something close to what the original did, but I guess that it's not the chemical itself that was evil but the use it was put to.

20:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.63.6 (talk)

Nazi Germany workman's comp claims?

Are there any datas on workplace injuries or compensation related to work with Zyclon B in German circa 1942-45? I would like to know where to find this info. Thanks! 68.228.221.209 (talk) 12:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Translation

The current article holds the following text:

"Heute ist die Zyklon-Blausäure als "das Mittel der Wahl" [...] nicht nur zur Entwanzung und Entlausung, sondern ganz allgemein zur Entwesung großer Räume in allen Erdteilen bekannt. (Today Zyklon-prussic acid is known as the means of choice [...] not only for debugging and delousing but also, in general, for the extermination of large spaces in all quarters of the globe.)"

The word "Entwesung" does not mean "extermination". It means "disinfestation". Athough" "Räume" can mean places, her it definitely means "rooms". "In allen Erdteilen" does not mean "in all quarters of the globe". The expression Erdteil is a synonym for "continent". You can check all of this on leo.org.

Therefore, the correct translation is:

"Today Zyklon-prussic-acid is known on all continents as the "the means of choice" [...] not only for debugging and for delousing but also, in general, for disinfesting large rooms."

I am going to correct the translation accordingly unless someone has reasonable objections.Pilava (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the translation. I can sort of see how "extermination" got in there, but of course the rooms themselves aren't exterminated. Rivertorch (talk) 07:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The word "controversial"

For the record, the reason I removed the word "controversially" from the sentence beginning

Holocaust deniers controversially claim that Zyklon B gas was not used in the gas chambers

is that I believe that, rather than promoting the realization among readers that this is not a mainstream view, the word actually lends plausibility to the deniers' claim. Is the claim controversial? Arguably it is, in that it has caused controversy, but "controversy" is a word used in a broad array of contexts. In many cases, it doesn't indicate that the rhetoric or the behavior of one side of disputants is bizarre or malicious or based on prejudice; it just means there's a conspicuous disagreement. Contested election returns are controversial. Avant-garde art installations in public places are controversial. Novels, plays, and films that challenge their audience's values are controversial. Holocaust denial arguments? Well, maybe—but only in the same way that Flat Earth arguments are controversial. If the prior wording is inadequate in some way, I wonder if there's a better way to fix it than the addition of this particular adverb. From a procedural standpoint, I very much wish that the user or users who have sought to add the word would follow best practice and seek consensus here on the talk page. Rivertorch (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with removing the word but my reasoning is simpler than yours. Anything Holocaust deniers claim is going to be controversial so the word is really redundant. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree the word shouldn't be there. Using "controversially" in that sentence implies there is some significant debate over the claim's validity. In fact almost everyone is satisfied the claim is wrong. Hut 8.5 20:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

"Controversially," no. "Falsely and duplicitously," yes. I agree that the word should be removed. Frizzmaz (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yup, it should go. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Cyanide poisoning also from plastics on fire, bitter almonds & the antihypertensive medicine nitroprusside! Antidotes do exist!

Cyanide poisoning may be deadly in minutes. Many people die on fires when they breath cyanide from smoke, especially from plastic materials. Cyanide poisoning may also occur from consumption of bitter almonds and from overdose of the drug nitroprussade! Antidotes for cyanide poisoning do exist and include hydroxocobalamin (a form of vitamin B12!) and also amyl nitrite(administered by inhalation), sodium nitrite, and sodium thiosulfate. 688dim (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

And this relates to the article how? Do you have a suggestion for improving it? Rivertorch (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The article is good. I just wanted to add some extra information and also to make clear that there are antidotes for cyanide poisoning. Zyclon B contains hydrogen cyanide.688dim (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC) hydroxocobalamin

These facts are only relevant to this article if you can find a way of making the antidotes available to the victims of Zyklon B, who all died more than 60 years ago. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. This article is about Zyklon B as a chemical substance, not just about its historical use. There is already a section concerning the biochemical action of Zyklon B, and information about antidotes would be relevant. On the other hand we would need a source, and we would need one that specifically talks about Zyklon B. Hut 8.5 23:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs expansion about the rest ways of cyanide poisoning and also about the antidotes. It is not a historical article. About the antidotes, there are plenty of medical articles that refer to the antidotes of cyanide poisoning, but surprisingly hydroxocobalamin, a form of vitamin B12, is the recent antidote of choice. Hospitals that are well - organized have an antidote kit for cyanide poisoning victims. Recently a friend of mine was poisoned by bitter almonds but he survived! About the article I was surprised from the fact that the Americans first (before WW2) used Zyclon (that was sold as a pesticide)as a disinfectant for Mexican immigrants! 688dim (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

We already have information about antidotes for cyanide poisoning at cyanide and cyanide poisoning, so it's redundant to add it here unless source material can be found that talks about Zyclon-B specifically. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Diannaa. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree also. Zyklon B is a trademark for a product that was used for mass murder in the mid 20th century, and that is the topic of the article—not other products containing cyanide, not cyanide poisoning or its antidotes, not anything else. It is indeed a "historical article". Rivertorch (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

To my mind, as a scientist, I think that this article refers to Zyclon B as a chemical substance and not just on its history. So, I think that as a chemical the article should add the antidotes and also make a brief description about cyanide poisoning, including the rest ways of poisoning. 688dim (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus here that the article is not about hydrogen cyanide per se, and that being related to hydrogen cyanide is not sufficient for inclusion in this article, describing as it does the history and use of one particular commercial product, rather than the more general one covering hydrogen cyanide in general. If you have citations in which someone was given an antidote after exposure to *specifically* the product Zyklon-B, then it would be relevant here. Otherwise it belongs at the hydrogen cyanide article. Frizzmaz (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Lede: number of people murdered

CalifHistoryProf (talk · contribs) has expressed concerns about the number of people murdered with Zyklon B, in the lede. I'm opening this section so that they may discuss their concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs)

I believe the editor may be conflating the total number of people murdered in the Holocaust with the number killed specifically with Zyklon B gas, as opposed to all the other mechanisms of Nazi atrocity. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that to be the case as well. - MrX 17:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I've added some content to the lede that will hopefully make the situation clearer, as this has been an ongoing problem. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Good job. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I've made a research and found some trial documents from Bruno Tesch process. The court established and convicted him basing on information, that roughly 4.5 million people were killed by CyklonB only in Auschwitz/Birkenau. Here the link: http://www.phdn.org/archives/www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/zyklonb.htm. So, I think it can said millions, or just simple change 1 million to roughly 4.5 million, citing the court documents. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that Bruno Tesch uses the 4.5 million figure and this article says 1 million, and that this conversation just petered out without any change to the article. Is there consensus to change it to 4.5 million here? — Brianhe (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

There was additional discussion, but unfortunately the user placed it on my talk page rather than here. User talk:Diannaa/Archive 39#Zyklon B. The source for the 4.5 million figure is information presented at Tesch's trial that came from Soviet numbers released right after the war, which were later determined to be greatly exaggerated. (I will add something to Tesch's article to clarify). It is the only source that uses that figure, and I don't think it's appropriate to change this article when the bulk of the scholarly research shows a much lower number. Here's some numbers from other sources regarding the number of deaths at Auschwich. Not all of these people were gassed.

• Gerald Reitlinger: 800,000 to 900,000.
• Raul Hilberg: up to 1,000,000 Jewish victims.
• George Wellers: used German data on deportations to arrive at an estimate of 1,471,595 dead, including 1.35 million Jews and 86,675 Poles.
• Franciszek Piper used timetables of train arrivals combined with deportation records to calculate at least 960,000 Jewish deaths and at least 1.1 million total deaths. This is the number adopted as the official tally by the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum in the 1990s. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Use of the word Murder

Zyklon B (German pronunciation: [tsykloːn ˈbeː]; also spelled Cyclon B or Cyclone B) was the trade name of a cyanide-based pesticide invented in the early 1920s. The product was infamous for its use by Nazi Germany to murder an estimated 1.2 million people, including approximately 960,000 Jews, in gas chambers of extermination camps during the Holocaust.[1] This number represents a portion of the estimated 11 million people,[2][3] 5.5 to 6 million of them Jews,[4] killed by the Nazi regime.

"...use by Nazi Germany to murder an estimated..."

I've tried repeatedly to change this to execute, but someone's got a problem with that.

Look it up on wikitionary, execute "To kill as punishment for capital crimes." murder "An act of deliberate killing of another being, especially a human."

Given that during the third reich it was a capital crime to be jewish, or homosexual, disabled, etc., and that these executions were done under law, that word fits better. Yes these were war crimes (later) but murder conveys a different meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.48.214 (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

More than one "someone" has a problem with your changes. Article content is based on what reliable sources say, and use of the word "murder" is entirely consistent with those sources. Please read the policy on original research if you need more information. Rivertorch (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Quite agree with Rivertorch. The crime may have been "executions" by Nazi standards, but Wikipedia does not operate under Nazi standards. For which I am grateful. Please do not beat this dead horse any longer. Frizzmaz (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Apart from that, I'm not sure there was a formal legal basis, even under the Nazi regime, for the statement "it was a capital crime to be jewish". It's been proven that the regime decided to kill Jews. That's not the same thing as the regime establishing a published law making Jewish ancestry, practice or upbringing a capital crime. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Listing of % of Jews killed is at best superflourus and at worst discriminatory

Doing so implies that the Jews killed were more worthy than the other people killed that are not identified in this article. Listing the Jews killed is a political statement and has little to due with this article on Zyklon B. Zyklon B has not been shown to be more effective on Jews compared to other ethnicities and has no place in this article.

This article should not read like a pro-Jewish propaganda article. It should list the facts objectively. Listing the % of Jews killed in each instance is ridiculous and arbitrary.

I have cleaned up the introduction.

24.239.124.140 (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. Rivertorch (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you come up with a more articulate response than "nonsense" to defend your position? You are not dealing with the issue at all. The % of Jews killed has nothing to do with this article on a killing agent used in WW2. This is subposed to be an objective article on the application of cyanide under the market brand Zyklon B. Please explain your position why the % of Jews killed out of the total population of individuals murdered has anything to do with the significance of Zyklon B. Your position needs to be transparent to the community.

24.239.124.140 (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Since the prime target of the holocaust, which is the most infamous use of this gas, was the Jewish population of Nazi-controlled Europe, I think that the comment about the proportion of Jews should not be removed. It is not unobjective to state the proportion of Jews in one place in the article, given that it is a clear fact, and that stating it implies no more point of view than saying how many total people it killed. I do not see any policy-based reason to remove. BethNaught (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it's unecessary to have the number of Jews killed in the article. Nazi's killed Jews; everyone knows that. I think it would be more relevant to add the number of people killed who WERE NOT Jews. Greedo8 18:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If we are going to list the demographics of the victims of Zyklon B we should list them all. That being said, we should not being listing any of demographics of the victims because it is not relevant at all to the brand Zyklon B. The main target of the Nazi's was the Jewish people and that is clearly stated in many articles including the main holocaust article. It has no place in this article. The portion of Jews killed out of every absolute victim metric does not belong in every article that has a connotation to the Holocaust. I encourage more editors to discuss this topic because I feel the objectivity of this introduction is not being discussed in a transparent manner.

Everyone agrees that Jews were killed with Zyklon B, that is not what I am arguing.

"that stating it implies no more point of view than saying how many total people it killed" No, explicitly state the % of Jews killed in this inherently non-jewish article makes no sense. If anything it seeks to trivialize the other demographics killed with Zyklon B including the gypsies, gays and disabled. The demographics of the victims of Zyklon B do not add value to the Zyklon B and should not be listed.

24.239.124.140 (talk)

I concur with Rivertorch and BethNaught. Jews were, by far, the largest group of people murdered in the holocaust with Zyklon B and arguably the reason why the topic is notable in the first place. Perhaps the groups comprising the other 20% should be mentioned somewhere in the article, but not as prominently, and certainly not in the lede.- MrX 18:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree with keeping the number of Jews killed by the poison, but having the total amount of Jews killed by the holocaust seems unecessary for this article. Greedo8 19:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Concur. I think the number killed by the gas should remain, but I'm not fussed about the total holocaust, since this article is not specifically about that. I will semi-boldly edit the page to remove the reference to total Jews. BethNaught (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The reason for adding the total number of Jews killed was because people kept altering the number killed by Zyklon B, under the apparent impression that all were killed this way. See the section above titled "Talk:Zyklon B#Lede: number of people murdered". -- Diannaa (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Too much bitterness and ax-grinding on this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Stumbled on this page, and found it in fairly sorry shape. A lot of loaded language, some of it shoe-horned in such a way as to disrupt the flow of the article. A lot of minute detail that would otherwise fall outside of the scope of an article on a pesticide. Only a cursory explanation on how it works. The entire tone of the article implies the product was designed and used exclusively in what became the Holocaust. It's important to keep things in perspective. Remember that prior to this, Zyklon-B was a generic and otherwise unremarkable pesticide. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia normally covers topics mostly proportionate to the coverage those topics receive in reliable sources. Zyklon-B's use as a pesticide has not received a great deal of coverage in reliable sources. Perhaps the current "Production and marketing" section could be relocated higher in the article and be a little clearer. (The lead is perfectly clear and neutral about the original purpose of the concoction.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Zyklon B/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 15:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I will review.

As I expected for such an emotionally charged topic, the talk page has had numerous comments about its neutrality and comprehensiveness. Against that, I notice that the article appears to have had a substantial rewrite since complaints about "bitterness and ax-granding" in June, which is good to see. So I am happy that in its current state, the article is stable and will hopefully continue to be.

Lead

• The caption on the opening image could be expanded to show some of the German wording, with English translations Y
• Should we not have the English pronunciation as well as the German?Y
• The second sentence can simply say "It" instead of repeating the noun.Y
• The lead stops at 1946. It could do with a concluding sentence saying what has happened since then (presumably its continued production as Cyanosil and widespread banning and condemnation).Y
• At four paragraphs, the lead is a bit too long. For a 13K article, I would suggest you probably want to be looking at two paragraphs.
  • I've trimmed it down to three shorter paragraphs, but don't want to cut it any further. Please check and see if you think this is adequate. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Mechanism

• Worth considering Cyanide poisoning as a "See also"?Y
• I am a little concerned with not personally having enough of a scientific background to confirm the biological effects are correct, but from my basic understanding of cyanides, there is nothing here that looks obviously challenging.
  • I have the source book coming on inter-library loan, and will verify this content when it arrives. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• " In a human weighing 68 kilograms" - is it important whether the subject is male or female, or is that not known?
  • The source does not specify the sex of the example subject. Hopefully there's further details in Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry; I will check when it arrives. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

History

• Hydrogen cyanide, discovered in the 1700s, was used in the 1880s" - suggest "Hydrogen cyanide was discovered in the 1700s and used in the 1880s". Can you confirm you specifically mean the first decade of the 18th century by "1700s"?
  • I meant the latter part of the century, so I've changed to to read "late 18th century" to remove the ambuguity. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• "railroad cars" - this is US English, but earlier we have referred to the non-US "68 kilograms". I don't mind which version of English is used though, provided it's consistent.Y
• Worth mentioning when exactly Degesch was formed, to give some context to what "wartime uses" means.
  • World War I was already over, so they were researching for military use in general. So I have fixed this up a bit. Also I noticed that Zyklon A itself was not used in WWI (it was a similar HCN formulation), so I corrected that. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Corporate structure and marketing

• "Degussa retained managerial control of Degesch" - I don't think we need "of Degesch", this can be inferred from context.Y
• Do we know why American Cyanamid stopped manufacturing Zyklon B in 1943? Had they become aware of its use in Nazi Germany by then?
  • I haven't found any information on this point. One would have to assume that since by 1943 Germany and the US were at war, their license was not renewed. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• The two sentences in this section related to the Holocaust fit better in the following section Y

Use by Nazi Germany as a method of mass murder

• I think "Use in the Holocaust" would be suitable as a title. It's shorter, and I would trust the average reader to be aware of associating it with mass extermination.Y
• For consistency with the rest of the article, Auschwitz-Birkenau and Majdanek should be linked on first use (related to last point in the preceding section).Y
• A brief explanation of Sonderkommando would be useful Y
• It would be worthwhile mentioning when this method stopped, presumably in early 1945 as camps began to be liberated? Y

Legacy

• The due weight for holocaust deniers sounds about right.
• The section about trademarking could be expanded a little bit, using the BBC News sources supplied. Y

Summary

• This is a well written article, and I can only find minor comments, so I'll put the review on hold pending resolution of those. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Ritchie333:, thank you for reviewing this article. I have made the suggested improvements (please let me know if I missed anything), and await your response. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

That all looks good. The only concern is the scientific information, but it is verifiable to a good source, and you are awaiting further sources for more verification, so I'm happy that the article's quality is going to be upheld. So I'll pass the review. Well done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again! -- Diannaa (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Czech production

Uragan D2 is (still) produced in Lučební závody Draslovka a.s. Kolín in Kolín, see also the label. Adezin is a company that just uses it. --Matěj Orlický (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Corrected, thank you -- Diannaa (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Nice to find a picture taken few steps from my place on your user page. --Matěj Orlický (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Legacy

Some points in the "Legacy" section:

• Subsequent use of the word "Zyklon" in trade names has prompted angry reactions. There is of course a difference between German, where "Zyklon" is a mundane word available for branding, and English, where the Holocaust is its sole connotation. (Search amazon.de for "zyklon".) They may well fall under unfortunate-misunderstanding rather than wilful-ignorance, still less deliberate-allusion; of course that's what the companies will say and their critics will doubt. In Category:Brands I couldn't find any "international branding mistakes" article (like this book) to link to. It would be good to know how salient the Holocaust in for Zyklon in Germany, or in other language-zones. Page 34 of this 1997 German book about English poetry explains the significance of "Zyklon" in English, which suggests it needs explaining to Germans.
• Use of hydrogen cyanide as a pesticide has been widely banned or restricted. Putting this at the end invites the inference that the ban is due to the Holocaust, rather than to the fact that the chemical is too dangerous for the purpose. Perhaps the post-war production history belongs separate from (and before) the "Legacy" section; noting the restriction would be in that context.
• The Degussa Berlin Holocaust Memorial controversy merits mention.

jnestorius^(talk) 18:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

We have to rely on what reliable sources have to say about the topic. If you have a source that specifies why the chemical was banned, then we can add specifics. We can't assume. I have done some re-ordering of the content to try to address your concerns. I have added the Degussa controversy as a see-also; it's out of scope to include it here in my opinion. Your concern "It would be good to know how salient the Holocaust in for Zyklon in Germany, or in other language-zones" sorry, but I don't understand this sentence. There possibly are some words missing or incorrect words. Likewise I don't understand your poetry reference, or the need to explain thing to Germans, as this is the English-language Wikipedia, not the German one. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Holocaust in for" should have read "Holocaust is for", but let me try a complete paraphrase: When English-speakers see the word "Zyklon", they immediately think of the Holocaust. Not so for German-speakers, for whom "Zyklon" is an ordinary everyday word meaning "cyclone". I don't think Germans think of the Holocaust at all when they see/hear "Zyklon" (whereas they would when they see/hear "Zyklon B"). Moreover, I think the fact that English speakers immediately think of the Holocaust is not an obvious fact for German-speakers. (As evidence for my belief, there is a German book that specifically explains for German readers that the occurrence of the word "Zyklon" in an English-language poem is not a reference to a cyclone, but rather a reference to the Holocaust.) Thus, Germans continue to use "Zyklon" in the brandnames of products, just as English product names might include "Thunder", "Tornado", "Whirlwind", "Hurricane". When such German products are seen in an English-speaking country, it may cause offence. My concern is that the current statement Subsequent use of the word "Zyklon" in trade names has prompted angry reactions might suggest that naming a rollercoaster, sneaker, or vacuum cleaner "Zyklon" was a deliberate allusion to the Holocaust gas rather than a coincidence. So I would ideally change it to something like Subsequent use of Zyklon ("cyclone") in German product names has caused foreign brandname misconstrual and offence among English speakers and Jewish groups. Which of course would need to be referenced; and there seems to be no Wikipedia article "foreign brandname misconstrual", though there is User:Benjamin Mako Hill/List of unintentionally offensive product names.
• I disagree that the Degussa controversy is out-of-scope: the Zyklon-B connection was central to the controversy; it seems to me to be quite clearly part of the "Legacy" of Zyklon B. I also dislike using "See also" where the connection between the current topic and the linked article is not obvious until you click through; this violates WP:EASTEREGG.
• I couldn't find the 2002 edition of the UN guide that's the cite for Use of hydrogen cyanide as a pesticide has been widely banned or restricted but the 1997 edition lists only four countries with restrictions (none on p.545; South Africa on p.438 bans in cleaning products; on p.171 Belgium Germany and the Philippines restrict to authorised fumigators.)

jnestorius^(talk) 22:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The source book "Consolidated list of products whose consumptionand/or sale have been banned, withdrawn, severely restricted or not approved by governments" 2002 edition was available online at the time I used it as a source, but its contents are no longer visible to me in Google Books. I have amended the sentence to read "Use of hydrogen cyanide as a pesticide or cleaner has been banned or restricted in some countries". -- Diannaa (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Unusual container opening ??

Since the article puports to be about the product it should discuss issues such as packaging. Such as : what is the purpose of the unusual offset opening, which appears to be flush with the top of the can with a tube running into the can. How was the can opened as there does not appear a method of securing a cap ? Rcbutcher (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This topic wasn't covered in the sources I used when I re-wrote the article in October 2014. It looks like they had a punch opener of some kind the cans are all cut with a uniform size round hole. Our article can opener does not show any devices that could punch that kind of hole. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Zyklon A

"Research at Degesch of Germany led to the development of Zyklon A,...." "The new product was also named Zyklon, but it became known as Zyklon B to distinguish it from the earlier version." Was the first product actually developed as "Zyklon A" or simply as "Zyklon" with the A and B being retronyms invented to distinguish the two products? As a parallel, the acoustic guitar was not developed under that name, but was called that later to distinguish it from the electric guitar. --Khajidha (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Both products were named "Zyklon", and the suffixes were added later to distinguish the two. I have added a bit to the prose to clarify this point. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Gas or solid?

The article refers a lot to the hydrogen cyanide gas, but shows Zyklon B as solid pellets. This confused me when reading the article. Presumably the gas is released when heated water is added or something? 76.104.181.96 (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The product was solid pellets that turned to a gas when exposed to moisture and heat. This is mentioned both in the lead and in the first paragraph of the "history" section. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Errol Morris documentary reference backed out

I cited this documentary by Oscar-winner Errol Morris showing why even the chemist who performed the analysis for Holocaust denier Fred Leuchter thinks the Leuchter results are meaningless. The chemist hadn't been told to test only for the very thin surface deposits, and instead he crushed the samples and did a test over the entire volume of the brick shards, guaranteeing a result far too low.

I added this information but it was backed out. Morris is an Oscar-winning documentarian, not some fringe flake; see The New Yorker, February 1, 1999 http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1999/02/01/the-friendly-executioner for a review, including a mention that Roth had repudiated the Leuchter result. I linked to the film's transcript on Morris's own site showing what the chemist -- James Roth -- had to say, which was that it was a bogus result.

I do not understand why this material was removed, and I think it should be returned. AnnaLiver (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I've had a second look at this and now that I understand better what the website is I agree. I've expanded your addition a bit so that it's clearer why the test was flawed. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. AnnaLiver (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Questionable source

The citation (no. 18, "Hitler's Willing Executioners") is poor. It is not a neutral source and the credibility of the writing is contested by other, prominent historians. It does not meet the standards on Verifiability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrueHistory39 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it does meet the standards. Volunteer Marek  15:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The work cited, is not neutral and has not been peer-reviewed. It has been said to be "ahistorical" and "totally wrong about everything" by other Holocaust historians such as Raul Hilberg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrueHistory39 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

His conclusions yes, but not about Zyklon B. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I think Goldhagen is an okay source for certain types of content. Regardless, the content is also supported by Longerich 2010, pp.281-282, so I have removed Goldhagen. --Diannaa (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Poorly written

The first three paragraphs of this article is full of grammatical errors such as this following line:

"It consisted of hydrogen cyanide (prussic acid), a warning eye irritant, and one of several adsorbents such as diatomaceous earth."

This would be better written as:

"It consisted of hydrogen cyanide (prussic acid), an eye irritant warning, and one of several adsorbents such as diatomaceous earth."

as the first way doesn't make syntactical sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technomagesty (talk • contribs) 15:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I don't agree with you; "warning" is being used as an adjective. Perhaps "cautionary" would be better, as it actually is an adjective. — Diannaa (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a warning like the smell they add to natural gas, not sure of the details but if you smell natural gas, it's a significant warning, here's a ref. Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you understand "a warning eye irritant" makes no sense juxtapose to the preceding part of the sentence as what the sentence is now referring to would be a label on the canister to warn that it's an eye irritant. The sentence is poorly written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technomagesty (talk • contribs) 15:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I as a native English speaker and reader had to go over that sentence a few times to make any sense of it. Please reedit it. There are a few other articles that I've seen similar issues with, imagine if you didn't speak English as a first language and had this to try and translate, something that doesn't even make sense to someone that speaks the language, it's a disgrace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technomagesty (talk • contribs) 18:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's exactly what it is: "ethyl bromacetate, a lachrymatory irritant with a pungent fruity smell that warned people of the presence of the toxic cyanide" reference Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The article already specifies that the cautionary irritants used were chloropicrin and cyanogen chloride. Source: Christianson 2010, page 95. I already yesterday changed the prose from " warning eye irritant" to "cautionary eye irritant". — Diannaa (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I still don't think you understand. There have been several things mentioned here first it has been mentioned that it is an eye irritant, the next thing that has been suggested that it's an olfactory warning both have been suggested because the original article is so badly written that you are trying to cover for yourselves in regards to the poor quality.

If it had been written correctly either one of those two things (preferably the actual one if any) would have been mentioned in the sentence instead of the vague language used in the original article.

As of date the article now says this "developed a method of packaging hydrogen cyanide in sealed canisters along with a cautionary irritant and adsorbent stabilizers."

Which is better but also vague in wording as it doesn't mention the nature of the "cautionary irritant" which I've discovered here in talk might be an eye irritant or an olfactory one but apparently no one knows. Sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technomagesty (talk • contribs) 15:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The sources I used say it was an eye irritant, so I am going to amend again to include that. — Diannaa (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh you're going to use sources now? Wow I do applaud you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technomagesty (talk • contribs) 18:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Also prussic acid isn't an irritant it's hydrogen cyanide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technomagesty (talk • contribs) 18:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Technomagesty, you might consider cutting back on the sarcasm. The current edit does not say that the prussic acid was the irritant. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)