Bibliographic Data of Germar Rudolf on his own Website
Friday, October 23 - 2009
Month in Prison for Dirk Zimmerman
And that was that: for sending
Rudolf's book to three people, Dirk
Zimmerman, father of two, no criminal record, in a steady job, was
given nine months prison.
Die Wahrheit kommt nach Mannheim
Prozeß gegen Sylvia Stolz -- Article in German
Rudolf sentenced to 30 months prison
Inside the German Gulag — Political Prisoner Germar Rudolf
Monday, 20 Nov 2006
of Germar Rudolf in Mannheim District Court
16 November 2006 Reported by Günter Deckert
Translated by J. M. Damon
Danger in Denying Holocaust?
denial trial opens of German deported from U.S.
November 14, 2006
Germar Rudolf's attorney informs him that
he will be deported
from the United States to Germany for 'Thought Crimes.'
By Arthur R. Butz,
November 8, 2005
Political Asylum for Germar
A Brief History of Forensic
Examinations of Auschwitz
By Germar Rudolf
Catholic bishop demonised for 'Holocaust
Ruth Gledhill, religion correspondent of The Times,
provided an inadvertent lesson in the importance
of source critical revisionism on 23rd January.
This week she has devoted several Times Online
articles to attacking the traditionalist
Catholic Society of St Pius X, which after many years
of excommunication has been readmitted to the
Roman Catholic communion.
Jewish groups have objected to this rapprochement
between the Vatican and the Society, charging
inter alia that the Society has promoted anti-semitism
and that one of its bishops, Richard Williamson,
is a "holocaust denier". Ms Gledhill details these charges,
and provides a link to a Swedish television exposé
of the Society broadcast last week. Bishop Williamson
is reported to be facing investigation under Germany's
notorious anti-revisionist laws, which have already
imprisoned scientist Germar Rudolf,
publisher Ernst Zundel, and lawyer Sylvia Stolz. Outside link:
Germar Rudolf sentenced to 30 months prison
Friday, 16 Mar 2007
Germar Rudolf sentenced
On 15 March 2007 the Mannheim
District Court handed down a 30 months prison sentence to the world’s
leading Revisionist and publisher - in stark contrast to the sentence a
Mannheim court a month earlier imposed on veteran Revisionist Ernst Zündel
who received the maximum of five years. Both men have made it their life’s
work to set the record straight about that vile allegation leveled against
Germans that during World War two they exterminated six million European
Jews in homicidal gas chambers. Zündel has been at it for almost half a
century and Rudolf since the late 1980s.
In today’s The Australian newspaper
the feature article discusses the Palestinian plight. In “Israel’s secret
Gaza servants‚” Martin Chulov speaks with two Hamas executioners who reveal
to him “how they hunted down and killed Palestinians- as a warning to other
traitors”. The usual lures ensnared individuals to become traitors to the
Palestinian cause: sex and money. In their battle for supremacy over the
Palestinians, the Israelis have begun to target individuals with such soft
weapons - a far more effective attack on the Palestinians than brute force,
which the world, via the Internet, can observe without hindrance.
So, what relevance has the above to
Revisionists? It goes to the heart of character and values! I am reminded
what Ernst Zündel advised me years ago, that if you are into historical
Revisionism, then this is a war, and so it is advisable not to have moral
failings, such as sexual, drug or any material addictions. Spending time in
jail is to be expected and not to be feared, and a fact that needs to be
considered when embarking on this intellectual adventure, as Robert
Faurisson termed it. Interestingly, Art Butz’s The Hoax of the Twentieth
Century, first published in 1977 still remains definitive. Although
weathering all kinds of personal public attacks in the media Art Butz still
retains his professorship at a Chicago university - and no-one to date has
refuted his book’s basic premise: that the homicidal gas chambers never
existed and that Germans never had an official extermination policy.
Udo Walendy published his
Historische Tatsachen until ordered by a court to desist, and after spending
some years in prison, which he did on account of his age - he celebrated his
80th birthday this year. Siegfried Verbeke continued to publish and
disseminate Revisionist material and is currently locked up in a Belgium
prison, i.e. after last year spending some months at Heidelberg prison.
Günter Deckert spent close to five years in a German prison because he had
invited Fred Leuchter to address his Weinheim group on the 1988 published
The Leuchter Report. Deckert, it was alleged, smirked or sneered while
translating, thereby disparaging the memory of the dead! Then from prison he
wrote a letter to a Mr Mannheim, who was traveling around German schools
talking about his escapes from Auschwitz, etc. In his letter Deckert asked
Mr Mannheim 12 questions, and Mr Mannheim felt hurt by the letter’s contents
and took it to the police. This writing of a letter and asking questions
earned Deckert another three months. I took up this matter and sent my views
on the Deckert case to a number of German judges and public prosecutors. It
was the contents of this letter that earned me a ten-month sentence in
Mannheim in 1999, and the Adelaide Institute website’s content was not taken
into consideration. Justice Klaus Kern accepted the push-pull argument, i.e.
that material via the Internet is NOT pushed into Germany, but rather that
an individual must pull it down from the Internet. A subsequent appeal
reversed this decision; thereby my case became a precedent-setting case:
German law extended around the globe - much like the Israeli Holocaust law
that enables the Zionist-racist state to demand extradition to Israel of
anyone and anywhere in the world who refuses to believe in the “Holocaust‚”
The December 2006 Teheran Holocaust
Conference that aimed to review the “Holocaust” has been the single most
significant event within the last decade, and it followed closely on Germar
Rudolf in 2000 beginning his publishing of the Holocaust Handbook series -
about 21 published volumes and as many waiting to be published ˆ now waiting
for Germar to return to the USA and continue his work there. Anyone who
believes in the “Holocaust” now needs to wade through these volumes to be
informed of the Revisionist argument.
It was sadly noted that only Michael
Collins Piper from the USA made it to the Teheran Holocaust conference,
Patrick McNally and Bradley Smith do not live in the USA. American
Revisionists such as Michael Hoffmann, Paul Grubach, Michael Santomauro and
Mark Weber, to name only a few, would not take the risk of traveling to
Teheran for fear of being pursued by their own internal security forces for
having traveled to a country that the US president labels “Axis of Evil”.
So, what will Germar do once
released from prison? Will he continue the Revisionist enterprise and
continue where he left off, and seek out Michael Santomauro who has taken
over the distribution of his books in the USA, or will Germar continue to
pursue his academic career and finally obtain that much-deserved doctorate
in science, which the University of Stuttgart withheld from him on account
of his having written that definitive Revisionist book: The Rudolf Report?
The human factor and David Irving
Well, the human factor has already
kicked in because there are now some individuals within the Revisionist
ranks who, for whatever reason, claim they have worked out why there is this
discrepancy between the Zündel and Rudolf judgment.
Drawing on the early 20 December
2006 David Irving release, speculation is now rife that Germar Rudolf did a
deal with the German prosecutors.
According to Dr Schaller, David
Irving did a deal with his Austrian defense counsel in the hope of getting
out of jail immediately after facing the judge, a week after his 11 November
2006 arrest. Before appearing in front of the judge and before being
charged, Irving through his defense counsel, re-canted, i.e. that limited
gassings occurred and that Auschwitz had gas chambers. This prior re-canting
backfired and did not impress the judges who stooped so low during
sentencing that one of them described Irving as a prostitute who had not
seen the error of her ways. That such a statement came from a judge is
shameful because it scapegoats without going any deeper into the problem of
prostitution. I have noticed that men who have a special hatred for
prostitutes are lacking a moral dimension where compassion has a home.
After settling down to prison life,
so according to Wolfgang Fröhlich who was also spending his time in the
Vienna jail, David Irving certainly saw the error of his ways by jettisoning
his young defense counsel and reverting to the wise counsel of Dr Schaller
for that appeal hearing on 20 December 2006.
Upon Irving’s release on 20 December
2007, something Dr Schaller predicted at the Teheran conference, one of the
judges stated that his early release was justified because Irving had stated
he now believes in the Holocaust. Of course, once back home in England,
Irving stated that he does not now have to show any more remorse about what
he has been doing for decades. For some Revisionists such a jumping about
with one’s beliefs is tantamount to selling out.
Neither Ernst Zündel nor Germar
Rudolf re-canted, and that is befitting of two Germans whose lives are
inextricably linked to the odious and oppressive “Holocaust”‚ story, while
for British historian, David Irving, the “Holocaust“ remains a symbol of
British imperial decline. Since 12 March Irving is in Budapest stirring up
the nationalists with his knowledge. After all, Irving’s knowledge as a
military historian of World War Two remains unsurpassed and his 30-odd books
can be ignored but cannot be dismissed as not having contributed anything to
Interestingly, Georges Theil who
also spent time in a French prison for Revisionist work, feels passionately
for the German cause and has states as much in his book.
Back to Germar Rudolf’s case
Why was defense counsel Sylvia Stolz
removed on the final day of the hearing, and replaced by another lawyer from
a Munich legal firm? Why was there this sudden closing of the case that had
been set down for a number more days?
On 10 March 2007 I phoned Sylvia
Stolz to find out what had happened because the unofficial court report on
that day wasn’t privy to what had occurred behind the scene, and thus only
offered speculations as to what had happened.
Sylvia Stolz informed me that:
1. Germar Rudolf had said everything
he wanted to say and that is why he did not make a final submission to the
court and remained silent;
2. Rudolf did not recant in any way.
Germar stands by the material he presented to court.
3. Stolz’s removal as a defense
counsel from the case was a tactical matter because her task in any
subsequent hearing was to contextualize the whole proceedings within an
historical framework. It would have drawn parallels with Socrates‚ demise by
drinking a cup of poison and with Giordano Bruno’s burning at the stake.
This aspect of the Rudolf trial was dispensed with ˆ and instead the focus
returned to Germar Rudolf, the scientist, the husband and father.
It is perhaps as a result of Sylvia
Stolz from the very beginning of the proceedings adopting the Horst Mahler
strategy that this somewhat light sentence came about. In the Zündel case
there was no bargaining left at the very end, only more of the same. It is
to be noted that Horst Mahler for his troubles is currently also resting in
a prison for a total of nine months.
The fact that Germar has from his
prison cell attempted to distance himself from overt political Revisionist
figures can be seen as his way of retaining that pure scientific focus.
Yet, I am reminded of the Iranian
maxim: everything is politics and everything is religion. The Iranian vision
of the world ˆWeltanschauungˆ is of course far more all-embracing than our
liberal western democratic fractured world where things are divided up and
compartmentalized ˆ to the detriment of our holistic appreciation of life
Is it little wonder then that when
Western men cry, women generally regard this as a “macho” failing instead of
viewing it as a source of strength for compassion and mercy. Islam has
enabled men publicly to cry by adopting in its religious ritual observances
such a public display of compassion. In the liberal democracies of the
western world hat helps individuals to overcome the lack of a wholesome
spiritual vacuum is alcohol, psychiatry and consumerism held together by the
slave system of predatory capitalism.
Germar - the personal perspective
As Germar, 42, he has spent much
reflective time on himself, especially within the past 16 months. It is said
that most men start to think only in their early 30s - and I think there is
some truth in this observation. But whatever happens after Germar’s release
from prison, I wish him well in his endeavour to re-establish contact with
his family from which he was so brutally and unjustly ripped. Any talk about
his person, and what he has done ˆ or did not do - for the Revisionist
movement, is of secondary nature, though I hasten to add that on numerous
occasions he has exclaimed to me that his first love is and always will be
REVISIONISM. Whatever happens when he gets out of prison I sense we have not
heard the last of Germar Rudolf, the POWERHOUSE of REVISIONISM.
As some hostile “Holocaust”
believers advised Revisionists some time ago: get a life beyond REVISIONISM.
To that I responded: any thinking person is a REVISIONIST.
So, let’s not diminish the
REVISIONIST enterprise because I recall that someone in Sacramento in 2004
stated REVISIONISM IS DEAD. This was quite an accurate statement about that
person’s own mental processes because when we stop being revisionists, then
we stop to think, and when we stop to think, then we may as well terminate
our life of our own free will. I don’t think the REVISIONISTS I know would
even contemplate adopting such nihilistic thought patterns. For that we have
too much work awaiting us, and so, quoting Germar, let’s get back to work!
Fredrick Töben Sydney 15 March 2007
From Inside the German Gulag — Political Prisoner
From Inside the German
Gulag — Political Prisoner Germar Rudolf
Mon, 20 Nov 2006
Dear Free Speech Supporter:
Germar Rudolf is a German
citizen, married to an American and father of a young daughter. He was
deported to Germany and sits there a political prisoner, charged with
the “crime” of modern heresy - criticizing Germany’s new state religion
of “holocaust.” Rudolf is a talented scientist and gifted publisher and
was trained at the Max Planck Institute. Mr. Rudolf has since been moved
from Stuttgart to Mannheim prisoner where another political prisoner and
fellow publisher Ernst Zundel is also detained.
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
Asperger Str 60
D-70439 Stuttgart, Germany
October 7, 2006
STUTTGART IS IN MANNHEIM,
UNCERTAIN OF THE EXACT ADDRESS, BUT POSSIBLY LIKE ERNST’S:
Germar Rudolf, Prisoner
Herzogenrieder Str 11
68169, Mannheim, Germany
Thanks a lot for your letter
of August 30, which I received yesterday, after I had not received any
mail for exactly 3 weeks. Such gaps have happened before and the only
guess I have is that the person in charge of censoring my mail is on
vacation rather frequently, so things pile up unprocessed for weeks in a
I assume that your questions
relating to my daily routine are meant to extract some answers that you
- or Paul - intend to post online or use otherwise, like spreading it to
other distributors, which is perfectly fine with me.
Let me, therefore, give you a
summary of my weekly life, after I have described to you my cell here,
so people can imagine how I live. It includes a sink and a toilet
right next to the door. My bed is 6-feet long, which is to say, it is 5
inches shorter than I am. But the mattress on it is 6 feet 6, so that
works out. Pillow and blanket are the standard I am used to, and the
mattress itself is fortunately harder than I have in the U.S. (They were
all way too soft). The bed itself has a plywood board instead of spring
box or other fancy bouncing mechanism, which is preferred as well since
I like it hard.
Next, I have a locker –
without lock though. A chair (of simple and tough design, since man
prisoners seem to use it as a missile but it seems to be able to handle
it pretty well, I have heard) and a small, rather old table. Next, there
are 2 shelf boards. Then there is a neon lamp, a radiator keeping us
properly warmed in cold times, and a window I can actually open, with a
view out to the courtyard that has a nice lawn and the obligatory
30-feet high wall.
Since I am on the fourth
floor, I can barely look over that wall and see some of the surroundings
of this Stuttgart suburb. Since the prison is at the very verge of the
developed area, I can see some fields and forests close by. I enjoy
observing birds coming back to their seasonal life in spring, species I
hadn’t seen in so many years, since the U.S. has a completely different
fauna. I enjoyed meeting all of my old companions,. The window has, of
course, the usual steel bars in front of it plus a steel screen to
prevent prisoners from throwing stuff out the window and trading items
with other inmates on other levels.
In the meantime, I have
turned various cardboard boxes I obtained when buying food supplements
to construct a series of additional shelves, in which I can store food,
sanitary and medical supplies as well as stationery. Usually, the
built-in wooden shelves serve, among other things, to carry a TV that
every cell has. But because I would have to pay 14 Euros (some 17
dollars) per month for rent and electricity, I told them to keep it to
themselves. So I have no TV. Since I never owned one to begin with, this
is no change in my lifestyle.
Now to my daily and weekly
First the every day events.
On weekdays, an electronic tri-tone wakes us up at 5:45, which is pretty
much around the time I was used to getting up while free as well, so no
change, really. Weekends they give us an hour more, but I am up around 6
then as well. Can’t change my habits
). Breakfast is served roughly half an hour later, on which occasion,
our doors are opened and food is handed to us. Unfortunately, the
regular breakfast is rather poor. We can have bread - either wheat or
mixed rye-wheat - and butter plus coffee. I can’t vouch for the coffee’s
quality since I hate coffee and never drink it. The bread is always a
few days old so people don’t eat too much well-tasting freshly baked
bread. Then we receive, alternating each day, either half a liter of
long-life milk or some 25 grams of some spread (jam, honey, nutella, the
latter two only at weekends). Fridays they give us small 20-gram packs
of spread cheese. So, if, say, you eat 2 slices of bread each morning
you have to spread 25 grams over 4 slices, which is like giving it only
a remote flavor of having anything on it. In the meantime, I was able to
purchase some jam, honey and nutella, so my bread doesn’t stay dry half
the time. Because of being notoriously underweight, the physician also
prescribed three more packs of 1/2-liter of milk per week as well as
half a pound of Quark every day (the American reader may ask himself
what quark is. It’s not the subatomic particle, which bears the same
name, but a mild product gained from the solid parts of sour milked, if
I am not mistaken. It’s very rich in protein and fat.) A little of the
quark I use to mix with jam and honey on my breakfast bread (I usually
eat only one slice right now for lack of exercise, since I hurt my left
wrist and had to stop doing upper body exercises).
Next, after breakfast is
done, including washing the dishes and brushing teeth, I sweep my
apartment and do some ABS and back muscle exercises, during which after
each set, I read some philosophical book. At the moment, I am reading
Karl R. Popper’s THE LOGIC OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY”, but I have already
left some Aristotle’s, Hegel, Schopenhauer and more Popper behind me. I
usually read only 2-3 pages between each set, so I don’t get more done
than some 15-20 pages in the morning. Since I usually don’t get enough
sleep during the night (see later for the reason), I frequently am
rather tired after my philosophical workout and I sleep a little more,
half and hour so, before we are let out to our daily one-hour courtyard
walk at 9:15.
The yard is some 300 x 150
feet and has plenty of lawn. Right now, I am using the first 20 minutes
to jog 4 km. Never having been a runner at all - I did some cycling and
swimming as cardiovascular activity, but always hated running - I had to
start slowly in winter, reaching 4 km only I June (after suffering 2
pulled muscle fibers in my right calf back in January and March during
step aerobics on courtyard benches, which are way too high for such
By now, I have reduced my
initial 4 K time from 24 minutes down to 20 minutes and strive to get it
as low as 15 minutes in my prison athletic a career. The remaining time
outside, I used to take a shower - (there are 6 cold water showers in
the yard which nobody except me dares to use any more during that time
of the year) and then to socialized with any inmate that can get a
straight German sentence - or English, if there is such a chance out of
their mouth that makes some sense. That is unfortunately not the rule in
such a place, as the average IQ is well below average and the percentage
of Germans is even lower. It boils down to rare encounters.
After we are locked up again
in our cells, we get lunch roughly half an hour later (11:00 a.m.).
During lunch (as well as dinner), I read the various issues of the
magazines friendly supporters of mine have subscribed for me: SCIENTIFIC
AMERICAN, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, GREENPEACE MAGAZINE, AND three small
German magazines in historical and political issues.
After lunch, I usually take a
nap of half an hour or maybe even an hour, depending on my constitution.
The rest of the day is usually divided into 3 sections: up to 3 p.m.
when dinner is dished out, then up to the time I actually eat my dinner,
depending on my stomach’s regimen, then up to bedtime. I occupy my time
in the afternoon and evening with several activities: answering letters
(like this one), translating documents for my upcoming trial, drawing
pictures for my wife, the only gift I can make for her. (I bought color
pencils for that purpose), listening to music (I was allowed to buy a CD
player and have receive a large amount of music CDs from my generous
supporters), writing down the lyrics of those I love best, and singing
along, sometimes, when I know them well enough, even singing them
without any music. I also was able to receive my mother’s mouth
harmonica, on which I play some pieces once in a while (I even received
a book of German folk songs with notes so I can learn more).
My relatives in the U.S.
provide me with SUDOKU puzzles, which I am about to become an addict of,
and of course, there is the abundance of books that I work myself
through. Currently, I am reading Charles Dickens’ HARD TIMES, Emerson’s
ESSENTIAL WRITINGS, and next on my list is Harper Lee’s TO KILL A
MOCKINGBIRD”. There is no shortage at that front (see
The end of each day sees me
sitting at the table writing a diary entry for my wife, for she receives
letters from me ever so often, whenever three sheets of paper have been
filled with my thoughts and sorrows of the days. For dinner, we get
bread (wheat, wheat-rye, or whole grain), butter some German wurst,
which I always despised and tea, of which I drink only fruit teas.
Fortunately, they have a wurst exchange program for those not eating
this disgusting processed meat, so I get cheese instead, which has
always been my favorite, particularly if put on whole grain bread.
Every second day, however, I
use the quark I received for breakfast to make myself a nice muesli. I
can buy oats, muesli, and all other supplies needed (sugar, fruits,
additional milk), so this is quite a bargain, since I was raised not on
hamburgers and hot dogs, but on muesli all of my life I ate that at
least once a day. Also while being in the U.S. Since we get some salad
every third day of lunch, but I cannot eat it then (it would be too
much), I make myself a real nice salad every other day for dinner by
adding some cut-up cheese, feta (which I can buy), tomatoes (also
bought), crouton (self-made by cutting up wheat bread and drying it on
the radiator or in the sun on the windowsill, depending on weather and
temperature) and a delicious vinegar-sunflower oil-orange juice dressing
I crated myself because the vinegar/oil dressing we get with the salads
is so boring (and often they add only a few drops leaving the salad
rather dry) that in pure desperation, one day I poured some orange juice
over that dry salad, only to discover that this was an ingenious
During the summer, I actually
managed to grow blue cheese on my cheese, meaning blue cheese fungi
cultures, giving me some variety - as a lover of blue cheese, this was
quite a pleasure!
Lung, which I forgot to
describe, is typically German and of a fine average quality. That is to
say: I didn’t have such good food so regularly and often since I left my
mother’s home. So I won’t complain about that at all. It is sometimes a
little short in calories, but for this I have my supplemental oats that
fill the gap. We also eat a desert every day when not getting a salad,
which is usually a fruit. That ends up in my muesli. Also, I figured out
that there are always some prisoners that do not like to eat their
salads or fruits, which I them am happy to bear the responsibility for.
So, considering that this is not a four-star hotel, one cannot complain
about the food at all, provided one can buy a few supplements that are
definitely lacking for breakfast and dinner. And this, as described, is
usually possible. I go to bed usually around 11 p.m., needing some 8
hours of sleep, this is one hour too late. But going to bed earlier is
not a good idea, because many inmates are very noisy until around 11,
when it quiets down considerably. I, therefore, gave up going to bed at
a time when I used to go, and put in a few naps here and there during
the day instead. That helps also to structure the day a little more,
which is very important.
All right, this was the
everyday routine. Now to weekly highlights, if you wish. There are the
minor organizational events, which I mention only in passing, although
they have a curious psychological effect by giving us the feeling of
time actually passing, which is important for us desperately looking for
the end of the tunnel.
Mondays our cells are cleaned
(mopped), but I do not let them do it, since they (the inmate janitors)
do a bad job. I insist on doing it myself. I have, by the way, a
somewhat unique reputation here in prison for keeping my cell
meticulously clean, for instance already by taking my shoes off before
entering it, which was unheard of. Well, it’s where I am all day, so I
might just as well make it as comfortable for me as I can. Anyway,
Tuesdays once a fortnight they exchange our bed linen and sheets.
Wednesdays, they change our clothes (I am obliged to wear prison
‘uniform’ , though most prisoners can wear private clothes. The
‘uniform’ consists of rather normal clothes, though: shirt, jeans
jacket, jeans trousers, black leather shoes). On Thursdays between 5:30
and 7:00 p.m., the prison choir meets to learn and exercise songs to be
performed during church services. I joined some 2 months ago and have
already done a solo 2 weeks ago, resulting in “encore” shouts from the
barbars in the audience. I used to sing in a young choir back in my
early adulthood, but haven’t had any experience since. I love it very
much - I always loved singing. So this is a real relief for me
Mondays, Thursdays and
Sundays between 12:00 and 2:30 p.m. we are allowed to visit other
prisoners in their cell (up to 4 inmates allowed per cell). I do not
take the opportunity of each of these occasions, simply because there
are so few inmates that are to be preferred to spend up to 3 hours with
as compared to a good book. For instance. I am in a part of the prison
where they jail people who are in investigative custody, awaiting trial,
so fluctuation is high. Most people stay only a few months and are never
heard of again. After almost a year of that one loses interest in trying
to invest into any social relationship, since they are torn apart
shortly afterwards anyway. Apart from the fact that the clients here
aren’t exactly my cup of tea. Just recently, I had to somehow fend off a
guy who used to come to me without announcing it beforehand or asking.
He is rather dull chap, I have no real common basis with, so what am I
supposed to do with him during 3 hours, when his topics - sex, drugs and
rock ‘n roll - are of no interest to me.
If the choir performs, I get
to go to 4 church services with the choir during the weekend, otherwise,
only to the 1 service assigned to me, or rather I am assigned to. I also
just recently applied to partake at the English language “Jesus Group”,
which is a religious discussion group for English language speakers, all
of which are blacks from African countries, economic refugees. Their
pigeon English isn’t exactly prone to improve my English, but it’s
better than having no connection to the language of my home of choice at
all. Permission to participate is pending, so I don’t know yet when
that’ll be and if I am allowed to go to it, because originally, I had so
may security measures imposed on me - allegedly for my protection - that
I couldn’t do anything apart from going to the daily courtyard walk. But
by now, I managed to melt some of the ice locking me into place. I
forgot to mention that we can take showers under regular warm water
shower showers twice a week (Monday and Thursday). Dermatologically seen
taking a shower only twice a week is allegedly sufficiently enough, but
my skin thinks otherwise, so after several weeks I started getting
pimples all over the place, which I got under control only after
exposing my skin to the sun starting in late spring and by taking my
daily outdoors shower to clean me of the sweat I produce every day with
my workout. But I expect those outside showers to be turned off in a few
days or weeks at the latest, once frost threatens. Then we will see if
my skin has adapted a little better to deal with its own emanations.
On an irregular basis, I do
receive visits (maximum 120 minutes per month) mainly from my ex-wife
with my 2 German kids and by all kinds of supporters and fans, organized
by a friend who has taken responsibility to get this in shape and
prevent chaos. During summer break in the U.S., my wife who is a teacher
came with my baby daughter to see me as often as she could, back in
June-August. Now I can call her once a month for 15 minutes. That’s not
much, but an improvement compared to the first half year, when we
corresponded only by letter. Finally, I have to go down to the “chamber”
frequently to pick up books or CDs sent to me in the order of friends
and supporters, which is always a nice feeling, like receiving a gift
with the message: you are not forgotten and abandoned. The book and CT
gift program is organized via the website dedicated to me at
www.germarrudolf.com , in order to prevent double items and to distribute
the gifts over a reasonable period of time with a moderate density (to
prevent getting swamped around my birthday or for Easter/Christmas, but
getting forgotten in between).
I guess that pretty much
covers my life here. As to this typewriter: I bought it here, costing me
150 Euros. It is an electric machine, using carbon ribbon tapes costing
5 Euros each and lasting merely 16 pages! That’s a rip-off, but textile
ribbons could be used to strangle somebody or to lower oneself down the
window (after cutting the bars…). I am not quite sure what ridiculous
reason they have for not giving us reasonable tapes, but some things
just can’t be changed. In case I do not write with the machine, it’s
because I ran out of tapes and could not organize new ones. That’s life.
Of course, It would be absolutely superb if I could have a computer, but
that is a dream yet to come true. But I’ll try to get that organized as
well at some point.
As to the situation of my
family in the U.S.: I just received a letter from my wife, finding her
in the greatest alarm caused by the news from my immigration lawyer that
the U.S. government seems to ignore the Federal Court ruling, which had
forced the Board of Immigration Appeals to reopen my case and admit my
application for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent
resident due to my marriage with an American citizen. The government
seems to give a f… about the law and do whatever pleases them. Not
really new to us, is it? But that is only hearsay news from my wife who
isn’t privy to the details of my case nor to any immigration matter for
that sake, so she may have understood things wrongly. Anyway, one thing
is for sure: the administration is at it again in one way or another.
My defense here in the
Zionist-Occupied Zone of Europe is crumbling, because the defense lawyer
I used to prepare my case with has vanished from my radar. I heard that
his wife is dying of lung cancer, hence he has other issues to take care
of. That puts me in a bad spot, and I have no clue how my case will take
off. But matters are rigged already anyway, so what does it matter at
the end of the day? Your taking the side of the Germans is nice,
although in the meantime, I am well beyond that point. It’s not a German
affair. Or the Palestinians or the Lebanese, for instance, or the
Iraqis, and so on. I am not going there in this letter.
Not having a TV, which via
cable, also has numerous radio channels, means that I cannot follow
news. I also refused to subscribe to a daily newspaper: although,
somebody subscribed a small weekly newspaper for me without my consent
(as it happened with several periodicals). I simply do not wish to be
bothered with the news about any sack of rice toppling over in China and
about the insanities in politics and society. It simply drives me up the
Apart, I cannot stand German
new media in general. I cannot even stand the German language, and to
say I developed a strong dislike against it while in the U.S. can’t help
it. It’s the language of my persecutors and torturers. So I despise
German radio and TV channels already for their language. I can
understand Jews today why they hate the German language, for what it
stands for in their minds. It stands for the same thing in my mind.
I had a few letters from
Ernst and responded accordingly, but we never rally corresponded
intensely at any time of our lives, since there is quite a gap between
us in many regards, politically, intellectually. Hence, we have never
been each others’ favorite discussion partners. I also assume that his
correspondence is restricted, so it is fine with me if he reserves the
letters he is allowed to write for those that matter to him and his
cause. I hope these revelations don’t’ shock you. Your nostalgic
preference for people speaking their own language, even after decades of
residing in a foreign country, is an exception, and may I presume it is
restricted to certain ethnic groups?
My wife keeps complaining
that the Mexican immigrants to the U.S. refuse to speak English and
adjust to the U.S. culture (whatever that is). People have their
cultural and ethnic preferences and prejudices, no matter how much
people claim they are free of them. Nobody is.
I am not writing any memoirs.
I am a bit younger than David Irving and intend to wait a little longer
before I start writing them. Apart, I already have a kind of
biographical sketch out there, in the appendix of my expert report even
in English. I have many more things in mind to do once I am out of here,
so it would be wrong to start writing something, when the most exciting
parts haven’t even been fathomed yet. If writing a dense diary to my
wife counts as a memoir, then that is what I am doing. But it is very
personal in parts, so it’s not suited for publication, at least not for
years to come. New projects, I will aim at once my trial is over and I
know how my prison rule will look like, depending greatly on the prison
where I will end up. I’ll probably pick up my university studies again,
going for another degree or trying to put the knowledge I assembled over
the past 15 years to some use in this regard. I already collected lots
of paperwork in this regard from various remote colleges, but unless my
case is settled, there is no use in getting things going.
All right, I think that’ll do
for your distribution. Please clean out my debris field of typos and
other mistakes. This machine has no retype features, so once a button is
pressed, it’s done and over with, no editing. But I am sure you can and
will smooth out the rough spots for me.
Thanks a lot for helping me
out staying connected to the world out there. With my best regards also
Visit the Canadian Association for Free Expression’s website:
Please support CAFE in our
CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3, Canada or e-mail us your VISA
number and expiry date.
The Trial of Germar Rudolf in Mannheim District Court
Day 2, 16 November 2006
Reported by Günter Deckert
Translated by J. M. Damon
Scheduled to begin at 9 O’clock, the trial began at 9:05
The following members of
the court were present:
1. The same judges
as on opening day, Schwab presiding;
2. District Attorney
Grossmann with female assistant;
3. Defense Attorneys
Stolz and Bock;
4. One bailiff, five
armed uniformed policemen and 2 plainclothes political police (“staschus”);
of press and media – none (scared off, presumably);
6. Others: Around 50
spectators whose composition changed from time to time, including Dr. Rolf
Kosiek of Grabert Publishing House. Nine schoolchildren were present at
opening of morning session, six still present at lunch break, none after
Judge Schwab opened
proceedings and allowed Germar Rudolf to continue speaking. Rudolf informed
the Court that he was considering several motions that he wished to discuss
with his attorneys, whereupon the Court
recessed at 9:07 and
resumed at 9:27.
Attorney Stolz then
objected that Germar had once again been placed in leg irons. Judge Schwab
remarked that during the previous session he had ordered the leg irons
removed while the prisoner was inside the courthouse. He said he would see
to it that in future, Germar would not be transported from Heidelberg Prison
Germar then had his
attorneys distribute to the Court and to Grossmann, photocopies of documents
relevant to his Tuesday presentations and augmenting it in detail.
Among these photocopies
were supporting statements by the Director of Prisons in the state of
Missouri in the USA. Included was an introduction by Prof. Faurisson
explaining that the engineer Fred A. Leuchter is the leading expert on
homicidal gas chambers in the United States. (This statement was taken from
an expert report presented during the trial of Ernst Zündel in Toronto.)
Other documents that
Germar presented included plans and photographs of several buildings and
parts of buildings of the Auschwitz concentration camp. Here Germar referred
to his critically annotated edition of the various Leuchter expert reports.
publication is available in English under the title
Fred A. Leuchter, Robert Faurisson. Germar Rudolf. The
Leuchter Reports: Critical Edition.
It is dedicated to Ernst Zündel (“For
Ernst”) and available at
continued with a chronological account of his life history and
accomplishments in establishing a foothold in the USA. This account, which
was also presented during proceedings of the first trial day (14 November),
is found in his publication Kardinalfragen an Deutschlands Politiker –
Aufforderung zur Wiederherstellung der Menschenrechte in Deutschland (Cardinal
Questions About Contemporary History) available online at
Then came revelations
that were completely new (and not just to me!) concerning Germar’s
collaborations with Peter Stahl, a nephew of “Gestapo Müller”. Stahl is a
citizen of the US and the son of a relative of Müller who immigrated to the
Germar wrote these
revelations in collaboration with Bob Crowley, a former high ranking member
of the FBI who wrote an independent account of the Kennedy assassination.
inspired Germar to edit and publish a book entitled “Regicide” that thus far
has appeared only in English.
GR ascribed his
deportation from the USA as being in large part a consequence of publishing
Germar then related that
the initial phase of his residence in the US was interrupted by a short stay
in Mexico near the residence of Bradley Smith. Smith is the founder of CODOH
(Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust) a pioneering organization in
support of unfettered historical research and scientific investigation of
what Prof. Norman Finkelstein calls the “Holocaust Industry.” Despite
advanced age, Smith continues to be very active in the field of historical
Germar Rudolf also
carried on extensive correspondence with Fritjof Mayer, an editor of
Spiegel magazine, who recently published a controversial article on the
probable number of Auschwitz deaths in the magazine Südosteuropa.
At 10:50 the presiding
judge called another recess, which lasted until 11:25.
Germar then described the
books he published in 2005, in particular a series on the subject of
Auschwitz. The author of these books is the Italian revisionist researcher
Carlo Mattagno, whom Germar described as the most knowledgeable researcher
of the concentration camps in eastern Europe.
At 12:42 Judge Schwab
adjourned the Court for the midday meal, with re-adjournment at 2:00 pm.
At the afternoon session
only a single bailiff and two uniformed policemen were present, in addition
to the two “staschu” agents.
After describing his
scientific and publishing activities, Germar addressed six fundamental
issues concerning basic human rights in a free and democratic society.
a) The Scientific Attitude: Germar explained the vital importance of the
scientific attitude in human affairs, referring to several prominent
authorities cited by the prosecution, who stressed the importance of the
“human compulsion to know the truth.” He described himself as an “eternally
curious researcher with a compulsion to know, and incapable of
submitting to the compulsion to believe, or accept on faith.”
(At this point, Female Judge Number Two dedicated her full attention to
massaging her eyes)
Germar remarked that the forensic aspects of “Holocaust,” that is, technical
examination of the “homicidal gas chamber as murder weapon,” has been
completely ignored by established authority for over 40 years.
Human Dignity and the Instinct to Learn the Truth: Everyone, including
Germar, has the human right to question official veracity. That is simply
the right to criticism. In accordance with this inalienable right, Germar
is resisting oppression by the State as well as well as official
intervention in free and unhindered investigation and research: Kant’s
Sapere Aude - Dare to know.)
The Nature of the Present German Government: Germar’s position is that the
present Federal Republic / Reich / “OMF” (Prof. Carlo Schmid’s
“Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign Rule”) is not a sovereign
Furthermore, it subscribes to and enforces mystical taboos.
neither a democracy nor a nation of laws, but rather a pseudo-democratic
The Nature of Science:
Scientific validity depends on constant questioning and verification. The
Federal Republic / Reich / OMF / is hostile to and intolerant of real
science, since it treats all criticism of the Holocaust and Auschwitz taboos
as a crime and punishes empirical investigation of them with heavy prison
sentences (Deckert: up to 5 years:).
Process of Learning: Mankind learns by the progression from mythos
(mythology) to theory, to observation and to the fact. This is the course
of human knowledge and understanding; and questioning and criticism are
fundamental prerequisites for the advancement of science and knowledge.
Judge Schwab, who had
appeared increasingly restless since 3:15 pm, was obviously looking for a
point at which to end the day’s session. He adjourned court at 15:35, when
Germar arrived at the end of a paragraph.
Germar’s trial will be continued on 30
Reporter: Günter Deckert
A friendly request:
whoever reads and circulates this report, which is not a newspaper article
written for the “Establishment” media, please be so kind as to mention my
name in conjunction with it. Thanks, G.D.
Rudolf-Prozeß, Landgericht (LG)
Mannheim, Tag 2, 16.11.2006
um 9Uhr, Beginn 9.05Uhr
wie am Eröffnungstag (Vors. Schwab)
Grossmann mit „Assistentin“
RAe Stolz &
Gerichtsdiener, 5 Polizisten in Uniform – alle bewaffnet; 2 „staschu“ =
politische Polizei (in Zivil)
Schnitt 50 Personen mit wechselnder Zusammensetzung; darunter auch Dr.
Rolf Kosiek, Grabert-Verlag; zu Beginn 9 Schüler, bis zur Mittagspause
noch 6, nach der Mittagspause 0
durch den Kammervorsitzenden, der Germar Rudolf (GR) das Wort erteilt.
Dieser teilt mit, er habe sich einige Anträge überlegt, die er mit den
Verteidigern besprechen möchte. – Die Sitzung wird um 9.07Uhr unterbrochen
und um 9.27Uhr fortgesetzt.
Stolz rügt, daß GR erneut mit Fußfesseln vorgeführt worden ist. Vors.
Richter Schwab erklärt, er habe bereits das letzte Mal verfügt, daß dies im
Gerichtsgebäude zu unterlassen ist. Er werde dafür sorgen, daß künftig keine
Vorführung ab Gefängnis Heidelberg in Fußfesseln erfolgt.
durch die Anwälte Ablichtungen von Dokumenten***, die Teil, seiner
Ausführungen vom Dienstag sind, an das Gericht wie StA Grossmann verteilen
und erläutert diese ausführlich.
Darunter Empfehlungsschreiben des Gefängnisdirektors des
Missouri-Gefängnisses, der Prof. Faurisson Fred A. Leuchter als den
führenden Gaskammerfachmann der USA empfohlen hatte – Anmerkung: Es ging um
die Erstellung eines Gutachtens für den Prozeß gegen Ernst Zündel (EZ) in
Toronto. Weiterhin Pläne und Fotos von wichtigen Gebäuden bzw. Gebäudeteilen
des KL Auschwitz/Oczwiecim. – GR verweist in diesem Zusammenhang auf seine
kritisch kommentierte Ausgabe sämtlicher Leuchter-Gutachen, leider nur auf
Englisch, mit dem Titel „Fred A. Leuchter, Robert Faurisson, Germar
Rudolf: The Leuchter Reports – Critical Edition Chicago,2005², USA (.....:
Die Leuchter-Berichte – eine kritische Ausgabe..). Die Abhandlung ist
wohl Ernst Zündel gewidmet („For Ernst“).
mit der zeitlichen Anfolge seines Lebenslaufes und seines Schaffens fort und
schildert seine Versuche des Fußfassens in den USA.
auch das bereits am ersten Tag, am 14.11., Ausgeführte ist in der
GR-Veröffentlichung „Kardinalfragen an Deutschlands Politiker –
Aufforderung zur Wiederherstellung der Menschenrechte in Deutschland“
nachzulesen: Castle Hill Publishers (CHP) – Deutsche Bücher / Books in
English – POBox 243, GB Uckfield/West Sussex – TN 22 9AW, England (firstname.lastname@example.org
www.vho.org/store/UK, Katalog 2006.
nicht nur für mich, waren Ausführungen über die Zusammenarbeit mit einem
Peter Stahl, einem Neffen von „Gestapo-Müller“ (1), Sohn eines
ausgewanderten Müller-Verwandten und damit US-Bürger, der GR mit einem
ehemaligen hochrangigen FBI-Mann (Bob Crowley) zusammenbrachte, der eine
andere Darstellung der Kennedy-Ermordung lieferte. Dies veranlaßte GR zur
Herausgabe eines bislang nur im Englischen erschienenen Buches mit dem Titel
„Regiscide“ (Königsmord). Auch hierauf führte er ua. seine Abschiebung aus
den USA zurück. – Während dieser ersten Phase des US-Aufenthaltes,
unterbrochen durch einen kurzen Aufenthalt in Mexiko in der Nähe von Bradley
SMITH (CODOAH), einem trotz seines Alters noch immer sehr rührigen
US-Revisionisten, hat auch ein gewisser Fridjof Meyer (Spiegel); Verfasser
des berüchtigten Kuraufsatzes in der Zs. Südosteuropa mit ihm Verbindung
10.50Uhr verfügt der Kammervorsitzende eine „Verschnaufpause“; Wiederbeginn
GR stellt dann die verlegten Bücher
des Jahres 2005 vor, vor allem die Reihe zum Thema „AU.....“; Ver-fasser ist
der italienische Revisionist Carlo Mattagno, den er als den derzeit besten
KL-Kenner im Osten Europas bezeichnete, der mit dem Baseler Jürgen Graf nach
der Wende im Osten die wichtigsten Archive im ehemaligen Einflußbereich der
UdSSR bereist und „bearbeitet“ hat.
12.42Uhr erklärt Richter Schwab die Mittagspause; Wiederbeginn um 14Uhr.
Zu Beginn der Nachmittagsverhandlung
sind nur noch ein Gerichtsdiener sowie zwei uniformierte Polizisten neben
den beiden „staschu“-Leuten anwesend.
Nach den Ausführungen zur eigenen
wissenschaftlichen sowie verlegerischen Arbeit wendet sich GR
grundsätzlichen Fragen zu:
Frage der WISSENSCHAFTLICHKEIT –
Er benennt einige geistige Kronzeugen von Rang und Namen, die alle den
„menschlichen Drang zur Wahrheit“ betont hätten. Er stellt sich als der
„ewig Neugierige dar, der WISSEN will, statt GLAUBEN ZU MÜSSEN“!
Die 2. Richterin huldigt immer häufiger der Augenpflege....
Die forensische Seite, d.h. die
technische Überprüfung der „Mordwaffe Gaskammer“, sei seit
über 40 Jahren vollständig
Menschenwürde - Jeder Mensch, auch er, habe das Menschenrecht auf Zweifel,
auf Kritik. Insofern wehre er sich gegen die staatliche Unterdrückung sowie
gegen die Eingriffe in die freie und ungehinderte Forschung – Kant: „Wage zu
wissen!“ (Sapere aude)
Die heutige brd(dr) sei eine
geschlossene Gesellschaft, die an magische Tabus glaube. Sie sei weder eine
Demokratie noch ein Rechtsstaat, sondern eine „demokratische Diktatur“
Wissenschaft bedeute ständiges
Fragen und Hinterfragen. Der brddr-Staat sei wissenschaftsfeindlich, da er
jede Kritik an diesem TABU, gemeint „Holo.... / Au.....“, als Verbrechen,
als Straftat einstufe und unter Strafe stelle (bis zu 5 Jahre / der
Von der Mythologie (Mythos) zur
Theorie über die Beobachtung zur Tatsache! Das sei der richtige Weg.
Insofern seien Zweifel, in Frage stellen wie Kritik ein Grundanliegen, eine
Grundanforderung der bzw. an die Wissenschaft.
Richter Schwab, der ab 15.15Uhr
bereits „unruhig wirkt“, such nach einem Grund für die Beendigung Da GR zu
einem Abschnitt kommt, schließt er um 15.35Uhr die Sitzung.
Weiter am 4. Dez., 9Uhr
diesen Bericht als Quelle benutzt, möge dies BITTE vermerken. Danke!
Danger in Denying Holocaust?
© January 7, 2000 -
Danger in Denying Holocaust?
A revisionist is accusing a prominent critic of
the movement of libel. Scholars and survivors say the evidence is
irrefutable, but those who question extent of horrors say they pay a
By KIM MURPHY, Times Staff Writer
Rudolf, a doctoral candidate at
Stuttgart University, concluded that large numbers of
Jews may have died of typhoid, starvation and murder at
Europe's most famous World War II death camp, but none
of them died in a gas chamber.
A young German chemist named Germar Rudolf took
crumbling bits of plaster from the walls of Auschwitz in 1993 and
sent them to a lab for analysis. There were plenty of traces of
cyanide gas in the delousing chambers where Nazi camp commanders had
had blankets and clothing fumigated. There was up to a thousand
times less in the rooms described as human gas chambers.
Rudolf, a doctoral candidate at Stuttgart
University, concluded that large numbers of Jews may have died of
typhoid, starvation and murder at Europe's most famous World War II
death camp, but none of them died in a gas chamber.
When a report on his findings--commissioned by a
former Third Reich general--got out, Rudolf lost his job at the
respected Max Planck Institute and his doctoral degree was put on
hold. He was sentenced to 14 months in prison under a 1985 German
law making it a crime to incite racial hatred, his landlord kicked
him out, he fled into exile and his wife filed for divorce.
There are many who say Rudolf got exactly what he
deserved. But to the increasingly vocal movement of Holocaust
deniers and revisionists, Rudolf stands as a crucial figure because
of what he represents: a highly trained chemist who purports--despite
a wide variety of scientific evidence to the contrary--to have
physical proof that the gas chambers at Auschwitz did not exist.
Over the last decade, supporters of such theories
have scrutinized hundreds of thousands of pages of Third Reich
documents and diaries made available after the collapse of the
Soviet Union. They have analyzed gas chamber construction. They have
pinpointed contradictions and hard-to-believe details in stories
told by camp survivors and, amid nearly universal scorn from the
academic establishment, won testimonials for some of their work from
academics at respected institutions, such as Northwestern University
and the University of Lyon.
The revisionists, whose theories will be at the
center of a high-profile libel trial scheduled to begin Tuesday in
London, are not operating in a vacuum. A 1993 poll by the Roper
Organization found that 22% of Americans thought it possible that
the Holocaust never happened.
The theorists contend that far fewer than 6
million Jews died in Europe during World War II--and that most of
those who died did so through starvation, disease and ad hoc
executions carried out by lower-level Nazi officers.
That scenario has been almost universally
dismissed as a flawed misreading of history, cooked up out of
deep-seated anti-Semitism. Indeed, at least two dozen people have
been prosecuted in Germany, France, Spain, Austria, Poland and
Canada since 1990 under various laws prohibiting racial hatred and
the defaming of the memory of those who died in Nazi death camps for
even questioning what has become one of the defining horrors of the
Now one of the leading deniers of the Holocaust,
British historian David Irving, is striking back, suing the most
prominent critic of the movement, Emory University professor Deborah
Lipstadt, for libel. The trial is likely to feature many of the
world's premier WWII historians weighing in on the mechanics,
logistics, chain of command and blueprints for the extermination of
millions of European Jews.
In her book, "Denying the Holocaust: The Growing
Assault on Truth and Memory," Lipstadt accuses Irving of skewing
documents and misrepresenting data. The book quotes analysts who
describe his work as "closer to theology or mythology than to
history." As a British citizen, Irving can take advantage of British
libel law, which places much of the burden on Lipstadt to prove her
book did not libel the historian. Irving says his lawsuit will
prove Lipstadt's book is part of an international Jewish campaign to
Irving, author of biographies of Adolf Hitler and
his propaganda chief, Joseph Goebbels, has argued that Hitler has
never been found to have ordered a massive extermination of the Jews
and, in fact, tried to stop some of the killings. He has described
Auschwitz as "a very brutal slave labor camp, where probably 100,000
Jews died." And not unlike U.S. Reform Party presidential
candidate Patrick J. Buchanan, he asserts the world would have been
better served if Winston Churchill had accepted Hitler's peace
overtures in 1940 and allowed Hitler to fight it out with Josef
Stalin in Russia.
Confronting Deniers' Arguments Head-On
Lipstadt was among the first in the American
Jewish community to abandon the long-standing practice of ignoring
the Holocaust deniers, choosing instead to confront their arguments
head-on. Her book accuses Irving of misreading documents and
Historians she quotes have said Irving ignores
the fact that the Nazis deliberately avoided a paper trail and that
it is quite plausible that Hitler would never personally have
affixed his signature to the Final Solution.
She cites accusations by prominent British
historian Hugh Trevor-Roper that Irving "seizes on a small and
dubious particle of 'evidence' " and allegedly uses it "to dismiss
far more substantial evidence that may not support his thesis."
"There are more people in the United States who
believe that Elvis Presley is alive than who believe the Holocaust
didn't happen. As an American, that's a demi-consolation," Lipstadt
said in an interview. "But I see it as a clear and future danger.
The future danger is when there are no people left who can say in
the first-person singular, 'This is what happened to me,' it's going
to be much easier to deny it."
For Irving, who is regarded in some mainstream
quarters as one of the premier documentarians of the Third Reich, it
is an issue of professional vindication. It is no accident, he says,
that he has been banned from even entering Canada, Italy, Germany
and Austria because of Holocaust denial laws in those countries.
"They regard me as dangerous, and the word 'dangerous' puzzles me,"
he said. "I don't go around punching people in the face ...
'Dangerous' can only mean dangerous to their interests, either in
the long term or the short term.
"In the end, it isn't really a question of
whether it's 6 million or only 1 million" Jews who died. "I think
the figures have been inflated, and the significance of the
inflation is that the Jewish community is trying to make out that
their suffering is unique in its grandeur and the methods applied to
achieve it. And it wasn't. It was just one of the many barbarisms
committed under the cloak of war."
Some revisions in Holocaust history have
been generally accepted. Stories that Jewish remains were
manufactured into soap and lampshades have been dismissed as
myth. There were, most historians now agree, no human
gasings at Dachau. Deaths at Auschwitz, once estimated,
based on the testimony of Nazi commanders, at up to 3
million have been scaled back to about 1.1 million. Even the
widely accepted figure of 6 million Jewish dead all over
Europe has been questioned in recent years by some of the
world's most prominent Holocaust scholars.
Raul Hilberg and Robert Jan van Pelt, two of the
leading authorities, now believe the figure is probably closer to
Still, scholars say, the evidence of a massive
extermination campaign that resulted in the deaths of millions of
Jews is so exhaustive that it is irrefutable.
It includes detailed stories from camp survivors,
confessions and memoirs from Nazi commandants (including
Auschwitz commander Rudolf Hoess), testimony of Jewish prisoners
who removed bodies from the gas chambers, blueprints uncovered from
newly opened archives in Moscow that document construction of the
gas chambers, records from the contractors who built the gas
chambers and orders for large quantities of hydrogen cyanide gas,
far more than would have been needed for fumigation, according to
Van Pelt and others.
There is the sheer number of Jews who arrived at
the camps and never left, far more than could have fallen victim to
disease or starvation, most historians believe.
Since when, Lipstadt wants to know, does anyone
in the name of academic inquiry have the right to claim there is
"another side" to the Holocaust debate? And why is there even a
To this, Rudolf, who could be called as a witness
at the trial, says that no issue of history should be exempt from
reexamination--even if it pains the victims.
In convicting him, Rudolf says, the court took no
notice of prominent German military historian Joachim Hoffman, who
credited the quality of Rudolf's research and said that to suppress
it would "work a powerful hindrance to legitimate striving for
scientific understanding." The court apparently was moved, however,
by a preface by the former Third Reich general who had commissioned
Rudolf to do the research, Otto Ernst Remer, who in 1992 himself was
sentenced to prison for incitement to racial hatred.
Could a report commissioned by a man like
Remer--who once joked while sniffing a cigarette lighter that he was
mimicking "a Jew nostalgic for Auschwitz"--ever be a justifiable
contribution to scientific literature?
More to the point, says Irving, should there be
political limits on academic inquiry?
"I think, by the end of this case,
the word 'scholarship' will come to stink," Irving
predicts. "Scholars tend to award that accolade to each
other. And their scholarship usually consists of sitting
in libraries reading each others' books."
"I think, by the end of this case, the word
'scholarship' will come to stink," Irving predicts. "Scholars tend
to award that accolade to each other. And their scholarship usually
consists of sitting in libraries reading each others' books."
Irving prides himself on relying on primary
sources for his biographies: interviews or diaries of the
principals, radio transmission intercepts, memorandums. In the case
of his book "Hitler's War," Irving interviewed in detail most of the
surviving members of Hitler's staff and only used documents that
would have crossed Hitler's desk.
In the process, Irving said he did not come
across a single document or interview that indicated Hitler had
ordered a campaign to exterminate the Jews.
"Others who have come across with something have
looser criteria than I do, like the Nuremberg trials ... I won't
accept that. Not standing by itself," he said.
Irving's numerous critics say he fails to address
the fact that the extermination campaign was carried out in
deliberate secrecy, without written orders. SS chief Heinrich
Himmler "explicitly forbade all discussion of it, and if it had to
be mentioned, it was always disguised as 'resettlement' or
'transport to the east,' " Trevor-Roper pointed out in a review of
St. Martin's Press abruptly dropped plans to
publish Irving's controversial biography of Goebbels in 1996 in the
wake of a storm of criticism from reviewers, the Anti-Defamation
League of B'nai B'rith and even, according to some employees,
telephone death threats against the book's editor. Thomas McCormack,
chairman of the publishing house, said he read the book and found it
"repellent [and] effectively anti-Semitic." When the Doubleday
Military Book Club backed out as well, Irving self-published the
book, calling the whole affair "the most extraordinary treatment of
a historian since what the Iranians did to Salman Rushdie."
Yet Irving has his admirers as well. Christopher
Hitchens, writing of Irving's work in Vanity Fair, called him "not
just a Fascist historian, [but] ... also a great historian of
Fascism." Gordon A. Craig, considered the dean of German historians,
acknowledged that Irving has been an "annoyance" but said: "The fact
is that he knows more about national socialism than most
professional scholars in his field." His book on Hitler, Craig said,
"remains the best study we have of the German side of the Second
On the advice of her lawyers, Lipstadt won't
discuss Irving or the upcoming trial. But she did say there is a
danger in allowing what she calls Holocaust deniers to wear the
mantle of legitimate revisionists -- those who look at accepted
history and raise new and often enlightening questions.
Political Agenda Cited by Lipstadt
"There's a definite political agenda," she said.
"This is not just Looney Tunes history. These are people who want to
make national socialism respectable again. And how do you make a
thoroughly discredited movement respectable?
"First of all, you deal with moral equivalencies.
You say, 'Oh yes, the Germans bombed London, but the Allies bombed
Dresden. There were Bergen-Belsen and Auschwitz, but the Americans
had camps for the Americans of Japanese descent.' But there's no
moral equivalency for them to bring up about the Holocaust. So
instead, they are left denying the Holocaust. And denying it in such
a way that you almost hear them saying, 'It didn't happen, but it
should have.' "
Van Pelt, who is considered one of the world's
leading authorities on Auschwitz, prepared an 800-page report on the
death camp for the trial. "The whole idea of trying to prove the
Holocaust is, for me, a kind of ridiculous exercise. But in some
ways, it forces historians to show what they can do. I think the
case has forced me ... to look at things I preferred not to look at
in the past," he said.
Van Pelt now can tell you how the gas chambers
operated, how the capsules of Zyklon B were dropped in the ceiling
vents, how the bodies were hauled out, and how long it took human
beings to die at what concentrations of gas (about 35 minutes, in
Van Pelt's new report has not yet been made
public, and Rudolf has not responded to it. "I can deal with
Himmler. I can deal with Hoess. There's a certain kind of naive
honesty in what they do, however evil it is," Van Pelt said. "But
the contortions and complete fabrications of these deniers is
"What they do is take all kinds of very straightforward evidence
and basically turn it upside down. And it's an incredible effort to
simply sit there and take every sentence they write and compare it
to the record. . . . It doesn't help you to understand anything
except the contortions of their minds. And their minds are not very
Holocaust denial trial opens of German deported from U.S.
The Associated Press Published: November 14, 2006
MANNHEIM, Germany: A 42-year-old German
deported from the United States went on trial Tuesday on allegations of
Germar Rudolf, who published a study
claiming to prove that the Nazis did not gas Jews at the Auschwitz concentration
camp, faces a possible five-year prison sentence if convicted.
In his opening statement, prosecutor
Andreas Grossmann said Rudolf used the Internet to spread documents attacking
"He represented the Holocaust as
invention," Grossmann said.
Rudolf was sentenced in 1995 in Germany
to 14 months in prison for Holocaust denial, but then disappeared. He applied
for political asylum in the United States in 2000, but was rejected and was
deported last year to serve the 1995 sentence.
He was arrested when he appeared at an
immigration office in Chicago to apply for a green card based on his marriage to
a U.S. citizen.
Rudolf is being tried in the same state
court in Mannheim that is currently hearing a similar but unrelated case against
Ernst Zundel, a German deported from Canada last year.
The Rudolf trial is expected to last
until at least the end of January.
Rudolf's attorney informs him that he will be deported
from the United States to Germany for 'Thought Crimes.'
By Arthur R. Butz, November 8, 2005
November 8, 2005
It is Official!
I just got a call from publisher Mr. Germar Rudolf from
his jail (detention center), he left a message on my phone machine. In essence this is the bad news: Germar Rudolf's attorney informs him that he will be
deported from the United States to Germany for 'Thought Crimes.' This will
happen next Monday on November 14, 2005. Germar Rudolf will serve 5-15 years in prison for his
writings (such as writings posted on his website) concerning the Holocaust.
ATTENTION JOURNALISTS FOR MORE INFO CALL:
Michael Santomauro Editorial Director 253 West 72nd
street #1711 New York, NY 10023
26 October 2005
A short while ago I spoke to Germar on the phone and here is his report of the
situation. Again, he wants this report widely circulated and posted. In this
connection, it will be helpful for you to recall my report of Oct. 22 on his
arrest and general situation. What are definitely my views, not part of what
Germar told me, are enclosed in square brackets .
The government had until today, Oct. 26, to file with the court its arguments as
to why it should be allowed to take over Germar's case and deport him, and
Germar had until Nov. 2 to respond. The government filed two days early, Oct.
24, and Germar's lawyers replied today. The court will probably rule in early
November. The government has two arguments.
1. When Germar filed his application for an adjustment of status, based on his
marriage to a US citizen, he did not anticipate that the government would invoke
the 1999 administratively created policy of ignoring the 1960 law; the latter
would give Germar the right to the adjustment. He did not challenge the policy
then, so he has no right to challenge it now.
[Since there had been no ruling on this question in the 11th circuit, why would
it occur to Germar, or his lawyers, to challenge it?]
2. [Since Germar did not file a "frivolous" application for political asylum],
his deportation at this time would not exclude his return in the future. [I
suppose the reasoning here is that, since everything going on in the German
legal system is irrelevant, the fact that he would be imprisoned on return to
Germany is also irrelevant.]
[I take this opportunity to correct a small contradiction that somebody spotted
in my report of Oct. 22. I wrote
"the highest levels of the executive branch in Washington, in the Department of
Homeland Security and the Department of Justice, have now intervened and taken
over the case from the INS. ... In view of developments this past week the court
has, apparently only verbally, given the INS until Oct. 26 to file its
A correspondent wondered why, if the case had been taken from the INS, it was
the INS that was to file.
What happened here is that I wrote a preliminary version of this report on Oct.
21 and then checked it with Germar on Oct. 22. He told me, essentially, that his
case had moved to Washington. I should have changed that phrase to "given the
government until Oct. 26".
In the future it would be best to say that Germar's adversary is the
"government", and some fairly high levels of the government at that. Actually,
the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) no longer exists, it having
been transformed into an agency with another name within the Department of
Homeland Security. However there is still a tendency to refer loosely to the
On the matter of adjustments in the operations of his publishing business,
Germar believes that, since the time frame is now so short, it would be
pointless to implement changes that would have to be rescinded less than a month
Arthur R. Butz
22 October 2005
Here is a summary of Germar Rudolf's situation, based on my telephone
conversations with him from jail. This is, up to my abilities to transcribe
accurately, his account, not mine. He wants it to propagate widely as an e-mail
and web postings.
On Oct. 19 Germar and his wife had a marriage interview at the Chicago office of
the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service). It went well and ended with
the INS certifying that their marriage was real. As they were about to leave two
officers of the INS appeared and claimed that Germar had been sent a letter
instructing him to appear at their Chicago office for photographing and
fingerprinting, and that he had not complied. Neither Germar nor his lawyer
received such a letter, and they have still not been shown a copy of it. The
failure to appear would not in itself, however have brought any drastic action;
in fact, the INS had had him photographed and fingerprinted long ago at the FBI
office in Huntsville. What exacerbated the situation was that recently the
German government had made its second request for his extradition and some clerk
at the INS, assuming the matter involved a real criminal case, flagged his file.
I commented that that is the charitable interpretation. In any case, Germar was
detained and sent to a jail about 50 miles from Chicago.
A 1960 law specified that marriage to a US citizen is a valid basis for an
adjustment of status for somebody involved in deportation proceedings, even if
the marriage takes place during the proceedings. However since 1999 the
government has been trying to act as though the law does not exist and has
succeeded in this to some extent, getting a favorable ruling in one federal
circuit and adverse rulings in three others (a "circuit" is a geographical
sub-division of the US, defined only for purposes of administration of federal
law). The 11th circuit court in Atlanta, which has Germar's case, has not yet
ruled on this legal issue. Normally such a situation results in the matter being
appealed to the Supreme Court, which is there to resolve contradictory lower
court decisions. However subjects in deportation cases have been poor people who
could not begin to mount a challenge in the Supreme Court. That is why the
government has not been challenged on this since 1999. The government knows that
it would lose in the Supreme Court.
The 11th circuit court wants to hear this case to its conclusion but the highest
levels of the executive branch in Washington, in the Department of Homeland
Security and the Department of Justice, have now intervened and taken over the
case from the INS. How the matter passed from an anonymous clerk at the INS to
the highest levels of the executive branch is unknown. In view of developments
this past week the court has, apparently only verbally, given the INS until Oct.
26 to file its arguments on why it should be allowed to take over Germar's case,
presumably to deport him forthwith. Germar's lawyers then have until Nov. 2 to
file his arguments. The court will probably rule later in November.
The November ruling will be on whether the court's process will remain in place,
or the executive branch will take over. Therefore it appears likely that Germar
will win in November, as the court has expressed a wish to follow this case all
the way to its conclusion. Why would it rule that its own deliberations are
unimportant or irrelevant?
Assuming the November ruling is favorable, there is still likely a court hearing
around January, which will decide two questions. First, is Germar entitled to
political asylum? Second, if Germar is not entitled to political asylum, then is
he entitled to an adjustment of status based on his marriage?
I commented on the question of publicity, which Germar is skeptical of but which
I believe may be necessary to effectively raise funds in the US. He does not
have any name recognition here. Above all, Germar and his lawyers do not want
angry denunciation of the INS and/or government. Public demonstrations outside
the INS or the court could be fatal.
At present his business operation is shut down and it is not possible to buy
books from his website. However the website is still functioning. Germar has
arranged for certain others to take over some of the publishing and business
operations if he is deported.
The jail Germar is staying in is not an unpleasant place for a jail, and has an
atmosphere resembling an army barracks. It has the lowest level of security and
there are TV and games for the inmates' amusement, and books for their study.
Food is decent.
Arthur R. Butz
The Persecution Of
Should expert witnesses be sent to jail if they contradict
eyewitness testimony? Normal legal proceedings demand that no witness be
prosecuted unless it can be shown that he intentionally mislead the court. Also,
if physical evidence presented by an expert witness contradicts eyewitness
testimony, the physical evidence prevails.
But in Germany this is not so when the Holocaust is at issue. If the findings of
an expert witness contradict eyewitnesses, the expert will be sent to jail. Here
is a case study of how that works.
below explains in detail the history of persecution as endured by Germar
Rudolf. The first item gives an introduction into the underlying topic --
"Holocaust forensics", if you wish. The next five items go through Germar's
The webpage with a documentation on Germar's attempt
to gain political asylum in the U.S. is currently the most important of
them. These items are followed by three
essays on various aspects of Germar's perseuction -- with focus on social,
legal, and media persecution.
Doing forensic research on crime scenes of the so-called Holocaust is
nothing new. This is a paper by Germar Rudolf addresses two questions:
Should the alleged monstrous crime claimed to have been committed in
Auschwitz be subject to careful scrutiny by means of thorough forensic
analysis? What forensic examinations of the purported crimes scenes at
Auschwitz have been conducted thus far, and with what findings? How are we
to assess the results?
Rudolf's First Crime
Between 1991 and 1993, Germar Rudolf wrote an
Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the Gas Chambers of Auschwitz
on behalf of a defence team that requested this report from him. The report
was published in 1993 by one of the defendants Rudolf was asked to testify
for. However, the defendant also included some comments by himself as a
preface, and he also added a description of his own trial in the appendix of
this report. In 1994/1995, Rudolf was prosecuted for this work and finally
sentenced to 14 month in prison without probation, because, so the court,
preface and appendix had turned the expert report into a political opinion
not covered by German free speech laws. This 'allowed' the court to sentence
Rudolf for his scientific findings.
On a more philosophical level, Rudolf compiled a speech in his defense as
his final plea at the end of this trial:
About true and false perceptions.
The manuscript for this speech, however, was confiscated by the Police
during Rudolf's third house search.
The Second Crime
Summary of the trial against the publisher of the anthology
the Holocaust (in German: "Grundlagen zur
Zeitgeschichte"), edited by Germar Rudolf, which ended with the book's
confiscation and destruction. Two mainstream historians testified on behalf
of Rudolf to confirm that his work is scientific. There was no historian
claiming the opposite. The court, however, was unmoved by this. G. Rudolf
fled abroad a few weeks before the trial started. The testimony by German
Historian Dr. Joachim Hoffmann in favor of Rudolf can be accessed here:
Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte (Foundations of
Contemporary History): Expert Report.
More Thought Crimes…
A list of known criminal proceedings started by several German courts
against Germar Rudolf after he left Germany in early 1996, plus several more
"thought crimes" he might be prosecuted for in Germany without his
Seizure of Property
In early 2004 the German authorities decided to confiscate all of Rudolf's
property and demand that he pay 55% of all the money he ever received since
1996. The basis of this decision is that the German authorities consider 55%
the all the books Rudolf
offers for sale as
illegal, hence 55% of his turnover is supposed to be illegal, too, and has
to be paid to the German authorities.
Political Asylum in the U.S.?
Although having dissident views on the Holocaust is no crime in many
European countries, legal contracts of the European Union demand that even
those countries not outlawing such views have to extradite non-citizen
offenders to Germany. Having no recourse to due process and being hunted by
the British police in late 1999, Rudolf left Europe and applied for
political asylum in the USA. The U.S. administration, however, wants to
deport him back to Germany under the most brutal violation of U.S.
immigration law and due process.
Outlawed in the Federal Republic of Germany
A well documented history of the social and legal persecution of Germar
Rudolf and his family, from the early denunciations and legal prosecutions
to the destruction of his career, his social environment, and finally his
Flaws of the State Under the Rule of Law
Stunning shortcomings of the German legal system as experienced by Germar
Rudolf, which allow massively politically distorted show trials as they are
impossible in the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition. Important to judge the
reliability of German court verdicts in political trials.
The Role of the Press in the Case of Germar Rudolf
A summary and critical discussion of one-sided, biased, or outright
inventions about Germar Rudolf and his work by the mainstream media in
Germany and elsewhere.
Political Asylum for Germar
years the U.S. State Deportment has been claiming in its worldwide review of
human rights that there are no reports of political prisoners in Germany (see
off the top of my head here are a few individuals I know personally,
all of them political prisoners of Germany at some point during the last ten
years, sentenced to prison terms for their peacefully expressed political or
historical views: Fredrick Toben, Udo Walendy, Hans Schmidt, Fred Leuchter,
Günter Deckert, Hans-Jürgen Witzsch, Ernst-Günther Kögel, Erhard Kemper.
Since 1993 the German government tries to force Germar
Rudolf to believe in the official version of German history with all
measures of persecution by prosecution. To find relief from this
persecution, Germar Rudolf applied for political asylum in the United States
in late 2000. His case will soon be heard by a U.S. Federal Court. It could
prove to be a landmark case when it comes to the question whether or not
Germany and other European countries should be allowed to put people in
prison merely for their unpopular scholarly views on history or politics.
Because the U.S. State Department does not recognize Germany as a
persecuting country, and because the INS cannot overrule State Department
policies, it had to turn down Rudolf’s application. Even though this
negative decision was expected, when turning down Rudolf’s application for
political asylum, the INS also decided – and the INS Board of Appeals agreed
Rudolf’s application for political asylum was
As a result of this, the INS ordered that Rudolf is subject to involuntary
departure, meaning that he will be sent back to Germany in handcuffs; that
he will be banned from the USA for a lifetime, meaning that he will never be
able to return to the US; and that there is no remedy to change this,
meaning that not even his marriage to a U.S. citizen and having a child with
her can avert that deportation and banning.
This decision will be brought to a Federal Court for appeal. The reasons for
appeal are, i.a.:
The harshest accusation the INS
can make against an asylum seeker is that he filed a frivolous
application. The harshest penalty the INS can hand down on an immigrant is
involuntary departure, banning for a lifetime, and no remedy. In other
words: under immigration law Rudolf was accused of the most severe crime
he could possibly commit, and he was punished with the hardest penalty
possible. The problem with this verdict is the following.
A frivolous application is
defined by case law as an application either not back-up with any
evidence for persecution or by committing treacherous acts against the
INS during the asylum proceedings, like lying to the INS judge, forging
evidence, manipulating witnesses, and the like.
Because of the severity of the
consequences of filing a frivolous application, the immigration judge
must notify the defendant (=immigrant) during the hearing that he
considers categorizing his application frivolous, and the Judge also has
to inform the defendant what the evidence is upon which he bases his
assumption, so that the defendant can defend himself against this most
This decision of
"frivolousness" was made without any notice, warning, or opportunity to
clear up any discrepancies. This was in violation of Immigration Service
regulations and rulings by various Federal Courts, which require that
there be sufficient opportunity for the applicant to account for all
discrepancies. This decision also openly contradicts the comments of the
Immigration Judge during the hearing. He confirmed not only the
seriousness of Rudolf's application (Transcript
of Hearing, p. 209), but also that the
record of evidence was extensive both in scope and scale (Transcript,
pp. 18, 22, 25, 29, 149, 163, 208, 222, 312). As a reason for calling
Rudolf's application "frivolous", the Judge mentioned two items to support
A letter Rudolf wrote back in
1994 to his godmother, in which he had denied to have used the pen name
"Ernst Gauss". Of course, this proves only that he had lied to a
relative some ten years ago, but not to the immigration judge. To the
contrary: both during his German trial back in 1995 and in his
for political asylum, Rudolf admitted to have used this pen name. If the
fact that a person once in his life has lied to a relative is sufficient
reason to deny political asylum, then the institution of political
asylum would cease to exist, as it can be safely assumed that every
human being at some point in his/her life has lied to a relative. It may
also be pointed out that the immigration judge's claim, this lie would
shed bad light onto Rudolf, is also false. After all, Rudolf had a good
reasons to deny the use of this pen name back in 1994, because at that
time his scientific revisionist anthology "Dissecting
the Holocaust" (German edition) was yet
to appear, so he needed the secrecy of his pen name to protect himself
from political persecution.
The immigration judge argued
that Rudolf tried to hide the truth from him about his close
relationship to the German rightwing extremist Otto Ernst Remer in a
similar way as Rudolf tried to hide it from the German court back in
1995. As prove the judge indicated that Rudolf had not mentioned in his
application form for political asylum that he had temporarily resided
with Remer after he had fled to Spain. In his application form, Rudolf
only mentioned “with various friends and in holiday apartments.” That
Rudolf indeed resided at Remer's place can be seen from a
that Rudolf himself submitted to the court as evidence for his
persecution. However, the article referred to by the juge only mentions
that Rudolf "stayed with Remer." This is already a distortion by a
journalist whose only interest was to link Rudolf to alleged Nazis. The
article does not mention how long and for what purpose Rudolf stayed at
Remer's residence. As a matter of fact, Remer's apartment served only as
a meeting point with other individuals upon Rudolf's arrival in Spain.
This point was chosen because Rudolf knew where Remer lived, since
during his trial in Germany back in 1995, the entire German court had
traveled to Spain to interrogate Remer as a witness. When Rudolf left
Germany in March 1996, he was neither told who he would meet in Spain
nor where he would be temporarily lodged. This was a security measure to
prevent the German authorities to find Rudolf. Rudolf was actually
lodged some 50 miles west of Remer's residence in a holyday apartment of
a Spaniard whose name he cannot recall (which is why he did not give
names) and later in the residence of an old German war veteran. Both
locations were in the Spanish town of Estepona, which Rudolf indicated
on his application form. (He does not remember the exact street
addresses, though). Remer, however, lived in Marbella. So even the
immigration judge could have concluded from these facts that Rudolf's
temporary dwelling in Spain was not linked to Remer. Apart from that:
the application form for asylum asks for “residences”, which are
permanent dwellings. Neither of the locations where Rudolf resided
during his short stay in Spain fulfills that criterion, since Rudolf
never had any of his property with him in Spain, but merely luggage as
one carries during a journey or vacation. Rudolf had no residence in
Spain, only temporary lodgings comparable to hotels. And having stayed
at Remer's residence for several hours while passing through certainly
does not fulfill the criterion of a residence either.
During the hearing of his asylum case, Rudolf's short presence in Spain
was not mentioned by anyone. Rudolf therefore had no chance to refute
this false claim that suddenly appeared in the written verdict. These
underhanded methods are comparable to the German court, which back in
1995 tried to prove in a
similar mendacious way that Rudolf had
allegedly tried to hide his close relationship to Remer.
The Federal Court will have to
decide whether it is legal to sentence defendants for crimes they were not
accused of during the hearing, and for which there is no evidence. Under
normal circumstances, of course, such a verdict by any court, INS or
otherwise, would never be upheld by a Federal Court. However, since Rudolf
is the world’s leading publisher of Holocaust revisionist material, and he
is increasingly successful in rallying renowned historians from all over the
world behind him, not only the US government, but also the German and the
Israeli governments will exert all the power they have to see to it that
Germar Rudolf will not be able to enjoy civil rights as they are granted to
any decent U.S. citizen, and for which the U.S. once claimed to have gone to
war against Germany.
forensic expert witnesses can be
put on trial because their testimony is an insult to eyewitnesses who
There are, of course, other interesting aspects to this case. For example
the question whether Germany should be allowed to deny “thought crime”
defendants to introduce any evidence deemed to support their dissenting
views, and to even punish defence lawyers should they dare to introduce such
Imagine a U.S. judge would deny a defence lawyer to introduce evidence to
prove that the crime his defendant is accuse of did not occur in the first
place. Imagine the same judge would turn against that lawyer for that and
put him on trial. That would cause an outrage, of course. But in Germany it
is common practice demanded by Germany’s Supreme Court.
The INS, in it wisdom, thinks that it found a way out of that by arguing
that even U.S. laws have rules where evidence can be rejected due to the
question to be proven by it being “self-evident”. In the written verdict,
the INS judge related the example of a defendant on trial for a DUI offense.
If a forensic analysis of the defendants blood resulted in the fact that he
was driving a car under the influence of illegal amounts of alcohol, then
the judge would rightly reject any witness statement offered by the defense
to the contrary.
The problem is, of course, that the INS turned the facts of Rudolf’s case
upside down. To stick with the INS judge‘s example: Rudolf WAS the forensic
expert testifying in court that the defendant was driving under the
influence of alcohol (here he testified that his analysis show that the gas
chambers were not under the influence of poison gas). But instead of
granting his testimony, the German judges reject him, put him in trial for
defaming all witnesses who did or would testify otherwise, and also put
lawyers on trial, who want to introduce forensic evidence (like Rudolf’s
Imagine such a surreal situation! Imagine an expert testifying in court
about the fatherhood of a defendant, based upon DNS analysis, would be
thrown in jail because his testimony contradicts that of some
“eyewitnesses”, and thus tainting their reputation!
Hence, should the Federal Court dealing with Rudolf’s case uphold the
verdict of the INS court, then due process for immigrants and maybe even for
US citizens would be a matter of the past:
You think that will never happen!
Well, you better watch your back, because when the Holocaust taboo is
involved, water runs up the hill!
The human rights experts from Amnesty International have already made up
their minds: Since “Holocaust denial” indirectly amounts to accusing Jewish
eyewitnesses of having lied, it is a form of incitement to hatred.
Therefore, in the minds of AI, forensic experts coming to different
conclusions than eyewitnesses do indeed belong in jail.
Welcome to the New World Order!
A Brief History of Forensic
Examinations of Auschwitz
"Auschwitz" has come to symbolize the greatest crime in
human history. The significance of the alleged murder of a million or more
persons, most of them Jewish, by gassing at the German concentration camp of
that name has elicited endless discussion among philosophers, theologians, and
litterateurs as well as jurists and historians, and evoked numberless platitudes
from journalists and politicians. The focus of this article, however, is on the
- Should the alleged monstrous crime be subject to
careful scrutiny by means of thorough forensic analysis?
- What forensic examinations of the purported crimes
scenes at Auschwitz have been conducted thus far, and with what findings? How
are we to assess the results?
The Moral Obligation of Forensic Examination
In late spring 1993, the Max Planck Institute in
Stuttgart issued an internal memorandum informing its employees that a doctoral
candidate there had been dismissed for research he had done on Auschwitz. The
institute explained that in view of the horror of the National Socialists'
crimes against the Jews, it was morally repugnant to discuss the specific manner
in which the victims had been killed, or to try to determine the precise number
of the dead. That one of the world's leading scientific research institutes
stated to its personnel that to determine accurate quantities is not only
unethical, but reprehensible, and cause for dismissal, is not without its own
Does it really matter just how many Jews lost their
lives in the German sphere of influence during the Second World War? Is it so
important, after so many years, to attempt painstakingly to investigate just how
they died? After all, it is surely morally correct that even one victim is one
too many; and nobody seriously denies that many Jews died.
To affirm these things, however, is not to raise a
valid objection -- moral or otherwise -- to the scientific investigation of a
crime held to be unique and unparalleled in the history of mankind. Even a crime
that is alleged to be uniquely reprehensible must be open to a procedure that is
standard for any other crime: namely, that it can be -- must be -- subject to a
detailed material investigation. Further: whoever postulates that a crime,
alleged or actual, is unique must be prepared for a uniquely thorough
investigation of the alleged crime before its uniqueness is accepted as fact.
If, on the other hand, someone sought to shield so
allegedly unparalleled a crime from investigation by erecting a taboo of moral
outrage, the creators of that taboo would, at least morally, themselves commit a
singular offense: imputing an unparalleled guilt, beyond any critique and
defense, to an entire people, the Germans. To demonstrate just what kind of
double standard is being applied to "the Holocaust" (the definition of which
usually includes the purposeful annihilation of millions of Jews by the Third
Reich), let us note the international reaction to several recent examples of
"crimes against humanity." After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991,
numerous mass graves, containing hundreds of thousands of victims of the
Soviets, were discovered and investigated. Not only was the number of victims
determined, but in many cases the specific cause of death as well. In the same
regions where many of these mass graves were found, one million or more Jews are
said to have been shot by the Einsatzgruppen: yet no such grave has ever been
reported found, let alone dug up and investigated, in the more than half a
century during which these areas have been controlled by the USSR and its
During the conflict in Kosovo in 1999, rumors about
mass killings by Serbs spread around the world. After the fighting was over, an
international forensic commission arrived in Kosovo, searching, excavating, and
forensically investigating mass graves. These graves proved to be not only fewer
than the Serbs' Albanian opponents had alleged, but to contain small fractions
of the numbers of victims claimed.
Did the Allies attempt, during the war and in the years
immediately following, to find and to investigate mass graves of persons said to
have been victims of the Germans? So far as is known, only once: at Katyn. But
the findings of the Soviet forensic commission, which blamed the mass murder of
several thousand Polish officers buried there on the Germans, are today
generally considered a fabrication. The report of the international forensic
commission invited by the Germans in 1943, on the other hand, which found that
the Soviets had carried out this mass murder, is today considered accurate even
by the Russian government.
A Definition of Forensic Science
Forensic science is generally seen as a supporting
science of criminology. Its aim is to collect and to identify physical remnants
of a crime, and from these to draw conclusions about the victim(s), the
perpetrator(s), the weapon(s), and the time and location of the crime, as well
as how it was committed, if at all. This science is relatively new, and entered
the courtrooms only in 1902, when fingerprint evidence was accepted, in an
English court, for the first time. The 1998 CD-ROM Encyclopaedia Britannica
writes of forensic science:
A broad range of scientific techniques is available to
law enforcement agencies attempting to identify suspects or to establish beyond
doubt the connection between a suspect and the crime in question. Examples
include the analysis of bloodstains and traces of other body fluids (such as
semen or spittle) that may indicate some of the characteristics of the offender.
Fibres can be analyzed by microscopy or chemical analysis to show, for instance,
that fibres found on the victim or at the scene of the crime are similar to
those in the clothing of the suspect. Hair samples, and particularly skin cells
attached to hair roots, can be compared chemically and genetically to those of
the suspect. Many inorganic substances, such as glass, paper, and paint, can
yield considerable information under microscopic or chemical analysis.
Examination of a document in question may reveal it to be a forgery, on the
evidence that the paper on which it is written was manufactured by a technique
not available at the time to which it allegedly dates. The refractive index of
even small particles of glass may be measured to show that a given item or
fragment of glass was part of a particular batch manufactured at a particular
time and place.
Hence, forensic research is exactly what revisionists,
starting with Robert Faurisson, have called the search for material evidence.
The revisionists' demand for such material evidence is entirely consistent with
the normal practice of modern law enforcement. And, as is generally
acknowledged, forensic evidence is more conclusive than eyewitness testimony or
Forensic Science and Auschwitz
The 1946 Krakow Auschwitz Trial
In 1945, the Krakow Institute for Forensic Research (Instytut
Ekspertyz Sadowych) prepared a report on a forensic investigation of Auschwitz
that was submitted in evidence in the 1946 Auschwitz trial in Krakow, Poland.[see
note] This expert report should be treated with
caution, because forensic examinations and judicial procedures under the
Communists have been anything but trustworthy, and Poland was in 1945 a
Stalinist satellite. One need only point to the example of Katyn, the Soviet
account of which was fully endorsed by Poland's Communist regime.[see
The Krakow forensic investigators took hair, presumably
cut from inmates, and hair clasps from bags found by the Soviets in Auschwitz.
Tested for cyanide residues, both hair and clasps showed positive results.
Additionally, a zinc-plated metal cover was tested for cyanide and found to have
a positive result as well. The Krakow Institute claims that this metal cover
once shielded the exhaust duct of a supposed homicidal "gas chamber" at Birkenau.
The tests conducted by the institute were qualitative,
not quantitative, analyses. In other words, they could only determine whether or
not cyanide was present, not how much of it was there.
As to whether or not homicidal gassing with hydrogen
cyanide took place in Auschwitz, these analyses are worthless, for three
- There is no way of determining the origin and
history of the hair and hair clasps obtained from bags in Auschwitz. Assuming
that the analytic results are correct, from a chemical point of view the
following can be noted: A positive test for cyanide in human hair proves only
that the hair has been exposed to HCN (hydrogen cyanide). But that result does
not suffice to establish that the persons from whom the hair came were killed
by cyanide. It is a good deal more likely that the hair had already been cut
when it was exposed to the gas: in German as well as Allied camps, it was
standard to cut off prisoners' hair for hygienic reasons. When hair over a
certain length was later recycled,[see
note] it had to be deloused beforehand (often
with Zyklon B, the active ingredient of which is hydrogen cyanide). Hence,
positive cyanide results from loose hair do not prove human gassings.
- We face a similar problem with the zinc-plated
covers allegedly used to cover the ventilation ducts of the supposed "gas
chambers": their exact origin and history is unknown. It would have been much
preferable for the Krakow Institute to have analyzed samples from the walls of
the alleged "gas chambers" instead of obtaining samples from pieces of metal:
- Whereas the origin and history of these
metal covers was uncertain, the origin and (at least partly) the history of
the walls of the morgues allegedly used as "gas chambers" was known.
- In contrast to cement and concrete,
zinc-plated metal covers prevent the formation of stable iron cyanide
The developing zinc cyanide compounds are relatively unstable and must be
expected to vanish in a short period of time.[see
- The tendency of porous wall material in
moist underground rooms to accumulate and to bind hydrogen cyanide,
physically as well as chemically, is hundreds of times higher than that of
- As a matter of fact, the letter
accompanying the samples sent to the Krakow Institute actually mentions that
a mortar sample allegedly taken from a so-called "gas chamber" is enclosed
as well and should also be tested for cyanide. However, for unknown reasons,
the Krakow Institute did not mention this mortar sample in its report,
perhaps because it did not show any positive result.
- There is no evidence that either analysis has been
The 1964-1966 Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial
Several expert reports were prepared during the
Frankfurt Auschwitz trial, the best known being those of the Munich Institut für
Zeitgeschichte (Institute for Contemporary History).[see
note] However, none of these reports was
forensic in nature. They addressed legal, historical, or psychological topics.
Throughout this mammoth trial, neither the court, nor the prosecution,[see
note]. nor the defense[see
note] ever suggested that material traces of
the alleged crime be secured and investigated. The prosecution had at its
disposal numerous statements by eyewitnesses and confessions by perpetrators,
and it considered this material entirely sufficient to establish beyond doubt
the existence of a program to exterminate Jews in Auschwitz and elsewhere during
the Third Reich.[see note]
The abundance of such evidence has since been used to argue that the lack of
documentary and material evidence was irrelevant.[see
note] That no material evidence was presented
during the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial was freely conceded by the court in its
The court lacked almost all possibilities of discovery
available in a normal murder trial to create a true picture of the actual event
at the time of the murder. It lacked the bodies of the victims, autopsy records,
expert reports on the cause of death and the time of death; it lacked any trace
of the murderers, murder weapons, etc. An examination of the eyewitness
testimony was only possible in rare cases. Where the slightest doubt existed or
the possibility of confusion could not be excluded with certainty, the court did
not evaluate the testimony of witnesses[.]
The 1972 Vienna Auschwitz Trial
Between January 18 and March 10, 1972, two
architects responsible for the design and construction of the crematoria in
Auschwitz-Birkenau, Walter Dejaco and Fritz Ertl, were put on trial in Vienna,
During the trial, an expert report on the possible interpretation of the
blueprints of the alleged gas chambers of the Auschwitz and Birkenau crematoria
was presented to the court. The report concluded that the rooms in question
could not have been gas chambers, nor could they have been converted into gas
Thanks to this first methodologically sound expert report on Auschwitz, the
defendants were acquitted.
In Search of Mass Graves
In 1966 the Auschwitz State Museum commissioned the
Polish company Hydrokop to drill into the soil of the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp
and to analyze the samples. It is not known whether this research was done in
the context of the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial. The results, however, vanished
into the museum's archives: they have never been released, which by itself is
revealing enough. Years later, however, several pages from this report were
photocopied and sent to the German revisionist publisher Udo Walendy, who
published them with commentary in an issue of his periodical.[see
note] Traces of bones and hair allegedly found
at several places might indicate mass graves. The few pages published by
Walendy, however, do not reveal whether these findings led to an excavation or a
subsequent forensic study of the traces. It is not even evident whether the bone
and hair samples collected are human or animal remains.
Faurisson Pulls the Trigger
It took a professor of French literature to inform the
world that determining whether mass murder took place at Auschwitz is a matter
for forensic evidence. Robert Faurisson, professor of French, and an analyst of
documents, texts, and witness statements at the University of Lyon 2, began to
doubt the standard historical version of the Holocaust after much critical study
of the eyewitness testimony and intensive scrutiny of documents said to support
the claim of mass murder. Faurisson first asserted the thesis that "there was
not a single gas chamber under Adolf Hitler" in 1978.[see
note] Thereafter he buttressed his position
with numerous physical, chemical, topographic, architectonic, documentary, and
historical arguments. He described the existence of the homicidal gas chambers
as "radically impossible."[see
note] At the end of 1978 Le Monde, the leading
French newspaper, afforded Professor Faurisson the opportunity to present his
thesis in an article.[see note]
It took almost a decade, however, for the first expert
to accept Faurisson's challenge and to prepare the first forensic report on the
alleged homicidal "gas chambers" in Auschwitz: Fred Leuchter's now famous report
of 1988.[see note]
The background and history of the Leuchter Report are well known to readers of
the Journal of Historical Review and need not be repeated here.[see
note] Suffice it to say that the Leuchter
Report was a pioneer work that initiated a series of publications, the scope of
which broadened more and more into various fields of forensic science[see
note] and soon encompassed many
interdisciplinary studies of material and documentary evidence.[see
Reaction of the Jan Sehn Institute
The reaction of the Krakow Institute which had carried
out the faulty 1945 investigation -- by 1988 named after the Communist judge who
presided during the Polish Auschwitz and Rudolf Höss trials -- to the Leuchter
Report has caused much confusion in revisionist circles. To this day, many
believe that in 1990 four investigators from this institute corroborated the
Leuchter Report,[see note]
but this is quite incorrect. Clearing up the misunderstanding requires that the
post-Leuchter findings of the Krakow Institute be treated in some detail.
A Short Chemical Introduction
To expose the errors of the Krakow investigators
requires presenting a little basic chemistry -- so basic that equations have
been omitted. First of all, until 1979, Zyklon B was the German trademark for a
pesticide based on hydrogen cyanide (HCN). As every student of chemistry knows,
hydrogen cyanide forms salts, often simply referred to as cyanides. Like
hydrogen cyanide itself, these salts are usually highly poisonous. There is one
group of cyanides, however, which are not poisonous at all. The best known
representatives of this group are the iron cyanides, especially so-called
Prussian blue, a pigment discovered in Prussia a few centuries ago. Every
college student of chemistry knows Prussian blue, for one of the more important
things a chemist must learn is how to dispose of poisonous cyanide salts without
endangering life (including one's own). One simply makes Prussian blue out of it
by adding certain iron compounds. Then it can be poured down the sink in good
conscience, for Prussian blue is extremely stable and releases no cyanide into
Understanding the controversy surrounding the Leuchter
Report is much easier if one keeps in mind that when hydrogen cyanide and
certain iron compounds come together, they form Prussian blue. That is exactly
the phenomenon that one can observe when entering the Zyklon B delousing
facilities that were used across Europe during the Third Reich. A few of them,
for example in the Auschwitz, Birkenau, Majdanek, and Stutthof concentration
camps, are still intact today. All these facilities have one thing in common:
their walls are permeated with Prussian blue. Not just the inner surfaces, but
the mortar between the bricks, and even the outside walls of these delousing
chambers abound in iron cyanides, exhibiting a patchy blue coloration. Nothing
of the sort can be observed in the alleged homicidal "gas chambers" of Auschwitz
and Birkenau.[see note]
The iron compounds needed to form Prussian blue are an
integral part of all building materials: bricks, sand, and cement always contain
a certain amount of rust (iron oxide, usually between 1 and 4 percent). That is
what gives bricks their red, or ocher, color and what makes most sands ocher,
Now, let's examine the way in which the investigators
from the Jan Sehn Institute approached the problem of analyzing and interpreting
samples from Auschwitz.
A Lack of Understanding
The team from the forensic institute, Jan Markiewicz,
Wojciech Gubala, and Jerzy Labedz, claims not to have understood how it was
possible for Prussian blue to have formed in walls as a result of their being
exposed to hydrogen cyanide gas: "It is difficult to imagine the chemical
reactions and physicochemical processes that could have led to the formation of
Prussian blue in that place."[see
There is no shame in not understanding. Actually, this
is the beginning of every science: the cognition of not understanding. In
pre-scientific ages, humans tended to find mystical or religious answers to
unsolved questions; modern scientists approach problems they don't understand,
and sometimes can scarcely imagine, as challenges to investigate, in order to
understand. This quest for knowledge is the chief driving force of modern
humanity. Should we not expect, then, that the Krakow researchers would next
have attempted to learn whether Prussian blue can be formed in walls exposed to
hydrogen cyanide and, if so, how?
More Lack of Understanding
In 1991 Dr. Markiewicz wrote, via a mutual
acquaintance, that he was unable to understand how Prussian blue could possibly
form in walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide. He thought that quite unlikely, and
suggested that its presence might stem from a different source, for example from
Prussian blue wall paint used to give the interior walls of the delousing
chambers a fanciful, patchy blue coloration. (What for?, one is tempted to ask.[see
note]) I suggested that he look at the outer
surfaces of the walls, which are exposed to environmental influences, and which
were partly patchy blue as well. Their color cannot be explained by paint, but
only by cyanide compounds spreading to the outside walls over the years, and
being converted to Prussian blue. He replied that these blue patches were hard
to explain, and first it had to be established that they were indeed Prussian
So there were even more questions to be answered before these scientists could
conduct their analysis.
Disregard of Key Questions
At length, the Polish investigators published an
article on their findings, in 1994.[see
note] Surprisingly, perusing their article
reveals that they did nothing to establish whether or not Prussian blue can form
in walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide. Nothing indicates that they did basic
research on the behavior of cyanide compounds under conditions similar to those
in brickwork. Nor did they do anything to establish whether or not the blue
patches on the external walls of the delousing chambers were caused by Prussian
blue. Should you wonder why, just be patient: it gets even worse.
Ignoring Peer Opinions
Had the researchers found a scientific source
which stated in a reliable way that Prussian blue cannot develop in walls
exposed to hydrogen cyanide, that would have made things easy for them, by
rendering any new research obsolete. On the other hand, if they had discovered
literature claiming in a scientific way that the formation of Prussian blue in
walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide was possible, the scientific method would have
compelled them to do either of two things: to abandon their position that
Prussian blue cannot form thus, or to refute the opposing position by proving
that it cannot form. That is what the scientific process is all about:
verification or refutation of theses postulated by peers. Ignoring peer opinions
is a strong indicator of unscientific behavior.
In fact, the Krakow researchers quoted one book that
deals intensively with the question of Prussian blue formation.[see
note] On consulting it, however, one quickly
realizes that it proves the exact opposite of Markiewicz's thesis. The work
demonstrates in detail how, and under which circumstances, walls exposed to
hydrogen cyanide can indeed form Prussian blue, and that this was not only
possible but very likely, at least in the Auschwitz delousing chambers.
Do the Krakow researchers claim that this book shows
the opposite? Not at all. In fact, they cite it not to refer the reader to its
chemical arguments, but, instead, merely as an example of scientific studies
these authors from the Jan Sehn Institute intend to combat with their report.
All arguments advanced in the book are simply ignored, while the work is
stigmatized as an example of "undesirable science." Let it be recalled that Dr.
Markiewicz is a professor, meaning: he professes to adhere to the ideals of
science and the scientific method!
Excluding the Unwanted
The authors of the Krakow study ignored all arguments
proving them wrong, although they were certainly aware of them, as they quoted
them. They made no attempt to prove or to disprove their own claims. They did
nothing to understand what they claimed not to have understood.
Was there a reason for their strange conduct?
The answer is very simple: The researchers wanted to
exclude Prussian blue and similar iron cyanide compounds from their analyses.
Excluding these compounds can only be justified on the assumption that Prussian
blue in the walls of the delousing chambers must have a different origin, e.g.
from paint. As the Krakow investigators wrote in their 1994 article:
We decided therefore to determine the cyanide ions
using a method that does not induce the breakdown of the composed ferrum
cyanide complex (this is the blue under discussion) [.]
What does this mean?
In fact, the exclusion of Prussian blue from analytical
detection must result in much lower cyanide traces for the delousing chambers,
as non-iron cyanide compounds are not very stable and would therefore hardly be
present after fifty years. The same is true for every room ever exposed to
hydrogen cyanide. In fact, values close to the detection level must be expected.
These are generally so unreliable that a proper interpretation is close to
impossible. It can therefore be expected that the analysis of samples tested
with such a method would deliver similar results for nearly every sampling of
material that is many years old. Such an analysis would make it practically
impossible to distinguish between rooms massively exposed to hydrogen cyanide
and those which were not: all would have a cyanide residue of close to zero.
Comparison of the order of magnitude of
analyses results of different samples
||Markiewicz et al.[see
||cyanide without iron cyanides
|Alleged gas chamber:
I believe that is exactly what the researchers from the
Jan Sehn Institute wanted to achieve: values for both the delousing chambers and
the alleged homicidal "gas chambers" with similar levels of cyanide residues.
This would allow them to state: "The same amount of cyanides, hence the same
amount of gassing activity: thus, humans were gassed in the crematoria cellars.
Thus, Leuchter is refuted."
The analyses results of the Krakow report showed just
that, and its authors drew the requisite conclusions.
If we examine the analyses results of samples taken by
different people, and obtained with different methods of analysis, it is evident
that Markiewicz and his co-workers fudged their results by adjusting their
method to deliver what they wanted.
If that doesn't smell like scientific fraud, well ...
we aren't through with the Krakow report yet.
Suppressing Unwanted Results
In 1991, a document leaked out of the Jan Sehn
Institute in Krakow into the hands of the revisionists, and was eventually
published in their periodicals.[see
note] It showed that Dr. Markiewicz and his
co-workers had prepared a first report as early as 1990. This report was never
published. Its results were discomfiting: although the researchers were already
employing their deceptive analytical method, only one of the five samples taken
from alleged homicidal gas chambers resulted in an extremely small amount of
cyanide (0.024 mg/kg); the rest had no detectable cyanide. On the other hand,
samples taken from a delousing chamber showed values up to 20 times higher
(0.036-0.588 mg/kg). These results seemed to confirm Leuchter's findings. Hence,
in their 1994 paper, the Krakow investigators suppressed any information about
their initial results. Normally, researchers guilty of such unethical conduct
are expelled from the scientific community.
Today, most revisionists are aware of the findings
revealed in 1991, but not of the later ones published in 1994 that seem to
Krakow Guidelines: Not Scientific Truth, but a
In a subsequent correspondence with the Krakow
researchers, I asked for a scientific explanation of their method of analysis. I
gave them irrefutable proof that Prussian blue can be formed in walls exposed to
hydrogen cyanide gas, citing a recent case documented in expert literature.[see
note] The authors of the Krakow report were
unable to give a scientific reason for their deliberate failure to test for
Prussian blue and refused to admit that they had made a mistake.[see
Finally, in their article as well as in a letter to me,
the Krakow researchers stated that the purpose of their paper was to refute the
"Holocaust deniers" and to prevent the whitewashing of Hitler and National
Socialism. In other words, their purpose was not the search for truth, but to
serve a political end.
To summarize the extremely unscientific and politically
biased approach of Markiewicz and his co-workers:
- The most important task of a scientist is
to try to understand what hasn't been understood. The investigators from the
Jan Sehn Institute for Forensic Research in Krakow did just the opposite: they
chose to ignore and to exclude what they didn't understand (the formation of
Prussian blue in walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide).
- The next important task of a scientist is
to discuss other scientists' attempts to understand something. The Krakow team
did just the opposite: they chose to ignore and to exclude from discussion all
that might let them (and others) understand how Prussian blue can be formed.
- These choices allowed them to employ
methods that would produce the results desired.
- They suppressed whichever results didn't
fit their purposes.
- Finally, they admitted that the purpose of
their research was not to seek truth, but to contribute to the continued
disrepute of the long defunct Adolf Hitler.
Therefore, I publicly called, and continue to call,
these researchers scientific frauds. There is only one place for their research
findings: the garbage. Neither Markiewicz nor his co-workers have ever responded
to my accusations. Dr. Markiewicz, who was an expert in technical testing, not a
chemist, died in 1997; the remaining two authors have continued to remain
A German Corroboration of Leuchter
In early 1990, a few months after beginning work on my
Ph.D. at the Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research in Stuttgart,
Germany, I started investigations to verify the chemical claims made in the
Leuchter Report: namely, that long-term stable cyanide compounds were still to
be expected in the alleged homicidal gas chambers, if the mass gassings with
Zyklon B took place in them as claimed by witnesses. Initially I was interested
only in finding out whether the resulting compound -- iron blue or Prussian blue
-- is stable enough to survive forty-five years of exposure to harsh
environmental conditions. After this was confirmed, I mailed the results to some
twenty people I thought might be interested in these results. Subsequently I got
in contact with several engineers and lawyers, the former willing to help me in
doing forensic research, and the latter primarily interested in using the
results for their clients. I made two trips to Auschwitz and did eighteen months
of further research until, in January 1992, the first, 72-page long version of
the so-called Rudolf Report was distributed to opinion leaders in Germany.
Briefly summarized, it corroborates Leuchter's claim that, for several technical
and chemical reasons, the mass gassing attested to by witnesses could not have
occurred. My report was subsequently updated and enhanced, and finally published
in July 1993 as a 120-page paperback booklet.[see
note] Dutch and French versions appeared in
1995 and 1996, but an English version has never been printed. (A short 16-page
summary published in summer 1993 is often mistakenly assumed to be a full
version of my report.) An updated and enhanced version is currently in
preparation; publication is planned for later this year.[see
Because I can't be the judge of my own work, I will not
discuss my own research here. Scientific discussion of my report began with a
German book, consisting mainly of unfounded attacks, in 1995.[see
note] The first serious critique to date,
unfortunately riddled with ad hominem attacks, has appeared only on the
Its author, Richard Green, is, like me, a chemist with a Ph.D. thesis in
physical chemistry. He has made some far-reaching concessions in his critique:
- In order to kill humans as quickly as
attested to by the witnesses, hydrogen cyanide in concentrations similar to
those used for delousing procedures is required. Leuchter was frequently
attacked by his opponents on the basis that much less poison would have been
required to kill humans than to kill lice. Although this is generally true, it
does not apply to a scenario in which many hundreds of humans are supposed to
have died from this poison within a few minutes.
- Iron blue (Prussian blue) can indeed be the
result of exposing walls to hydrogen cyanide, and, when found in the delousing
facilities in Auschwitz and elsewhere, HCN is most likely the cause.
The latter concession obviously destroys the reputation
of the Krakow researchers (and their supporters), who summarily declared that
the vast amount of iron blue in the walls of delousing facilities must have a
different origin, which in turn "allowed" them to exclude it from analysis.
Green, however, is undisturbed by this, and still claims that their results
ought to be taken as standard by everybody. To my question of why the Krakow
investigators had not responded to my inquiries as to their obviously
unscientific behavior, Green responded as follows:
Rudolf complains that Markiewicz et al. have not
responded to his queries. Why should they do so? What credibility does Rudolf
have, that demands they answer his every objection no matter how ill-founded?
Other Forensic Approaches
Chemistry is obviously not the only science to be
consulted when it comes to solving the mysteries of Auschwitz. Engineers,
architects, physicians, geologists, and other experts can contribute to this,
too. Nor does their work stop with trying to decipher the hidden messages of
material traces on site. Original wartime documents on the facilities and events
in Auschwitz require the expertise of engineers, architects, physicians, and
geologists as well. When it comes to reconstructing the infrastructure of the
camp, down to the function and purpose of every building and every room, the
technical modes of operation and capacities of its installations, the extent and
modernity of the treatment in its hospitals, the effect of the water table of
the swamps, most of which can be determined by analyzing the tens of thousands
of documents that have been found or released during the last decade, the
historian alone simply cannot do the job, nor can I as a chemist.
'No Holes? No "Holocau$t"'!
Ditlieb Felderer was the first to deal intensively with
the question of whether or not there were holes in the roof of the alleged
homicidal "gas chambers," although he seems not to have published anything about
it. Leuchter touched on this topic only superficially in his report. It was this
question, rather than whether or not there were still any chemical residues of
the poison gas allegedly used, which made me most curious to go to Auschwitz, to
search for these holes by myself. On August 16, 1991, while standing on the
collapsed roof of the alleged "gas chamber" of crematorium II in Birkenau, I
lost my faith in the "Holocaust," because I could find no holes that deserved
the name. This I described in detail in my report. In 1994, Robert Faurisson
made the famous quip that subtitles this section. Yet it was not until 2000,
during David Irving's libel case against Deborah Lipstadt, that the world took
notice of the revisionist allegation that no holes can be found in this roof.
Charles Provan has since written an Internet article in
which he claims to have refuted this revisionist finding. He did, indeed, find
holes in the roof of the morgue of crematorium II.[see
note] But are they the same holes used
fifty-five years ago to introduce Zyklon B into the "gas chamber," as claimed by
the witnesses? Or are they merely results of the collapsing roof being pierced
by the concrete supporting pillars? I am convinced that the latter is the case.
My conviction doesn't matter, however. What matters are facts. But how are we to
establish facts in such a case?
According to Robert Van Pelt:
In the twenty-five hundred square feet of this one
room more people lost their lives than in any other place on this planet. Five
hundred thousand people were killed. If you would draw a map of human
suffering, if you create a geography of atrocities, this would be the absolute
Now, let us consider a somewhat different, but still
tragic case. We all know what happens after an airplane crash: hundreds of
experts swarm out to retrieve the debris of the accident, in order to assemble
it all like a gigantic, three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle. The purpose is to
determine the cause of the accident in order to prevent it from happening again.
No expense is spared.
Would it not be appropriate to do the same with the
morgues of crematoriums II and III in Birkenau? To assemble a staff of hundreds
of historians, engineers, architects, and archaeologists to exactingly retrieve
all the debris of these rooms and to reassemble them, like piecing together a
huge puzzle, in order to determine what they really looked like fifty-five years
ago? Would it not be logical to attempt to determine what vestiges we have to
expect when looking for holes, before ecstatically jumping to conclusions at the
mere sight of a crack in the concrete?
During the last few years, I have heard, to my horror,
of people walking up to these rooms and breaking off reinforcement bars
protruding from cracks or holes,[see
note] or taking shovels and clearing the roof
of debris in order to look for holes.[see
note] What would a paleontologist say of
someone who wanted to use a shovel to excavate the skeleton of a Tyrannosaurus
rex? Sometimes one has cause to wonder: Where have all the homo sapiens gone?
When will people begin to think and act about the Holocaust like wise human
The question of whether or not there were holes in the
roof of crematorium II is not a trivial one. If there were none, then it would
have been impossible to introduce Zyklon B into the alleged "gas chamber" in the
manner claimed by the witnesses -- discrediting all those witnesses. Because
eyewitness accounts are the sole pillar on which the Holocaust rests, this would
sooner or later lead to the collapse of the entire Holocaust story. This, in
turn, is no trivial matter. The international order established by the
victorious powers after the Second World War rests mainly on the "given" of the
Holocaust. The Holocaust is used to control Germany (and hence Europe), to
suppress national movements, and to maintain American dominance -- to say
nothing of the power leftist and internationalist movements derive from it, and
the use to which Jewish and Zionist groups put it.
Who, then, wants to know the truth? Wouldn't it be
easier to blow up the Auschwitz crematoria and remove the debris once and for
all, and be content with the witness accounts?
If revisionist researchers don't do the work of
establishing what really took place in Auschwitz, nobody will. Considering our
limited means and the legal restrictions placed on us, it might be only
realistic to conclude that nobody ever will. Thus all we can do right now is to
meticulously map and document the material remains as they are today, from top
to bottom, and hope that eventually reason will prevail.
The discovery in German wartime documents of ambivalent
words for which a sinister meaning can be interpreted is quite common in
mainstream historiography on the Holocaust. Jean-Claude Pressac is not the first
to have done so, but he is perhaps the most determined, taking it well beyond
the bizarre.[see note]
The revisionist responses have been thorough and, for the exterminationists,
Revisionist interpretations have been based, on the one hand, on thorough
knowledge of the documents dealing with Auschwitz -- including Allied air photos
-- as well as their context, and on expert knowledge in various fields of
engineering and architecture on the other.
That approach, applied to a great number of documents
on Auschwitz, has yielded another, even more important result that sheds
revealing light on the history of the Auschwitz camp system. Samuel Crowell has
unearthed material on air raid shelters built by the SS to protect inmates from
Allied air raids. Hans Lamker and Hans Nowak have shown in detail how the SS
installed modern (and highly) expensive microwave delousing facilities to
protect the lives of inmates.[see
note] Together with Michael Gärtner and Werner
Rademacher, they are currently working on a comprehensive history of the
Auschwitz camp, equipped with all means necessary to ensure the survival of tens
of thousands of prisoners: hospitals, dentists, kitchens, laundries, butchers,
as well as recreation facilities like sport fields and gardens. Together with
the fact that the overall costs of erecting this camp complex were on the order
of magnitude of some five hundred million dollars, these facilities clearly
contradict an intention by the German authorities to use this camp as an
extermination center. There are cheaper ways of killing humans than to spend 500
dollars per capita.[see note]
The Future of Auschwitz Forensics
Since the dawn of science, scientists have sought the
perpetuum mobile. They seem never to have noticed that they had found it at the
beginning of their search: science itself. So it can be expected that forensic
research about Auschwitz will never cease, especially if one considers the
controversial and highly ideological implications of any potential findings. The
direction and methods of research, however, are clearly being set by the
pioneers in this field, the revisionists, who lack neither the imagination nor
the curiosity to discover whether the mass gassing claims of the Holocaust are
true, whatever their use for political or financial purposes. The Auschwitz camp
system will, as before, be at the very focus of it all.
To name one recent instance, in early 2000 the
Australian engineer Richard Krege employed ground penetrating radar in order to
locate (or not to locate) mass graves in the vicinity of alleged German
extermination camps. A preliminary study was published in my German language
revisionist quarterly in early 2000.[see
note] Krege has promised more thorough
investigations, together with a proper introduction into this geological method
of determining disturbances in the soil beneath our feet. His work is going to
break new ground, as Leuchter's work did thirteen years ago. No doubt he will
not be the last pioneer to challenge reigning dogmas and taboos.
As they do for all alleged crimes in the historical
past, the forensic sciences hold the key to the riddles of Auschwitz. No group
with the power to conduct, or else to demand, forensic research on the necessary
scale seems willing to do so: on the contrary. Those in power have no stake in
changing our view of Auschwitz, and consequently of the Holocaust, and forensic
research is liable to do exactly that. Instead, authorities the world over
persecute and prosecute those who advocate or attempt such research. This may
slow us down, but it will not stop us.
When revisionist researchers achieve a sudden
breakthrough through forensic research, they are countered not merely with
slander and persecution, but also with academic forgery and professorial deceit,
of which the Krakow forensic report is so evident an example. How desperate must
they be, the keepers of the flame of the Holocaust legend, to resort to such
methods? By guarding the purported graves and "gas chamber" ruins of Auschwitz
from scientific inquiry, they risk the burial of their own reputations, and the
ruin of the Auschwitz myth.
- Published in German by the Dokumentationszentrum des
Österreichischen Widerstandes (Documentation Center of the Austrian
Resistance) and the Austrian Federal Ministry for Education and Culture, in
Amoklauf gegen die Wirklichkeit (Vienna, 1991), pp. 36-40; the original is in
the Auschwitz State Museum.
- See F. Kadell, Die Katyn Lüge (Münich: Herbig,
- Letter from the SS Wirtschafts- und Verwaltungs-
hauptamt, Oranienburg, to concentration camp commanders, August 6,1942, IMT
Document 511-USSR, cited in: Der Prozess gegen die Hauptkriegsverbrecher vor
dem Internationalen Militärgerichtshof (Nuremberg, 1949), pp. 553f. The letter
ordered the recycling of prisoners' hair twenty centimeters or more in length.
- Zinc prevents the formation of rust, which is
required to form long-term stable iron cyanides.
- Like earth alkaline cyanides, zinc cyanides are
slowly decomposed by humidity.
- H. Buchheim et al., Anatomie des SS-Staates
(Freiburg: Walter, 1964).
- Throughout his writings, Adalbert Rückerl, one of
the most prominent German prosecutors in "Holocaust cases," dispenses with any
mention of material evidence. Instead, he declares documentary evidence the
best and most important form of evidence, even in the absence of material
evidence for the authenticity and correctness of the documents themselves (in
J. Weber, P. Steinbach, eds., Vergangenheitsbewältigung durch Strafverfahren?
[Munich: Olzog,1984] p. 77). Rückerl reports that it is practically impossible
to find a suspect guilty solely on documentary evidence, so that, especially
given the increasing time span separating alleged crimes from trial, it is
almost always necessary to fall back on eyewitness testimony, even though its
unreliability is clear, particularly in trials of so-called "National
Socialist violent crimes" (A. Rückerl, NS-Verbrechen vor Gericht [Heidelberg:
C. F. Müller, 1984], p. 249; Rückerl, Nationalsozialistische Vernichtungslager
im Spiegel deutscher Strafprozesse [Munich: dtv, 1978], p. 34; Rückerl, NS-Prozesse
[Karlsruhe: C. F. Müller, 1972], pp. 27, 29, 31.).
- Such total naiveté, combined with legal
incompetence, on behalf of the defense is best exemplified in Hans Laternser,
Die andere Seite im Auschwitzprozess 1963/65 (Stuttgart: Seewald,1966).
- The most prominent advocate of this thesis is
Professor Nolte, in his book Streitpunkte (Berlin: Propyläen, 1993), pp. 290,
- For example, the verdict of the Schwurgericht (jury
court) of Frankfurt am Main stated that there was no evidence as to the crime,
its victims, the murder weapon, nor even the perpetrators themselves; Ref.
50/4 Ks 2/63; cf. I. Sagel-Grande, H. H. Fuchs, C. F. Rüter, eds., Justiz und
NS-Verbrechen, vol. 21 (Amsterdam: University Press,1979), p. 434.
- Ref. 20 Vr 6575/72 (Hv56/72); this reference number
is different from the one Robert Van Pelt quotes in his report: The Pelt
Report, Irving vs. Lipstadt (Queen's Bench Division, Royal Courts of Justice,
Strand, London, David John Cawdell Irving ./.  Penguin Books Limited, 
Deborah E. Lipstadt, Ref. 1996 I. No. 113; p. 135 n. 59: 20 Vr 3806/64 and 27
C Vr 3806/64).
- Personal communication from the expert, who must,
for the time being, remain anonymous. See Michael Gärtner, "Vor 25 Jahren: Ein
anderer Auschwitzprozess," Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung
(VffG)1, no. 1(1997), pp. 24f. (vho.org/VffG/1997/1/Gaertner1.html)
- Udo Walendy, Historische Tatsachen 60 (Vlotho:
Verlag für Volkstum und Zeitgeschichtsforschung, 1993), pp. 7-10.
- Cf. Mémoire en défense (Paris: La Vieille Taupe,
1980); Serge Thion, ed., Vérité historique ou vérité politique? (Paris: La
Vieille Taupe, 1980) (online: aaargh.vho.org/fran/histo/SF1.html); R.
Faurisson, Écrits révisionnistes, 4 vols., published by author,Vichy,1999; see
also Faurisson, Es gab keine Gaskammern (Witten: Deutscher Arbeitskreis
- R. Faurisson, "Le camere a gas non sono mai
esistite," Storia illustrata 261 (1979), pp. 15-35 (online:
aaargh.vho.org/fran/archFaur/RF7908xx2.html); cf. Faurisson, "The Mechanics of
Gassing," The Journal of Historical Review (JHR) 1, no. 1 (spring 1980), pp.
23ff. (online: aaargh.vho.org/engl/FaurisArch/RF80spring.html); Faurisson,
"The Gas Chambers of Auschwitz Appear to Be Physically Inconceivable," JHR 2,
no. 4 (winter 1981), pp. 311ff. (online:
- "'Le problème des chambres à gaz' ou 'la rumeur
d'Auschwitz,'" Le Monde, December 29, 1978, p. 8; see also "The 'problem of
the gas chambers," JHR 1, no. 2 (summer 1980), pp. 103-114 (online:
- F. A. Leuchter, An Engineering Report on the Alleged
Execution Gas Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, Poland, Samisdat
Publishers Ltd., Toronto 1988 (ihr.org/books/leuchter/leuchter.toc.html).
- For Leuchter's own statement, cf. "Witch Hunt in
Boston," JHR 10, no. 4 (winter 1990), pp. 453-460; "The Leuchter Report: The
How and the Why," JHR 9, no. 2 (summer 1988), pp. 133-139.
- To name only a few of the more prominent early
publications: J.-C. Pressac, Jour J, December 12, 1988, i-x; Pressac in: S.
Shapiro, ed., Truth Prevails: Demolishing Holocaust Denial: The End of the
Leuchter Report, (NY: Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, 1990); W. Schuster, "Technische
Unmöglichkeiten bei Pressac," Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart (DGG)
39, no. 2 (1991), pp. 9-13 (vho.org./D/DGG/Schuster39_2); Paul Grubach, "The
Leuchter Report Vindicated: A Response to Jean-Claude Pressac's Critique," JHR
12, no. 2 (summer 1992), pp. 248ff. (codoh.com/gcgv/gc426v12.html); Helmut
Auerbach, Institut für Zeitgeschichte, letter to Bundesprüfstelle, München,
Oct. 10, 1989; Auerbach, November 1989, both published in U. Walendy,
Historische Tatsache 42 (Vlotho: Verlag für Volkstum und
Zeitgeschichtsforschung, 1990), pp. 32 and 34; see my technical appraisal of
Auerbach's writings in Henri Roques, Günter Annthon, Der Fall Günter Deckert (Weinheim:
DAGD/Germania Verlag, 1995), pp. 431-435 (vho.org/D/Deckert/C2.html); W.
Wegner, "Keine Massenvergasungen in Auschwitz? Zur Kritik des
Leuchter-Gutachtens," in U. Backes, E. Jesse, R. Zitelmann, eds., Die Schatten
der Vergangenheit (Frankfurt: Propyläen, 1990), pp. 450-476 (vho.org/D/dsdv/Wegner.html,
with interpolated critique by the present writer); on this cf. W. Häberle, "Zu
Wegners Kritik am Leuchter-Gutachten," DGG 39, no. 2 (1991), pp. 13-17
(online: vho.org/D/DGG/Haeberle39_2.html); J. Bailer, "Der Leuchter-Bericht
aus der Sicht eines Chemikers," in Amoklauf gegen die Wirklichkeit, pp. 47-52;
cf. E. Gauss (alias G. Rudolf), Vorlesungen über Zeitgeschichte (Tübingen:
Grabert, 1993), pp. 290-293; Gauss, "Chemische Wissenschaft zur Gaskammerfrage,"
DGG 41, no. 2 (1993), pp. 16-24 (online: vho.org./D/DGG/Gauss41_2); J. Bailer,
in B. Bailer-Galanda, W. Benz, W. Neugebauer, eds., Wahrheit und Auschwitzlüge
(Vienna: Deuticke, 1995), pp. 112-118; cf. my critique "Zur Kritik an 'Wahrheit
und Auschwitzlüge,'" in Herbert Verbeke, ed., Kardinalfragen zur
Zeitgeschichte (Berchem: Vrij Historisch Onderzoek, 1996), pp. 91-108 (vho.org/D/Kardinal/Wahrheit.html);
English: "Critique of 'Truth and the Auschwitz-Lie'" (online: http://vho.org/GB/Books/cq/critique.html);
G. Wellers, "Der Leuchter-Bericht über die Gaskammern von Auschwitz," Dachauer
Hefte 7, no. 7 (November 1991), pp. 230-241.
- Most notably the works of the Italian historian
Carlo Mattogno, the American historian Samuel Crowell, and a group of South
German engineers and architects comprising Michael Gärtner, Hans Lamker, Hans
Jürgen Nowak, Werner Rademacher, Gottfried Sänger. For a comprehensive list of
their works, enter their names in the search tool of the revisionist online
database at www.vho.org/i/a.html.
- J. Markiewicz, W. Gubala, J. Labedz, B. Trzcinska,
Prof. Dr. Jan Sehn Institute for Forensic Research, Department for Forensic
Toxicology, Krakow, September 24, 1990; partly published in DGG 39, no. 2
(1991), pp. 18f. (vho.org/D/DGG/IDN39_2.html); English: "An Official Polish
Report on the Auschwitz 'Gas Chambers,'" JHR 11, no. 2 (summer 1991), pp.
207-216 (vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/11/2/ IHR207-216.html).
- It is a bit different in Majdanek and Stutthof,
where rooms that unquestionably served as delousing facilities are claimed to
have served as homicidal gas chambers as well. Thus we cannot make the same
observation for them as for Auschwitz. However, because the prevailing opinion
generally claims that high iron cyanide residues cannot be the results of
homicidal gassings -- for fallacious reasons unable to be discussed here -- it
is generally accepted by all sides in this controversy that the blue staining
generally originates in the use of these rooms as delousing facilities.
- Jan Markiewicz, Wojciech Gubala, Jerzy Labedz, "A
Study of the Cyanide Compounds Content in the Walls of the Gas Chambers in the
Former Auschwitz and Birkenau Concentration Camps," Z Zagadnien Nauk Sadowych
/ Problems of Forensic Science 30 (1994), pp. 17-27 (online:
- There are no wall paints that contain Prussian blue,
because Prussian blue decomposes on fresh plaster (it is unstable in alkaline
environments). Thus, nobody could have painted these walls with Prussian blue.
- Prof. Dr. Jan Sehn Institute for Forensic Research,
Dept. for Forensic Toxicology, Krakow, letter to W. Wegner, undated (winter
1991/92), signature illegible, but probably Dr. Markiewicz himself,
unpublished, partly quoted in: Rüdiger Kammerer, Armin Solms, eds., Das Rudolf
Gutachten: Gutachten über die Bildung und Nachweisbarkeit von
Cyanidverbindungen in den "Gaskammern" von Auschwitz (London: Cromwell Press,
- E. Gauss (alias G. Rudolf), Vorlesungen über
Zeitgeschichte (Tübingen: Grabert, 1993); on the chemistry involved here, cf.
pp. 163ff., 290-294 (vho.org/D/vuez/v3.html#v3_4 and ~/v5.html#v5_5).
- G. Rudolf, Das Rudolf Gutachten, 2nd ed. (Hastings,
Eng.: Castle Hill Publishers, 2001).
- A construction damage case occurred in 1976 in
Bavaria (Meeder-Wiesenfeld), when a recently plastered church was fumigated
with Zyklon B. After several months the plaster was covered with blue patches
formed by Prussian blue. See Günter Zimmermann, ed., Bauschäden Sammlung, vol.
4 (Stuttgart: Forum-Verlag, 1981), pp. 120f.; reprint in Ernst Gauss (alias G.
Rudolf), ed., Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte (Tübingen: Grabert, 1994, pp.
401ff.; (codoh.com/inter/intgrgauss.html; English: vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndwood.html).
Furthermore, every one of the delousing facilities of the former concentration
camps in eastern Europe that is still standing today has developed enormous
amounts of Prussian blue throughout the walls, cf. my report, note 25 above (vho.org/D/rga/prob9_22.html
and following pages); Jürgen Graf, Carlo Mattogno, KL Majdanek: Eine
historische und technische Studie (Hastings, Eng: Castle Hill Publishers,
1998) (vho.org/D/Majdanek/MR.html); Jürgen Graf, Carlo Mattogno, Das
Konzentrationslager Stutthof und seine Funktion in der nationalsozialistischen
Judenpolitik (Hastings, Eng: Castle Hill Publishers, 1999) (vho.org/D/Stutthof/index.html).
- G. Rudolf, "Leuchter-Gegengutachten: Ein
Wissenschaftlicher Betrug?," DGG 43, no. 1 (1995), pp. 22-26
(vho.org/D/Kardinal/Leuchter.html; Engl.: vho.org/GB/Books/cq/leuchter.html);
G. Rudolf and J. Markiewicz, W. Gubala, J. Labedz, "Briefwechsel," Sleipnir 1,
no. 3 (1995), pp. 29-33; reprinted in Verbeke, ed., Kardinalfragen zur
Zeitgeschichte, pp. 86-90 (online: as above).
- Kammerer, Solms, eds., Das Rudolf Gutachten (vho.org/D/rga/).
For background, history, and consequences of my report, see W. Schlesiger, Der
Fall Rudolf (London: Cromwell, 1994) (online: vho.org/D/dfr/Fall.html);
English: The Rudolf Case (vho.org/GB/Books/trc); and Verbeke, ed.,
Kardinalfragen zur Zeitgeschichte (vho.org/D/Kardinal/); English: Cardinal
Questions about Contemporary History (vho.org/GB/Books/cq/); cf. "Hunting
Germar Rudolf," vho.org/Authors/RudolfCase.html.
- This large-format, 350 pp. hardcover book may be
ordered for $30.at www.tadp.org or by writing to Theses & Dissertations Press,
PO Box 64, Capshaw, AL 35742.
- J. Bailer, in B. Bailer-Galanda, W. Benz, W.
Neugebauer, eds., op. cit. (see note 19 above); see my answer to this, "Zur
Kritik an 'Wahrheit und Auschwitzlüge'"/"Critique of Truth and the
Auschwitz-Lie," in Herbert Verbeke, ed., Kardinalfragen zur Zeitgeschichte.
Even less sophisticated: B. Clair, "Revisionistische Gutachten," VffG 1, no. 2
(1997), pp. 102-104 (vho.org/VffG/1997/2/Clair2.html); my answer: "Zur Kritik
am Rudolf Gutachten," ibid., pp. 104-108 (vho.org/VffG/1997/2/RudGut2.html);
further, La Vieille Taupe/Pierre Guillaume, "Rudolf Gutachten:
'Psychopathologisch und Gefährlich': Über die Psychopathologie einer
Erklärung," VffG 1, no. 4 (1997), pp. 224f.
(vho.org/VffG/1997/4/Guillaume4.html). Robert Van Pelt did not discuss my
report, but preferred to repeat and aggravate Pressac's errors: op. cit. (see
note 11 above); cf. G. Rudolf, "Gutachter und Urteilsschelte," VffG 4, no. 1
(2000), pp. 33-50 (vho.org/VffG/2000/1/Rudolf33-50.html); more exhaustively,
in English, vho.org/GB/c/GR/RudolfOnVanPelt.html and .../CritiqueGray.html.
- Richard J. Green, "The Chemistry of Auschwitz," May
10, 1998, holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/, und "Leuchter, Rudolf
and the Iron Blues," March 25, 1998, holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/blue/,
with considerable proselytizing "anti-fascist" bias. A detailed description of
the deficiencies of the paper appeared in "Das Rudolf Gutachten in der Kritik,
Teil 2," VffG 3, no. 1 (1999), pp. 77-82 (vho.org/VffG/1999/1/RudDas3.html);
English.: "Some Considerations about the 'Gas Chambers' of Auschwitz and
Birkenau," vho.org/GB/Contributions/Green.html; for the response see: Richard
J. Green, Jamie McCarthy, "Chemistry is Not the Science," May 2,1999,
holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/. About 50 percent
of the article consists of political accusations and vilification. For a
response, see G. Rudolf, "Character Assassin," online: vho.org/GB/Contributions/CharacterAssassins.html.
- Charles D. Provan, "No Holes? No Holocaust?: A Study
of the Holes in the Roof of Leichenkeller I of Krematorium 2 at Birkenau" (www.revisingrevisionism.com)
- Van Pelt's testimony in Errol Morris's documentary
film Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.
- As did at least one revisionist, in spring 1996, on
the roof of morgue 1 of crematorium II.
- As did an engineer named Barford; his colleagues are
assisting in the conservation and restoration of the camp for the Auschwitz
Museum administration. He informed David Irving of this.
- Jean-Claude Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and
Operation of the Gas Chambers (NY: Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, 1989); Les
Crématoires d'Auschwitz: la Machinerie du meurtre de masse (Paris: CNRS,
- For criticisms of Pressac's first book, see R.
Faurisson, JHR 11, no. 1 (spring 1991), p. 25ff.; JHR 11, no. 2 (1991), p.
133ff. (French: www.lebensraum.org/english/04.adobe.faurisson/pressac.pdf); F.
A. Leuchter, The Fourth Leuchter Report (Toronto: Samisdat, 1991) (www.zundelsite.org/english/leuchter/report4/leuchter4.toc.html);
for a criticism of Pressac's second book see: Herbert Verbeke, ed., Auschwitz:
Nackte Fakten (Berchem: VHO, 1995), pp. 101-162 (online: vho.org/D/anf/;
English: Auschwitz: Plain Facts, vho.org/GB/Books/anf; for a criticism of the
principles underlying Pressac's methodology, see G. Rudolf, "Gutachten über
die Frage der Wissenschaftlichkeit der Bücher Auschwitz: Technique and
Operation of the Gas Chambers und Les Crématoires d'Auschwitz. la Machinerie
du meurtre de masse von Jean-Claude Pressac," in Schlesiger, Der Fall Rudolf (vho.org/D/dfr/Fall.html#Gutachten);
English: see vho.org/GB/Books/trc#expert-report; see also Pierre Guillaume's
criticism, De la misère intellectuelle en milieu universitaire, B.p. 9805,
75224 Paris cedex 05, 1995 (aaargh.vho.org/fran/archVT/vt9309xx1.html). See
also S. Crowell's various writings and Mattogno's responses to them,
referenced at www.vho.org/i/a.html, as well as the upcoming English version of
my report, which will include a summary of this topic.
- H. Nowak, "Kurzwellen-Entlausungsanlagen in
Auschwitz," VffG 2, no. 2 (1998), pp. 87-105; English version in Gauss, ed.,
Dissecting the Holocaust (Capshaw, AL: Theses & Dissertations Press, 2000),
pp. 311-324; H. Lamker, "Die Kurzwellen-Entlausungsanlagen in Auschwitz, Teil
2," VffG 2, no. 4 (1998), pp. 261-273; see also Mark Weber, "High Frequency
Delousing Facilities at Auschwitz," JHR 18, no. 3 (May-June 1999), pp. 4-12.
- W. Rademacher, M. Gärtner, "Berichte zum KL
Auschwitz," VffG 4, no. 3-4 (2000), pp. 330-344.
- R. Krege, "Vernichtungslager Treblinka --
archäologisch betrachtet," VffG 4, no. 1 (2000), pp. 62-64.
About the author
Germar Rudolf had completed his doctoral dissertation
in chemistry while working at the renowned Max Planck Institute in Stuttgart,
when publication of his forensic study of the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz
caused university authorities to forbid him from completing the doctorate. In
1995 Rudolf was sentenced to fourteen months in jail for authoring the Rudolf
Report; in the same year all available copies of Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte,
a collection of up-to-date research on the Holocaust problem, were seized and
destroyed by court order (the English-language version, Dissecting the
Holocaust, can be purchased from IHR). Rudolf edits the revisionist quarterly
Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung, and is currently seeking
political asylum in the United States. He has submitted a lengthy affidavit in
support of David Irving's appeal of the adverse ruling in the Lipstadt trial.
All articles were reproduced from
Germar Rudolf's website.
'Gas Chamber' Illusion
By Nicholas Kollerstrom, PhD
Return to the Dark Ages: Censorship is on
--Is it coming to America?
Tackles Taboos of Third Reich
Germany's Imposed History
Reich's Place in History
Conversation with Professor Ernst Nolte