The Persecution
Of Germar Rudolf


     Germar Rudolf in Summer 1991 (55 KB)

Biographic and Bibliographic Data of Germar Rudolf on his own Website


Friday, October 23 - 2009
9 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


Germar Rudolf sentenced to 30 months prison

From Inside the German Gulag — Political Prisoner Germar Rudolf

Monday, 20 Nov 2006


The Trial of Germar Rudolf in Mannheim District Court

Day 2, 16 November 2006 Reported by Günter Deckert

Translated by J. M. Damon

Danger in Denying Holocaust?

 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



The Persecution Of Germar Rudolf



Political Asylum for Germar Rudolf?


A Brief History of Forensic Examinations of Auschwitz
By Germar Rudolf



Catholic bishop demonised for 'Holocaust denial'
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: Read More


Germar Rudolf sentenced to 30 months prison
“Adelaide Institute”  
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 world knowledge.

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 itself.

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 Germar Rudolf

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.

Paul Fromm

Germar Rudolf
Asperger Str 60
D-70439 Stuttgart, Germany
October 7, 2006


Germar Rudolf, Prisoner
JVA Mannheim
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 row.

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 routine.

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 :o ). 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 exercise).

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 invention!

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 emotionally.

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 , 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 wall.

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 to Paul,

Visit the Canadian Association for Free Expression’s website:

Please support CAFE in our efforts:
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”);


5.      Representatives 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 lunch.


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 in irons.


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.

This publication is available  in English under the title Fred A. Leuchter, Robert Faurisson. Germar Rudolf. The Leuchter Reports: Critical Edition. Chicago, USA, 2005. It is dedicated to Ernst Zündel (“For Ernst”) and available at


Germar then 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 US.

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.

Crowley’s account 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 this book.



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 revisionism.


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)


b)       Forensic Investigations: 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.


c)      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.)


d)      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 institution. See Furthermore, it subscribes to and enforces mystical taboos. It is neither a democracy nor a nation of laws, but rather a pseudo-democratic dictatorship.


e)      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:).



f)       The 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 November 2006


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


Angesetzt um 9Uhr, Beginn 9.05Uhr



  1. Das Gericht wie am Eröffnungstag (Vors. Schwab)
  2. StA Grossmann mit „Assistentin“
  3. RAe Stolz & Bock
  4. 1 Gerichtsdiener, 5 Polizisten in Uniform – alle bewaffnet; 2 „staschu“ = politische Polizei (in Zivil)
  5. Medienvertreter: 0
  6. Sonstige: im 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


Eröffnung 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.


RAin 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.


GR läßt 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“).


GR fährt mit der zeitlichen Anfolge seines Lebenslaufes und seines Schaffens fort und schildert seine Versuche des Fußfassens in den USA.

Dies wie 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 ( /, Katalog 2006.

Neu, wohl 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 aufgenommen.


Um 10.50Uhr verfügt der Kammervorsitzende eine „Verschnaufpause“; Wiederbeginn um 11.24Uhr


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.


Um 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:


a)      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“!

Einschub: Die 2. Richterin huldigt immer häufiger der Augenpflege....

b)      Die forensische Seite, d.h. die technische Überprüfung der „Mordwaffe Gaskammer“, sei seit

      über   40 Jahren vollständig vernachlässigt worden.

c)      Wahrheitstrieb und 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)

d)      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“

e)      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 Berichterstatter)

f)        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




Günter Deckert



WER diesen Bericht als Quelle benutzt, möge dies BITTE vermerken. Danke!

Reproduced from:




Danger in Denying Holocaust?

latcom.gif (3712 bytes)
© January 7, 2000 - Frontpage

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 price.

By KIM MURPHY, Times Staff Writer

rudolf.jpg (19919 bytes)

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 modern age.

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 discredit him.

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 distorting facts.

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 5.1 million.

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 debate?

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?

dirv.jpg (21488 bytes)

"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 Irving's book.

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 World War."

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 most cases).

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 obscene.

"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 interesting."

Reproduced from:





     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 Holocaust denial.

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 historical truths.

"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.



 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



November 8, 2005

It is Official!

Dear friend,

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.


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 arguments"

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 "INS".]

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 later.

Best regards,

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.

Best regards,

Arthur R. Butz


           The Persecution Of Germar Rudolf

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.



he list 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 persecution chronologically. 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.

Auschwitz Forensics
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
Expert 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
Dissecting 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 knowledge.

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 family.

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.

Dipl.-Chem. Germar Rudolf




Political Asylum for Germar Rudolf?

For 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 Well, 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 – that

Rudolf’s application for political asylum was frivolous.

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.:

  1. 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.

    1. 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.

    2. 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 severe accusation.

  2. 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 his claim:

    1. 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 application form 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.

    2. 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 newspaper article 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.

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 evidence.

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 testimony).

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:

  • defendants can be sentenced for crimes they were never accused of and for which there is no evidence

  • forensic expert witnesses can be put on trial because their testimony is an insult to eyewitnesses who disagree.

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

Germar Rudolf

"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 following questions:

  1. Should the alleged monstrous crime be subject to careful scrutiny by means of thorough forensic analysis?
  2. 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 irony.

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 successor states.

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 documentary evidence.

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 note]

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 reasons:

  1. 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.
  2. 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:
    1. 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.
    2. In contrast to cement and concrete, zinc-plated metal covers prevent the formation of stable iron cyanide compounds.[see note] The developing zinc cyanide compounds are relatively unstable and must be expected to vanish in a short period of time.[see note]
    3. 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 sheet metal.
    4. 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.
  3. There is no evidence that either analysis has been successfully reproduced.

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 ruling:

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, Austria.[see note] 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 chambers.[see note] 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 note]

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 the environment.

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, too.

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 note]

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 blue.[see note] 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
Author: Markiewicz et al.[see note] Leuchter[see note] Rudolf[see note]
Detection of: cyanide without iron cyanides total cyanide total cyanide
Delousing chambers: 0-0.8 mg/kg 1,025 mg/kg 1,000-13,000 mg/kg
Alleged gas chamber: 0-0.6 mg/kg 0-8 mg/kg 0-7 mg/kg

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 refute Leuchter.

Krakow Guidelines: Not Scientific Truth, but a Political Agenda

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 note]

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:

  1. 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).
  2. 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.
  3. These choices allowed them to employ methods that would produce the results desired.
  4. They suppressed whichever results didn't fit their purposes.
  5. 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 silent.

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 note]

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 Internet.[see note] 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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 centre.[see note]

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 beings?

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.

Criminal Traces?

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, devastating.[see note] 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.

Exculpatory Traces!

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.


  1. 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.
  2. See F. Kadell, Die Katyn Lüge (Münich: Herbig, 1991).
  3. 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.
  4. Zinc prevents the formation of rust, which is required to form long-term stable iron cyanides.
  5. Like earth alkaline cyanides, zinc cyanides are slowly decomposed by humidity.
  6. H. Buchheim et al., Anatomie des SS-Staates (Freiburg: Walter, 1964).
  7. 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.).
  8. 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).
  9. The most prominent advocate of this thesis is Professor Nolte, in his book Streitpunkte (Berlin: Propyläen, 1993), pp. 290, 293, 297.
  10. 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.
  11. 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 ./. [1] Penguin Books Limited, [2] Deborah E. Lipstadt, Ref. 1996 I. No. 113; p. 135 n. 59: 20 Vr 3806/64 and 27 C Vr 3806/64).
  12. 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. (
  13. Udo Walendy, Historische Tatsachen 60 (Vlotho: Verlag für Volkstum und Zeitgeschichtsforschung, 1993), pp. 7-10.
  14. Cf. Mémoire en défense (Paris: La Vieille Taupe, 1980); Serge Thion, ed., Vérité historique ou vérité politique? (Paris: La Vieille Taupe, 1980) (online:; R. Faurisson, Écrits révisionnistes, 4 vols., published by author,Vichy,1999; see also Faurisson, Es gab keine Gaskammern (Witten: Deutscher Arbeitskreis Witten, 1978).
  15. R. Faurisson, "Le camere a gas non sono mai esistite," Storia illustrata 261 (1979), pp. 15-35 (online:; cf. Faurisson, "The Mechanics of Gassing," The Journal of Historical Review (JHR) 1, no. 1 (spring 1980), pp. 23ff. (online:; Faurisson, "The Gas Chambers of Auschwitz Appear to Be Physically Inconceivable," JHR 2, no. 4 (winter 1981), pp. 311ff. (online:
  16. "'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:
  17. F. A. Leuchter, An Engineering Report on the Alleged Execution Gas Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, Poland, Samisdat Publishers Ltd., Toronto 1988 (
  18. 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.
  19. 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 (; Paul Grubach, "The Leuchter Report Vindicated: A Response to Jean-Claude Pressac's Critique," JHR 12, no. 2 (summer 1992), pp. 248ff. (; 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 (; 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 (, 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:; 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:; 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 (; English: "Critique of 'Truth and the Auschwitz-Lie'" (online:; G. Wellers, "Der Leuchter-Bericht über die Gaskammern von Auschwitz," Dachauer Hefte 7, no. 7 (November 1991), pp. 230-241.
  20. 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
  21. 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. (; English: "An Official Polish Report on the Auschwitz 'Gas Chambers,'" JHR 11, no. 2 (summer 1991), pp. 207-216 ( IHR207-216.html).
  22. 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.
  23. 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:
  24. 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.
  25. 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, 1993) (
  26. E. Gauss (alias G. Rudolf), Vorlesungen über Zeitgeschichte (Tübingen: Grabert, 1993); on the chemistry involved here, cf. pp. 163ff., 290-294 ( and ~/v5.html#v5_5).
  27. G. Rudolf, Das Rudolf Gutachten, 2nd ed. (Hastings, Eng.: Castle Hill Publishers, 2001).
  28. 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.; (; English: 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 ( and following pages); Jürgen Graf, Carlo Mattogno, KL Majdanek: Eine historische und technische Studie (Hastings, Eng: Castle Hill Publishers, 1998) (; Jürgen Graf, Carlo Mattogno, Das Konzentrationslager Stutthof und seine Funktion in der nationalsozialistischen Judenpolitik (Hastings, Eng: Castle Hill Publishers, 1999) (
  29. G. Rudolf, "Leuchter-Gegengutachten: Ein Wissenschaftlicher Betrug?," DGG 43, no. 1 (1995), pp. 22-26 (; Engl.:; 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).
  30. Kammerer, Solms, eds., Das Rudolf Gutachten ( For background, history, and consequences of my report, see W. Schlesiger, Der Fall Rudolf (London: Cromwell, 1994) (online:; English: The Rudolf Case (; and Verbeke, ed., Kardinalfragen zur Zeitgeschichte (; English: Cardinal Questions about Contemporary History (; cf. "Hunting Germar Rudolf,"
  31. This large-format, 350 pp. hardcover book may be ordered for $ or by writing to Theses & Dissertations Press, PO Box 64, Capshaw, AL 35742.
  32. 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 (; my answer: "Zur Kritik am Rudolf Gutachten," ibid., pp. 104-108 (; further, La Vieille Taupe/Pierre Guillaume, "Rudolf Gutachten: 'Psychopathologisch und Gefährlich': Über die Psychopathologie einer Erklärung," VffG 1, no. 4 (1997), pp. 224f. ( 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 (; more exhaustively, in English, and .../CritiqueGray.html.
  33. Richard J. Green, "The Chemistry of Auschwitz," May 10, 1998,, und "Leuchter, Rudolf and the Iron Blues," March 25, 1998,, 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 (; English.: "Some Considerations about the 'Gas Chambers' of Auschwitz and Birkenau,"; for the response see: Richard J. Green, Jamie McCarthy, "Chemistry is Not the Science," May 2,1999, About 50 percent of the article consists of political accusations and vilification. For a response, see G. Rudolf, "Character Assassin," online:
  34. Charles D. Provan, "No Holes? No Holocaust?: A Study of the Holes in the Roof of Leichenkeller I of Krematorium 2 at Birkenau" (
  35. Van Pelt's testimony in Errol Morris's documentary film Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.
  36. As did at least one revisionist, in spring 1996, on the roof of morgue 1 of crematorium II.
  37. 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.
  38. 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, 1993).
  39. 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:; F. A. Leuchter, The Fourth Leuchter Report (Toronto: Samisdat, 1991) (; for a criticism of Pressac's second book see: Herbert Verbeke, ed., Auschwitz: Nackte Fakten (Berchem: VHO, 1995), pp. 101-162 (online:; English: Auschwitz: Plain Facts,; 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 (; English: see; see also Pierre Guillaume's criticism, De la misère intellectuelle en milieu universitaire, B.p. 9805, 75224 Paris cedex 05, 1995 ( See also S. Crowell's various writings and Mattogno's responses to them, referenced at, as well as the upcoming English version of my report, which will include a summary of this topic.
  40. 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.
  41. W. Rademacher, M. Gärtner, "Berichte zum KL Auschwitz," VffG 4, no. 3-4 (2000), pp. 330-344.
  42. 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.


The Auschwitz
'Gas Chamber' Illusion

By Nicholas Kollerstrom, PhD

Return to the Dark Ages: Censorship is on the rise
--Is it coming to America? Jared Taylor

A Prominent German Historian
Tackles Taboos of Third Reich

Throwing Off Germany's Imposed History
The Third Reich's Place in History
A Conversation with Professor Ernst Nolte

















Revised: November 05, 2014 .   Communication:   JerryHaff1963(at)     Go to Home Page     Go to Index of All Articles Pages       
Read the
Last modified: November 05, 2014  Copyright © 1999 - 2008  All rights reserved. [Gnostic Liberation Front].