The Trial of Germar Rudolf in Mannheim District Court

________

 

Justice, where art thou?

 

 

 

THE RUDOLF VERDICT AS PRONOUNCED BY

 MANNHEIM DISTRICT COURT

On 2 May 2007

- continued

_______________________

[Page 35 of Verdict]

 copies: “GERMANS PRODUCE ZYKLON B IN IRAQ  (Iraq’s German-made gas chamber)”

R: Then, on p. 2ff., it goes on to say: “Shocking Revelation: German Firms Produce Zyklon B in Iraq.  True to their legacy of their Nazi-era predecessors, the German business community has sought to absolve itself of its share of blame in the current Middle East disaster. ‘We did not knowingly supply Iraq with weapons of

mass destructions – we violated no law – we were just filling orders…’  Even more ominous is the report that Iraq has developed a new potent gas which actually contains Zyklon B. […] this gas, and the nerve gas, Tabun, were tested on Iranian POWs in gas chambers specially designed for the Iraqis by the German company […] (see cover photo of gas chamber prototype).  German Gas Chamber: Nightmare Revisited.”

R: If you don’t believe this, go to the appendix, p. 55f., where the documents have been reproduced.

L: Wow! Six million, and gas chambers all over the place!

R: I hope that you are developing a feel for the underlying design of Anglo-Saxon and Zionist war and atrocity propaganda – 1900, 1916, 1920, 1926, 1936, 1942, 1991… In 1991, as we all know, these things were again nothing but inventions, as were the later assertions before America’s second war against Iraq, in 2003, to the effect that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or would have them soon, even though this time the gas chambers and/or Zyklon

B as “weapons of mass destruction” were not mentioned. But, as Israel’s well known newspaper Ha’aretz proudly proclaimed: “The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history.”

R: We all know, after all, that the Jews in Israel merit a preventive protection against any kind of annihilation with weapons of mass destruction, regardless of whether this threat is real or imagined…

L: Now that sounds a bit too cynical. Don’t you think that Jews merit protection from annihilation?

R: The cynicism refers only to cases where such a threat was pure invention. Any ethnic or religious group is entitled to protection from the threat of annihilation, Jews are no exception.  What I meant to get across with this series of press reports was for you not to accept at face value what the media are saying – even if it is the NYT – particularly in times of war. And I think it is fair to accept, at least as a working hypothesis, that not all assertions stemming from the period of 1941 to 1945 are absolutely true either.

[Page 36 of Verdict]

Couldn’t it be that certain things were to some extent distorted, deformed, exaggerated, or invented?

L: Possibly… 

R: To show you how war propaganda is generated, I have reproduced, in the appendix to this lecture, the text of a TV documentary produced in 1992 by the German public broadcasting corporation ARD in its “Monitor” series. It tells you how an American publicity company, paid for this purpose by the Kuwaiti government, invented the so-called incubator story. In order to get the U.S. and, in particular, the U.N. to agree to a war against Iraq, they tested, which horror story would eventually work best. The result: the murder of innocent babies.  Based on that result, the lie was concocted that Iraqi soldiers in Kuwait had  systematically torn babies from their incubators and murdered them. An actress was prepared for her role as a witness; she eventually appeared before the Human Rights Commission of the Security Council, like Niobe, all tears, and proclaimed this lie of the evil deeds of the Iraqi soldiers. Her statement was a key element in getting the U.N. to finally agree to an American invasion.  Keep this in the back of your head, if we come across similar stories about cruel murders of babies later on.  Faced with such facts, we should remember the old rule that the truth is always the first victim in any war. It is really surprising that so many people shy away from this painful experience when they are dealing with the worst of all wars – the Second World War. For the very reason that it has been, so far, the most brutal of all wars, it is obvious that in this case the truth has been raped and abused more often than in any other conflict. And I am not thinking merely of the Holocaust in this connection, which was only one of many incidents in that war. I am referring to that war as a whole. In these lectures, however, I will restrict myself to the Holocaust.

[Page 36 of Verdict]

       cc)  Under “1.7 Holocaust Survivors” (pages 40 – 45) Rudolf describes the postwar problems the survivors faced in finding their families and reuniting with them.  He refers to newspaper reports of separated families being reunited many years after the War with relatives they thought had been killed.  He cited the case of witness Arnold Friedmann, who said that he was unfamiliar with the missing persons center at Arolsen and had never attempted to find his family, or individual members of it, with help of the missing persons agency.  Rudolf thereby raises the question of

[Page 37 of Verdict]

whether the Holocaust survivors made every attempt possible after the War to obtain information about the fate of their relatives.  This includes the following passages.

L:  But you cannot generalize from that single instance.

R:  That’s right, but we have to accept the possibility that, when the war had ended, many survivors were themselves so convinced by Holocaust propaganda that they did not even think of searching for relatives.  The question as to how many Jewish families were permanently disrupted by those events and mistakenly believed that everyone else had perished can be answered only by a world wide statistical assessment of Holocaust survivors, and only then to a limited degree.  In Israel there is an official organization, Amcha, which is dedicated to Holocaust survivors.  Amcha defines a Holocaust survivor as follows:

‘A Holocaust survivor will be defined as any Jew who lived in a country at the time when it was under Nazi regime or occupation or regime of Nazi collaborators as well as any Jew who fled due to the above mentioned regimes or occupation.’

L:  Well that is certainly a generous definition.  If we go by that, all the Jews who emigrated from Germany between 1933 and the beginning of the mass deportations in 1941 would be survivors, as well as all the Jews who fled East before the advancing German army.

R:  That’s right.  In In that way, they maximize the number of survivors; that could become quite lucrative if you claim compensation. 

L:  Does that mean you consider the numbers exaggerated?

R:  Let me put it this way.  In 1998, that is, one year after those figures were published by Amcha, there was a statement by Rolf Bloch, the Jewish head of the Swiss Holocaust Fund.  This organization was negotiating compensation for Jewish Holocaust survivors to be paid by Swiss banks, and Bloch claimed that there were still more than 1 million such survivors.  In 2000, the office of the Israeli Prime Minister again reported that there were still more than one million.

L:  So, the figure could well be motivated politically or financially, or both politically and financially.

R:  The number of survivors does indeed have a psychological significance for German-Jewish relations, Now, the interesting question is:  if there were 1 million Holocaust survivors in 2000, how many were there in 1945?

[Page 38 of Verdict]

L:  A lot more, because the great majority of that generation has died a natural death in the meantime.

R:  You can come up with a good statistical approximation if you know the age distribution of those Jews still alive in 2000.  Actuaries in life insurance companies have precise life expectancy data, which allow you to go back in time to the original size of a population group.  Unfortunately, we lack exact exact data on the age distribution of survivors, although we do have some information.  I have carried out extensive calculations elsewhere, on the basis of various assumptions concerning age distribution.  The result was that in 1945 there existed between 3.5 and 5 million Jewish survivors.

L:  From an original total of how many?

R:  If you include all the Jews who ever lived in areas that later came under National Socialist control, you have a total of 8 million.

L:  That means 3 to 4.5 million Jews missing.

R:  That is the maximum number.

L:  It is still a terrifying number.

R:  To be sure – even if a significant number of them cannot be blamed on the National Socialist regime.  For example, many Jews disappeared in Stalin’s Gulag and many died as soldiers or partisan fighters.  But I do not want to attempt a definitive figure of survivors, because the statistical  basis for a scientific computation is too small and would yield results with too wide a margin of error for any meaningful conclusions to be drawn from them.  What I want to show is that there were millions of such people aftger the War  who were dispersed all over the world.  Many of them believed their relatives had perished, in spite of the fact as we have seen, that at least half of the Jews that at some point came under Hitler’s direct or indirect influence, did in fact survive.  Thus the cases of miraculous individual reunions cited above were not miracles at all.   They resulted from high statistical probability.  In contrast, the names collected by Yad Vashem are based on unverified assertions and should be disregarded.

L:  So we still do not know how many Jews died in the Holocaust.

R:  I cannot give you a definitive figure for the reason that I do not have one.  If you want to form your own opinion, I advise you to consult the scientific studies I have cited.  All I want to demonstrate here is that, while nobody actually knows, the figure of six million is highly questionable.  Once you accept this, you will agree that more penetrating research into the questions of whether and how and how many are entirely appropriate.

L:  Well if you don’t actually know, what do you  believe?

R:  “Believe” is not the appropriate term to be used, in my opinion.  Let us rather say ‘believe probable.’  I think around a half million would be close.

[Page 39 of Verdict]

       dd)  The following passages are found under “1.8: No Permanent Truths” on page 49.

“R:  When compared to the official Holocaust lore, anyone can feel morally  superior, be it Stalin or those alleged democrats who handed over the people of eastern Europe to the raping and plundering hordes of the Red Army and who annihilated the civilians living in Hamburg, Dresden, Hiroshima or Nagasaki in carpet and atomic bombings.  Hence the Holocaust is a convenient shield behind which other mass murderers can comfortably hide.

Don’t misunderstand me –- I do not intend to establish a moral ranking of the mass murderers of World War Two, which was, in itself, the greatest mass murder of all time.  It was an atrocious war, won by the side that committed the greatest atrocities.  The point I would like to make is this:  If you have to throw out, or declare illegal, any historical or other scientific thesis simply because it might be used or misused by some morally or politically reprehensible system, which might want to further its own aims, how many theses would we be left with, that could be considered harmless or immune to abuse?

If Revisionism is reprehensible because it is welcomed by right wing totalitarian ideologies, why is Holocaustims not also reprehensible, serving as it does, much more dangerous left wing totalitarian ideologies in a corresponding way?

L:  And what is “Holocaustism” supposed to be?

R:  It is a convenient name for the thesis complementary to Holocaust Revisionism, the thesis that asserts that a systematic, industrial extermination of Jews was practices by the Third Reich with homicidal gas chambers being the most prevalent weapon.

b) “Second Lecture: Public Controversies”

       aa) Under “2.4: Clarity About Dachau Rudolf writes the following on page 72.

R: ...Let us now discuss Dachau, where the alleged homicidal gas

chamber is still shown today. Until a short while ago, the museum administration displayed a sign in the “gas chamber” on which was written in several languages (see Illustration 9): “Gas Chamber disguised as a ‘shower room’ – never used as a gas chamber.”  From the 1960s up to the 1990s, such recognized authorities as the Director of the Dachau Museum and the Alliance of Former Prisoners of the Dachau Concentration Camp supported the same view.

L: By whom are these recognized as authorities, and why?

R: By published opinion.

[Page40 of Verdict]

L: But that says nothing about the correctness of their claims. The correctness of a statement comes not from publicly assigned authority, but rather from the exactness and verifiability of a statement.

R: I am aware of this, but I am mentioning these sources as being generally recognized as competent, not as proof that their statements are correct. The fact of the matter is that the Dachau Museum has in the meantime removed the sign mentioned above in the alleged gas chamber of Dachau and replaced it with another one, which now claims that gassings did occur.

L: How can anyone believe anything the authorities allege, since they constantly contradict one another and even themselves. What verifiable arguments do they have for the claim that this was a gas chamber?

R: Claims about a homicidal gas chamber in the Dachau camp were first made right after U.S. troops liberated the camp. This alleged gas chamber was described by a U.S. investigation team under David Chavez on May 7, 1945.

Gas chamber accusations appeared frequently during the pre-trial investigations preceding the U.S. trial of 40 defendants in Dachau in late 1945, but the accusation was dropped during the trial itself.  However, the gas chamber claim reappeared during the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal in 1946 (IMT), along with a re-written report of the above mentioned Chavez investigation that was ordered by General Eisenhower.  This was supported by a statement of a Czech witness Dr. Franz Blaha, a physician, who was interned in Dachau.  He is the only witness who ever claimed during a trial that homicidal gassings occurred in Dachau. When Dr. Blaha testified during the IMT, the court would not allow the defense to question Dr. Blaha more closely when they wanted to.

L: So there was no cross-examination?

R: Not about Dr. Blaha’s gassing claims at least. His claim was simply entered without discussion.

L: And the IMT was able to simply cut off interrogation of a witness when it threatened to become embarrassing?

R: That’s how it was. We will get into the strange rules of evidence of the postwar trials later. But it should be pointed out in passing that the established literature at times assumes that the Dachau prisoners who were engaged in building this facility prevented completion of the gas chamber before the end of the war, by drawing their work out over three years.

L: How did the prisoners know what they were working on?

R: Good question.  If this was intended to be a gas chamber, the SS would hardly have revealed that to them. At most, there could have been rumors, which of course could have been false.

L: If the prisoners succeeded in delaying the completion of a facility for a period of three years, doesn’t this prove that Dachau was a holiday camp, where the prisoners could dawdle without punishment?

R: Careful! You are making yourself criminally liable with such speculations! The fact is that in Dachau we are dealing with the only alleged gas chamber in a camp on the territory of the Reich proper that has been preserved to the present day. For that reason, the opportunity exists to conduct comprehensive, even forensic investigations there.

       bb) Under “2.5: The Invisible Elephant in the Basement” Rudolf introduces Prof. Arthur R. Butz and his book “The Hoax of

[Page 41 of Verdict]

the 20th Century. Century” as well as reactions to it.  This chapter ends as follows.

“R:  Furthermore it is unlikely that the (British) Propaganda Ministry itself believed these reports.  If it had believed them to be true, why did it not state them explicitly?  Let’s read that text once again: ‘Unfortunately (!) the public is no longer so susceptible’ certainly means that a population is preferred that can be easily misled.  The phrase ‘charges that have been and will be put into circulation by the Ministry’ can certainly mean nothing other than that the Ministry is and has been putting propaganda into circulation for some time, and not merely passing on real information.  Moreover, permit me to point out that government propaganda agencies in times of war have never been inclined to tell the truth and nothing but the truth about the enemy.  After all, the British were the masters of propaganda and psychological warfare in both world wars.  One has to be very naive to believe that in the worst and most dangerous war of all, the British never resorted to untruths. 

But now back to Butz.  Since no leader was behaving as if mass killings of Jews were occurring in Europe, despite the Allies’ excellent intelligence, Prof. Butz came to the inescapable conclusion that he expressed in the form of a metaphor: ‘I see no elephant in my basement; an elephant could not be concealed from view in my basement; therefore there is no elephant in my basement.’  Or, to put it in plain language, Butz was saying ‘No one was acting as though there had been a Jewish Holocaust.  Had there been a Jewish Holocaust, people would have behaved accordingly.  Therefore there was no Jewish Holocaust.’”

       cc)  Under “2.9: Jew Soap, Lampshades and Shrunken Heads” on page 96, Rudolf discusses “the question of whether, in the eyes of the established discipline of history, everything is true that was reported during the War and shortly after it.”  Among other things he discusses whether soap was made from the corpses of murdered Jews, whether lampshades were made from their skin, and whether mattresses were made of their hair.  The chapter contains the following passages.  (Page 99)

“R:  Whether mattress stuffing was produced from human hair remains open to question.  Nobody disputes the fact that all persons who were taken to an internment camp had their hair shorn for hygienic reasons.  Also, the hair of all soldiers must be kept short for the same reason.  The utilization of such hair proves nothing about the fate of its former wearer.  I can see nothing morally questionable in the utilization of shorn hair....

Smith states that there was a medical student from the University of Jena during the period of the war who was doing his medical dissertation on the correlation between skin tattooing and

[Page 42 of Verdict]

criminality, for which he used examples of inmates in the Buchenwald concentration camp.  In this connection tattooed skin did have a possible use, although it was taken from prisoners who had already died.  Since the use of body parts of deceased persons for medical research and instruction, with the permission of the deceased person or his relatives, is not considered unethical, one needs to know under what conditions the skin was taken.

L:  So the legend has at least a kernel of truth.

R:  One can start with that assumption.  Whether in the kernel there is something immoral, however, I would like to leave as unproven, an open question for the time being.

       dd) Rudolf’c Chapter “2.19: The Holocaust Never Happened” discusses the heading of a promotional placard for the Berlin Holocaust Memorial.  Rudolf takes the title of his chapter from the slogan of the promotional placard for the memorial, an “original and provocative advertising campaign and the most gigantic foot in mouth of all time.”  Passages from page 159 read as follows.

“R:  ... The no less amazing first two sentences of small print on the poster, which could be read only be someone standing close to it, originally read ‘There are still many who claim this.  In 20 years there will be even more...’

R:  Possibly due to protests over how anyone could be sure that there would be even more in 20 years, this text was altered a short time later to read ‘There are still many who claim this.  In 20 years there could be even more...’

R:  Over a thousand of these posters were supposed to be pasted all over Germany, and an advertising campaign running parallel to this in the press and television, along with half a million free postcards, were supposed to familiarize all Germans with this theme...  Hardly had the campaign been publicly announced, when a loud howl of protest was heard, and the entire campaign was quickly called off.  ‘Taken down...  Holocaust Poster Had False Friends... The donation poster for the Holocaust memorial in Berlin, which met with approval from Revisionists, will be taken down as quickly as possible!’ read the report of the German Press Agency on 7 June 2001.

L:  A classic case of shooting yourself in the foot.  You might expect Revisionists to put up posters like that.

[Page 43 of Verdict]

R:  In that case they would hang the Revisionists next to them.  Be that as it may, you do realize that the whole controversy over the sacred Holocaust is not without humor, if you haven’t forgotten how to laugh.

L:  How did the creators of this advertising campaign come to admit that in 20 years, there will be more people who do not believe in ‘Holocaust?’

R:  The impetus was the anxiety that people will forget what allegedly happened back then, if ‘Remembrance’ is not kept alive by constant reminding.  And whoever forgets turns into a ‘denier.’  The

Berlin memorial is of course intended to combat such forgetfulness.

L:  The anxiety is based on the fact that the generation who experienced that time, including witnesses, will have died off in 20 yers.  Then there will no longer by anything that can be used as rebuttal against the deniers.

 

R:  Do you think the number of those who deny the French Revolution likewise increased at the end of the 19th Century, because the generation that experienced it had died out?

L:  I don’t understand your question.

R:  Well, every generation dies out.  If our reliable knowledge of history were dependent on witnesses, there could be no reliable history older than a human lifetime.  So my question is: does the number of ‘deniers’ of the history of any epoch always increase just because the eyewitnesses die out?

L:  I can’t believe that.

R:  Then, why make an exception for ‘Holocaust?’  If the knowledge about an event is based only on witnesses, and if no other traces survive the ravages of time, what is the value of witness testimony?

I would even turn the issue around.  Our exact knowledge of any historical event normally increases with the time elapsed.  This true, not in spite of the fact that contemporary witnesses die, but rather because they die out.  This is because the participants in historical events always have personal interests, and for that reason their accounts tend to be distorted.  Overcoming the tendency to distortion is usually possible only when one no longer has to take into account these persons and their lobby groups, particularly when the persons or lobby groups are wealthy and influential.

Thus if the statement is correct that in 20 years there will be even more people who are of the opinion that ‘the Holocaust never happened,’ then the reasons for this must lie not in the unbelievers, but rather in our increasing discoveries about ‘Holocaust’ as well as the fading power and influence of those persons and groups that have strong, non objective interests regarding the historiography of ‘Holocaust.’

[Page 44 of Verdict]

L:  So the admission that there will be even more unbelievers in 20 years is like a second shot in the foot.

R:  Exactly.  This is because, with their prediction that in 20 years there will be even more ‘diabolical Auschwitz deniers,’ they are indirectly conceding the lack of plausibility of their evidence and arguments.  As a substitute for rational argument, a sea of concrete tombstones like the Berlin Holocaust Memorial is about as intellectually convincing as a whack on the backside.

       ee) Under “2.20: The Holocaust Industry” (page 161), Rudolf continues as follows.

R:  Following on the heels of the spectacle surrounding the Berlin Holocaust Memorial at the beginning of 2001 came the German translation of the book The Holocaust Industry by the Jewish American political scientist Prof. Norman Finkelstein.  Whereas the US media remained silent about this book, the exact opposite occurred in Germany.  The success of the book and the huge echo from it that resonated throughout the German media had one cause that I venture to express here: the Germans are fed up with being constantly cudgeled with ‘Holocaust.’   Professor Finkelstein acted as a presssure release valve because, as an American and a Jew, he could express what no one in Germany dared say.  The gist of Finkelstein’s book is:  Jews lie and exaggerate regarding ‘Holocaust’ for financial and political advantage.

L:  As a German non Jew, you can’t say that.

R:  You can say it to yourself in secret, or you can say it in public with the prospect of promptly breathing prison air.  Even Finkelstein, who is a Jew both of whose parents were interned at Auschwitz, did not exactly escape unscathed.  He lost his teaching position in New York and he is being sued for sander in France.

L:  And you can’t claim Finkelstein among ‘deniers’ since both his parents are Holocaust survivors.

R:  Finkelstein is not a ‘Holocaust’ specialist.  In that respect it would not be useful to claim him.  But he certainly put his finger on the problem and showed how highly political the subject is, and how it is exploited by powerful Jewish lobby groups.  His statements about the unreliability of many witnesses can be accepted or rejected.  The fact is that Finkelstein has tackled the subject of ‘Holocaust’ in a controversial and sensational manner.  That’s all I want to say here. 

       ff)  Under “2.23: Growing Confusion,” the following passage is found on page 179.

R:  In Goldhagen’s book, which develops the notion that Germans are genetically conditioned, mass murdering anti-Semites, he advanced a similar thesis, including downgrading the gas chambers to secondary importance: ‘...gassing was really epiphenomenal to the German slaughter of Jews.’  In an interview that he granted a Vienna magazine, he declared: ‘The industrial extermination of the Jews is for me not the core issue of the definition of Holocaust...  The gas chambers are a symbol.  But it is nonsense to believe that the Holocaust would not have happened without gas chambers.’  Of course, that doesn’t fit the notions of the high priests of gas chambers such as Robert Redeker and Claude Lanzmann, who characterized the demystification of the gas chambers as a catastrophe. 

       c)  “Third Lecture:  Material and Documentary Evidence”

                   aa)  In Chapter “3.3:  The ‘Final Solution’ to the Jewish Problem,’ Rudolf states that the expression Endlösung der Judenfrage (Final Solution to the Jewish Problem) found in bureaucratic documents of the Third Reich did not refer to murder  but rather deportation of Jews.  On page 194 of Lectures we read the following.

R:  Following the so-called “Crystal Night” of Nov. 8, 1938, Jews first began arriving in the camps simply because they were Jews. However, nearly all of these were released after a short time. The changeover to the so-called “Final Solution of the Jewish Question” and mass deportations to the camps did not occur until the beginning of the Russian campaign in summer 1941.

L: Then you are admitting the irrefutable: there was a “Final Solution!”

R: Of course there was, and now we are coming to the real subject of our lecture.  The National Socialists spoke quite specifically about the “Final Solution.” It is well known that from the outset they favored the removal of Jews from Germany.  All historians agree that until shortly before the invasion of Russia, the Jewish policy of the Third Reich was not directed toward extermination at all. Rather, it was to encourage as many Jews as possible to emigrate from the German sphere of influence.  To accomplish this, Hermann Göring commissioned Reinhard Heydrich to organize the Reichszentrale für jüdische Auswanderung (Central Reich Office for Jewish Emigration) with the goal of “encouraging Jewish emigration by all means available.”  However, Germany’s enormous territorial conquests beginning in the early summer of 1940 drastically changed the situation. Huge numbers of Jews in Poland, France, and other countries had come under German jurisdiction, while the war made emigration much more difficult. For this reason, Heydrich informed Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop on June 24, 1940, that it was now necessary to subject the

[Page 46 of Verdict]

overall problem to a “territorial solution.”  In response to this directive, the Foreign Ministry developed the so-called Madagascar Plan, which provided for deportation to Madagascar of all Jews living in the German sphere of influence.

L: But why Madagascar? That sounds so exotic fantastic.

R: Madagascar was a French colony and therefore, following the defeat of France, an “object for negotiation.” Palestine, in contrast, was under British control; and besides, the National Socialists were not particularly interested in alienating their potential Arab allies by creating Israel. It is a fact that these plans were seriously considered and not completely abandoned until the beginning of

1942, when they were overridden by decisions in the context of the notorious Wannsee Conference.  The so-called “Final Solution” was introduced by a directive written by Hermann Göring dated July 31, 1941, when Germany was expecting the momentary collapse of the Soviet Union following colossal early successes of the Wehrmacht in the east:

“As supplement to the directive already given to you by the edict of Jan. 14, 1939, to solve the Jewish question through emigration or evacuation in the most favorable way according to the prevailing conditions, I hereby instruct you to make all necessary organizational and material preparations for an overall solution to the Jewish question in the German sphere of influence in Europe. Insofar as the responsibilities of other authorities are affected, they are to be involved as well.  I further instruct you to promptly provide me with an overall conceptual plan regarding the organizational and material requirements for carrying out the desired final solution to the Jewish question.”

L: Well there is no mention of murder.

R: To the contrary: Governmental policy from Jan. 14, 1939, until the summer of 1941 was in fact directed towards emigration and deportation. Heydrich’s original mission was not superseded by his new directive, it was rather “supplemented,” that is to say, expanded territorially. In 1939 his activities had been restricted to the Reich, but after the summer of 1941 they were extended to nearly all of Europe. This is exactly what the Göring directive prescribed: developing an expanded plan that would provide for emigration and evacuation of all Jews from the German sphere of influence.

L: And did Göring still have Madagascar in mind as destination, or was he already thinking about Russia?

R: The document does not say anything about that. From Goebbels’ diary we know that as early as August 1941, Hitler was talking about deporting the Jews to the East.  After that, references to Russia as a destination appear more and more frequently....

[Page 47 of Verdict]

...The Madagascar plan was definitively abandoned after the Wannsee Conference in February 1942.  However, the decision to deport Jews to the east must have been made still earlier, since Himmler on Oct. 23, 1941, had ordered “that effective immediately, the emigration of Jews has to be prevented.”  On the very next day, Oct. 24, 1941, police chief Kurt Daluege gave a directive for the evacuation of Jews according to which “Jews shall be evacuated to the East in the district around Riga and Minsk.” In a discussion in the Führer headquarters on the following day, Oct. 25, 1941, Hitler referred to his speech before the Reichstag of Jan. 30, 1939, in which he had predicted the extermination of European Jewry in case of war.  He mentioned the more drastic policy, now going into effect, of deporting the European Jews to the swampy regions of Russia.

L: Well it certainly looks as though Hitler’s order for the change in the final solution was given in October 1941.

R: That could well be. The succession of documents indicating a territorial solution continues without interruption. On Nov. 6, 1941, Heydrich mentioned his directive to prepare for “the final solution” which he had received in January 1939 and which he had characterized as “immigration or evacuation.” The new goal of a “territorial final solution” was discussed during the Wannsee Conference. In its important passages, the protocol reads as follows:

‘Another possible solution of the problem has now replaced emigration.  It is the evacuation of the Jews to the east, provided that the Fuehrer gives the appropriate approval in advance.  These actions are, however, only to be considered provisional, but practical experience is already being collected which is of the greatest importance in relation to the future final solution of the Jewish question.’

L: According to that, what happened during the war was not the Final Solution, but merely a provisional measure.

R: That is certainly true as far as the protocol is concerned, and it agrees with what is found in numerous other documents of that period. Here are some more examples...

This is followed by quotations from various documents and explanations that the words “evacuation” and “deportation” were not code words for the murders of Jews, according to Rudolf’s concept.  He also explains why this is so.

[Page 48 of Verdict]

               bb) Under “3.4.5 Freiluftverbrennungen” (Incinerations in Open Trenches), Rudolf states the following concerning the question of whether victims of mass gassings could have been burned in trenches in the open air, on page 224.

“L:  I have another question regarding trench incinerations.  If the area around the Birkenau camp is as swampy as you say, is it even possible to dig a trench several meters deep0 without hitting ground water?

R:  That is the main argument against incineration trenches.  Two expert studies, made independently of each other, did in fact demonstrate that the ground water level in and around Birkenau was just a foot or two below ground level between 1941 and 1944.  Any deep trenches would have quickly filled with water.

L:  And how does one burn corpses under water?

R:  Maybe with SS black magic.

L:  That’s not funny!  Not only are you denying mass murder, you are making jokes as well.

R:  Well, do you have a better explanation?

       cc.  Under the heading “3.4.6: Chemical Analysis (Page 227 of Lectures), Rudolf begins by explaining that at the time of the Second World War, Cyclon B  was a widely used pesticide.  The following passages are from pages

“L:  So Cyclon B was nothing more than the leading pesticide?

 

R:  That’s right.  Today we have a wide assortment of highly effective pesticides that did not exist in those days.  One of the most dangerous pests fought with Cyclon B was the common louse, the principal carrier of typhus.  This disease was expecially prevalent in eastern Europe during both world wars, causing countless deaths among civilians as well as soldiers.  It was a major problem everywhere people were crowded together, especially in prisoner of war and concentration camps.  The camp administration at Auschwitz struggled desperately against an epidemic which broke out in the  summer of 1942 and was not brought under control until the end of 1943.  This struggle has been described numerous times on the literature on the subject.  The typhus epidemics that broke out in the hopelessly crowded camps toward the end of the war were just as catastrophic.  We will discuss them later on.  Until the beginning of 1944, fumigation with Cyclon B wass the most effective method for controlling these epidemics.  Other, less effective methods were delousing with steam or hot air.

L:  According to that, Cyclon B was a life saver, if used properly.

[Page 49 of Verdict]

R:  Exactly.  There is general agreement among acknowledted historians that Cyclon B was extensively used in concentration camps to improve hygiene.  It did in fact save millions of lives.  It is less widely known that typhus bearing lice were used by Polish partisans as a biological weapon against the German occupation during the war.

L:  You mean, while the Germans were desperately trying to combat typhus epidemics and protect the lives of prisoners and laborers, her enemies were working to spread epidemics?

R:  That’s right.  It is called war.

L:  And then when the war was supposed to be over, Germany’s enemies exploited typhus victims to accuse the Germans of mass murder?  They claimed that Cyclon B, used to combat the disease, was a weapon used to commit mass murder?

R:  Yes.  It is called psychological warfare.  Remember that the truth is the first casualty in every war...”

               dd)  Chapter “3.4.8. Documentary Evidence,” on page 273 of Lectures, deals with, among other things, a document of the SS Central Construction Office that reads: “At this opportunity we remind you of an order dated 3 March 1943, concerning the delivery of a gas door 100/192 for Underground Morgue I of Crematory III, Building 3a, which is to be made in the exactly same type and size as the basement door for Crematory II on the opposite side, with peep hole and double 8cm glass, rubber seals and iron fittings.”  Rudolf gives the following explanation of the purpose this door was supposed to serve.

“R:  These cellars were in fact used as air raid shelters for prisoners, as several witnesses have emphasized.  This explains other, lesser “criminal indicators” as well, with which we cannot deal in detail here.  In a number of articles, Samuel Crowell demonstrated the extent to which the SS did in fact provide air raid protection for the prisoners as well as themselves.  But whatever the purpose of the doors: they were not made of solid steel, and solid steel doors would have been indispensable for any chamber used to commit mass murder.

L:  Then the SS used “gastight” doors to protect prisoners from air raids?

R:  Or as doors to delousing chambers, which were likewise used to save the lives of prisoners.

L:  Well then, once again a device to save lives, which is “gastight doors,” is redefined as evidence an indicator of mass murder.

[Page 50 of Verdict]

R:  That’s right – just like Cyclon B. 

       ee)  Under the heading “3.6 Belzec and Sobibor” on page 295 of Lectures we read the following.

“L:  After the graves were located through the drillings, did anyone actually exhume the mass graves and examine their contents?

R:  Surprisingly, no.

L:  But that would have been the only possibility of determining the accurate size of the graves and number of the corpses in them.

R:  It appears that after gigantic mass graves containing hundreds of thousands of victims or their remains were not located, there was little interest to do anything else.  Anyway, in 2004 a monument was built at Belzec, which means that from now on, no more  research could be carried out there, nothing that would disturb the dead.  Since that time nothing can be done except grieve, pray and sob.

               ff)  In “Chapter 3.9, Mountains of Corpses,” we find this subtitle under a photograph of victims of Allied air rades on page 311:

“The true Holocaust.  Victims:  600,000 Germans killed by bombings.  Perpetrators:  the Western Allies.”

d)  “Fourth Lecture:  Witness Testimonies and Confessions”

                   aa)  Chapter “4.1, Confessions of NS Leaders During the War” has to do with “several quotations of leading National Socialists that are frequently cited in orthodox historiography as evidence for the Holocaust.”  On page 342 we read the following.

“R:  Lastly, I refer to a Himmler speech of Oct. 4, 1943, which is generally referred to as his “secret speech.” The following is an excerpt:

‘I am thinking now of the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people. It is one of those things that is easy to say. ‘The Jewish people will be exterminated,’ says every Party comrade; ‘that is quite clear, it is in our program: Ausschaltung (disengagement) from the Jews; extermination; that is what we are doing.’ And then they all come along, these 80 million

good Germans, and every one of them has his decent Jew. Of course, it is quite clear that the others are swine, but this one is a first-class Jew. Of all those who speak this way, not one has looked on; not one has lived through it. Most of you know what it means when 100 bodies lie together, when 500 lie there, when 1,000 lie there. To have gone through this, and at the same time, apart from exceptions caused by human weaknesses, to have remained a proper man, that has made us hard. This is a chapter of glory in our history which has not been written.  It never shall be written, since we know how hard it would be for us if we still had the Jews as secret saboteurs, agitators, and slander-mongers, among us now, in every town, during the bombing raids, with all the suffering and deprivations of the war.  We would probably already be in the same situation as in 1916/17 if we still had the Jews in the body politic of the German people...  We had the moral right, we had the duty to our own people, to kill this nation that wanted to kill us.”

L:  Here we have an explanation that evacuation was a camouflage word for physical extermination.

R: No, it’s the other way around.  For Himmler, “extermination” was a synonym for evacuation, since the Party Program of the NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers Party) mentioned nothing about the physical extermination of the Jews.  It stated that they could not be citizens, which is equivalent to expelling them from Germany.

L: And what about the bodies mentioned by Himmler?

R: This passage could relate to Germans with their “decent Jews,” who did not understand that hard measures had to be taken against the Jews, since they had never seen hundreds or thousands of (German) bodies lying side by side: “Of all those who speak

this way, not one has looked on; not one has lived through it.”  These obviously could not have been Jewish bodies, since if the Germans with their “first class Jews” had seen hundreds of Jewish bodies, they would have been even less sympathetic to anti-Jewish measures.  They might even have taken to the barricades. But Himmler’s audience, who were soldiers –- all high ranking SS and police leaders –- understood the anti-Jewish measures, because

they had seen thousands of these bodies. But seeing Jewish bodies wouldn’t have made them more inclined to accept anti-Jewish measures either. You only accept harsh measures when you are convinced that they are justified as punishment. But, punishment for what? Punishment for the mass deaths of human beings; punishment for having started the war.  He was making the point that attention should be paid to Hitler’s frequently repeated warning to the effect that: ‘If the international Jewish financiers inside and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then woe to them!’  Hitler had said in a speech on 25 October 1941: ‘This race of criminals has the two million dead of the (first) World War on their conscience, and now hundreds of thousands more!  Let no one say to me ‘How can we ship them off to the swamps?’  Who is concerned about our people?  It will be a good thing if world Jewry is afraid we are going to eradicate them!’ 

L:  There’s that word again: ‘eradicate.’

R:  That’s right, but it is used in conjunction with ‘ship them off to the swamps,’ which can only have meant the swamps of Belarus, in which German soldiers were also bogged down at that same time.

It was these (German) bodies, the victims of the war, that were supposed to make the Germans understand anti Jewish measures and that would make Himmler’s listeners understand why hard measures against Jews were allegedly necessary.  This is why Himmler and his listeners adopted such a merciless attitude in those days.

L: But at the end of the day, Himmler really claimed that he had the moral right to eradicate the Jews.

R: That’s what it says, but it makes little sense, since not even the most extreme National Socialist ever claimed that the Jews had planned to commit genocide against the entire German people. The National Socialist ideology and propaganda spoke of Jewish bolshevism and Jewish high finance, both of which were attempting to subjugate and enslave the German people.  If reciprocity

was the goal, then it is incorrect to interpret this passage literally, because Himmler speaks in the past tense: “we had the duty to kill these people…’ But even according to mainstream historiography, the murder of the Jews was by no means a fait accompli in October 1943. At that time there were still millions of Jews in Europe.  The Hungarian Jews had yet bee disturbed; in Poland, nobody had yet been deported from the large ghetto of Lodz.  Three quarters of French Jews remained in France throughout the war, and almost 90% of the Jews with French citizenship were spared from deportation.

Rudolf then discusses the possibility that a primitive recording of the speech that was introduced as evidence before the International Military Tribunal might well have been a falsification.  The chapter ends on page 345 as follows:

“R:  But even if you assume that the Himmler speech was held in the alleged form, C. Mattogno correctly shows that, here again, Himmer’s speech must be viewed in the context of al his otheer speeches and documents, for example, his declaration at Bad Tölz on 23 November 1942:

 ‘...The Jewish question in Europe has completely changed.  The Führer once said in a Reichstag speech: if Jewry triggers an international war, for example to exterminate the Aryan people, then it will not be the Aryans who will be exterminated, but Jewry.  The Jews have been resettled outside Germany, they are living here, in the

[Page 53 of Verdict]

East, and are working on our roads, railways, etc.  This is  a consequential policy, but it is conducted without cruelty.’

R:  In general it is clear that the speeches and diary entries of leaders of the Third Reich can be interpreted correctly only in the context of all their speeches.  And even then these statements of leading National Socialist politicians represent at most the views or intentions of the speakers who make them.  They cannot provide specific information about what actually happened in those days.”

               bb)  In Chapter 4.2.4., “Deliberate Exaggerations and Lies,” Rudolf includes a photograph of former Auschwitz inmate Dr. Rudolf Vrba with the subtitle “Vrba in the year 2000: the smirk of a liar” (page 361).  In the preceding text, Rudolf states why he considers reports of the existence of homicial gas chambers at Auschwitz to be unreliable and why he (Rudolf) considers Vrba to be a liar. 

               cc)  Chapter 4.5.1:  “Collection of Lies” reads as follows:

R: The following collection of Holocaust absurdities is being constantly expanded as part of our contest to seek out and catalog such absurdities. You can join in the contest and win a prize if you find additional absurdities in official documents, literature, or media reports. The results of this contest appear regularly

in the periodicals Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung and The Revisionist.  Some of these assertions have now been rejected by established historians, while others continue to be repeated as before.  All these assertions consist of similar absurdities and perversions, so everyone has to adopt his own criteria and reasons for what to believe and what to reject.  I will offer no more commentary,  I simply ask you to consider some of the absurdities the Germans have been forced to unquestioningly accept as “common knowledge” and “manifestly obvious” since the end of the war:

– Fountains of blood gushing from mass graves.  This evidence was given by prominent witnesses such as Elie Wiesel and Adolf Eichmann. Adalbert Rückerl, longtime head of the ZStL (Zentralstelle, Central Office) also spread this absurd story, which was dutifully carried along by the Frankfurt Auschwitz Court.

– Exploding mass graves (a variant of the above); freely invented by A. Eichmann.

–Acid baths or boiling water baths for the preparation of human skeletons at Auschwitz; alleged by Filip MuÅNller.

– Injections into prisoners’ eyes to change eye color at Auschwitz; alleged by Hermann Langbein.

[Page 54 of Verdict]

– The production of shrunken heads from prisoner corpses, a charge made by the International Military Tribunal and also alleged by Hermann Langbein.

– The ladling of boiling human fat from open cremation ditches; reported by R. Höss, H. Tauber, F. Müller, and repeated by H. Langbein.

– An SS man voluntarily jumped into a gas chamber at the last second, out of sympathy with a Jewish mother and child, in order to die with them; a tale that originated with Emmi Bonhoeffer.

– The production of soap made of human fat and ceremonial burial of such soap; alleged by Simon Wiesenthal and SS Judge Konrad Morgen.

– Subterranean mass murders in huge tunnels using high voltage; S. Szende’s famous story about Belzec; Simon Wiesenthal’s similar yarn, IMT’s allegations concerning Bergen-Belsen.

– Murders with vacuum chambers, steam, or chlorine gas; a variety of eye witnesses “reports” about Treblinka.

–A miracle of German improvisation: Obliteration without a trace of mass graves containing hundreds of thousands of corpses in just a few weeks; allegations by countless witnesses and “reports.”

– Mobile gas chambers in Treblinka which dumped their victims directly into cremation pits, alleged by the Polish Resistance and taken seriously by mainstream Holocaust historian Prof. Peter Longerich.

–A delayed-action poison gas that allowed victims to march out of the gas chambers and into mass graves, alleged by the Polish Resistance and taken seriously by P. Longerich.

–Conveyor belt electrocutions, reported by Pravda after the liberation of Auschwitz on Feb. 2, 1945.

– Cremation of corpses in blast furnaces, a rumor spread by German resistance fighter H. von Moltke during the war and later by Pravda, taken seriously by P. Longerich.

– SS bicycle races in the Birkenau gas chamber, described in newspaper Nürnberger Nachrichten quoting a witness.

–Disposal of corpses with explosives; one of the confessions made by Rudolf Höss under torture, taken seriously by prosecutors A. Rückerl and H. Grabitz.

– Clouds of blue smoke after gassings with hydrogen cyanide (hydrogen cyanide is colorless); reported by SS man Richard Böck.

– 12-year old boy giving heroic speech to other children just before gassings, alleged by F. Friedman.

– Stuffing the mouths of victims with concrete in order to make them stop singing patriotic and Communist songs, alleged at IMT.

[Page 55 of Verdict]

– Singing of Polish national anthem and the Communist “Internationale” by victims in gas chambers; alleged by F. Müller, also repeated in testimony by H. G. Adler, H. Langbein, and E. Lingens-Reiner.

–Quick-assembly gas chambers for catching and immediately gassing escaped Jews; reported by A. Eichmann after extensive “treatment” by his Israeli tormentors.

– Execution by drinking hydrogen cyanide (hydrogen cyanide evaporates so quickly that everyone present would be killed); decision by Hannover District Court, taken seriously by Heiner Lichtenstein.

–Muscle tissue cut from the legs of executed prisoners jerked so powerfully that it caused buckets to jerk convulsively, physically impossible nonsense spread by F. Müller.

– Zyklon B gas released in gas chambers at Auschwitz and other places by means of shower heads or steel bottles, reports of commissions at Dacha and Auschwitz as well as Holocaust historian Wolfgang Benz.

–Pumping prisoners full of water until they exploded.

– Child survived six gassings in the nonexistent gas chamber at Bergen-Belsen, reported by Moshe Peer in Canadian newspaper.

–Woman survived three gassings because Nazis kept running out of gas; witness testimony reported in the same Canadian newspaper, also alleged by British politician Michael Howard.

– Fairy tale about a bear and an eagle kept in a cage that devoured a Jew a day, testimony about Buchenwald.

– SS operation in a crematory that made sausage from human flesh, interpreting “RIW” as “reine Judenwurst” (Pure Jewish Sausage); alleged by David Olére, Auschwitz fantasy painter.

–Lampshades, book bindings, gloves, saddles, riding breeches, house shoes, ladies’ purses, etc. made of human skin; alleged by IMT and repeated during trial of Ilse Koch.

– Pornography projected on screens made of human skin, likewise alleged during IMT.

–Mummified human thumbs used by Ilse Koch as light switches, published in New York Times.

– SS father tossed babies in the air and shot them like clay pigeons while his 9 year old daughter applauded and yelled “Do it again Papa!”; alleged at IMT.

– Hitler Youth used Jewish children for target practice; alleged at IMT.

– Railroad cars disappeared on ramp at underground crematory at Auschwitz; alleged by SS Judge Konrad Morgen and quoted by Danuta Czech, the Polish historian at Auschwitz.

[Page 56 of Verdict]

– Prisoners were compelled to lick steps clean and remove garbage with their lips; alleged at IMT.

–Woman at Auschwitz first artificially inseminated and then gassed; alleged at IMT.

– Torture of prisoners with special mass produced “torture kit” manufactured by Krupp; alleged at IMT.

– Torture of prisoners by shooting them with wooden bullets in order to make them talk, according to World Jewish Congress.

– Flogging of prisoners by means of special flogging machine; alleged at IMT.

– Murdering prisoners with poisoned lemonade; alleged at IMT.

– Mass murder by felling trees: victims compelled to climb trees which were then cut down; alleged at IMT by Eugon Kogon.

–Boys murdered by forcing them to eat sand; alleged by Rudolf Rederand taken seriously by Holocaust historian Martin Gilbert.

–Gassings of Soviet prisoners of war in a stone quarry; alleged at IMT.

– Prisoners first flogged to death, then autopsied to determine cause of death; alleged at IMT.

– Crushing skulls by means of pedal driven skull-crushing machine; alleged at IMT.

– 840,000 Soviet prisoners of war murdered at Sachsenhausen camp and cremated in mobile crematories; alleged at IMT.

– Instant obliteration of 20,000 Jews in Silesia using atom bombs; alleged at IMT.

L: Would you repeat that, please?

R: I am quoting the court record of interrogation of Reich Minister Albert Speer, during which U.S. Chief Prosecutor Jackson stated

‘...And certain experiments were also conducted and certain researches conducted in atomic energy, were they not?... Now, I have certain information of an experiment which was carried out

near Auschwitz... The purpose of the experiment was to find a quick and effective way of destroying people without the delay and trouble of shooting and gassing and burning, as it had been carried out... A small village was provisionally erected, with temporary structures, and approximately 20,000 Jews were put in it. By means of this newly invented weapon of destruction [atomic bomb], these

[Page 57 of Verdict]

20,000 people were eradicated almost instantaneously, and in such a way that there was no trace left of them...’  These words were spoken by an American prosecutor whose government was responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

L: That takes your breath away!

R:  Of course this allegation could not be maintained, the lie was too obvious.  But does this give an idea of the credibility of all the other accusations?

L:  If the International Military Tribunal accepted such gigantic lies, what can one believe?

R:  That is the price liars have to pay.  ‘He who tells a thousand lies...’”

               dd) Chapter 4.5.10, “Filip Müller,” begins as follows:

“R:  Filip Müller is one of the gushiest writers and speakers of all the Auschwitz witnesses. In addition, he is literally “living proof” that the members of the socalled Sonderkommando, who according to legend dragged corpses from gas chambers and stuffed them into ovens, were not themselves murdered every few months, as is often claimed. Müller claims to have been a member of this unit from Spring of 1942 until the bitter end.  He made the following statement during the Auschwitz trial at Frankfurt.

‘The chief of the crematory, Moll, once grabbed a child away from its mother. I saw that at Crematory IV. There were two big pits nearby where they were burning corpses. He threw the child into the boiling fat that had collected in the trenches around the pit… There were these two pits near Crematory IV. They were about 40 meters long and six to eight meters wide, with a depth of about two and a half meters. The fat from the corpses would collect at the edge. We had to pour this fat over the corpses.’

L: This is getting monotonous; we have heard it so many times.

R: It’s bad, but Müller did tend to plagiarize others, as I said. 35 years after liberation, Müller finally wrote down his memoirs in a book, the most comprehensive depiction of Auschwitz horrors of all. Among other things there is a heart wrenching scene of a death ceremony held by two thousand condemned Jews just before their execution.  He writes, ‘Suddenly from among the crowd a loud voice could be heard.  An emaciated little man had begun to recite the

[Page 58 of Verdict]

Viddui. First he bent forward, then he lifted his head and arms heavenward and after every sentence, spoken loud and clear, he struck his chest with his fist. Hebrew words echoed round the yard: ‘bogati’ (we have sinned), ‘gazalti’ (we have done wrong to our fellow men), ‘dibarti’ (we have slandered), ‘heevetjti’ (we have been deceitful), ‘verhirschati’ (we have sinned), ‘sadti’ (we have been proud), ‘maradti’ (we have been disobedient). ‘My God, before ever I was created I signified nothing, and now that I am created I am as if I had not been created. I am dust in life, and how much more so in death. I will praise you everlastingly, Lord, God everlasting, Amen! Amen!’ The crowd of 2,000 repeated every word, even though perhaps not all of them understood the meaning of this Old Testament confession. Up to that moment, most of them had managed to control themselves. But now almost everyone was weeping. There were heart-rending scenes among members of families. But their tears were nottears of despair. These people were in a state of deep religious emotion...  They had put themselves in God’s hands. Strangely enough the SS men present did not intervene, but left them alone.  Oberscharführer Voss stood near by with his cronies, impatiently consulting his watch. The prayers had reached a climax: the crowd was reciting the prayer for the dead which traditionally is said only by surviving relatives for a member of the family who has died. But since after their death there would be nobody left to say the Kaddish for them, they, the doomed, recited it while they were still alive. And then they walked into the gas chamber.’

R: This is a good example of the category of witness testimony in which victims in gas chambers give incendiary speeches or sing patriotic or Communist songs.

L: But such things certainly do happen. A lot of people have solemnized their own executions.

R: Or consider this holo-erotic scene, another category of gas chamber testimony:  Müller, who is weary of life, decides he wants to die in the gas chamber with naked young women.  ‘Suddenly a few girls, naked and in the full bloom of youth, came up to me.  They stood in front of me without a word, gazing at me deep in thought and shaking their heads uncomprehendingly. At last one of them plucked up courage and spoke to me: ‘We understand that you have chosen to die with us of your own free will, and we have come to tell you that we think your decision pointless, for it helps no one...  We must die, but you still have a chance to save your life. You have to return to the camp and tell everybody about our last hours...’ Before I could make an answer to her spirited speech, the girls took hold of me and dragged me protesting to the door of the gas chamber. There they gave me a last push which made me land in the middle of the group of SS men.’

L: If it was so easy to shove Müller out of the gas chamber, why couldn’t they shove their own way out?

[Page 59 of Verdict]

R: That’s a good question. Then comes the question of how likely it is that a group of naked girls facing mass execution would behave that way. And while we areon the subject of Holo-pornography, let me mention another instance:

‘Suddenly they stopped in their tracks, attracted by a strikingly handsome woman with blue-black hair who was taking off her right shoe. The woman, as soon as she noticed that the two men were ogling her, launched into what appeared to be a titillating and seductive strip-tease act. She lifted her skirt to allow a glimpse of thigh and garter.  Slowly she undid her stocking and peeled it off her foot…  She had taken off her blouse and was standing in front of her aroused audience in her brassiere...

R: Sex sells everything; and since this type of Holocaust tale of a sexy woman starting a rebellion appears rather frequently, I would not want to deprive you of this little Holo-porno show.  Müller actually stole this theme from an anonymous “report” by an unknown Polish officer that was published by Henry Morgenthau’s propaganda agency, War Refugee Board.  From there it spread like a metastacising cancer into the stories of many Holocaust novelists. Eugen Kogon, for instance, tells his version as follows:

‘The Rapportführer Schillinger made an Italian dancer perform naked in front of the crematory. At an opportune moment she approached him, yanked his pistol away, and shot him down. In the ensuing melee the woman was likewise shot, and so she escaped death by gassing.’

R: You see, if many witnesses tell a similar story, that doesn’t mean it is true. It just means that they had access to similar sources. But now let’s get serious again...

               ee)  Chapter 4.5.13, “Adolf Rögner,” reads as follows on page 465: 

“R: It is hardly worthwhile to discuss the professional denouncer and convicted serial liar Adolf Rögner again separately (see p. 365). Because some of his statements complete the picture of the Holo-pornographer, however, I will add a few more examples of his skill in lying. In the course of his first interrogation he stated the following.

‘In his personal behavior, he [camp commandant Rudolf Höss] got carried away by sexual excesses with women in the bunker, whereby several became pregnant, which inmate physicians were forced to interrupt.’

 

R: But this is just a prelude.  In my opinion, Rögner’s best testimony was the following.

‘In interrogations, Unterscharführer Quackernack... used primarily the torture of crucifixion, stabbing the testicles with steel needles, and burning tampons in the vagina.’

L: More sado-masochistic Holo-porn. Rögner was not only a pathological liar but a pervert as well.

[Page 60 of Verdict]

“R: People who are constantly sitting in prison for fraud, forgery, and perjury tend to be sexually deprived. And while we are on the subject of perversion, consider Rögner’s following fantasy about children.

‘... The smallest children of arriving prisoners were yanked from

their parents’ arms and thrown on a big pile of forty or forty-five infants, those on the bottom of the heap being crushed and smothered.  From there the infants were tossed in a lorry and then thrown alive into roaring crematory ovens.’  He reported that, because of the brutality of the SS, children became so desperate on the ramp that they hugged the legs of the SS men and were then shot by them.

L: Panicky children hugging the legs of someone of whom they are deathly afraid?!

R: Here is a scene described by Rögner that is a classic of Holocaust atrocity propaganda:

‘After the arrival of another prisoner transport at Auschwitz II,  Boger took one of the babies that were lying on the floor, unwrapped it from its diapers so that it was completely naked, grabbed it by the legs and hit its head against the iron edge of the freightcar, at first lightly and then with ever greater force, until the head was completely squashed. Then he twisted around backward the arms and legs of the dead child and threw it to the side.’

R:  ...Rögner claimed to have witnessed this same scene on another

occasion, while hiding behind tree at the ramp in Birkenau…  No such tree existed.”

               ff)  Chapter 4.5.15, “Elie Wiesel,” begins with the following passage (page 469 of Lectures).

R:  In conclusion of our consideration of incredible testimonies, and as introduction to testimonies that are more credible, we will not consider the statements of our last witness.  Since Wiesel does not claim that homicidal gas chambers existed at Auschwitz (see Table 25 page 427), he had to come up with a different way of exterminating his fellow Jews.

L:  But he does claim that flames shot out of the crematory chimneys.

R:  Thanks for the additional detail.  In order to murder his victims, Wiesel hit upon the idea of having the victims of Auschwitz burned alive in huge open fires...”

         e) “Fifth Lecture:  On Science and Freedom,” page 487.

               aa)  Under the heading “5.1. Pseudo Science” we find, on page 487 a table called “Test to Determine Pseudo Science” which compares “Revisionism” and “Holocaustism.” 

[Page 61 of Verdict]

Under Question 1 we read “Do representatives of the discipline refer to history, claiming that the matter has long been known and therefore must be true?’  In the space “Holocaustism” we find “Common Knowledge is Holocaustism’s sharpest sword.  Since World War II, everything has been known to everyone and is therefore irrevocably true.”  To Question 4, “Is the only offered evidence of anecdotal nature?” we read in the space for “Holocaustism” we read the answer “The evidence given by Holocaustism is almost exclusively anecdotal, given by survivors.”

               bb)  In Chapter 5.3., “Censorship,” we read the following on page 500 of Lectures.

“R:  ...In Europe, censorship of Revisionism is quite differentiated.  For example, many states such as Italy, Portugal, England, Ireland and the Scandinavian countries do not impose censorship.  Most of the eastern and southeastern European countries do not have censorship laws, but there are initiatives underway to change this.  For example, any country that wishes to join NATO must have on its books some law the criminalize “Holocaust Denial.”  In January 1999 Poland enacted such laws and was allowed to join NATO in April 1999.  Spain and Holland have such laws but do not enforce them rigorously.  Holland perhaps does not enforce its law because no Revisionist movement as such exists there.  Vigorously enforced laws are to be found in Poland, France, Belgium, and the German speaking countries.  Austria punishes Revisionist statements with a maximum of ten years, Germany with a maximum of five years, as does Israel.  Poland and Switzerland punish Revisionist statements with up to three years, followed by France and Belgium with a maximum of one year imprisonment.

L:  What -- Poland and Israel also punish Revisionists?

R:  Of course.  You can discern a pattern here.  All countries that need the Auschwitz Lie for their own survival have appropriate laws to protect it.  But other countries have developed no less effetive ways to protect this amighty taboo.  For example, through their human rights tribunals, Canada and Australia have developed a justice system that operates independently of the criminal justice system and silences dissidents with fines and court orders.  Any violation of such court orders is then a criminal matter and prosecuted as such...

               cc)  Under the heading “5.5. Possible Solutions,” regarding the criminal prosecutions of Revisionists and court rulings on the Manifest Obviousness of Holocaust, Rudolf expounds on what he had presented in the preceding chapters, mainly that human rights organizations do not “raise their voices against such injustice,”  and he also explains why this is so. On page 518  he states the following through “L.”

“L:  I can hardly believe that for over 50 years Germany’s leading citizens in business, publishing, culture or politics, have been nothing but fearful, ignorant or enemies to the German nation.

[Page 62 of Verdict]

How can so many people blindly and slavishly put up with such nonsense?

R:  Let me explain this apparent problem with a historical parallel that was first suggested by Dr. Arnold Butz, which I summarize here.  This historical parallel indicates how matters might well develop for us in future.  I am referring to the so-called “Donation of Constantine,” probably was the most successful forgery in European history.  Around 800 AD, the Catholic Church asserted that Roman Emperor Constantine I, after convertring to Christianity, had handed over his worldly empire, consisting of “...the city of Rome, all Italian provinces, towns, as well as the western regions” and “the four principal holy places of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Constantinople” to the Pope and granted the Pope further privileges...”

This is followed by explanations about the evidence of falsification and the reasons why the forgery was not recognized as such.  Rudolf  then continues on page 519:

“R:  The analogy to the “Holocaust” legend is striking.  The scholars of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, who could not or would not see the obvious, remind us of the academics of our time. In view of the draconian social and criminal threats against dissidents in our day, there is hardly anyone who has broken free of the Pavlovian conditioning and is prepared to be a martyr.  The legend of the Donation was exposed as a forgery at a time when the Papacy was subjected to strong criticism and it was acceptable to criticize the Catholic Church.  Similarly, the “Holocaust” lie will be exposed when those upholding the post World War II order and Zionism either no longer need it or can no longer sustain it.  A further parallel is the excessive attention to detail on Valla’s part, which is quite similar to that of the Revisionists in our time.  In both instances, one can speak of “overkill.” The people of the Renaissance could not understand that the handing over of power from emperor to pope never happened.  Similarly, we today do not understand that millions of “Jewish survivors” were still among us following World War II.  To the perceptive observer, this alone indicates that “Holocaust” never happened.  It is clear that we have to investigate all possible details, which may appear fanciful

to our successors. For example, we are not satisfied with the revelation that the Zyklon B allegedly used in Auschwitz to murder

[Page 63 of Verdict]

Jews in Auschwitz was a mere pest control agent. In fact, we have to exhaustively analyze each and every chemical aspect of this question!

L: You cannot avoid analyzing in detail every assertion made by the official “court” historians!

R: That’s right. This obsession with detailed analysis is to be welcomed.  This is not only because we thereby counter the claim that we have run out of arguments, but more importantly, because we are thus able to offer specialists from all sectors of society a point of entry and a chance to become involved in the controversy.

L: Isn’t the acceptance of persecutions under the Third Reich one of Revisionism’s prerequisites for academic success and acceptance?

R: Absolutely. We have adopted the view that the persecution of the Jews by the National Socialists, according to today’s legal definitions, can be called genocide.  The crime of genocide can occcur even if no physical extermination of Jews occurs – even if there is “only” deprivation of civil rights, deportation, and subsequent damage to property, body, and soul.  According to today’s international law, which became law under Strafprozessordnung  (Criminal Code) Article 220a, “Genocide” is defined and described as: “(1) Any government or individual who intends totally or partially to destroy a national, racial, religious, or ethnic group and thereby 1) Kills members of the group; 2) Causes members of the group to suffer serious physical or mental damage, as defined in Article 226 [serious bodily injury]; 3) Creates situations for the group that cause total or partial physical destruction; 4) Adopts measures that prevent a group from propagating; 5) Forcefully takes children from the group and places them in another group; shall be punished by life in prison.

(2) In less serious cases, Section 1, Numbers 2-5, the incarceration is not less than five years...”

R: Thus, in order to commit genocide you do not have to commit mass murder.

L: But the same Genocide happened to the Germans in East Germany.

R: That is true. The persecution of the Jews, according to revisionist interpretation and under international law, is comparable to what other nations and peoples experienced during World War II. This does not diminish the tragedy the Jews suffered, nor does it lessen its importance.  However, its unique character disappears; and so their fate becomes just another of many such tragedies in human history.  You are not helping a people if you fill their history of persecution with distortions, exaggerations, and lies. The liars are the real threat to the proper memorial of the real victims.  Liars cause their story to not be believed anymore, because people conclude that the whole is nothing but lies.  Revisionists are merely the bearers of news that lies have been told. That is why it is not Revisionists who are a threat to the acceptance and remembrance of persecution, but the liars and officials who cover up for the liars.”

 [Page 64 of Verdict]

III.

Through his deeds enumerated under II. 1. and 2., Rudolf has made himself guilty of Incitement of the Masses and in addition, he has made himself guilty of two instances of Insulting and Disparaging the Memory of the Dead, according to Section 130, Paragraphs 1, Numbers 1 and 2 and Subsections 3, 185, 189, 194, 1 and 2, 52 and 53 of Strafgesetzbuch (Penal Code.)

Furthermore, through one and the same action, he has, specifically and on grounds of separate deliberate decision,

-- by maintaining that the Holocaust was invented by the Jews and others in order to achieve political goals and to financially exploit the non Jewish Germans, in a manner designed to disturb the public peace, to hate a part of the population, namely the Jews living in Germany incited, in addition to attacking the human dignity of others, namely by insulting Jews living in Germany;

-- publicly denied a crime committed under the rule of National Socialism, of the kind described in Section 6 Paragraph 1 of the Penal Code -- the officially organized mass murder of Jews during the Second World War, primarily in gas chambers of concentration camps committed in a manner designed to disturb the public peace; 

-- insulted others, namely the Jews living in Germany, who under the National Socialist tyranny, were persecuted on account of their Jewish derivation and survived the persecution; and

-- disparaged the memory of the dead, namely the Jews murdered in concentration camps.

The conduct of the accused is protected neither by the clause guaranteeing Freedom of Opinion under Basic Law (Article 5, Paragraph 1 of Basic Law nor by the clause guaranteeing Freedom of Scientific Research (Article 5, Paragraph 3 of Basic Law).  The denial of systematic genocide committed against the Jewish population during the Third Reich is not protected by the clause that

[Page 65 of Verdict]

guarantees freedom of opinion, because such denial has been determined to be untrue.  The Basic Law protects whatever, in form and content, can be considered as serious and methodical and designed for the determination of the truth.  This is obviously not the case with the items specified under II.1. 

The mere circumstance that Rudolf  refers in several of his allegations to presumably scientific works and enlists these works (in his defense) does not gain the protection of freedom of scientific research for his allegations, nor do the Lectures on the Holocaust (II.2.) meet these requirements, since they do not represent a serious attempt to establish truth.

Even if one disregards obviously inconclusive argumentations that must have been known to Rudolf, since he is of at least average intelligence, and which therefore suggest that he is concerned solely with the propagation of Revisionist theses, the polemical and cynical remarks and passages (which go beyond mere populistic or pseudoscientific method of presentation, or mere irony) provide evidence of the inadequate seriousness of Rudolf’s conduct.

One example of these polemical and cynical remarks and passages has to do with the circumstance that the Jews were the only ethnic group of Eastern Europe who survived the First World War “essentially without population loss.”  From this circumstance Rudolf concludes that reports of the Jews’ being threatened by hunger, sickness and death in the years following the War were untruthful (see II.2.a.)

Another example is Rudolf’s suggestion that Jewish organizations and the nation of Israel knowingly claimed, for financial and political reasons, an exaggerated number of Holocaust survivors.

Then he takes numbers from the year 2000 as the basis for his calculations, without dealing with the question of possible exaggerations of the number of survivors immediately after the War.  In this way he arrives at the conclusion that “at least half the Jews under Hitler’s control survived.” (See II. w. a) cc)).

IV.

1. a) In determining punishment we proceeded, on both charges, within the context of Section 130 Paragraph 3 of Penal Code.  We took the minimal punishment from within the range prescribed in

[Page 66 of Verdict]

Section 130 Paragraph 1 of Penal Code which resulted in a range

of between three months and five years.

b) In both charges the Court has taken into consideration, in favor of the accused, that he freely admitted his actions, showing no remorse and insisting that his researches and publications were protected by the freedom of scientific rersearch, which he considers applicable to the evidence presented against him.  As exenuating circumstance, we also considered that Rudolf is especially burdened by prison because his wife lives in the USA with their child.

As aggravating factor against him, we considered that he has been previously punished (for these same crimes.)  Following previous punishment, he intensified his activities, which emphasizes exceptional criminal intent and energy.  An additional aggravating factor is that he engaged in several different, alternative criminal activities.  Finally, we considered the distribution over the Internet (of his criminal opinions), which has created the danger that a large audience would be exposed to them.  In this connection we also considered the time during which the criminal contents remained on the Internet.

Under deliberation of the above considerations for and against the accused, the Court hereby pronounces

-- for the offense determined under Count II. 1: a punishment of one year and ten months incarceration; and

-- for the offense determined under Offense II. 2: a punishment of one year and eight months to be appropriate for his offense and his guilt.

c)  In conjuction with Sections 53, 54, of Penal Code,

[Page 67 of Verdict]

the Court combines these two sentences and prounces, a combined sentence of two years and six months.

2.  Rudolf’s book, Lectures on the Holocaust, is hereby banned.

Concerning proceeds from the sale of Lectures on the Holocaust / the forfeiture of funds was ordered as provided by Section 73a of Penal Code.  Rudolf’s account with Heidenheimer Volksbank, through which he conducted a major part of financial transactions with his German customers, shows a balance of 9,007 Euros.  Rudolf’s additional assets are unknown.  The Court saw no reason to desist from a Verfallsanordnung (expiration ruling as provided by Section 73c Paraagraph 1 page 2 of Penal Code, which provides for additional amounts.

V.

The determination of costs is based on Section 465 Paragraph 1 of Penal Code.

 

Signed:

Schwab, Presiding Judge

Beck, Judge

Becker, Judge

The above is a certified copy of the verdict.

This verdict has the force of law and shall go into effect immediately.

Finality of this verdict was acknowledged on 15 March by acceptance on the part of the accused as well as the prosecutor.

Mannheim, 2 May 2007

Signed:  Sosgornik, Documents Clerk

2 Official Stamps of Mannheim District Court

Return to beginning

 

Top | Home

©-free 2007 Adelaide Institute