The Trial of Germar Rudolf in Mannheim District Court

 Day 4: 6 December 2006

Reported by Günter Deckert - Translated by J. M. Damon


Scheduled to begin at 9am, it began at 9:14am with the usual tardiness known in Germany as “the academic quarter.”

Present were:
1. The usual members of the Court with Judge Schwab presiding.
2. District Attorney Grossmann.
3. Both Attorneys for the Defense.
4. One bailiff, two uniformed policemen, both armed. In addition, one state security policeman (“Staschu“).
5. News media: none present. Why? Is the media really so disinterested, or is it afraid to report what goes on?
6. Spectators: 36, including Frau Haverbeck of the “Collegium Humanum“ in Vlotho as well as a Dutch chemist named Hans D....

As on all preceding trial days, Germar was brought into the courthouse chained hand and foot. Defense Attorney Stolz asked why Germar was still in chains since Judge Schwab on previous occasions had ruled that he should not be so fettered. Schwab said once again that he would see to it that Germar was not brought into court in chains, since he does not consider Germar to be a security risk. It appears that the government is attempting to create a perception of Germar as a violent and desperate criminal.

Judge Schwab invited Germar to continue stating his case whereupon G. briefly summarized the last part of his presentation, on the subject of the inviolability of scientific research. He then moved on to the problems connected with eyewitness testimony. In this regard he referred to a lengthy article in the news magazine Der Spiegel that appeared in Internet version on 28 October 2006. It dealt primarily with “Holocaust” research findings in the US. In a play on words referring to Goethe’s Dichtung und Wahrheit (Poetry and Truth) the article concluded that “Die Dichtung überwiege die Wahrheit” (The poetry outweighs the truth), meaning that where eyewitness accounts of “Holocaust” are concerned, they are mostly fiction. Specifically the article concerned the fictitious story of a purported Swiss “Holocaust” victim named Benjamin Wilkomirski whose heartrending account of suffering was celebrated worldwide and received numerous Jewish literary prizes. The story was fabricated from beginning to end, which is to say that it was all a lie. Germar’s point was that criticism of such eyewitness testimony cannot logically be construed as insulting victims of “Holocaust.”

Germar then moved to a consideration and evaluation of Paragraph 130 of the Strafgesetzbuch (Penal Code). This contains the infamous “Auschwitz” section on “Incitement” (available on Internet at He described in detail the legal problems associated with “Disturbing the “Peace” as they relate to “Holocaust” and he explained some of the problems associated with “lying” about “Holocaust.” In its German context this is conceived as “consciously denying the truth against one’s better knowledge.” He explained the reason why he considers determinations of “truth” made by prosecutors and courts in the “BRDDR” to be presumptions (“BRD” was the vassal state of the Western allies, “DDR” was the vassal state of the USSR, and since German Reunification they have been combined to form the vassal state “BRDDR.”) As evidence of these presumptions he offers his indictment as well as his arrest warrant. He pointed out that even if one construes scientific critique of “Holocaust” as breach of official taboo, there are still no valid grounds for making it a punishable offense. Germar then mentioned several historical breaches of taboo that have contributed greatly to human progress, such as those of Copernicus and Darwin. Perhaps the best historical parallel is the Donation of Constantine, which had been a deliberate falsification by the Catholic Church, that is the Papal kingdom or empire. He explained how this event had influenced a number of persons to challenge religious taboo, including Martin Luther, the “Father of Protestantism,” at the time when the Gutenberg method of printing revolutionized communications. Germar’s point was that questioning and examining sacrosanct doctrines and teachings is neither injurious nor insulting. These are nothing more than arbitrary pronouncements made by provisional political and justice systems.

Regarding the charge of “Incitement,” he enumerated the points in the verdict of Stuttgart District Court in which he is accused of “Denying Jews the Right to Exist.” He noted that these proceedings are very similar to those against “Abweichler” (nonconformists) who were prosecuted by Third Reich court officials. He spoke of the case against a Catholic pastor named Hans Meyer who dared to preach a sermon against the National Socialist regime. Today, like 70 years ago, the prevailing spirit of the times is again one of repression of Abweichler, targeting deviating concepts and opinions.

Continuing his discussion of problems created by Paragraph 130, Germar then referred to two doctoral dissertations: Thomas Wandres, „Die Strafbarkeit des Auschwitz-Leugnens“ (Punishment of Auschwitz Denial), 338 pages, published by Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, 2000; and Florian Körber and Eric Hilgendorf, „Rechtsradikale Propaganda im Internet: Der Fall Toben (Radical Rightwing Propaganda in the Internet: The Toben Case), 260 pages, published by Logos-Verlag, Berlin, 2003. These publications demonstrate why using criminal laws to protect “official truth” is illegal! Jews are granted a large number of special privileges, officially emphasizing their uniqueness. However, the government’s protection of the “Holocaust” and “Auschwitz” taboos can backfire on them as an ethnic entity, a fact that is not lost on the Jews who oppose such taboos. Germar then made it clear that special legislation greatly diminishes the freedom of the defendant as well as the defense attorney; in fact it obliterates it, since motions to present evidence constitute a criminal offense that leads to additional prosecution.

Germar reiterated that his works contain no valid reason for the government to take repressive measures against him. It is a matter of the government’s policy of obstructing his scientific efforts to review and revise contemporary history and to destroy him personally. This observation motivated the seemingly drowsy District Attorney Grossmann to suddenly interrupt and interject “Sie nehmen sich viel zu ernst, Herr Rudolf!“ (You take yourself much too seriously.) Here your reporter expressed his audible displeasure over the prosecutor’s unacceptable conduct, since the judge did not reprimand him for it. The judge reprimanded and threatened the reporter instead, saying he was not a party to the proceedings, even though they are open to the public... Observers are supposed to conduct themselves like robots.

After some general discussion, Germar returned to specific and concrete matters at hand, namely the indictment and arrest warrant, which are identical to a large extent. {Remarks by Reporter: In Germar’s case, an arrest warrant is still outstanding. This means that although he already under penal detention, is under the so-called Überhaft (“Super-arrest”) as well, which is in fact indefinite penal detention under the guise of investigative detention. I underwent the same thing for two and a half years, in Stuttgart and Bruchsal}

The indictment and arrest warrant contain the following:
Charge No. 1: He expressed approval of the conduct of the Hitlerian government against Jews.
Charge No. 2 (implicit in Charge No. 1): He expressed “moral exoneration” for leaders of the Third Reich.
Charge No. 3: His conduct thus makes an impression on his readers, thus producing “Incitement.”
Charge No. 4: He violated official taboos, especially in his advertising brochure.
Germar addressed these points in considerable detail, introducing evidence and pointing out that they are presented in much greater detail in his most recent book, Lectures on the Holocaust (available on the Internet at

Germar then moved on to a detailed discussion of wartime anti-German propaganda and postwar German reparations and compensation. In this connection he accused “BRDDR” prosecutors of never considering exculpating or alleviating evidence concerning atrocity allegations against Germany or Germans, even though they are required to do so. He posed the question of why this is so and suggested the answer can be found in investigating “cui bono” (who benefits from such one-sided application of justice?)

He urged the court to consider the transgression, the atonement and massive amounts of money involved. Officially there is no such thing as Sippenhaft (imprisonment of friends and relatives), no hereditary guilt, no collective sentencing and imprisonment. Nevertheless this has been the fare of Germans and the German nation since the end of World War II. Here he quoted an American professor who for a long time held the chair of Political Science at Frankfurt am Main University. The professor lectured on the subject of Erbschuldkultur (the culture of hereditary guilt), referring to it as “a continuation of war by other means.” Germar observed that the concept of German “singularity” is in fact mass psychopathology that has led to a variant of racism. The result is that more than 60 years after the Second World War, the Germans are still treated as though they were ethnically inferior. This makes them liable to extortion, which continues on a huge scale. He pointed out that the Herausgehobene (“Chosen Ones”) are not the only beneficiaries of the one sided application of justice in Germany. The established “BRDDR” government benefits as well, functioning as “dauer-Moralapostel” or “eternal apostles of morality” and profiting from the culture of hereditary guilt. They use it to keep the political competition at bay. Not only do they keep their rivals away from “feeding at the public trough” they are also able to vanquish them by segregating, defaming and persecuting them. He charged that by resorting to Paragraph 130, the German government is turning the so-called westliche Wertegemeinschaft (Western System of Values) on its head and trampling on citizens’ human rights.

Germar explained that he has no objections to compensation for individual victims, but is very opposed to mass compensations such as that of Jewish Claims Conference who extort huge amounts of money from Germany, Austria and even Switzerland, a country that provided sanctuary for persecuted Jews during the War. He referred to such Jewish critics of the Jewish Claims Conference as Prof. Norman Finkelstein, author of the book The Holocaust Industry. Both of Dr. Finkelstein’s parents were interned at Auschwitz during the War, yet they received no funds from the Claims Conference. Raul Hilberg, another Jewish author, has also criticized the Claims Conference. Because of their ethnicity, these distinguished authors are allowed to express their opinions and defend their findings while such basic rights are denied Germans.

Beginning a new “chapter,” Germar then turned to discussion of his most recent book Lectures on the Holocaust, to which the District Attorney devotes two and a half pages of his indictment. This is available at Germar briefly mentioned the episode of Professor Hepp of Osnabrück, who dared express criticism of the official “Auschwitz Story” in Latin footnotes (!) to his publication. Prof. Hepp was threatened with prosecution, but this was called off for the official reason that “professors are allowed to make mistakes.” Germar pointed out that the office of District Attorney has confiscated his Lectures on Holocaust and determined to burn it under police supervision because they do not trust the workers at the incineration plant. “As the ‘Left’ is fond of saying about the burning of ‘decadent’ books during the Third Reich: ‘A government that burns books will soon be burning people as well.’” He observed that the judicial and legal system of “BRDDR” has now burned more than 50,000 books, the largest number in the history of mankind.

Here Judge Schwab interrupted and announced that the Court intended to include the book in the trial. It is significant that the Zündel Court under Judge Meinerzshagen has refused to allow introduction of this book under an evidentiary motion. It will be very interesting to see what the Rudolf Court decides! Attorney Stolz then made a corresponding motion to introduce the book orally, so that it can be made available to the public. She delivered a thorough and detailed presentation of her grounds for the motion.

By way of elucidation, Germar then pointed out that the parts of his book used in the indictment were taken from a rough draft rather than the final version that was printed and released on the Internet. He explained that the District Attorney had received the rough draft by way of a “bug” on Horst Mahler’s telephone. Judge Schwab then asked District Attorney Grossmann about his position on that statement. In case this is true / then it would be a case of Stilleseverfahren (knowledge made available to the Court and Prosecutor but not the public.)

Judge Schwab explained that the Court would not make its decision today but would take the motion under consideration. In order to determine know which version is concerned, the Court intends to summon a witness from the Bundeskriminalamt (BKA, the German version of FBI) for the next session.

Judge Schwab asked the District Attorney to appoint a liaison person for the Court. He said that since the Court is still in this trial’s Einlassung (introductory) stage and so the questioning of a witness from BKA should be included in the process of gathering evidence. He said that he would work in the questioning of this witness in order to facilitate the trial, and that afterwards Germar could continue presenting his case. He dictated all this to the court reporter, then called a short recess from 10:36 until 11:15. The Court did not reconvene until 11:37, at which time Judge Schwab announced that questioning of a witness from BKA had been scheduled for the next session, which would be on 21 December. Once again he stated announced that he would personally tend to the matter of the Government’s keeping Germar in leg irons. He ended the day’s proceedings at 11.40, announcing that additional court dates had to be set and these would be announced on 21 December.

The next session will be on 21 December at 9 O’clock.

Weinheim/Bergstraße, 6 Dezember 2006

Günter Deckert

A friendly request: whoever reads and circulates this report, please be so kind as to mention my name in conjunction with it. Thanks, G.D.

Top | Home

©-free 2006 Adelaide Institute