Historian chained "hand and foot" at trial
- Historian chained "hand and foot" at trial
Editor's Note: HISTORIAN-SCIENTIST GERMAR RUDOLF WAS BROUGHT INTO THE
COURT HOUSE IN GERMANY FOR THE THIRD DAY OF HIS TRIAL ON CHARGES OF
DOUBTING THE GAS CHAMBERS OF AUSCHWITZ. HE WAS: "chained hand and foot."
ONCE AGAIN THERE WERE NO ESTABLISHMENT MEDIA PRESENT, AND ZERO
REPRESENTATIVES OF ARAB, IRANIAN OR MUSLIM MEDIA.
EXCEPT FOR THE REPORTING OF MR. DECKERT, GERMAR'S TRIAL MIGHT AS WELL
BE CONDUCTED IN CAMERA BY A STAR CHAMBER.
The Trial of Germar Rudolf in Mannheim District Court
Day 3. December 4, 2006
Reported by Günter Deckert
Translated from the German by J. M. Damon
Scheduled for 9 O'clock, the session began at 9:14am
1) The usual members of the Court with Judge Schwab presiding
2) District Attorney Grossmann
3) Both Attorneys for the Defense
4) One bailiff, five uniformed policemen (not all present at all
times.) All were armed. In addition, two state security policemen
("staschu"), both of whom left at 9.52. Police presence was weaker
than on preceeding days and now more polite and accommodating. The
civil-war-like scenario of the early months of the ERNST Zündel trial
re no longer in evidence. Do the powers that be realize they are not
really dealing with "right wing terrorists?"
5) News media: none present (!?) Disinterested? Afraid to report? 6)
Spectators: 39, including Dr. Rolf Kosiek of Grabert Publishing House
Germar was again brought into the courthouse chained hand and foot,
despite Judge Schwab's assurances that he would not be chained in his
courtroom. The government is clearly doing all it can to create the
impression that Germar is a violent and desperate criminal. Attorney
Bock stated that he was going to contact the Justice Ministry in
Judge Schwab allowed Germar to continue stating his case. Germar
continued speaking on the subject of science and free scientific
inquiry, stressing the philosophy of Karl Popper www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/
Much of Germar's presentation today, which can be mentioned here only
in very abbreviated form, can be found in his Kardinalfragen an
Deutschlands Politiker (Cardinal Questions for Germany's Politicians)
available online at www.vho.org/D/kadp/
Germar addressed the problems of prejudice and dogmatism in
historiography, that is, the anti-scientific practice of disallowing
all criticism, disallowing the presentation of empirical or forensic
evidence, disallowing unofficial opinions, etc. To emphasize his
point, he provided numerous vivid examples. He contrasted this
approach of the traditional "court historians" to the approach of the
Revisionists. Not only do Revisionists conduct specific critiques of
their own sources, they also invite scientific criticism and analysis
of their arguments.
At 10:05 Judge Schwab recessed court, which reconvened at 10:38.
At this time Germar addressed himself to discussing expressions that
contain the word Sonder (special) whose meanings in particular
compounds are often misunderstood and misconstrued , (as in
Sonderbehandlung, "special treatment.")
He described the forensic investigations carried out by Carlo Mattogno
who, in contrast to established "Holocaust" researchers such as
Rückerl, Langbei, Kogon (authors of articles such as "Mass Murders
Carried Out by National Socialists Using Poison Gas" or similar
titles), has always proceeded in a rigorously systematic and
He pointed out that "Holocaust" historians' attacks on Revisionism are
hardly ever directed at their work, but rather at their persons ( the
fallacy of ad hominem). "Establishment" historians slander and
ridicule Revisionist researchers in order to detract from the
significance of their findings, which they decline to discuss.
In this regard Germar described his own indictment as unscientific and
irrational. He mounted a spirited attack against Dr. Meinerzhagen, the
presiding judge in the Zündel trial, who in a separate ruling on the
validity of his arrest, ruled that Germar's publications could not be
taken seriously because they contained political and religious points
of view. Germar called Meinerzhagen's conduct "shameless and absurd."
Germar next gave his definition of the "Unter Wissenschaft" (under
scientific norms.) Following this he spoke about the legal
ramifications of his own trial, comparing it with events in a historic
trial he named only at the end of his speech. He described both trials
as political trials and witch burnings, again making his points very
When he finally "let the cat out of the bag," the comparison was with
Alexander Solzhenitsyn's trial as described in his Gulag Archipelago.
The paralells between the two trials were unmistakable. The revelation
had a noticeable effect on the female lay jurist as well as District
Attorney Grossmann who was nervously fidgeting with his ballpoint pen
during this time. Germar observed that the Court understands exactly
what is expected of it from "on high" and will act accordingly.
He then referred to actions of the Mannheim District Court, headed by
Dr. Müller and Dr. Orlet, against Günter Deckert (author of this
report.) The verdict of that trial released a "worldwide wave of
repulsion and resentment" over corruption and repression in the German
Germar observed that although the "BRDDR" claims that there are no
political prisoners in Germany, it is very obvious that the opposite
is true. ("BRDDR," an acronym of BRD/DDR coined by this reporter,
refers to the two German vassal states ("East Germany" and "West
Germany") created by the victors of World War II, pitted against each
other during the Cold War and combined into one vassal state in 1990.
The German nation is much greater than the "BRDDR", however.)
In conjunction with the court system's hypocrisy in claiming there are
no political prisoners in Germany, Germar moved on to the question of
human rights and the "deutschen Sonderweg" or Germany's "peculiar
path" as exemplified in the repressive, anti-free speech Paragraph 130
of the Basic Law, which deals with "Incitement of the Masses."
In addition to the repression inherent in this "peculiar path", the
rights of the accused are obliterated by the equally peculiar
principle of Offenkundigkeit ("Manifest Obviousness")
Germar then mounted a sharp attack against the BVerfG
(Bundesverfassungsgericht, Germany's so-called "Constitutional
Court"), just as he had done with the definition of the scientific
concept. Subsequently this brought on a reprimand by Judge Schwab.
The Court recessed for noon at 12:30 and resumed at 1:45 pm
Germar continued with his depiction of the erosion of human rights in
the "BRDDR," specifying the incessant erosion of individual freedoms
and pointing out the instruments used by the government to pry them
away. He pointed out how the Cold War and RAF ("Red Army Faction)
terrorists played a pioneering role in this erosion.
Germar referred specifically to the lex Engelhardt" of 1985 (the
"Engelhardt Law" was named after a well known defense attorney in
The crime of "Holocaust Denial" is classified as an Offizialdelikt, an
offense for which proceedings are brought directly by the public
prosecutor. This "crime" requires no indictment, and the prosecutor is
required to proceed on his own initiative.
Germar then described the "Deckert Leuchter Trial" that took place
in 1992 and 1994 in Mannheim District Court and Karlsruhe District
Court and led to an intensification of the repression inherent in
Paragraph 130. The Deckert-Leuchter Trial (concerning this reporter)
grew out of a lecture given by Fred A. Leuchter on his Auschwitz
research (the Leuchter Expert Report) in Weinheim in Nov 1991, in
which Deckert acted as simultaneous interpreter. From this came two
additional trials before Mannheim District Court as well as a third
trial in Karlsruhe District Court. As a result of this series of
political trials, Deckert spent five years behind bars (8 Nov 1995
until end of Oct 2000) in Mannheim, Stuttgart-Stammheim, Heidelberg
and the high security prison at Bruchsaler.
Germar pointed out that another indicator of intensified repression is
the increase of the maximum penalty for "Holocaust denial" from three
to five years imprisonment.
He also mentioned the increased surveillance, telephone bugging and
attempts to outlaw the National Party, and noted that "Manifest
Obviousness" implies official suppression of forensic evidence.
He then discussed the role played by so-called "Protection of Youth"
and the Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Schriften (Federal
Oversight Office for Youth-Endangering Writings). As Professor of
Political Science Jesse at Chemnitz University has pointed out, this
has increasingly become a trapdoor for so-called "anti Fascism," that
is, a political weapon of the tyrannical Left. Such "anti propaganda"
laws as criminal offense are used only against the patriotic Right. In
response to the unmistakable progressive decline of constitutional
rights, German as a true scientist is obligated by Immanuel Kant's
"Categorical Imperative" to Act only according to that maxim which you
would have as universal law."
Germar then addressed the ever increasing incompatibility between
freedom of scientific research (Articles 5 and 3 of Basic Law and
human rights (Article 1 of Basic Law.)
He reiterated the scientific maxim that the results of research must
be based on verifiable evidence.
He noted that Holocaust propaganda, whether true or not, diminishes
the Gemeinschaftsfähigkeit (capacity for socialization) of the coming
He pointed out that since the 1970s, this has led to German youths'
societal estrangement, replacing vital social intercourse with a kind
of generational introversion, "self-realization" and
"navel-contemplation." This has had disastrous consequences for German
societal development, so that in 100 years there will be no
recognizable German society remaining.
He observed that the government's according sacred status to the
so-called "Holocaust" reflects the utter lack of any cogent counter
argument against the findings of Revisionist historians; and he
described the present government's conduct as "intellectual
traumatizing" or brainwashing of the masses.
Germar observed that the "politically correct" forces opposing
historical revisionism have unlimited money and influence.
They wield their political power mindlessly and utilize so-called
"antifascist" elements as shock troops. Historical Revisionism or
historical correctness (as opposed to political correctness) has
nothing that corresponds to such brutal and repressive measures. The
present government is attempting to marginalize historical revisionism
it by neutralizing its leadership and isolating it from the mainstream.
Germar then informed Judge Schwab that he wished to move on to a
different subject, and so the judge ended this day's session at 2:48 pm.
The next court session will be on Wednesday, 6 December (Knecht
Ruprecht or Nicholas' Day) at 9am.
Summarizing remark by the reporter: Once again, Germar made a very
resolute and dignified impression. He displayed no fear of the
"Imperial Justice" of the "BRDDR" court although he knows he can
expect no leniency.
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.
Reported by Günter Deckert. Translated by J. M. Damon
WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE
To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW