Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Historian chained "hand and foot" at trial

Expand Messages
  • World View
    Historian chained hand and foot at trial www.RevisionistHistory.org Editor s Note: HISTORIAN-SCIENTIST GERMAR RUDOLF WAS BROUGHT INTO THE COURT HOUSE IN
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 6, 2006
      Historian chained "hand and foot" at trial

      DOUBTING THE GAS CHAMBERS OF AUSCHWITZ. HE WAS: "chained hand and foot."



      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

      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, 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
      in Tübingen.

      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
      scientific manner.

      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
      court system.

      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")
      www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters1/Mahler/ offenkundigkeit1.htm).
      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.

      --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.

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



      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.