July 24, 2004
The following interview in four parts as listed below was given over a period of time ending July 24, 2004, to a young German student who was deeply troubled when he found out that German schools, media, government publications, and many allegedly reputable internet sites are telling seemingly endless lies about Holocaust revisionism.
S.: Welcome Mr. Rudolf, and thank you for taking the time for this interview. Where exactly do you live now in the U.S.?
R.: I live close to Chicago, as my published address indicates. [That is no longer the case, G.R. 2012]
S.: I understand that you applied for political asylum in the United States. Shouldn’t you be detained, because you applied for political asylum?
R.: No, asylum seekers are not detained in the U.S. Detention occurs only for breaking the law, which I have not done.
S.: Why do you have two last names, Rudolf and Scheerer?
R.: I have only one last name, and that is Rudolf, but at one point I had a different last name. When I married for the first time back in 1994, my wife refused to assume my last name Rudolf, because she did not want to have a male first name as a last name. German law allows anything in this regard. But because I wanted to have the same name as my wife, there was only one way to achieve this: by assuming her last name. This also had the advantage that my family was not exposed to social harassment when the media witch hunts began against me in 1994, because I always used my “boy name” for everything revisionist. After my divorce in 2000 I reverted back to my original last name. I never used the last name of my former wife in public in order to protect my family’s privacy. The name became publicly known only during my trial.
S.: Why did you get a divorce from your first wife? I assume that your persecution had something to do with it.
R.: My first wife left me for good in early 1999. The permanent pressure of persecution was too much for her. She also could never adjust to living abroad, permanently playing hide and seek with the authorities there. She went back to Germany, got herself a new man and has already two more children with him. End of 1999 she filed for a divorce, and considering the conditions I have to live under, any resistance would have been futile. With my background no German civil court would have given me any chance. So what could my clinging to this marriage have resulted in other than high lawyer bills?
S.: What are you doing all day long?
R.: During the weeks I go to work as every normal person – for my own publishing company. During the evening and on weekends I do several activities, like sailing, volleyball, ballroom dancing, eating out, sometimes theater, museum, concert, or simply staying at home – and a good Star Trek movie now and then :). Starting early next year, there will be a change, though, because I then will do some baby-sitting, because my second wife is pregnant. 🙂
R.: Thank you!
S.: I have noticed that the attacks against productive revisionists are increasing. Why are some revisionists being threatened by people who disagree with them, and why are some even physically injured?
R.: Those who run out of arguments resort to violence. No revisionist ever used, promoted, or justified violence. Hence, there is, objectively seen, no reason to use violence against us. And yet, there is hardly any other group of people that is so hated and persecuted as we are. The reason for that is that the media, the justice system, as well as politicians have being inciting the masses against us for the past 60 years by suggesting that we are something like devils incarnate.
S.: When I skimmed through your expert report, I saw this photo of professor Robert Faurisson, severely injured and bleeding as he was pushed into an ambulance. Can you tell me why he was beaten to pulp that day?
R.: Because he is hated for what he has stated in his scholarly writings. The three young Jewish thugs who beat him up so badly attacked Dr. Faurisson without any apparent reason while he was walking his dog in a park in his home town Vichy.
S.: The persecution of revisionists reminds me at medieval with trials where people where sentenced to death who had acted and reasoned sincerely. Do you see a parallel there?
R.: I actually wrote a paper about that (“Medieval Witch Trials and their parallels in our times“) using a pseudonym in order to protect myself against persecution, which worked in that case, and another one under yet another pen name, but that time the police were faster (“The Value of Testimony and Confessions Concerning the Holocaust“). The later contribution resulted from the first one as a massive expansion.
S.: On your website you have posted Gerd Honsik’s book Acquital for Hitler. I think that several of the statements published in it are questionable. Would it not be appropriate to change the text so that it appears more serious?
R.: I have posted all kinds of books on my website, some of which appeared many decades ago. Science has made great progress since and has reached new conclusions, as is to be expected. This means that some statements in older books, which can be found on my website, are outdated. But many of these books are not posted on my website because everything stated in them is true, but because one can hardly find them anymore in German libraries, if at all. My website tries to undermine the censorship against historical and political literature by the German authorities. I would render a bad service if I myself started to change the content of older books to my liking, and be it only by making corrections. Apart from the fact that the sheer number and broad variety of the books posted would make it impossible to “fix” them for lack of time and lack of expertise. I post those books in order to make them accessible as sources, which are otherwise suppressed. If you want to find out the “truth,” then you would have to read the more recent books about the topics covered, as they are also available on my website or elsewhere.
S.: What do you think of Jan van Helsing’s book “Secret Societies and their power during the 20th century,” which is posted on your website?
R.: It is an excited and unscientific study in the sense that it quotes many unreliable sources and comes to conclusions not supported by them.
I know the author a little bit from phone calls and email exchanges. He used to be a punker in his youth. Compared to that he has come a long way, but there seems to be a thread of lack of intellectual sovereignty and emotional balance. I also have to state, though, that not everything he claims is wrong. It would lead us astray, however, to go into more details.
S.: There are some outrageous claims in particular in his chapter 48 “Secret Societies”, in which their members are described as neo-Nazis and child molesters.
R.: I did not read all of his books thoroughly. At least I cannot remember that specific chapter. I never really got beyond a few pages of concentrated reading, because those conspiracy fanatics go on my nerves. A huge part of it is paranoia, if you ask me. There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical about powerful groups, but I think that the author goes way over the top. If everything Udo (aka Jan) and similar authors claim were true, then such overwhelming, evil conspiracies would make me depressed. But fortunately things aren’t quite as bad as that in our world.
I posted the book on www.vho.org, because it is outlawed in Germany, not because I agree with its content. I owe that to the fundamental solidarity between authors and to the freedom of expression, also to those with whose opinion I expressly disagree, following Voltaire’s famous expression, which wasn’t even his.
S.: The Jewish-American theologian Deborah Lipstadt claims that all deniers are anti-Semites. What are your thoughts about the term “denier”?
R.: This term is being used systematically by our opponents to create dislike and hatred against us. It gives the impression that we negate the obvious and that we do it despite better knowledge, that is: for sinister motives. And once people believe that we hold an opinion not because we truly believe them, but because we have evil intentions, they easily accept and participate in the persecution of revisionists. That is the logic of terror, as I described it many years ago elsewhere.
S.: Don’t you fear that your findings will be misused by neo-Nazis? To be honest, if I were a neo-Nazi, I would use you or your findings as tools. You should therefore add to your works that the deprivation and persecution of the Jews was an injustice. Otherwise observers may think you endorse that persecution.
R.: Everything can be misused. If that were a criterion not to do certain things, then we would not do anything. If we had not found all the findings that can be misused, we would still be sitting on trees.
The Holocaust itself has been massively misused over the last 60 years, misused by communists, leftists, anarchists, Zionists, Jews… uncounted thousands of Palestinians died, were murdered and butchered as a result of Holocaust propaganda. How many thousands did the neo-Nazis kill as a result of revisionist propaganda? Not a single one! Not to mention the social distortions the Holocaust propaganda has caused in particular in Germany, causing a tremendous identity crisis, which is increasingly escalating and has reached a state of self-hatred and geno-suicidal proportions.
But you are right. Injustice has to be called injustice, no matter who the victim is. I therefore emphasized in the introductions to my books Dissecting and Lectures that the actual injustice committed by the National Socialist regime cannot be revised away; that the Nazis do not turn into innocent children if the gas chambers disappear. The result of proper historical revisionism would merely put National Socialist injustice into the correct perspective of the European civil war that was raging during those times, which ideologically speaking has still not ended, which can be claimed as long as peaceful historical and political dissidents are sent to prison for their mere views. Currently only one aspect of the European cathartic catastrophe is seen, and in a quite distorted way. This way a real historical understanding is prevented, and a new catastrophe is provoked, because the wrong lesson is being learned. The enemy is not on the political right, but everywhere were people are guided by ideological narrow-mindedness, and this narrow-mindedness is going rampant with the Holocaust dogma.
Everything has to be seen in the right perspective.
Just read Dürrenmatt’s novel The Physicians. You cannot suppress knowledge by hushing up the scientists. You have to make sure that the knowledge gets into proper hands of those listening to reason. Even that I wrote in the introduction to Dissecting. Only because revisionism is ostracized and suppressed, it becomes interesting to Nazis and thus exploitable. This area is totally left to them. The accusation therefore has to be returned to those who raise it: they are the ones who enable the Nazis to use revisionism as a weapon. And besides: I prefer myself having a leading role in revisionism rather than some National Socialist. Because this, too, is an alternative. If I do not do what I do, someone else will come along and do it sooner or later.
S.: I quote from your expert report
“The same reasoning applies to Hitler and the Third Reich. Both revisionists and their adversaries are entitled to their political views. The accusation that revisionists are only interested in exonerating National Socialism and that such an effort is reprehensible or even criminal, is a boomerang: This accusation implies that it is deemed unacceptable to partially exonerate National Socialism historically, and by so doing, always also morally.”
S.: Do you not exonerate National Socialism here?
R.: So what? That really is the core of the matter: A scientist is not allowed to give a rat’s ass about the effect his findings have on the moral evaluation of a regime long rotten away! If I adjust my findings according to what is politically welcome or what is not, THEN I am guilty of abusing science for political ends. By deeming it immoral if a finding partly exonerates National Socialism, the other side proves only its own political-moral corruption. This statement is absolutely independent from the question of whether or not some revisionists’ primary agenda is not to find the truth but to exonerate the Third Reich. If such revisionists exist, then they are worthy of being criticized for it. But it is similarly worthy of critique to declare the exoneration of a defendant as immoral and scientifically irresponsible. Both in courts of law and in science, the evidence matters primarily, not the motivation of those presenting the evidence. Who ever subjects evidence to motivation, destroys law and order and also destroys science as such.
S.: Why are you and your colleagues insulted as National Socialists on the IDGR website?
R.: Their behavior reminds me at the Stuttgart State Protection Police, which sent several of their officers to my residence back in 1994. In a conspirational manner they asked me to come out of my apartment and to join them in their police car, which I did. These officers told me they were ordered to contact every leading personality in Germany’s right-wing scene and try to convince them not to organize any rallies for the umptiest anniversary of the death (or murder?) of Rudolf Heß. They also asked me to influence the right-wing scene in a way that no public demonstration would occur, because they would be forbidden and dissolved with all the power the authorities have.
I was quite surprised by their request. I answered them truthfully: “You apparently believe your own propaganda and think that I am a leading figure in the right-wing movement. I repeatedly stated, also during my trial, that I have no contact whatsoever to any right-wing radical or extremist scene. Already because of this I cannot influence anyone. I never was a right-winger and I also never was a member of any scene. You can believe whatever you like, but if you do not want to believe me, then I cannot help you. Your efforts to come to my place were totally in vain.” I left their car and went home, shaking my head.
So why do these people believe that I and other revisionist are Nazis? Because they believe in their own propaganda legends, and everything that we say or write will be perceived only through their mental filters, and by so doing sometimes even turned completely upside down. “IDGR” is a classic example for this. My German periodical VffG repeatedly featured articles against censorship, restriction of civil rights, and against violence as a means of solving political problems. But if you read “IDGR,” you get the impression that my magazine stands for the exact opposite. In one case they even wrote that I had assumed and defended the National Socialist views about Jews, and they referred to an article I wrote back in 1995, but they did not set a link to this article. In this article, which analyzes German anti-Jewish writings of the late 19th and the early 20th century as an intellectual basis (but not justification) of National Socialist anti-Judaism, I expressly distance myself from the views I quote form this literature, in particular when racists connotations are present. But “IDGR” ignored that simply. The German left-wing radical, anti-fascist watchdog periodical “Blick nach Rechts” (Watch the Right), which is generally used by the German authorities as a reference, is especially important in this regard. In 2001 they wrote that I had called for the assassination of the public prosecutor Heiko Klein and other censoring judges and prosecutors, which was later repeated by the German government’s Office for the Protection of the Constitution. But if you read my article referred to, I say exactly the opposite in it by recommending not to use any violence. So why do these groups and authorities believe that revisionists are Nazis (=devils)? Because they want to believe it; because they are not interested in the truth, but only in confirming their own prejudices – at the expense of innocent victims.
S.: Which of the well-known revisionists confess to be National Socialists?
R.: The only one I know of is Ernst Zündel, but he has changed his views during the last 20 years, as I understand it. He also is a radical pacifist. You may ask how that fits together. You would have to talk to him about it. There are also some hidden NS adherents, but most of them can be found at the consumer side rather than on the side of research and production. I also include Mark Weber (at least during his youth) and Willis Carto to them. That is one of the reasons why my relationship to them is a little tense. They are ideologically a little awkward. But they will talk about that only to close associates behind closed doors.
Professor Dr. Robert Faurisson, Prof. Dr. Arthur R. Butz, Dr. Robert H. Countess, Dr. Fredrick Töben, language genius Jürgen Graf, the historians Carlo Mattogno, Jean Plantin, and Vincent Reynouard [correction 2012: Reynouard seems to be a professing National Socialist], Michael Hoffman, Bradley Smith, Richard Widman and all the other producing and researching revisionists should be considered to be more libertarians than anything else, in opposition to any authoritarian or dictatorial system. Some of them may be nationalists and some even separatists, but that does, of course, not exclude being a libertarian. They sure are no adherents of oppressive systems, not even Ernst Zündel. He has and still is feeling for himself what that means. Fortunately most revisionists react very wisely to being persecuted: not with rage and call for revenge, but with whole-hearted support for civil rights.
S.: I think it is strange that 70% of the persons listed in the book Acquital for Hitler are called neo-Nazis of Nazis by IDGR, but not the remaining 30%, who basically say the same things. How do they distinguish between Nazis and non-Nazis?
R.: You need to ask them about the criteria they use to categorize people as “Nazis”. Without knowing that I cannot answer your question. But perhaps everybody ends up on the big brown pot who utters a critical word about certain aspects of Jewish religious laws, about aspects of apartheid of modern Zionism, or about any positive or positively interpreted aspects of the Third Reich, ignoring that not all Jews have been and are always good and not all Nazis have been and are always bad. Black-and-white simplifications are often the beginning of persecution.
S.: I somehow cannot see a connection between revisionism and National Socialism. According to IDGR, Gary Rex Lauck (“NSDAP/AO”) is allegedly glorifying the “extermination of the Jews” and denying it at the same time. That doesn’t make any sense, does it?
R.: I have no knowledge of Lauck’s views. The only connection I know exists on the level of supplier and customer rather than on the basis of a similar ideology or mutual activities. Revisionist findings are products which certain right-wingers like to include in their world-view, for the opposite reasons left-wingers use it to justify the persecution of revisionists, since both sides have opposite political motives. Gerhard Lauck is not a revisionist, and except perhaps as a customer, he has no links to revisionism, at least I do not know of any.
S.: Mr. Rudolf, I distrust most revisionists, because they seem to be more propagandists than scholars. That does not include you and the other scholars like Prof. Faurisson, Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf, but many others. Can you understand that?
R.: There are not too many rational, serious revisionist scholars. Zündel for example has always been primarily a propagandist. That is true for many others. I therefore have to admit that you are partly right. The bad news is that many of those who call themselves “revisionists,” are not really revisionists. With that I mean that, in order to be a revisionist, you have to have a radical scientific attitude of being able to criticize, even yourself. That does not apply to many self-designated revisionists. Most of them are politicians rather than scholars. But your skepticism is not a bad thing. Keep it! If revisionism teaches one thing, then it is to be skeptical about what others tell you. That is the prerequisite of revisionism.
S.: Mr. Rudolf, what would you say if I were a Jew or of Jewish descent? What would you do, if you unknowingly had a Jewish friend and found out about it?
R.: I knowingly have Jewish friends. In summer 2003 I regularly played volleyball with a Jew, I went sailing with another Jewess, I call Jewish revisionist David Cole a friend, I adore the late Israeli scholar Israel Shahak, of whom I even publish an article, published papers by Israel Shamir, who converted to Christianity a while ago, and I even had a Jewish girl friend in 2003. What is the problem? I think that you yourself have some prejudices when it comes to revisionism.
S.: What do you mean?
R.: Your question is loaded. What would I do if I found out a friend of mine is a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Hindu? Nobody would ever ask such a question. Why do you make an exception with Jews? And why, in particular, do most people assume that revisionists do not like Jews? That may be true for some, but that is true for non-revisionists either. You just wouldn’t ask them such questions, would you?
Revisionism is concerned with historical accuracy, not with whether or not someone is a Jew. You could phrase it also this way: An anti-Semite is not a person who doesn’t like Jews, but rather a person who is disliked by “the Jews” (pardon my generalization here, which I use only for argument’s sake). That is certainly true for me. I have no problems with Jews per se, but frequently certain Jews have problems with me due to their own prejudices, and only from this result any problems I have with them.
S.: You said once “I have no relations with them [the Jews],” but now you say the opposite.
R.: That quote is from an interview in late 1993, and at that time it was true. During the summer of 1994 I met Horst Lummert, a nice gentleman with Jewish background. He visited me and subsequently we had long discussions and an extended correspondence. In 1998/1999 he went a little astray ideologically. In fall of 1994 I met David Cole, a revisionist of Jewish descent, if there is such a thing. He, too, is a great guy. Seen from that point of view, my experiences with Jews are quite positive so far on a mere personal level, which of course cannot be generalized either.
My volleyball and sailing friendships of 2003, however, were only superficial and did last only one season.
The reason why I meet many more Jews now than before is because I live in an area where there are quite a few of them.
S.: What do your Jewish friends think about your activities in revisionism? And can you prove at all that you have Jewish friends? After all, everybody can claim that.
R.: I do not use friends to prove things. I do not need to, and my friends don’t deserve to be treated that way. I would be a bad friend if I dragged them into this. I also do not usually bring up my views on the Holocaust with most of them. Why should I? I usually do not discuss history or politics during sports. It simply doesn’t belong there. There is no need to burden all human relationships with this. Of course, some of my friends, Jewish or not, do know about my views and activities. Those who know are divided in three groups: positively supportive, distanced, but friendly, and distanced, but rejecting. Animosities about my views and activities do not exist; otherwise it would end such a friendship.
S.: Who exactly has profited from the gassing stories, if anyone?
R.: For this you need to read Norman G. Finkelstein’s book The Holocaust Industry.
S.: But in his book, Norman Finkelstein does not deny the “Holocaust”!
R.: You don’t have to deny the Holocaust in order to determine who profits from it, both politically and financially. It is illegal for Germans to spell this out, though (incitement of the masses, up to 5 years in jail). Apart from that, the entire political left profits from this story, because they can use the gas chambers as a lethal moral weapon against anything that does not fit into their ideological agenda, loosely following the equation Right = Nazis = Gas Chamber, or differently put: to be a right-winger in Europe today equates being a Nazi, and that is equivalent to being evil as such, to being demonic, which has found its most horrific manifestation in the gas chambers. That is the way the political left is thinking.
And finally there are the globalists, the internationalists, the one-worlders, who use the gas chambers to tear down borders and destroy ethnic, cultural, social entities by making the equation Nationalism = Nazi = Gas Chamber.
S.: Which term is correct for revisionism: a) Holocaust revisionism, b) historical revisionism, or c) just revisionism?
R.: It depends on what you are talking about. If you are talking about revising the historiography of the Holocaust, it is Holocaust revisionism; it is the most controversial topic of historical revisionism, which is about revising the writing of history about any conceivable subject. The term revisionism in itself only means an attitude of revising something. It doesn’t even have to be a part of the sciences or humanities. It can be political or religious. But because the term Holocaust revisionism is so often used, people frequently mean that if they only say revisionism.
S.: Mr. Rudolf, for years now you have been very successfully active in revisionism, have authored a formidable and invincible expert report on the alleged “gas chambers” of Auschwitz, have published many articles and books and are the proud owner of a gigantic revisionist database on the Internet. You have frequently described what made you write your expert report. I understand that it was the defense lawyer of the Nazi Otto Ernst Remer who asked you to write your report. Is it possible that Otto Ernst Remer has influenced you in any way?
R.: First of all, nothing is invincible or irrefutable. Remer never initiated any contact with me. I met him only during his trail, that is, in my function as an expert witness, and later during my own trial because of my expert report, which had been published by him with comments. But even then I did not talk to him, also because he was almost paralyzed due to two strokes. I had been contacted by a friend of Mr. Remer and his lawyer. During that first meeting we only discussed technical and logistic questions about producing an expert report. At that time I was quite excited that someone would finance such research. That enabled me to get rid of my doubts and to regain clarity, apart from the fact that I saw a chance to eliminate the many mistakes of the Leuchter Report. It was only after I had written my expert report, that is, after I was let into the inner circle of revisionists, that I learned about the political activities of the Remer circle. That caused me some trouble later, since this was interpreted as my consent to their publications, which was only partly true.
S.: What made you join revisionism after you finished your report?
R.: Well, the answer would be that revisionism joined me (laughing).
S.: How did that work?
R.: Well, already before finishing my expert report, I had noticed that this would not solve all the questions relating to the Holocaust. But through my activity I got in touch with other scholars who were working on other facets of this topic. As early as fall 1991, that is, already some 4 months before the completion of my expert report, I organized a meeting of several scholars in Würenlos (Switzerland), where the project “Dissecting the Holocaust” was defined. This means that within a very short period of time I had advanced as a leading figure of the worldwide revisionist community, not because of my competence, but because I had the vision to create a collection of scientific papers addressing all my questions, and because I had the willpower and organizational skills to push this project through against all odds. As a 26 years old youngster, it was really awkward to work, as the leading editor, together with all these revisionist scholars of age 40, 50, 60. But the world belongs to those who have courage and determination. To cut a long story short: I saw the need for research and for action going well beyond the scope of my expert report, and I did not hesitate to get it done. Hence, I did not join revisionism, but I simply led it, because nobody else was willing to do it. After all, someone had to do it, so why not I. That is my understanding of an elite: he who can perform better, has to perform better, and he ho wants to earn more, has to first serve more. Even if the salary so far consisted mainly in slander and persecution, but that is a different story. My engagement is a form of altruism, to serve a greater purpose despite huge disadvantageous, the purpose of exactitude, justice, balance, and by so doing hopefully also of the truth.
S.: I have looked around the Internet and compared your website with that of the German Office for the Protection of the Constitution as well as the website www.h-ref.de. I noticed several topics which I would like to address now.
The annual report of the German Office for the Protection of the Constitution of 2002 has a chapter called “Right-wing extreme revisionism”, chapter 6, pages 19-21. They accuse you of being unscientific:
“Rudolf acted similarly irresponsible during his investigations: According to his own statements he took samples from the ruins of the gas chambers and delousing facilities in Auschwitz, but without permission and without control.”
S.: If you had asked the museum administration: “May I take some wall samples for an expert report?”, then you most certainly would have been asked: “What is that expert report meant to be for?” An honest answer would have been: “I was asked by a Holocaust denier to prepare an expert report which is to verify the findings of Fred Leuchter.” Then you would not have gotten the permission. I know that sometimes pioneers can find out new things only by doing it in secrecy and also sometimes by doing it beyond the realm of legality. I really would like to know how many scientists made their research at the brink of illegality.
R.: Correct. I have also been accused of not having informed the laboratory that analyzed my samples about the origin of my samples. But it is not only perfectly ok, but sometimes even necessary for a scientist to hide the origin of samples from the analyzing person(s), if he wants to ensure that the analyses are being made objectively. An example for clarification: I take samples from the waste water outlet of a chemical plant, which is – without my knowledge – also the main customer of the same laboratory which I hire to analyze my samples. Imagine what could happen if I told that laboratory where these samples are from? How likely is it that this laboratory would “adjust” their results in order to keep their main customer happy? I am not saying that such a fraud is likely to occur, but in order to reduce the risk to zero, I have to hide the origin of the samples. So, how likely is it that the laboratory I asked to analyze my samples would have come to the same results if they had known their origin and perhaps even the purpose of these analyses? … provided they would have accepted to analyze the samples in the first place.
That such a scenario is not unlikely at all is proven by the behavior of Prof. Dr. Roth who was the responsible person of the laboratory which analyzed the samples taken be Fred Leuchter. In my expert report I wrote the following about it:
“It is also revealing that Prof. Roth mentioned during this interview, if he had known where Leuchter’s samples originated from, his analytical results would have been different.”
The interview was taped by Errol Morris and published in his movie “Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.” a VHS video that can be purchased.
Conclusion: If a topic is highly controversial – and nothing is more controversial than doubting the gas chambers – then a scientist MUST make sure that his research is not impeded, manipulated, or tempered with by third parties.
Regarding the question of control: I had three witnesses, one of which made photos, and another one taped it all on video. Unfortunately the video tape turned out to be useless, since the guy who operated it was unfamiliar with the device and taped everything with the smallest exposure, so the entire sample taking turned out black in black.
The suspicion behind that accusation is basically that it cannot be shown without a doubt where my samples really came from and that I had not manipulate them. It is, of course, basically impossible to exclude all possible doubts about that, since only an uninterrupted camera recording and public live transmission via TVs of the entire history of the samples from taking them, packing them, storing them, transporting them, handing them over to the laboratory, their preparing and analyzing them, and getting the results could ensure that nobody manipulated anything, and even that would not be 100% water proof. But to be honest: Considering the hysteria of persecution directed against everybody coming up with unwanted or illegal results, it is far more likely that samples and results are manipulated by the other side in this controversy. In one case it is even obvious that exactly this happened, as I pointed out in my expert report: When the Polish Auschwitz museum asked a local analytic laboratory to make similar chemical analyses as Leuchter and I had done, these Polish scientists first chose an inappropriate method of analysis to ensure that their results would be as their customers expected – because they were told, as can be seen from their own paper, where these samples came from and what the results were needed for: to refute the “evil” revisionists. But when the results of their first series of samples turned out to be troubling – that is: supporting revisionist findings – they simply decided to dump these results and take another series. In other words: They committed a major fraud, because there is no way the Auschwitz museum would have accepted a result confirming revisionist research. After all, if the gas chambers go down the drain, so goes the Auschwitz museum, which is owned by the Polish government, and also probably the Polish state itself, 30% of whose territory is land robbed from Germany after the war with the justification of reparation for “Auschwitz” and other invented or exaggerated atrocities. So who has a motive for fraud here?
Therefore, if anybody thinks that the veracity of scientific research on Auschwitz can be assured only by having “neutral” observers from the Auschwitz museum or any other similarly inclined organization present, please think twice. It is obviously much more likely that they forge results, because they did it in the past and keep justifying it to this day.
By the way: My wall samples were eventually confiscated by the German state security police. But why? What could these samples prove? They are not even a weapon of crime. And besides: The only possible manipulation would be to add iron cyanide to them or to replace samples containing lots of iron cyanide with some that do not contain any. But to what end would anybody commit such a manipulation, if such a fraud could be revealed at any time by taking and analyzing yet another series of samples? What would I gain by rigging my results to a revisionist end? I sure could have gained a lot by rigging them to please the other side, I can tell you that. Honor, career, money, fame, all these things are offered to those who slay the evil revisionist dragon. So the accusation goes right back to the other side.
These insinuations of not having excluded the possibility of a fraud are pointless for another reason: Nobody involved in this controversy – not even my most ardent opponents – ever doubted the origin of my samples or the veracity and accuracy of my analytic results. The argument revolves only around the proper method of analysis and the correct interpretation of the results.
S.: Regarding the blue discoloration of the walls of gas chambers and delousing chambers, the above quoted report of the German government states:
“In addition to that he works under an unprovable assumption, namely that the application of Zyklon B must unavoidably result in a blue discoloration of walls.”
R.: This statements either proves that the authors of this report have not read my expert report or that they lie. I claim nowhere that anything “must unavoidably result” from that. Leuchter made this mistake, and my expert report was written exactly for the purpose of correcting this error by investigating the conditions leading to such a blue discoloration. Hence, this false claim could hardly be more outrageous.
S.: Can you explain that in more detail?
R.: Leuchter’s argument was as follows: The application of Zyklon B leads (under any circumstances) to the formation of long-term stable iron cyanide residues staining the walls blue. Because no such staining and no considerable amounts of iron cyanides could be found in the homicidal gas chambers, this proved according to Leuchter that no Zyklon B was applied there as claimed by the witnesses. I dedicated a lot of time and paper of my report to this question: Under which circumstances do long-term stable iron cyanide compounds form in walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide, and when does that lead to a blue discoloration. Leuchter never even asked these questions, because he simply assumed that they do form. To ask and to ponder over this question means, of course, that one does not consider the answer to it to be obvious, that one does not assume that long-term stable iron cyanide compounds form in such cases under any circumstances, resulting in “unavoidable” blue discolorations.
Apart from that, I stated in my chapter about the delousing chambers of Auschwitz that even the accumulation of huge amounts of long-term stable iron cyanides must not necessarily result in blue discolorations. A wall turns bluish only if intermediate products of the underlying chemical reactions (later turning into the blue dye) migrate to, and accumulate at, the wall’s surface due to high humidity.
As such, the whole efforts leading to my expert report are the exact opposite of the assumption “that the application of Zyklon B must unavoidably result in a blue discoloration of walls.”
S.: The German government further accuses you as follows:
“Rudolf did not perform an exact and systematic investigation into the reasons for the existence or non-existence of such discolorations on certain parts of the walls.”
R.: That is nothing more than an unfounded claim. In the context of what I was asked to do and of my possibilities, I did what I could to clarify this question. A more substantial systematic research would take weeks at the camp and had to include the entire buildings investigated, with drilling out wall samples on hundreds of spots. This would be a massive intrusion into the evidenciary material (the crematoria and the delousing chambers), which could only be done with the permission of the museum – in the framework of an international and independent investigation commission with representatives of all sides. That would cost millions of dollars. I have no way of financing such a thing, not to mention to get any official in Poland to agree to it.
S.: Let me get back once more to the blue discolorations of the walls in the crematoria of the Auschwitz Birkenau camp, or the lack therefore:
“Besides, Rudolf refutes himself with his claims and publications, because he claims that there is no blue discoloration in the ruins of the gas chambers in Auschwitz – which is circumstantial evidence for him for the use of Zyklon B – but then he prints a color picture in his book with bright blue discoloration of the walls with a caption saying the opposite.”
S.: How can you explain that?
R.: The picture mentioned, depicting the inside of the ruin of morgue #1 of Crematorium II in Birkenau as taken in August 1991– the alleged homicidal gas chamber – was printed for the first time in April 1993 in the book “Vorlesungen über Zeitgeschichte,” published under my pen name Ernst Gauss (Grabert, Tübingen, Ill. 3.2., p. 185), after I had glued picture prints of this photo in various photocopied versions of my expert report. It appeared a second time in the authorized, printed version of my expert report in July 1993 on p. 25 (“Das Rudolf Gutachten“, Ill. 12, Cromwell, London). In none of these books the walls of that morgue appear bluish on this picture. The only reproduction of this picture that ever had a bluish look to it was the one published with decreased size in November 1994 on p. 257 of the revisionist anthology Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte (Grabert, Tübingen), edited by me under the pseudonym Ernst Gauss. If you read this book carefully, you notice that all special characters in it were corrupted. Both printing mistakes have the same reasons, as I was told by the publisher Wigbert Grabert: This was his first book produced entirely electronically, that is, directly from data carrier to paper, with no proofs involved. Because a new law was taking effect on Dec. 1, 1994, in Germany outlawing even scientific revisionism, the publication of my book was rushed to get it out before that. It came back from the printer on Nov. 22., 1994, without that any proofing steps had been involved after the diskettes had been handed to the printer to check if the data transfer had worked and also if the color pictures reproduced properly. That is the background of this slip. All four color pictures on that page are therefore extremely bluish.
Apart from that it is quite normal that pictures taken in an unlit cellar with a flashlight have a slight bluish appearance, because the camera flashlights have a bluish-white color with a color temperature far above the temperature of daylight (the sun has a temperature of some 5,500ºC, whereas flashlights often operate as high as 10,000ºC). You can check it yourself: take a camera and make a photo of yourself standing in a dark room in front of a mirror and compare it with a picture taken outside in bright sunlight. You mirror picture will give you a bluish pale appearance that looks like you are sick. But in the case of the book mentioned here, it is primarily a mistake by the printer who simply put too much blue in his printing machine, so to say.
I may also point out that this pseudo-argument of my opponents exposes their mental deprivation, because the optical appearance of a wall is no basis at all on which I came to any conclusions in my expert report. I used pictures only for illustration purposes. Whether the walls are blue, pink, have purple and green stripes, or red polka dots on a black background is irrelevant. The chemical analyses together with all the chemical and technical considerations and investigation I made are decisive.
S.: Well, but what is with this part of their claim:
“[…] because he claims that there is no blue discoloration in the ruins of the gas chambers in Auschwitz – which is circumstantial evidence for him for the use of Zyklon B.”
R.: That should read: “circumstantial evidence for him for the none-use of Zyklon B.”
S.: Let me now address your pseudonyms. Over the years you have used quite a few of them, as did others. The website “Informationsdienst gegen Rechtsextremismus” (IDGR, Information Service against Right-Wing Extremism) claims that you have used a long list of pseudonyms in order to appear more serious and more scientific by using PhD degrees for some of these pen names.
R.: I had written the manuscript to my book “Vorlesungen zur Zeitgeschichte” under the impression that it will be published around the time when I finish my PhD thesis in chemistry, therefore I used the PhD title in it already. The publisher of the book discussed that with me, and since I was in the process of receiving my PhD title, we went ahead and left it that way. That the university then refused to admit me to the final exams was a result of the persecution resulting from my expert report. So I do not think that there is a moral issue here, at least not on my side.
It is a little different when it comes to the brochure “Die Zeit lügt!” (meaning: The weekly newspaper “The Time” lies). I need to explain this in more detail (see also the explanation in my expert report). In spring and summer of 1992 I had been summoned to several trials in Germany on the initiative of several defense lawyers, where various revisionists were prosecuted for their historical dissident views (Udo Walendy, Bielefeld, February 1992; Gerd Honsik, Munich, March 1992; David Irving, Munich, Mai 1992; Detscher, Munich, July 1992; Max Wahl, Munich, July 1992). During these trials – as in all cases against revisionists – the judges reject any motion to introduce evidence intended to show that the revisionists’ factual statements about the Holocaust are correct. In the meantime it is even forbidden for defense lawyers under the penalty of prosecution to file such motions to begin with! This suppression of evidence includes expert witnesses already present in the court room, even though this is an open violation of German law. In one case in (against Arthur Vogt in Nuremberg) I experience how a chemist (I) was rejected as an expert witness because he was neither a toxicologist nor a historian, an technician Leuchter) was rejected because he was neither a chemist nor a historian, and a historian (Prof. Dr. Georg Werner Haverbeck) was rejected because he was neither an engineer nor a chemist. My conclusion therefore was that you apparently had to be at once an engineer, a chemist, a toxicologist, a Historian and perhaps even a lawyer in order to be accepted by a German court of law as an expert witness. The legal framework of penal proceedings against revisionists have become so perverted to such a degree in Germany that I decided to mock this by “creating” a person being all these experts in one person. This person then would be the author of the brochure “Die Zeit lügt!”, which I was writing back in September 1992. But because it was a little unrealistic to have four or even five academic degrees from utterly different areas in one person, I split this person up into four individuals, bestowing a different degree to each of them. That is the background. I would call this a sin of my youth. The motivation was not, however, to suggest competence where there was none, but to ridicule the German legal proceedings.
S.: Let me now list the pen names as given by IDGR:
“Ernst Gauss,Manfred Köhler, Dr. Werner Kretschmer, Dr. Christian Konrad, Dr. Dr. Rainer Scholz, Jakob Sprenger, Wilhelm Schlesinger, Tuisco, Dr. Manfred Gerner, Dr. Lennard Rose. Together with Karl Philipp: Heiko Schwind, Gerhard Körner”.
S.: You reacted to this list by writing a letter to IDGR as follows:
“[This list of pseudonyms] is wrong. I never used any pen name together with Karl Philipp. I never used the pen names Wilhelm Schlesinger (the man’s name is Schlesiger, by the way), Tuisco, Dr. Manfred Gerner, Heiko Schwind, Gerhard Körner. These are pseudonyms of other persons. I never used a Dr. for the pseudonym Lennard Rose either.”
S.: Do you still maintain this today?
R.: Sure. That list includes names I never used and it does not include names I did use, for example Anton Mägerle, Rudolph Markert, Wolfgang Pfitzner, Ronald Reeves, Angela or Andrea Schneider, Gerd Steiger, Rudi Zornig. For a list of the names I used, see my bibliography. Since the statute of limitation is over, I can now say that the person hiding behind Wilhelm Schlesiger was Karl Philip. He taped an interview with me in late 1993, which I turned into a manuscript for the brochure The Rudolf Case. Manfred Gerner is the pen name of a German engineer whose real name I cannot reveal because he lives in Germany and would probably have the police visit him if I uncovered him [Note 2016: Dipl.-Ing. Willy Wallwey, deceased in 2014]. Heiko Schwind and Gerhard Körner are names of authors who to my knowledge published articles in the German language right-wing tabloids Deutschland Report and its follow-up publication National Journal. I never used these names, and it is a riddle to me, how IDGR got to its unfounded claim. Moreover, “Tuisco” is not even a pseudonym, but the headline of an op-ed column of the Remer-Depesche, a publication preceding Deutschland Report and National Journal.
S.: You mentioned before that you wrote the article “Medieval Witch Trials and their parallels in our times” using a pseudonym in order to protect yourself against persecution. Was that the only reason for using the pen name or were there more reasons for that?
R.: Protection from prosecution has always been the main reason. Police officers investigating revisionist “thought crimes” are not stupid. They can recognize authors by certain patterns, like style, mistakes, expressions, vocabulary, etc. If you want to stay beneath their radar, it is advisable to change names, gender, and also the style repeatedly, which is the hardest part.
Another reason was that I wanted to make myself smaller than I was, because if everything I wrote had been published under my name, the entire world would have immediately seen how large my writing activities were, which would have dramatically increased persecution. To be honest, I have lost track of which pen name I have used when and where. When I was asked, during my application for political asylum, to list all pseudonyms ever used, I actually ran out of space and I had to start a separate sheet of paper for it. That is the way it is if you are a very productive author writing things for which the German authorities go after you like the devil goes after the poor soul. Most of the pen names listed I used only during my stay in Germany and England. After I felt more secure while residing in the USA, I restricted the use of pen name more and more. Meanwhile I hurt myself when using pen names, because if the public knows the expanse of my writings, it also increases the support I can get – whereas the negative consequences are bearable in the safe haven called USA, and it cannot get any worse anymore anyway when it comes to what the German authorities would like to do to me, should they ever get hold of me.
In general I want to say that not those act immorally who have to use pen names for their writings in order to protect themselves from persecution, but those who persecute authors of peaceful writings, which drives them to use pseudonyms to begin with. The whole fuss about my pen names is therefore nothing but a huge hypocrisy of those who are overly eager to put me in jail for my dissenting views. If I had always used my real name, I would never have been able to accomplish what I was able to do during the last 12 years.
S.: The German Holocaust reference website attacks you for a statement you made about the number of victims of the air raid against Dresden in February 1945. They claim that you exaggerated the victim number by the factor of ten, whereas David Irving, who you also quote, had claimed more recently that not more than 25,000 Germans died during that air raid.
R.: I am well aware of tendencies prevailing since the reunification of Germany to reduce the number of victims of this air raid. There exists a German document from shortly after the raid stating a sum of 202,000 victims and estimating a total of perhaps 250,000. The other side claims that this is a Nazi forgery intended to exaggerate the horrors created by the allied carpet bombings. That may be, although I do not think that the Third Reich still had sufficient organization left in March/April 1945 to coordinated and stage such an attempt of historical forgery. They really had other problems at that time. In 1996 I spoke personally with David Irving about that issue. He told me that during his investigation to his first book on Dresden during the 1960s in the Dresden archives, he personally saw the documents on the rescue operations and the identification of victims. He had to admit that he unfortunately did not make any copies of these documents, because when he came back to Dresden after the German reunification, these documents had vanished tracelessly. He assumes that these documents were destroyed or removed in order to avoid an embarrassment of the Americans and the British and in order to prevent an “abuse” of these documents by right-wingers like Irving. Perhaps Irving has changed his mind in the meantime, which would not be new, since he frequently changes his opinions, not always based on facts, I am afraid to say.
The argument I put forward in my book Lectures was that it is simply unlikely that the bomb load dropped over Dresden caused considerably less casualties than the one dropped over Hamburg (roughly 40,000 victims). The load dropped over Dresden was much higher per capita than in Hamburg, and because the wooden buildings in Dresden were built more narrowly, this resulted in a much stronger firestorm in this city overcrowded with refugees than in Hamburg two years earlier. I simply cannot believe in the accuracy of that low death toll figure.
S.: German Holocaust reference website quotes you as follows:
“The expert report concludes irrefutably that the alleged homicidal gas chambers were never in contact with Zyklon-B.”
When I read that for the first time, I immediately took the first edition of your expert report, but I could not find such a sentence.
R.: I never said or wrote that anywhere. That is from a promotion flyer that Remer and his friends distributed. It is frequently claimed that it stems from me or that I endorsed this statement, but that is not true. I was always opposed to such sweeping statements. This one is also rather stupid. Zyklon B is the trade name of a product; whether or not this product ever came into contact with gas chamber walls is irrelevant. It is hydrogen cyanide, the active ingredient of that product, that is of concern here, not Zyklon B as such, which mainly consists of gypsum. I would never say such nonsense.
S.: Mr. Langowski of www.h-ref.de also writes the following about your report:
“Those interested in a detailed factual critique of the Rudolf-Report may read the articles referred to below (in English). Since Germar Rudolf hardly responded to technical questions in his last reply, the scientific critique by Green/McCarthy are basically unrefuted.”
R.: That is really funny. In my last two responses (see here for the first) I showed that McCarthy and Green waste almost half of the space of their ‘critique’ by attacking me personally. As I pointed out, they hardly came up with any new arguments. How am I supposed to come up with new arguments about writings, which are mainly personal and repetitive? I think that what I wrote in the summary of my book Dissecting is still the best:
“Another strange story is that of Richard Green, a PhD Chemist with quite similar educational background as I have. The layman would expect two experts with similar educational backgrounds to come to similar conclusions in questions relating to their expert knowledge. But this is only partly the case. The reason for this is that Dr. Green ignores many facts that are either supported by documentary evidence – like the performance of the ventilation installed in crematoria II and III, or the speed of executions in U.S. execution chambers – or by expert literature – like the higher tendency of cold, moist walls to adsorb HCN, and the longer lasting alkalinity of cement mortar compared to lime mortar.
However, Dr. Green makes some concessions which are important to note:
He agrees that basically all witnesses attest to very short execution times, indicating a rather high concentration of HCN used.
He also agrees “that Rudolf is correct or nearly correct regarding the formation of blue staining in the delousing chambers.”
What he does challenge, though, is the possibility of formation of any noticeable quantities of Iron Blue in the homicidal ‘gas chambers.’ One of his flawed and deficient arguments to support his thesis is that in his view, no noticeable amounts of cyanide could have accumulated in the walls of the morgues (‘gas chambers’). According to Dr. Green, one major factor for this is supposed to be the fact that masonry has a neutral pH value which prevents the formation of cyanide salts. But if that were true, how come huge amounts of cyanides did accumulate in the walls of the disinfestation chambers?
My argument in this regard is that particularly cement plasters and concretes, as used in morgues 1 of crematoria II and III, are noticeably alkaline for many weeks, months, or even years, which I documented thoroughly with expert literature on the chemistry of building materials. Hence, I concluded that these walls would have been very much inclined to accumulate cyanide salts and to form Iron Blue, even more so than the lime plaster of the disinfestation chambers, which in turn provoked the following answer by Dr. Green:
“[In 1993] The IFRC [Institute for Forensic Research, Cracow], on the other hand measured the pH [of mortar samples from the alleged gas chambers] to be between 6 and 7 [i.e. neutral].”
Dr. Green obviously did not consult any literature on the chemistry of building materials, as he quotes none. He solely relies on the findings of the Krakow institute. In order to make the reader see how flawed Dr. Green’s way of arguing is, let me say it in a parable:
By referring to a couple of Italian expert pizza baking instructions, I showed that a pizza, when taken out of the oven, is hot or warm for quite a while (one hour). Now, Dr. Green comes along claiming that I am wrong because a Polish friend of his has just now measured the temperature of a pizza which was baked a week ago, and which has been lying around somewhere since. And the Polish scientists found out that this pizza is indeed cold right now. Surprise, surprise! What does the pH value of samples taken 50 years after the erection of these building prove regarding their pH value shortly after they were built? Dr. Green’s way of arguing is childish to the highest degree.”
“It is also indicative that these Polish authors have an ardent supporter in Dr. Green. Although Dr. Green agrees with me that the Iron Blue found in delousing chambers is the result of gassings with hydrogen cyanide, he refuse to acknowledge that the approach of the Krakow team to exclude Iron Blue from the analysis was fraudulent. No matter which results the Polish scientists produced and what their scientific opinion might have been: their behavior is extremely unscientific, as the most important task of a scientist is to try to understand what has not been understood so far, and to discuss the attempts of others to make understandable. The Polish scientists did just the opposite: they decided to ignore and exclude what they did not understand.
And the amazing thing about Dr. Green is that he – and with him Prof. van Pelt, who relies on Green – does not only defend Prof. Markiewicz’s behavior in every regard, but he attacks me for my critique against the Polish scientists, while omitting all the reasons I gave for doing so. To crown this, Dr. Green even defends the fact that Prof. Markiewicz never even bothered to address any of my critique, even though addressing critiques is paramount for scientists. Dr. Green argues:
“Rudolf complains that Markiewicz et al. have not responded to his queries. Why should they do so? What credibility does Rudolf have, that demands they answer his every objection no matter how ill-founded?”
However, since Dr. Green agrees that the Iron Blue detectable in disinfestation walls is the result of gassings with Zyklon B, he himself has indirectly admitted that all my objections against Markiewicz’s method of analysis are well-founded, i.e., just the opposite of “ill-founded”.
And why does Dr. Green think I bear no credibility demanding a discussion of any of my arguments? Not because I lack scientific qualifications. No, he thinks I am an abomination because of my views, and because I have been subject to social persecution and political prosecution, leading to the total destruction of my social existence, my reputation, and finally my freedom. Dr. Green even resorts to calling me a “liar,” “obfuscator,” and “hater” because of my different well-founded opinions.
The scheme is as follows: first, people like Dr. Green attempt to do everything to destroy my reputation by name-calling, persecution, and prosecution, and when they succeed, they claim that there is no need to discuss anything with me anymore, since I do not have any reputation and credibility anyway. This way they can nicely ignore any argument refuting their flawed thesis. And they have the chutzpah to call themselves righteous scientists and to call me a pseudo-scientific liar and obfuscator of the truth.
Dr. Green unconditionally defends the scientific frauds from the Krakow institute, and both get away with it, because in the eyes of the public, both have the ‘politically correct’ ‘scientific’ opinion about Auschwitz. Birds of the same feather flock together.
The same behavior as the Polish scientists, Dr. Green, and Prof. Pelt exposed was shown by the Pope’s Holy Inquisitor Cremonini who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope to see Jupiter’s moons revolving around Jupiter, because he could not – or did not want to – understand what Galileo was saying – since he did not like the consequences for his worldview, which is: if moons revolve around Jupiter, then our Earth might revolve around the sun. Markiewicz, Dr. Green, and van Pelt do the same thing: They refuse to use a ‘telescope’ that enables them to see Iron Blue ‘revolving around the delousing chambers’, because they do not like the impact this has on their worldview: if Iron Blue ‘revolves around the delousing chambers’, then Iron Blue might be expected to ‘revolve around homicidal gas chambers’ as well. And they do not like that at all, because due to lack of Iron Blue, that opens doubts about the reality of the claimed homicidal gas chambers.”
S.: Green, McCarthy, and Langowski accuse you of having put your own findings in doubt by meanwhile admitting that chemistry could not yield a result with absolute certainty about the gas chamber question.
R.: Green, McCarthy, and Langowski expose themselves here as the ignorant morons they really are. Had they a little knowledge about epistemology, they would know that there is never “absolute certainty” anywhere. They also would know that the term “exact sciences,” to which chemistry belongs, does not at all mean that all of its results are absolute and rigorous, without which they claim they would not accept any results of these sciences. To demand absolute, rigorous results in highly complex contexts proves that those who demand this have no scholar attitude toward the topic or that they have not understood, or do not want to understand, the nature of the scientific problem involved. They demand that I come up with an irrefutable dogma, which would be the only thing they can accept as a replacement for their current “irrefutable” dogma. But such a thing does not exist in science, and certainly not even remotely for highly complex issues. This entire affair resembles more a puppet theater game than an exchange between scholars, too embarrassing to spend more time with it. But it is typical for ideologically misled fanatics.
S.: What is your opinion about these websites of IDGR and www.h-ref.de?
R.: Initially I tried to have an intelligent exchange with the lady at IDGR in order to point out errors she made. But instead of correcting her mistakes, she only used my emails to drag me through the mud again. I therefore concluded that this is a waste of time. I rather concentrate on publishing important scholarly works than get involved in political mud-throwing. They only want to bind my energies otherwise. Both pages basically rely only on Green anyway, as does anyone else on their side. I have shown elsewhere in detail what this guy is all about, see above.
I understand of course if you are not inclined to agree with my assessment. But if you do not want to go into all the details of this controversies, how about making a simple link check: Go to their websites and see if they have links to my articles so people can see what I really wrote. You won’t find any there. This shows what kind of scholars they are. They are frauds hiding behind the strong back of the German authorities who are trying to censor my website.
S.: Why should the Allies lie regarding the Holocaust and hold on to these lies until today?
R.: Why should the Soviets have lied about Katyn? Why should they have staged the show trials of “Charkow” and “Krasnodar” after the discovery of Katyn, which were kind of the starting point of Holocaust-Propaganda? Why should the British have introduce black propaganda into warfare during WWI? Why is the truth the first victim of every war? Why should that have been any different during the war of all wars? Why should the “Holocaust” story be the only war story excluded from this rule? Why is it excluded by law in many countries? Yes, why is that so? And why should the greatest propaganda campaign in the history of mankind have influenced the enemy (the Germans) in what they believe is true? And why should even the friends of the propagandists have been influenced by it in what they believe to be true? Why, yes why…? Perhaps because that was exactly the purpose of this propaganda campaign? If somebody is absolutely convinced that a lie is true, this proves only that the liars were very successful, but not that the one who is convinced of the truth of that lie is a liar himself. So much about why they “hold on to this lie until today.” I do not think that they lie. They believe. At least the vast majority of them do. And they do so in a very fanatic way, because it has been deeply engraved into their minds by the war’s hate propaganda.
Psychological warfare is a topic of itself. Formally seen, the Second World War never ended, but is still continuing. Germany still has no peace treaty; the occupational status of the Allied forces has been eternalized with the 2+4 treaty in order to allow the recent German reunification, and the U.N. constitution still defines Germany as the enemy nation of the entire world outside of any protection by international law, against which the Allied powers may start hostilities whenever they like.
S.: But why should the former inmates of Auschwitz lie? I once saw a documentary on TV during which Jew described the gassing of human very credibly.
R.: Whether a description of an alleged event appears credible or not to you depends most importantly on your inclination to believe the witness. We need to subject each testimony to a thorough scrutiny to figure out its credibility, and also the trustworthiness of a witness needs examination. Interviewing historical witnesses is a tough job and requires years of study of the subject to be testified about, because you need to know which questions to ask and which answers are possible and which are not, and you need to have the guts to question the trustworthiness of a witness, once doubts arise. Neither of it is ever done during such interviews. These witnesses are given free reign to tell whatever they like. Nobody ever asks them critical questions.
The reasons for false testimonies about the Holocaust are, for instance: hatred, vengeance, political ambitions, Odysseus syndrome, sucking up to the victors of the war, psychological, physical, and financial pressure by authorities and “victim groups.” And then there is the untruth without being a lie: typhus madness and most of all: the “Holocaust” Survivor Syndrome. I wrote about that elsewhere.
S.: Revisionist scholar Carlo Mattogno is said to be the only revisionist considering the Wannsee protocol to be authentic, to which I agree, because it supports the revisionist theory of the emigration of the Jews from Third Reich Germany as enforced by the National Socialist government. Why do you think it is a forgery?
R.: Carlo Mattogno may be the only revisionist scholar who published about that topic and thinks it is authentic. There are two versions of the so-called “Wannsee protocol”, one of which, the formally “improved” version, must be a forgery, because it has been retyped, which would not have been necessary if the forger considered the other version at hand to be “insufficient,” that is, not good enough. But if a forger holds a document in his hands that he thinks is genuine, he wouldn’t retype it in order to “improve” it. It is therefore only logical to conclude that both versions must be forgeries – which is also supported by many formal and stylistic arguments. That does, of course, not mean that the content of that forgery necessarily contradicts historical fact. Even a forged document can describe facts accurately or almost accurately.
I am sure there once was a genuine Wannsee protocol, but the forgers must have thought that it is insufficient, so maybe they changed it a little by adding or changing a few words or sentences here or there to make it sound ambiguous in a way that would allow them to interpret it their way, while at the same time not raising suspicions of those who attended the Wannsee conference and therefore might remember the basic contents of its protocol.