Reprinted below is the commentary of retired Major General Otto Ernst Remer, which he included in his version of the Rudolf expert report, as it was printed on pages 109a to 114 of the court decision against Germar Rudolf. After reading this chapter 11 so far, readers should be in a position to judge whether this commentary was sufficient cause to sentence expert witness Germar Rudolf to 14 months’ loss of freedom, had he been the author of the commentary, which he was not, though the Great State Security Chamber of the District Court of Stuttgart disregarded the evidence and said he was the author.
On Jan. 19, 1996, the German Attorney General demanded that Germar Rudolf should spend 14 months behind bars for nothing other than this commentary. The German Federal Supreme Court concurred with this demand in a decision on March 7, 1996 (ref.: 1 StR 18/96).
In addition to these judicial issues, there were other problems with Remer’s commentary. In his preface printed on the inside front cover, under the caption “To all friends, countrymen …” he attacked our leading politicians, media people and jurists harshly with the words, “These liars need to be driven from their spoils fortresses“. At the same time, Remer mailed this version to exactly these leading politicians, media people and jurists. It is certain that to send such a piece of writing to these leading politicians, media people and jurists was entirely useless-though it must have cost many thousand DM.
Remer attached a comprehensive five-page article on the October 1992 trial, in which Remer himself had been sentenced to a 22 months prison term for denying the Holocaust and other things. This article was written by a close friend of Remer who had attended Remer’s trial. It basically summarizes the major events of this trials, like a description of various pieces of evidence presented by the two defense lawyers, their rejection by the court, and the final pleadings of the public prosecutor and Remer’s defence attorneys. The Rudolf Report had been prepared for this and for other trials.
In the trial against expert witness Rudolf, the District Court of Stuttgart took exception against this article, which had been entitled “Justice in Germany 1992“. For example, they criticized that the quotation from the Foreign Office saying that it was known that there were no gas chambers in Auschwitz (p. I) was incomplete, as the ellipses showed. The quoted German official Dr. Scheel had stated later in his letter that the gas chambers had been located in the Birkenau camp which was 3 km to the west. Thus he had not denied the existence of gas chambers in the complex Auschwitz-Birkenau, as the quotation suggested, but only with respect the main camp Auschwitz. This determination of the court is correct and demonstrates that Remer’s friend misconstrued documents to mislead the public. However, it should be pointed out that the statement of the Foreign Office that there had been no gas chambers in Auschwitz contradicts many witnesses, such as Pery S. Broad or Rudolf Höß. If these witnesses were wrong with their statements about the main camp Auschwitz, how can we be certain that other witnesses to other camps were not just as wrong? How can it be that under such circumstances to doubt the existence of gas chambers in other camps, or even to dispute their existence, is a criminal offense?
The District Court of Stuttgart also commented that the “Comparison of official figures on the number of those killed in the gas chambers in Auschwitz” (p. II) was insulting and constituted incitement to racial hatred. But in the meantime, quite official and well reputed sources have added even lower figures to this list of massively differing numbers: in 1993 and 1994, the French pharmacist Jean-Claude Pressac claims between 630,000 and 470,000 ‘gas chamber’ victims, and in 2002, a German mainstream journalist reduced the death toll of the Auschwitz ‘gas chambers’ down to as little as 356,000. One could certainly agree to the view that any number of victims which is too high or too low can have an insulting effect on some people or can incite to hatred against others. However, it was not Remer who had put these widely differing figures into the world, among which only one can be correct at best-and all others potentially inciting to racial hatred.
Also, Remer’s statement that the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial had determined that there were only 45,510 deaths in the gas chambers was not strictly true. In 1965, the Frankfurt Jury Court had sentenced some of the former camp staff on grounds of murder of a certain number of people by poison gas, and for other reasons. All told, it repaid 45,510 gas chamber murders in that it found some defendants guilty of having killed or contributed to the murder of a certain number of inmates. As to the question, how many prisoners had been killed by poison gas in Auschwitz all in all, the court had given no answer and did not have the duty to do so. The determination of the total count of victims is properly a scientific question. That having been said, this would also mean that the Stuttgart Court did not have the duty nor the competence either to make a judgment about the total death toll of Auschwitz, that is, it should not have criticized others for asking questions and having different views in this regard.
It remains true that German justice has judicially determined a figure of 45,510 gas chamber deaths, no more, no less, and that anything more is a scientific question and not a question of criminal justice. It must be asked then, why one should proceed against people with threats of criminal penalty and use of the magic formula ‘common knowledge,’ who do nothing else but to assert that counts of victims as high as several hundred thousand or even several millions are greatly exaggerated, particularly since several well-known mainstream authors do make similar statements. Only that can be judicially claimed to be ‘common knowledge’ which has been determined to be so in court on examination of evidence. With respect to the number of victims of the gas chambers of Auschwitz, that has not been done.
In the written basis for the decision, as proof of their assertion that the epilogue of the Remer version had deliberately created the impression that the Holocaust was used by Jews to exploit Germany, the Court gave this one example (decision, p. 235):
“This applies especially to the reprinting of a letter claimed to have been written by a Jew on May 2, 1991 (p. IV of the epilogue, p. 113 above). Together with the assertion that the Holocaust was an invention of the Jews, this deliberately inflames hatred against the Jews.”
In the epilogue in a display box one sees that Remer has quoted a letter with a sender’s address in Israel, in which the writer inquires about financial reparations based on the claim that his uncle was allegedly gassed in the concentration camp at Dachau. That this letter was written by a Jew is not mentioned anywhere, nor is there any reference to the religious affiliation of this person in this article. There is also no assertion in Remer’s (or his friend’s) comments “that the Holocaust was an invention of the Jews,” quite contrary to what the court claims. All that Remer’s friend did was to juxtapose the letter from Israel with a letter from the City of Dachau, in which the latter clarifies that there had never been any homicidal gassings in the concentration camp at Dachau.
The court had not examined whether or not this letter existed, therefore, on the principle “In dubio pro reo,” it had to assume that it did exist. In fact, not just Remer but also many other activists had photocopies of the letter which Remer’s friend had reproduced in the appendix to Remer’s version. It is a fact that there is a large number of statements from witnesses attesting to homicidal gassing in Dachau, but it is also well known that both the official Dachau Concentration Camp Museum as well as the City of Dachau clearly state that there were never any homicidal gassings of humans in this concentration camp.
These well-recognized facts were given with the documents published or quoted by Remer (or his friend), which cannot be a crime. In his commentary on this letter, Remer points out that false witness statements like the one quoted here, attesting to his uncle’s death in a Dachau gas chamber, serve as a basis for ‘common knowledge’ in Germany. Nowhere did he make the claim that anybody had lied for purposes of material enrichment. It is the court that is to blame for the charge that the reader would get the impression from these two reproduced documents, Remer wanted to impute, Jews had invented a lie for the purpose of exploiting Germany.
That even Jews sometimes make false statements about the period between 1945 and 1993 cannot be disputed. This was particularly clear in the criminal trial of John Demjanjuk in Jerusalem. The trial ended with an acquittal for the accused, since even the Israeli court could not shut its eyes to the flood of false documents and false witness testimony. Fortunately, in this case also, Jewish personalities turned against the flood of untruths that appeared in this trial.
That the same untrustworthy witnesses who appeared in this Jerusalem trial had made similar (incredible) statements in trials in Germany and elsewhere, did not affect their credibility in the eyes of the German court, of course.
In addition, the advertising blitz of the Jews Aze Brauner and his friends on May 6, 1995, in the German daily newspapers Frankfurt Allgemeine Zeitung and Süddeutschen Zeitung, which rehashed the old lies about soap made of the fat of Jews and lampshades made of human skin which have been repudiated even by the Holocaust Institute Yad-Vashem of Jerusalem, did not serve to make our jurists consider that not everything a Jew says about the years from 1933 to 1945 is necessarily true.
Even the recently reconfirmed information that the Jew Ilya Ehrenburg, who was Stalin’s chief propagandist, was one of the worst deceivers and liars in questions of the supposed National Socialist annihilation of the Jews does not appear to impress anyone in Germany. On the contrary, the Federal German justice system seems to opine that a Jew always tells the truth and that a non-Jew who accuses a Jew of reporting falsehoods or even lying belongs in jail.
In the decision of the 17th Criminal Chamber of the District Court Stuttgart, there is this discussion on Remer’s preface and epilogue (p. 115):
“Although preface and epilogue do not expressly accuse the Jews of having invented the accounts on the Holocaust particularly to gain political and material advantages,”
-read: although the crime of which Germar Rudolf was accused of had not been committed…
“in the eyes of this court the purpose of the Remer-Version of the ‘Expert Report’ is nevertheless to suggest this”
-read: the judges can read the mind and intention of the accused…
“and hence to stir up hostile emotions against the Jews. Provided that the claims of the ‘Expert Report’ are correct,”
-the court did nothing to find out whether or not Rudolf’s Expert Report is correct, so it had to assume that it indeed is correct…
“this arises already from the fact that the reader, among others due to the tendentious statements and attitude, must and had to come to the conclusion that the […] Jews must have consciously forged the accounts on the Holocaust.”
-read: even if the Expert Report is correct, the publisher has to make sure that his readers don’t think wrongly, or he will be punished for that, and the judges know the effect of this publication on the reader without even having any evidence for it.
This meant the expert witness was not only punished for a crime that he had not committed, but also for one that no one had committed in the first place. The crime was invented by the court-they ignored the facts and fantasized about what may be written between the lines!
Even though this was Rudolf’s first conviction, this sentence could, according to the court, not be suspended, (p. 239):
“if only because no positive social prognosis can be made for the accused (§56 para. 1. Penal Code), who is to be categorized as a fanatical, politically motivated criminal. During and despite of the current trial, the accused did publish more ‘revisionist’ works or prepared them, which once again proves his views. These, too, use the same strategy of apparent objectivity to deny the Holocaust. For example, in fall 1994 the book ‘Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte’ [=Dissecting the Holocaust, August 2000] appeared, and the book against Pressac was prepared. The Court has therefore no doubt that, in regard of the laws mentioned, the accused is not willing to be a law abiding citizen.” (emphasis added)
Here the court openly admits that it sentenced Rudolf to a prison term because of his scholarly convictions which allegedly render him an incorrigible criminal. No more proof is needed to show that Rudolf is politically persecuted in Germany.
Furthermore, the court uses publications, which it had called “scholarly” at the beginning of the verdict and which at that time had not yet finally been declared illegal by any court decision, to justify a prison term without probation.
By the time the judges handed down their verdict in June 1995, Rudolf had published three books. About the first, Rudolf’s Expert Report on chemical and technical details of the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz, the verdict states at page 23:
“This work, the basis of his publishing activities, is essentially written in a scholarly style. It addresses a chemical detail (the problem of hydrocyanic acid) and does not make any general political conclusions.”
In general, the verdict says about Rudolf’s three main works (Expert Report, Vorlesungen zur Zeitgeschichte, Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte):
“They are characterized by a scholarly attitude with reference to his expertise as a scientifically trained chemist. Tone and form are generally held in a way, as if they were interested only in the matter. Additionally, intensive discussions of details, tables and graphs as well as voluminous references to literature are meant to give the impression of an unbiased and open-minded scholarship. This is primarily true for the three large publications of the accused” (p. 23 of verdict)
About Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte-now published in English under Dissecting the Holocaust-the verdict says, it includes “a maximum appearance of objectivity” (p. 26), which later was confirmed by two German mainstream historians in expert reports they wrote in support of Rudolf’s scholarly work. Of course, the court had to insert the word “appearance“, to cast doubt on the quality of these works, because otherwise it could not possibly have sentenced Rudolf.
Considering the contempt and hate this verdict shows against Germar Rudolf, such words of open endorsement cannot be underestimated. Since the court had to admit that Rudolf’s main works are formally scientific and scholarly (form, i.e., appearance, not content, is the only criterion for scholarly works!), the accused could not possibly have committed any crime by publishing them, since the German constitution guarantees the freedom of science without restriction in article 5.3 of the German Basic Law (Germany’s unofficial constitution). So Remer’s additions were used instead to tie the rope around Rudolf’s neck.
With this finding, the court turned the historical dissident (revisionist) Germar Rudolf into a “thought criminal“.
It should be pointed out here that in May 2002, Fritjof Meyer, an editor of Germany’s largest, left-wing weekly magazine Der Spiegel, stated in a scholarly article addressing the alleged death toll of Auschwitz that the evidence indicates only some failed test gassings for the Birkenau crematoria, but no mass murder on a genocidal scale. This sensational statement is close to the claim Rudolf has been making since 1992, i.e., that “the mass gassings […] did not take place [as] claimed by witnesses”. Hence, Meyer’s article is nothing short of a partial but timely rehabilitation of Rudolf, and it might take only one or two more revisions of the official historiography of Auschwitz to reach the point where it agrees totally with what Rudolf is stating in his expert report.
In 1996 I pondered a while over the question whether or not to reprint Remer’s comments, since they caused me an awful lot of distress. But I think he had a perfect right to say what he had to say, and it was really a scandal how the German legal system persecuted this old man. Though I do not agree with everything Remer and his friend wrote, and much less with their style, I decided to reprint these comments in full, so that the reader can understand, how easy one can get imprisoned in Germany for making, endorsing, or-as in my case-simply being associated with hot-headed, but perfectly legal and harmless statements.
|||For this version, the text of Remer’s comments were retyped, trying to keep the layout as close to the original as possible. The original German version of this is available online at
|||J.-C. Pressac, Les crématoires d’Auschwitz. La machinerie du meurtre de masse, CNSR, Paris 1993, p. 147; J.-C. Pressac, Die Krematorien von Auschwitz. Die Technik des Massenmordes, Piper, Munich 1994, p. 202; F. Meyer, “Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz”, Osteuropa, 52(5) (2002), pp. 631-641. For an overview of the wide range and development of claims about the Auschwitz death toll, see Robert Faurisson, “How many deaths at Auschwitz?”, The Revisionist, 1(1) (2003), pp. 17-23 (www.vho.org/tr/2003/Faurisson17-23.html).|
|||There are, of course, other sources contradicting this, see Reinhold Schwertfeger, “Gab es Gaskammern im Altreich?“, VffG, 5(4) (2001), pp. 446-449 (online:
|||Cf. the summarizing article of Arnulf Neumaier, “The Treblinka-Holocaust“, in E. Gauss (ed.), Dissecting the Holocaust, Theses & Dissertations Press, Capshaw, AL, 2000, pp. 467-495 (online:
|||Asides from note 1 compare the book of Demjanjuk’s defense lawyer: Yoram Sheftel, The Demjanjuk Affair. The Rise and Fall of the Show Trial, Victor Gollancz, London 1994; cf. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, March 11, 1995, p. 8.|
|||Shmuel Krakowski, archives director of Yad Vashem, and Professor Yehuda Bauer finally admitted in 1990 that “the Nazis never made soap from human fat“, The Jerusalem Post International Edition, May 5, 1990; see M. Weber, JHR 11(2) (1991) pp. 217-227 (online:
|||Joachim Hoffmann, Stalins Vernichtungskrieg, Verlag für Wehrwissenschaften, Munich 1995; Engl.: Stalin’s War of Extermination 1941-1945, Theses & Dissertations Press, Capshaw, AL, 2001.|
|||As such Helge Grabitz, NS-Prozesse – Psychogramme der Beteiligten, 2nd ed., C.F. Müller, Heidelberg 1986, pp. 64-90; cf. Manfred Köhler, “The Value of Testimony and Confessions Concerning the Holocaust“, in: E. Gauss (ed.), op. cit. (note 4), pp. 85-131 (online:
|||F. Meyer, “Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz“, Osteuropa, 52(5) (2002), pp. 631-641, here p. 632; for critical reviews of these articles, see Germar Rudolf, “Cautious Mainstream Revisionism“, The Revisionist, 1(1) (2003), pp. 23-30 (online:
www.vho.org/tr/2003/Rudolf23-30.html); Carlo Mattogno, “Auschwitz. The new Revisions by Fritjof Meyer“, The Revisionist, 1(1) (2003), pp. 30-37 (online:
Remer’s commentary included in his version of the Rudolf expert report
Otto Ernst Remer, General-major, retired,
Winkelser Str. 11E, 8730 Bad Kissingen, Tel: 0971-63741, Fax: 69634
To all friends, countrymen and people who love the truth: I am in distress!
On the 22nd October 1992 the Land Court of Schweinfurt, Judge Siebenbürger presiding, sentenced me to 22 months prison without possibility of parole – a punishment which is equivalent to a death sentence for me.
The trial against me was not a real trial. The main session of the trial ended in a deadlock. The sentence was equivalent to stripping me bare – the destruction of an 80-year old man. I was not permitted to defend myself against charges consisting of lies, harassment and attacks on my honor. The court denied me the possibility of defense by means of sec. 186 of the Penal Code (StGB) by putting my assertions to the test of examination.
My defense attorney had asked the expert witness Rudolf to appear. The expert witness was in the courtroom, his expert report lay with the official records. The expert witness was not allowed to speak, the expert report was not allowed to be read. The expert report and the irrefutable scientific facts were denied by presiding judge Siebenbürger.
Earlier, Diplom Chemist Rudolf had been assigned by my defense attorney, retired Colonel Hajo Herrmann, to investigate the witness testimony on the claimed gassing operation in Auschwitz as an expert witness, using precise measurement techniques.
Up until now there has been no technical evidence on the gassing claims. No document, no photo, no order. Can you imagine that the entire city of Munich could be annihilated without there being traces left? All we have as “proof” of the gassing operations are absurd witness statements. In the great Frankfurt Auschwitz trial (50/4 Ks 2/63) the court believed it had proven the existence of gas-chambers with the “eye-witness” Böck. Böck supposedly saw thousands of Jews killed with Zyklon B. At the same time “he saw with his own eyes” how the prisoners’ commando had worked without any protective gear in the midst of this Zyklon B gas – still hovering in “blue” clouds over the corpses – without suffering any ill effects to their health. What is the difference between Böck’s testimony and that of the “eye-witnesses” who confirmed under oath that they had seen witches riding brooms on their way to the Blocksberg?
In a powerful, irrefutable scientific work the expert witness made a shattering discovery. The buildings in Auschwitz which are pointed out to tourists as “gas-chambers” in which supposedly millions of Jews were killed never came in contact with quantities of Zyklon B sufficient to kill. The analyses were carried out by no less an organization than the renowned Institute Fresenius. Notable historians confirmed that this research would change the world.
The expert report has been in the hands of the Federal Chancellor, the Central Council of Jews in Germany, the Federal General State Attorney, the Ministry of Justice and notable personalities for more than a year. Every one of them has been quiet as a mouse.
The condition of the expert witness had been, his work should be presented only to the court. He forbad me clearly to make his report available to the public. However, since the Lie has become an instrument which threatens the existence of us Germans, I can no longer allow myself to be bound by this condition.
I myself shall die in prison for publishing scientific fact. By means of an unbelievably satanic twisting of history our people will be held defenseless and “subject to extortion”, as the Circle of German Veteran’s Organizations wrote in its journal Soldat im Volk nr. 7/8 1992. In this condition of self-surrender we will finally be destroyed by means of a frightful multiculturalism. This forces me to a defense in extremity in the form of an unauthorized publication of the expert report on the reputed gas-chambers of Auschwitz.
Since 1945, entire generations of politicians have participated not only in the use of the most ghastly lies against the German people – no, they have become involved in the manufacture of lies. The same thing applies to the media. Today these powers do everything they can to uphold the most horrible lies in the history of the world by means of the criminal justice system. If the truth were to come to light, the lying politicians fear they would be scorned and not re-elected and the media brotherhood fear they would be driven as liars from their editorial offices.
These liars: the whole pack of them should be despised, shunned, not re-elected and driven from their spoils fortresses – for what they have done to our people. I would like to help.
This expert report shall be distributed even by you. I myself as a first phase will send copies to 1000 of the most important public figures in Germany. Among them will be the leadership of the Federal Army, business leaders, scientific people, faculties of chemistry and history in our universities, every Representative in the Federal Legislature, and the media.
In the second and third phases, each time another 1000 people will receive this scientific fact. No one will be able to say anymore, he did not know.
These operations are very expensive. The postage alone costs 4.00 Marks per copy. Therefore I need your support. By ordering a copy of the expert report you would help me to distribute this irrefutable work of science. Additional contributions will help produce additional distribution.
I am counting on your help.
Faithfully yours, Otto Ernst Remer
25th October 1992
I have added to the expert report secs. I-V of the trial report from my case in Schweinfurt. After reading this latter report you will perhaps more easily understand my defense in extremity.
Justice in Germany 1992:
Death Sentence for General Remer
This trial report by E. Haller is taken from REMER DEPESCHE Nr. 6/1992
(Austria), the 2.6.1988,
/s/ Pastor Viktor Robert Knirsch
|Schweinfurt (EH) – On the 22nd October 1992, the First Great Criminal Chamber of the Land Court of Schweinfurt, Judge Siebenbürger presiding, sentenced General Remer for publication of a scientific expert report. The main point of the expert report Remer had published was: there were no mass killings in Auschwitz with Zyklon B. The court called this publication “incitement to race hatred”, and Siebenbürger imposed on General Remer a sentence of imprisonment for 22 months without possibility of parole. State Attorney Baumann demanded a 30-month prison term and moved for the immediate arrest of the 80-year old accused in the courtroom. Observers of the trial began to suspect that the sentence had been decided before the trial began. At 9:00 hours on 20th October 1992, the day the trial opened, BAYERN 1 had announced: “This time it will cost Remer. … this time the punishment will be harder.” How did the announcer from B1 know that General Remer would be punished more severely than in previous trials? Why was an acquittal not conceivable?|
This document is one of many that were presented to the court as evidence.
Bonn, 8th Jan. 1979
Honorable Herr Stuparek!
Federal Minister Genscher has asked me to respond to your letter of 21st December 1978.
For the Federal Minister,
What had Remer done? As editor of the REMER DEPESCHE the highly-decorated front-line officer had published the results of a number of scientific expert reports. One of them was the Leuchter expert report, which former Minister of Justice Engelhard described as “scientific research”. Fred Leuchter is a builder of execution gas-chambers that use Prussic acid in the USA. Later the Director of the Auschwitz Museum, Dr. F. Piper assigned the Jan Sehn Institut in Cracow to make a similar expert report. A technical expert report in German in conjunction with the renowned Institute Fresenius followed in February 1992. The discussion that the General had opened up with his publications was desired even by the Federal President. A letter from the Presidential Office on 23rd October 1989 states that von Weizsäcker “will follow the discussion [on the Leuchter expert report] closely”. Had the Federal President lured General Remer into a trap with this letter? Remer naturally felt that ex-Minister of Justice Engelhard and the Federal President had encouraged him to publish his facts.
Gas-chambers that never came in contact with gas
All three expert reports came to the same conclusion: The gas-chambers of Auschwitz and Birkenau testified to by witnesses never came in contact with Zyklon B. In legal terms: the weapon was not loaded. For better understanding: When Prussic acid (Zyklon B) comes into contact with concrete or stone it forms permanent compounds with traces of iron in such building material. The compound that develops is blue (hence the name Prussian blue, although the gas itself is colorless) and occurs on the surface and within the gassed walls. Today one can easily see a massive blue dyeing on both inner and outer walls in the delousing buildings. There is no such dyeing in the reputed gas-chambers. Chemical analyses of samples from the delousing buildings show very high concentrations of cyanide, while no traces can be found in samples from the reputed gas-chambers. Scientific expert reports were never produced for any of the numerous National Socialist trials. No physical proof was ever offered.
In Nuremberg the propaganda lies of the victors were given reference numbers. Since then they have become “facts”
All courts have continually prevented all gas-chamber doubters from use of any evidence for their scientific facts. The courts have taken the point of view that the “gas-chambers” should be regarded as a commonly-known “fact”. “Commonly known” means, that the existence of the gas-chambers is as certain a fact as that the day has 24-hours. The Nuremburg Military Tribunal introduced the use of “common knowledge” into judicial practice. Pure war-horror propaganda items from the 2nd World War were turned into “facts” (IMT-Statutes 19 and 21), that had to be taken as given by the accused. Defense attorneys who attempted to prove the opposite were threatened with the death penalty. The Stalinist massacre at Katyn was one of the charges, as well as mass gassings in the former concentration camp Dachau (IMT Document 2430-PS). In Document 3311-PS the Polish government “put the victors’ tribunal on notice” that hundreds of thousands of Jews had been “steamed” at Treblinka. Note: “steamed”, not “gassed”. Today the Holocausters look down shamefully when they are confronted with this nonsense. In the great National Socialist trial before the Land- and Chamber Court of Berlin (Az. PKs 3-50) it was determined: “In Konzentrationslager Majdanek there were no gas-chamber structures”. But in Schweinfurt General Remer was sentenced to imprisonment because he had published in his DEPESCHEN the court’s determination on the absence of gas-chambers in Majdanek.
|Herr Judge Siebenbürger, Herr State Attorney Baumann, please tell me which of the following figures is “common knowledge”. Why have you not told the General during the trial which number he should believe in? For which number should Remer now die in prison?|
|Comparison of official figures on the number of those killed
in the gas-chambers in Auschwitz:
|26. 7. 1990: ALLGEMEINE JÜDISCHE WOCHENZEITUNG
|11. 6. 1992: ALLGEMEINE JÜDISCHE WOCHENZEITUNG
|20. 4. 1978: French newspaper LE MONDE
|1. 9. 1989: French newspaper LE MONDE
|1945: International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg
|1985: Raul Hilberg: Die Vernichtung der europäischen Juden
|1979: The Pope during his visit to Auschwitz
|July 1990: The left-wing TAZ and other newspapers
|April 1990: Chief State Attorney
|1974: G. Reitlinger: Die Endlösung
|1945: French War Crimes Investigations Office
|1989: USSR releases death-books.
|1989: Eugen Kogon: Der SS-Staat
|1965: Auschwitz decision 50/4 Ks 2/63.
including claimed gassing deaths
|1989: Lie-memorial tablet/Birkenau removed, with number
|1965: Auschwitz decision 50/4 Ks 2/63,
without claimed gassing deaths
To destroy the German people, only these words are necessary: “Common Knowledge”
On the claimed gas-chambers, no one can speak of the kind of common knowledge such as, for example, that which underlies the fact that the day has 24 hours. Only such assertions, as that the day has 24 hours, require no proof. In all other cases there must be proof.
Remer’s proofs are new and far superior
The defense attorneys, Hajo Herrmann and Dr. Herbert Schaller, had prepared comprehensive evidence. They prepared their evidence to conform with a decision of the Upper Land Court of Düsseldorf. In a gas-chamber doubter case, this court held that evidence must be admitted when it was superior to the “proofs” in the former National Socialist trials. New, superior evidence trumps “common knowledge”, said the Düsseldorf court. The evidence submitted by the defense is new and far superior to that from the National Socialist trials, since there was no physical evidence presented there.
Auschwitz: “Annihilation camp” with a whore-house, legal advice, sauna and soccer …
Before the examination of the evidence that had been submitted, attorney Herrmann addressed the State Attorney and judge: “It must be proven, whether there were gas-chambers or not, before there can be a decision on common knowledge. The court must determine facts.” Attorney Herrmann then presented evidence taken from anti-fascist literature and from court documents that showed that Auschwitz was no annihilation camp. The attorney read how there had been a whore-house for prisoners in Lager Auschwitz, that there had been weekly soccer games between SS-staff and camp inmates, that there was a central sauna, that legal advice was available to the inmates, that in case of non-natural death the camp administration had to notify the appropriate State Attorney over 30 signatures, that prisoners could be released, that SS-men were not allowed to hit prisoners, that 4800 sick were under medical care (although in the usual version they landed in the “gas-chambers” right away), that when the camp was abandoned the prisoners preferred to be evacuated by the SS than to wait for Soviet “liberation” …
The State Attorney roars
This piece of evidence made the State Attorney roar. “This piece of evidence is an insult to the victims”, he cried into the courtroom with a red face. Hermann replied, “Then your victims were insulted by the decision in the Auschwitz trial in Frankfurt, Herr State Attorney. Most of what I have just read are observations of the court in the great Auschwitz trial in Frankfurt. You can read them in the decision.” At this the State Attorney was speechless. It is peculiar, how a State Attorney can free himself from most any difficulty with only the magical words “common knowledge”. He knew nothing about the decision in the National Socialist trials and he knew next to nothing about historical connections or physical facts. All a State Attorney needs in such a case is to be able to pronounce the words, “denied on account of common knowledge”.
The court refused to accept this evidence, that is, it refused to accept whole passages from the decision in the Auschwitz trial in Frankfurt as well as passages from the writings of “survivors” such as Langbein. Naturally, on account of “common knowledge”.
The English crown: no gassings
As part of the evidence he submitted, Dr. Schaller presented the book of Jewish Princeton Professor Arno J. Mayer. In his book Mayer concludes that the majority of Auschwitz prisoners died of natural causes and that there was no “Hitler order” for the “gassing” of the Jews. Mayer confirms that “proofs” for the gas-chambers are “rare and unreliable”. As evidence against the “common knowledge of gas-chambers”, the attorney submitted a book by British history professor F. H. Hinsley. Hinsley is the official historian of the English crown. His book BRITISH INTELLIGENCE IN THE SECOND WORLD WAR can be obtained from the royal stationer’s office. There was a new edition in 1989. On page 673 Hinsley states that from 1942 the English were able to break the coded messages from the concentration camps. The English found that the main cause of death in the camps was illness. Hinsley reports that there were also shootings and hangings. The official historical scientist of the English royal house states, “There was no mention of gassings in the decoded messages.”
The State Attorney moved that this evidence, too, be refused on account of “common knowledge”. One more time, the court agreed with the State Attorney. At this point the trial was suspended; it resumed on 22nd October 1992. Every time General Remer reentered the courtroom after a pause in the proceedings the public stood respectfully. Many remained sitting when the court entered, however.
An expert witness is kept out
The defense waited on a physically present means of proof, the technical expert Diplom Chemist G. Rudolf. By the court’s rules of procedure, evidence that is physically present can not be refused, even on account of “common knowledge”. The technical expert sat in the courtroom. He had researched the claimed gas-chambers in Auschwitz from a physical-chemical point of view. He had taken samples of mortar and had them analyzed by the Institute Fresenius. Also he had conducted his own laboratory experiments in which he had gassed masonry with Prussic acid. The expert witness can present proof that the claimed gas-chambers never came in contact with Zyklon B. The expert report prepared by the expert witness covering this material was submitted to the court with the rest of the evidence. The expert witness can also show that the prisoner’s commandos could not have “gone into blue clouds of Zyklon B still hovering over the corpses”, without having been killed themselves. This nonsensical “testimony on work in the midst of clouds of Zyklon B” was made by Richard Böck, the principal witness in the Auschwitz trial in Frankfurt. Thus Böck certified that the lager commando had had immunity to Zyklon B. Yet the judge in the Auschwitz trial in Frankfurt believed that he had proven the existence of gas-chambers in Auschwitz with Böck’s statement. Böck saw the “gassing operation” he testified to in two farm-houses which never existed, according to a technical report of HANSA LUFTBILD in July 1991 which analyzed a series of allied air-reconnaissance photos. The expert witness can also prove that Prussic acid is a colorless poison. The expert witness sat in the courtroom. He could provide clarification. What did the State Attorney have to say about that?
“I move that the expert witness be refused, since the gas-chambers are common knowledge fact”, was State Attorney’s monotonous refrain. He demanded that the expert witness be refused without his technical qualifications having been examined. The court agreed with the motion of the State Attorney and refused the expert witness, without having heard a word he had to say, as a “completely irrelevant” means of evidence. Also the court refused to read the expert report, because of “common knowledge”, naturally.
No one can see the Auschwitz death-books
Attorney Herrmann next submitted a large number of the official death-books from Auschwitz. In 1989 these death-books were released in the Soviet Union. These official papers documented 66,000 cases of death in minute detail. All of them are under seal at the special effects office in Arolsen. No one is allowed to look at them. A ten-country commission, including Israel, prevents any inspection of these documents. Recently, the journalist W. Kempkens has succeeded in photocopying these documents in the Moscow archive. Hermann submitted a representative sample to the court. The defense attorney moved that Kempkens be allowed to testify. The Holocausters keep talking about how the old and unfit-for-work Jews were “sorted out” on the ramp and “gassed” right off, so they could not have been entered in the lager register. The death-books prove the opposite. Most of the entries are cases of old men. Most were Jews.
The State Attorney moved that the documents should not be admitted as evidence, since the gas-chambers are “common knowledge” fact. The court agreed with the motion of the State Attorney.
The State Attorney’s pleading
At that point the taking of evidence was ended and the State Attorney began his pleading. He did not need any evidence, since for him the “gas-chambers” are a “common knowledge” fact. He described Remer as Mephisto (as devil) for “denying”. For a “devil”, he thought, the absolute minimum sentence should be imprisonment for two years six months. He moved that the imprisonment should begin immediately.
Constitutional attorney Herrmann’s pleading
The attorney protested, “We have submitted evidence in many areas, but the court has never undertaken to examine whether the accused had a valid claim.” Once more Herrmann discussed the denial of evidence in connection with the “confession” of the former camp commander of Auschwitz, Rudolf Hoess The court had refused to allow the reading of Hoess’ torture with the comment, it had not been proven that Hoess had made a false confession on account of the torture. “But Hoess’ confession is false”, thundered the retired colonel, a former inspector of the night rangers, in the courtroom. “Hoess confessed 3 million murdered Jews. Today Holocaust historians say the number who were killed is 1.5 million”, he flung at the State Attorney and judge. Then Herrmann read the record of the capture of Hoess. It is described there how the former commandant was thrown on a butcher bench and how for hours his face was smashed. The Jewish sergeant shoved a guide-lamp staff deep in his throat and dumped a whole bottle of whiskey into his victim. His handcuffs were left on for three weeks. “That’s what you do n’t want to hear, Herr State Attorney”, the defense attorney’s words rang out. Then Herrmann read relevant paragraphs from the transfer treaty of the occupying powers. In these paragraphs Germany was bound to recognize forever the historical “facts” that had been the basis of the Nuremburg trials. And so the court says “common knowledge” to the 4-million lie about Auschwitz, to the lie about mass gassings in Dachau and to the lie about “mass steamings” in Treblinka. Nonsense and the desire to oppress know no limit.
“I claim”, said the attorney, “that the accused was denied his right. Not only the State Attorney is bound politically.” The attorney said, “The question is, how the duty imposed on the state by the transfer treaty of the victorious powers can be applied in this court of law.”
Then he continued, “I have never before experienced that the public stands when an accused enters the courtroom. The general is not a turncoat.” With the words, “And yet that is basically what you are accusing him of”, Herrmann declared the State Attorney’s error. “The State Attorney refuses to accept as evidence the decision in the Auschwitz trial in Frankfurt, which counted 45,510 dead”, hammered the attorney on the conscience of the State Attorney, which probably does not exist. Then he continued, “But, in the thinking of the State Attorney, the accused must know that 6 million Jews were gassed.” Herrmann turned to the judge’s bench and cried, “The court will prove the proposition with the reason, He knew it.”
The public knew that this great man had lived through times where just dealing, dignity, honor and decency were still common. A trial like this was apparently difficult for him. Once again Herrmann counted the denied pieces of evidence and asked, “Who in this courtroom was not well-served by the defense?” Then he confronted the State Attorney and said, “The State Attorney will try to convince the accused that he well knew that not everything he said was true. Herr State Attorney, you do not sit in the back of the accused’s head.”
Judge Siebenbürger and State Attorney Baumann support themselves with this kind of witness when they yell,
|Holon, Israel 2.5-1991
I once had an uncle in Karlsruhe B/Baden that was gast in Dchau. I can get some damajes frm this?? Much thank in advans!
|This text is taken from a letter that was mailed 2.5.1991 in Holon/Israel to a German acquaintance with the request for help with application for compensation. The letter writer’s uncle was “gast” in Dachau and he wanted “damajes”. For Judge Siebenbürger and State Attorney Baumann this served to prove that the gas-chambers are “common knowledge”.|
|Response of the City of Dachau:
Dear Herr Geller!
With reference to your question, I must inform you that there were no gassings in the former Konzentrationslager Dachau …
Best regards – Rahm; Director of Administration
Then the attorney said what he thought was behind the court’s – in many people’s opinion – scandalous handling of the trial: “I believe that there is another power that hangs over our legal order that gives you your orders. I know that if you were to acquit there would be a great howling – not just here, but mostly in other countries. If you fear this, you should decline to conduct the trial. How can you designate even one piece of evidence as superfluous when the issue is life or death – as it is here. You should recollect that the chief prosecutor at Nuremburg described the victorious powers’ tribunal as a continuation of the war effort against Germany. One cannot so totally destroy and plunder a civilized people such as the Germans without a powerful reason. There needs to be a claim of right. Auschwitz was the claim.”
“If the court thinks that common knowledge does not last forever, at what limit of common knowledge do we find ourselves now? Yes, “common knowledge” will fall. Will the accused die in his cell beforehand?” Attorney Herrmann ended his pleading there.
Dr. Schaller’s pleading
“This is a political trial of a very peculiar nature”, the brave Vienna attorney threw at the judge and State Attorney. “For the reason that it deals with an opinion crime where there was no violence. The defenders of Democracy sit on the accuser’s bench. When a democratic state takes upon itself the power to determine what the truth is, it is no longer a democracy”, the attorney reminded the State Attorney and court.
Dr. Schaller told of a case in Frankfurt of an African drug dealer with a criminal history who had stuck a 17 centimeter long knife into the abdomen of a young German because the latter had not wanted to buy drugs. The attorney quoted the FAZ, telling how the judge in this case had not wanted to regard the case as attempted murder or even as attempted manslaughter. She thought it was a case of the African wanting to teach the German a lesson. This kind of justice in modern Germany that Dr. Schaller so graphically portrayed reminded the hearers of the case of two Turks who stabbed an 18-year old German in Berlin because the latter had blond hair. Both Turks had already been convicted for manslaughter. Yet they got a sentence of probation. For the 80-year old General Remer who published scientific papers, the State Attorney wants the “death sentence”. In the waiting room people passed around articles from large German newspapers that told how foreign murderers, robbers and mankillers are set free because an indictment cannot be prepared in time due to “shortage of staff”. Every one of the hearers was outraged that there did not seem to be any shortage of judges to handle the prosecution and indictment of an acknowledged hero because of his publication of the truth. Dr. Schaller said further: “To prosecute mere assertions of fact in the same way that murderers should be – but today no longer are – prosecuted will lead to collapse.”
“The state should take care that arguments are expressed in words. The truth does not need criminal justice, it will prevail of its own power”, the attorney scolded the State Attorney. The attorney further said: “Doesn’t the odor of DDR justice pervade the State Attorney’s demand for a 2 year and 6 month sentence for the publication of scientific knowledge? And such a thing for an 80-year old man? Is this Bautzen?” queried Dr. Schaller.
“This defense team has introduced a plethora of evidence and material that supports the claims of the accused. A plethora of proofs and expert reports that has never been presented to any court of the allies. And the magic words “common knowledge” should apply here?” Dr. Schaller wanted to know.
Turned to the State Attorney, the attorney asked, “Suppose that we had a new government in Germany and this government were to examine the manner in which you servants of the state are proceeding, keeping in mind paragraphs 56 and 62 through 65 of the Fundamental Law. Do you think you would keep from harm at the hands of the German people?” Then, turned to the public, “Suppose the State Attorney had to justify his charges against the General. Suppose someone should ask him, what kind of proofs do you have for your assertions on gas-chambers? He would have nothing to show. Today no State Attorney needs to justify himself, we are not at that point yet.”
Then he quoted Chief Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits, who said, “Today there is a whole sector of business relating to the Holocaust, with authors, researchers, museum curators and politicians.” To the judges’ bench Dr. Schaller cried, “The disorder of the public peace begins when one asks of the German people that they should take on themselves the gas-chamber murders.”
“These are adventurous constructions to make it insult and race persecution when someone publishes scientific knowledge on the gas-chambers. What does the State Attorney have to oppose to the scientific evidence of the accused? He cries, we should and must remain guilty. That is all.”
“On the other hand, defense counsel have an expert witness here in the chamber who has produced an expert report that leaves no question unanswered. The expert witness has come to the unavoidable conclusion that the claimed gas-chambers never came in contact with Zyklon B. Never”, cried Dr. Schaller to the judges’ bench. Then further, “There sits the technical expert and he must not say a word. A scientist from the Max Planck Institute is turned away! And the General should go to prison? You will be responsible for that?”
Then the attorney spoke louder, “The accused may expect that the court will fulfill its duty. that is, to inquire into the innocence of the accused. It cannot go on forever, to kowtow to the allies.” With the following words tears came to the eyes of the defense attorney, “Why should a man be put to the sword to keep this fable alive? Herr State Attorney, do not continue to rely on novels that will keep being written. It cannot go on like this, to leave one’s own people standing out in the rain. Open the hearing of evidence once again.” Thus the attorney closed his pleading.
The general’s closing words
“To this kangaroo court, that has denied me use of any scientific evidence, I have only one thing to say: You” – and here General Remer pointed to the State Attorney and the judge – “will one day be held responsible for what you have done in this courtroom.”
General Remer seems to be dangerous to the former victorious powers because he has brought about a discussion of Auschwitz with his scientific publications. If Remer can prove his case, the allies will lose their justification for having butchered and looted the German people. The Jews will lose, as Prof. Wolffsohn says, “the only remaining identity-forming point”. For these reasons General Remer should die in jail? This “death sentence” is reminiscent of other cases of mysterious deaths such as those of Franz Josef Strauß and his wife Marianne. First Marianne died of unexplained causes in a traffic accident, then the fit, healthy former Minister-president of Bavaria passed away due to unusual circumstances which are not medically explainable.
The ALLGEM. JÜD. WO. ZTG. of 29th October 1992 recalled Strauß’ goals: “The declaration of Franz J. Strauß on 1st February 1987, that the Federal Republic should come out from under the shadow of the Nazi past and begin a new chapter in the book of history, shows this …”
The transfer treaty of the victorious powers forbids Germany to “come out from under the shadow of the Nazi past and begin a new chapter in the book of history”. The allies would lose forever their justification for the crimes they have committed against Germany and the Jews would lose at one stroke their identity-forming principle. This might endanger the existence of the state of Israel. Are there parallels between Remer’s “death sentence” and the death of Marianne and F. J. Strauß?