By Germar Rudolf
The following are the remarks of Germar Rudolf delivered to the 13th International Revisionist Conference of the Institute for Historical Review, held on May 29, 2000. His account is based on his personal experiences and on general observations of the growing human rights crisis in Germany. Rudolf is presently incarcerated for thought crimes in Germany after his extradition from the United States where he had been living for years. In Germany, truth is no defense in “thought crime” trials.
Before I begin, I wish to make one thing perfectly clear: Regardless of how negative parts of my account may be, it would be a terrible misunderstanding if I were perceived as criticizing the German people. Since the beginning of the last century, Germans have been constant victims of worldwide political conspiracies. These conspiracies are under way once again. The only people affected by the repression in Germany are the Germans, who are given no chance to defend themselves.
It is not news that Germany lost World War II. Likewise it is not news that Germany’s total defeat was a catastrophe such as has been experienced by no other defeated nation in modern times. However, the direct consequences of Germany’s defeat are not my present subject. I wish to consider the indirect consequences of our defeat. Since that defeat, Germany has been subjected to extortion as no other nation has ever been. The extortion continues.
Corresponding to Germany’s unparalleled defeat and susceptibility to extortion, there are today global special interest groups that possess unparalleled powers. It is these groups that exploit our weakness, which is Germany’s unique inability to defend itself. If Germany does not do what these global interest groups demand, they threaten us directly and indirectly with political and economic boycott. And if these global interest groups can with impunity blackmail Austria on account of the chairman of the Alliance for Austria’s Future, Joerg Haider, and Switzerland on account of “stolen gold,” how much easier it is for them to fleece Germany, which has the blackest reputation of all. (Or the most blackened, as the case may be.) Justly or unjustly, Germany remains the black sheep of the family of nations.
The German ruling elite understands all this very well. In fact, they acquiesce in it. With increasing ruthlessness they bludgeon all those who would resist extortion. The club with which they beat Germany to its knees is called the “holocaust.” They repress every expression of Revisionism, nationalism or patriotism. I shall have more to say about this later on.
The German government is proud of its persecution of dissidents. It displays evidence of the suppression of human rights proudly, as soldiers wear medals on their chests. Every successful prosecution is listed in the official report of the Orwellian “Federal Court for Protection of the Constitution.” Prosecutions are even posted on the Internet, in English if you please. Germany is obliged to do this so that, despite its “black fleece,” it can associate with the “good” white sheep.
The example of Austria shows what happens if someone suspected of Revisionist tendencies is elected to government office. Just imagine what would happen if a Joerg Haider should become chancellor of the “Greater New German Reich,” to use the provocative terminology which the global interest groups would use against Germany. Try to imagine what would happen if a German statesman should proclaim the end of reparations or use public funds in support of Revisionist research. As Lech Walesa expressed it 10 years ago: “The world now has the means to make sure once and for all that Germany never again rocks the boat.”
It is well understood that historical Revisionism is a forerunner of political revisionism, because it has already happened before. Germany already proved to itself and the world that it did not bear sole responsibility for World War I, and the political revisionism of the ’30s was the logical result. What was World War II, the sequel to World War I, if not the Allied reaction to political revisionism? In 1939 Germany had as yet committed no so-called “holocaust.” All it had done was participate in World War I 25 years earlier. This was enough to cause the world to inflict a real holocaust upon Germany.
How much easier would it be today for the media and power brokers of the world to initiate new conflict with Germany, since the popular image of Germany is worse now than it was during the ’30s? Nuclear bombs would fall on Germany. That is what would happen.
In view of all this, does Germany have options today? No, it has none, and therefore I must re-emphasize: Even though I wish for more German politicians with some backbone, I also realize that such individuals could not long remain in power. In Paris, London, Washington and Tel Aviv the global elite have the power to ensure, by means peaceful or otherwise, that the administration of such a statesman would tumble.
Thus whatever I have to say on the subject of human rights is directed not at the German people, but rather at the victorious nations of World War II and the special interest groups which control them today. With iron truncheons they keep Germany on her knees, in an eternal position of contrition. “Holocaust” is the name of the weapon with which they keep Germany in eternal checkmate. “Holocaust” monuments and “holocaust” museums are the altars before which Germany must eternally efface itself.
My Experiences as an Expert Witness
My initiation into the state of German legal affairs began, fittingly enough, in German courtrooms, whither I had been subpoenaed as an expert witness. My story begins here, for I soon became a thorn in the side of judges and prosecutors.
Paragraph 3, Sentence 2 of Article 244 of the German criminal trial procedure enables the judges to disallow evidence or testimony if the point to be proven is common knowledge. The purpose of Article 244 is to create obstacles to a possible defense tactic of prolonging the trial, or making it more expensive for the state. The present day German judiciary interpret these paragraphs to mean that evidence or testimony with which the defense attempts to dispute the so-called “holocaust” can be summarily disallowed, because the “holocaust” is a proven fact and therefore common knowledge.
However, Article 244 StPO also provides that evidence which is presented in the courtroom can be disallowed only if such evidence is “entirely inappropriate.” Concerning the testimony of expert witnesses, it can be deemed “entirely inappropriate” if the witnesses have absolutely no training or analogous experience in the subject area where they want to testify, or if at the time of testimony they are incapable of answering questions (for example on account of drunkenness or mental incapacitation). Furthermore according to law, the “common knowledge” criteria can be suspended in case new evidence is presented that supersedes other evidence heretofore presented to the court.1
In all the years since World War II, no scientific or technical expert testimony has ever been presented to a German court that would authenticate the “holocaust.” Not only would such expert testimony comprise new evidence, it would also supersede the other heretofore presented evidence.
But what would happen if the German courts and prosecutors should remain inactive and, despite the request by the defense, simply would not present such expert testimony? In such cases, German criminal law gives the defense the possibility to offer its own evidentiary material, that is, providing its own expert testimony and submitting it as evidence. In the summer of 1991 I received just such a commission from the Duesseldorf defense attorney Hajo Herrmann. I completed research for my testimony at the beginning of 1992 and was then subpoenaed by various lawyers to testify as an expert witness in several trials of revisionists.2
The judges in the various cases panicked when confronted with me as an expert witness, for they could think of no legal grounds for refusing my testimony. My expert testimony did indeed constitute a new kind of evidentiary material; I was present in the courtroom; and formally, my testimony qualitatively superseded all heretofore-presented evidence.
It was fascinating to observe how the judges bent and broke the law in order to disqualify me. One of the judges interrupted the proceedings in order to confer with government officials in the capital, Bonn.3 So much for the political independence of German judges. Then he summarily disallowed my testimony on grounds that the “holocaust” is “common knowledge.” Another judge proclaimed that the training for a Ger man Diplom-Chemist—the academic degree I have—was so difficult to obtain that it actually corresponded to the title of doctor in another profession; but, since I did not actually possess a doctor title in chemistry, my expert testimony was “entirely inappropriate evidentiary material.”4
Still another judge went so far as to actually threaten me, saying that if I supported the position of the accused, I would be committing a punishable offense. So much for the protection of witnesses in German courts. Expert witnesses are charged with testifying truthfully and to the best of their knowledge and conscience, but woe to the witness who says anything that displeases the judge.5 In all cases, the law was flagrantly violated by the judges dismissing me with the magical incantation “common knowledge of the holocaust.” They did this even though the point on which they were supposed to rule was whether my expert testimony would constitute evidentiary material that qualitatively superseded other evidentiary material. Obviously this question cannot be answered by references to the “common knowledge of the holocaust.”6 Thus it happened that I was not allowed to testify in a single case before the court.
Today, furthermore, prosecutors as well as judges in conference with lawyers for the defense openly admit that “Auschwitz denial trials” are political trials whose outcomes are predetermined from above. Thus it happened that a prosecutor of the court in Bielefeld let loose with the following “lapsus linguae” (slip of the tongue) in a conference with attorney H. Herrmann during court recess:
Counsel, it is obvious that you have prepared yourself extremely well for this case, and I obviously cannot compete with your expertise. In this trial I am merely substituting for my colleague who normally handles political cases.7
This was by no means an exceptional case. To Munich attorney Klaus Goebel, who frequently represented Revisionist defendants during the early 1990s, a judge in the evidentiary phase of a trial expressed himself quite candidly, as follows:
Surely you do not think your expert witness will be admitted. Surely you know that this court has a political mission. Our mission demands that without exception those who express doubt about gas chambers must be brought to trial and convicted. You will never be allowed to present your evidence.
Attorney Goebel shared this with me on July 22, 1992, during the “discovery” phase of the trial for which I had been subpoenaed to appear as an expert witness.8 He did this in order to make it clear to me that our tactic of “considered, innovative, up-to-date evidence” could not prevail. German courts are charged with suppressing all exculpatory evidence in “holocaust” trials, and to disqualify any expert witnesses without a hearing.
My Experiences as a DEFENDANT
Toward the end of 1992 I received a letter, ostensibly from a “Department of State Protection” of the District Criminal Court of Baden-Wuerttemberg, informing me that I had been accused of “denying the holocaust.”9
Since the letterhead as well as text was printed on a cheap dot matrix printer, and since I simply could not believe that Germany had such a State Protection Police, I considered it a dumb joke. I replied with an impudent letter demanding proof that our reunified Germany still had a “Stasi” (the national security police of former East Germany, now defunct).
I soon learned the error of my ways. In Germany there really is such a State Protection Department, with an office in every federal courthouse, whose mission consists of prosecuting crimes that could threaten the existence of the Federal Republic or the “basic principles of freedom and democracy.” Evidently, in the eyes of the criminal police, “Holocaust Revisionism” represents just such a threat. The State Protection Department is divided into three units: Right-Wing Extremism, Left-Wing Extrem ism, and Political Extremism by Foreigners.
One would assume that the bureaucrats in their respective units have been instructed in these respective ideologies so that they will be able to recognize their particular brand of extremism, be able to combat it, and avoid falling victim to it. A conversation with one of these bureaucrats showed me just how thorough his instruction had been, at least in “Revision ism.” One certainly cannot accuse these people of ignorance and, most particularly, not of ideological insensitivity. That was made clear to me in 1994 when, on the anniversary of the death of Rudolf Hess, I received another visit from these gentlemen.
They requested that I exert influence on the right wing scene so that there would be no demonstration. Since they had been informed of my leadership position in the Revisionist movement, they assumed also that I would have a corresponding leadership role in the right-wing camp—a totally false assumption. As a matter of fact, I know hardly anyone at all in the right-wing political camp. Obviously these astute gentlemen believe their own fairy tale, namely, that Revisionism is connected with right-wing ideology.
In 1994 the State Protection Police released some of my confiscated professional files and notified me to come and get them. That is when I learned that their office takes up the largest room in the federal courthouse, by far. This was evident from the organizational charts hanging on the walls. It was another truly disturbing realization. When my own trial for expert testimony finally began, in the fall of 1994, I learned what these special courts actually call themselves. My case was handled by the 17th “Great Chamber of State Protection, District Court Stuttgart.” I rubbed my eyes and still could not believe it: in addition to the State Protection Police there are also Court Chambers for State Protection which make no attempt to conceal the fact that they, too, conduct political trials. Apparently, they have been in existence for several decades.
Nothing is actually kept secret, yet the average citizen has no idea of how deeply the principle of politicized judiciary has taken root in the German criminal justice system, penetrating even into organizational structure. As far as the public is concerned, there has been a complete news blackout on the subject. Nobody asks how there can be such things as State Protection Departments, specialized Courts of State Protection and political trials in a system that pretends to be a liberal democracy. In 1992 and 1993 I had the feeling that I had landed in the wrong movie; that everything that was being said and done belonged in a different script.
Since I was 16 years old I had always been a supporter of the Christian Democrats, Germany’s biggest political party, fighting for the principles of the self-defending democracy, and now I was well on my way to becoming a victim of this very system. Now I could see that German trial law is the crown and culmination of the whole phony system. I was given to understand that my misdeed was considered particularly reprehensible—compared with murder and rape—and that was the reason for its priority referral to the highest court. Because of this priority referral I was denied the possibility of a second fact-finding hearing, in which I could have introduced new evidence and pointed out the errors made by the first judge involved in my case.
Every German TV viewer is familiar with normal court procedure. While a trial is under way, the court reporter is always sitting alone at a stenographic table or stand, industriously typing away and creating an official court record. That is the way it is done in America, England, Austria and even in German civil trials.
But not in German criminal trials. Here, no court record is kept.
This is extremely ominous, since afterward it cannot be pointed out just what the judge, prosecutor, defendant, defense attorney or witness has said. This opens the door very wide for lies and errors on the part of the judge. I have given several examples of how my presiding judge falsified testimony during the course of my trial in several critical points.10
Of course I would never have the chance to prove that my accusations are right, since it conflicted with the testimony of three judges. In a contest between three judges and a convicted criminal, who wins? However, that is all irrelevant now. The point to be made is that there is absolutely no excuse for German criminal courts’ not keeping a court record, considering the state of modern stenographic technology. The absence of such a record invites all kinds of judicial misconduct. Not even the best judge remembers everything that was said in his court. And even if the discrepancies I have described were remedied, there would still remain the worst evil of all. That is the very existence of a political judiciary, which is bound to find a way to convict whomever it targets.
Human Rights in Germany
One of the Allied conditions for establishing the Federal Republic of Germany was the creation of a “Federal Bureau for Protection of the Constitution.” This Orwellian device’s name was chosen in order not to give German citizens the impression that they were exposed to governmental snooping, which was of course the mission of the bureau. From this bureau subsequently evolved, within the Interior Ministry, the Department for Protection of the Constitution.
Recently, Claus Nordbruch exhaustively documented the scandalous jurisdictional expansion of this domestic spy service.11 Although this department possesses no police or legal resources, it nevertheless wields tremendous power. If an individual or organization is mentioned in one of its “Constitutional Protection” reports, it is the social equivalent of a death sentence. The person or institution targeted is ostracized and shunned like a leper, fired from his job and denied the right of appeal before the employment courts.
• Right: “Offenses with right-wing extremist background,” that is: “Propaganda Offenses” and “Stirring up the People”;
• Left: “Offenses with left-wing extremist background,” generally referred to as “other offenses”;
• Foreign: Offenses committed by foreign extremists, mainly against the German law of organizations (“Vereinsgesetz”) by Kurds in the prohibited Kurdish Liberation Army PKK.12
Especially right-wingers are persecuted in Germany.
The role of the victorious Allies is evident also in the first disfranchisement of a political party, which occurred early in the 1950s. In those days the newly organized German Reich Party, which was very popular among former soldiers and the patriotically inclined, was enjoying rapid growth and electoral successes. The leading personality and draft horse of the new party was Maj. Gen. Otto Ernst Remer. Because of his success he was visited by an Allied delegation. They issued him an alternative: either quit the Reich Party or else the Allies would ban it. Remer refused to knuckle under, and the party was banned.13 For the sake of appearances the KPD (Communist Party of Germany) was also banned, but it promptly re-emerged as the DKP (Ger man Communist Party.)
In 1954 the Youth Protection Act was passed and the “Federal Censorship Office for Youth Endangering Publications” was founded. At the request of various public agencies it can index publications, which are then disapproved for youthful readers and removed from the public market. When this happens, the publications cease to exist, of course. Originally touted as protection of juveniles against pornography and the glorification of violence, this department has increasingly misused its power to censor politically suspect publications. In the 1970s, this censorship was applied primarily against the political left. Since the 1980s, it has been used primarily against publications on the right.14
The introduction of the emergency decrees (“Notstandsgesetze”), which occurred toward the end of the 1960s, was a decisive step toward gutting constitutional rights. These laws were intended to enable the government to restrict civil rights in case of a severe conflict with the Soviet Union. Before the emergency decrees were introduced, it was legally impossible for the government to restrict individual rights. It has now become commonplace.
Controversy over the emergency decrees also gave impetus to the student revolt that occurred at the end of the 1960s. With good reason, the students feared that the decrees would open the door to despotism, which they mistakenly believed would be “fascistic” in nature.
When the emergency decrees were finally accepted under the Grand Coalition of conservatives and socialists at the end of the sixties, the “extraparliamentary opposition” (“Ausserparlamentarische Opposition,” APO) was organized, which challenged the accumulation of power within the established parties through struggles in the street. Out of this APO developed the terrorist movement of the 1970s, which gave the government a pretext for restricting human rights still further. As I can personally attest, it became permissible to search domiciles, tap telephones and open mail, even without official court permission, provided the intent was to head off “development of a potentially dangerous situation” (“Gefahrim Verzug”).
According to a French study, there are currently more political prisoners in Germany than in the [Communist] German Democratic Republic in the year before its collapse.
However, these politically motivated offenders, who were sentenced for inciting the people, denying the holocaust, and the continuation of banned organizations, are not perceived as political prisoners in this country. These are mainly young people who thus turn into martyrs of the national resurrection of Germany.
THE DECKERT LAW
No one seems interested in the fact that organized crime is not caused by inadequate legislation, but rather by lack of support for the police and lack of will on the part of politicians, who are frequently involved in racketeering.14
The period around 1980 also saw the first flowering of Holocaust Revisionism.15 The government responded to this challenge with another streamlining of its procedure for prosecuting thought crime. It raised such violations to the level of crimes that are to be prosecuted automatically, i.e., they no longer must be initiated by complaints by Jews. This is the so-called Engelhardt or Staeglich law.
Since Germany’s reunification, in 1989-1990, a flood of patriotism and patriotic organizations has been sweeping across Germany. International power brokers were then exerting tremendous pressure upon Germany to repress the patriotic movement.
In the course of this repression several xenophobic attacks have occurred, some of which may well have been engineered. Certainly the government has exploited all the attacks in order to create the specter of a “brown threat,” a resurgence of fascism. As a result of this, on December 1, 1994, Germany’s Penal Code was changed on an unprecedented scale. Freedom of opinion regarding German social taboos such as foreigners, multi-culture, Jews, the holocaust and the Third Reich has been banished altogether. I am referring to the new Article 130, the so-called Deckert Law.
The government’s most recent step toward total surveillance occurred at the end of the 1990s. This was the so-called “Great Spying Assault” (“Grosser Lauschangriff”), which legalizes constant residential surveillance with microphones and cameras under certain circumstances. Simultaneously, the German judiciary launched prosecutions of foreigners as well as German nationals for disseminating “contraband” documents over the Internet.
In Germany at present, all the following are treated as contraband or illegal activities:
• Anything that might be construed as a threat to public order can be prohibited at the discretion of a prosecutor or judge.
• All the symbols, gestures, songs, speeches and poems that directly or indirectly suggest anything associated with the Third Reich are prohibited.
• Criticism of “multicultural” society and immigration policy can be construed as an illegal act.
• It is unlawful to investigate the circumstances surrounding National Socialist crimes, whether actual or alleged.
• Every critical researcher who investigates the Third Reich works under the threat of persecution and suppression.
• The statute of limitations for journalistic crime, regulated independently by the German states (Bundesland), which was heretofore six months, has been extended in some states to five or even ten years.
• Even criticism of established parties, government and its representatives can be prosecuted as an offense.
As a result, thousands of books have been burned, tens of thousands of German citizens punished for thought crimes, hundreds of citizens thrown into prison, and numerous opposition parties and other organizations outlawed. Other parties and political groupings are severely restricted in their constitutionally guaranteed rights. They are subjected to monstrous social and criminal punishment, if they openly oppose or expose the conditions mentioned above. The formation of a parliamentary or extraparliamentary opposition to these despotic conditions has thus been made legally impossible.
If one criticizes despotic measures, one makes oneself liable for prosecution on grounds of maligning the government, its representatives and symbols. The government has hermetically sealed itself off from all criticism and possibility of reform.
In view of such conditions it is not surprising that political scientists, sociologists and historians no longer dare to call things by their real names. They are afraid of being hauled before the criminal police and sentenced to severe punishment over trivial expressions of political opinion. The Pfeifenberger case demonstrates very well the course that contemporary developments are taking. It makes the present situation clear to even the most befuddled German professor.16
In all the years I have been associated with representatives of German intellectual life, I have been hearing formulaic expressions such as “freedom is in peril” and “are our opinions really free?” It has now become clear that freedom is not “endangered”—it no longer exists. Likewise there is no longer any question about whether one’s thoughts are still free. Given the present climate of anxiety in our general society, media and government, many citizens are actually afraid to formulate opinions. More and more often one hears it said: “You can’t think that” or “you can’t say that.” People are afraid to openly discuss conditions in Germany because they could suffer serious consequences if they do.
Prof. Gottfried Dietze (emeritus) of Johns Hopkins University responded to my request of comment from the unassailable position of a retired emeritus in a foreign country. His response was discouraging. The world has already dragged Germany through the mud so badly, that he chooses not to make the situation even worse with negative comments about present day conditions in his beloved fatherland. What a heartbreaking observation.
There is a little German witticism going around that illustrates the difference between the former Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR; East Germany) and the present government. Today’s Germany does the opposite of what the DDR used to do: it keeps its citizens fat and politically impotent and takes away their hope of escape by incorporating all German territory and pressing its neighbors to act as she wishes, and so she has no further need of self-firing robot guns at the borders. Things are not much different in Austria and Switzerland, and the other European countries have also begun to march in step, not at least because of German pressure. Thus France recently installed a telephone hotline: Dial 114 to denounce a Revisionist. This is no joke, my friends—there is actually a nationwide emergency telephone number that allows the government to compile a list of Revisionists. In 1994 Ger many had a president named Richard von Weizsaecker who publicly called upon children to spy on their parents and vice versa in order to discourage the growth of right-wing sentiments.
Only totalitarian states can sink this low. On January 19, 1993, Mr. E. Mussmann, professor of police law at the Ludwigsburg Academy for Public Administration, delivered a lecture to the Ger man Catholic Student Organization Nordgau Prag in Stuttgart, entitled “How the Police Change with the Times.” In this lecture he criticized the relentless undermining of constitutional rights and the expanding power of the police apparatus. Prof. Mussmann remarked that, if these trends were not reversed, he would not want to live in Germany in 40 years, because it would have become a police state with pronounced Orwellian tendencies. Prof. Mussmann was mistaken. It took only seven years.
Therefore I declare to the world and posterity that:
1. Germany has become a totalitarian dictatorship; and
2. Resistance has become necessary if Germany is to regain its freedom.
All those who, because of this peaceful statement, are now heaping faggots with which to burn me at the stake prove that I am telling the truth.
Let me assure you that I would prefer to be mistaken in this. Proof that I am mistaken would be if I could return to Germany and not disappear in prison for many years. But since nobody thinks this would happen, I probably am not mistaken: The Federal Republic of Germany is the most consummate dictatorship that has ever existed on German soil.
My fellow Germans, when will you finally stand up and say aloud: “We have been robbed of honor and freedom”?
Today no one is dying of privation, but wealth has corrupted and crippled our spirits. Just what are we afraid of? To hell with our worldly possessions; we must have the courage to listen to our hearts. Not until the day comes when German prisons can no longer hold all the German prisoners of conscience will the Sun dawn upon a free Germany.”
Article 20(4) of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany: “All Germans have the right to resist anyone who attempts to overthrow this [liberal democratic] system, provided no other remedy is available.”
1Cf. OLG Duesseldorf, Ref. 2 Ss 155/91 - 52/91 III; BVG Ref. 2 BrR 367/92; OLG Celle, Ref. 3 Ss 88/93, Monatszeitschrift fuer Deutsches Recht (MDR), 48(6) (1994) 608.
2Udo Walendy, Landgericht Bielefeld, February 1992; Gerd Honsik, Oberlandesgericht Muenchen, March 1992; David Irving, Amtsgericht Muenchen, May 1992; Herrn Detscher, Amtsgericht Muenchen, July 1992; Max Wahl, Landgericht Muenchen, July 1992, Otto Ernst Remer, Landgericht Bad Kissingen, September 1992; Artur Vogt, Landgericht Nuernberg, March 1994.
3He hurried out of the courtroom and straight to the telephone, so perturbed he did not notice that an acquaintance of mine was looking over his shoulder. My acquaintance observed that he chose the area code 0228 (Bonn.) In the ensuing conversation he asked what he should do next, since he had no legal grounds to dismiss me.
4Proceedings against O.E. Remer, Landgericht Schweinfurt, Ref. 1 KLs 8 Js 10453/92.
5Presiding Judge Peter Stockhammer, Landgericht Nuernberg, Ref. 6/38 Ns 341 Js 31951/92.
6Proceedings against Remer, op. cit. (note 4), justified by the Federal Supreme Court “because we have always done it this way,” judicial jargon for “in compliance with the decision criteria for all Federal German courts,” Ref. 1 StR 193/93.
7Proceedings against Udo Walendy, op. cit. (note. 2), after sentencing, in conversation between the prosecutor and defending attorney Hajo Herrmann
8Either proceedings against Detscher or Wahls. See footnote 2.
9For details see: G. Rudolf “In der Bundesacht,” Staatsbriefe 6(12) (1995) S. 10-15; Reprint in Herbert Verbeke (Hg.), Kardinalfragen zur Zeitgeschichte, VHO. Berchem 1996, S. 51-57; online: www.vho.org/D/Kardinal/BundesachtR.html
10Cf. Germar Rudolf, “Webfehler im Rechtsstaat,” Staatsbriefe 7(1) (1996) S. 4-8; Reprint in Herbert Verbeke (Hg.), aaO. (Anm. 9), S. 59-63; online: www.vho.org/D/Kardinal/WebfehlerR.html
11Der Verfassungsschutz, Hohenrain, Tuebingen, 1999.
12Personal communication, OE. Remer.
13Regarding the history of censorship in Germany see C. Nordbruch, Sind Gedanken noch frei?, Universitas, Muenchen, 1998; on ideological one-sidedness see E. Jesse, Verfassungsschutz in der Demokratie, Carl Heymanns Verlag, Koeln, 1990, 304.
14Cf. Dagobert Lindlau, Der Mob, Heyne, Muenchen, 1998. I personally read an earlier version of this book, probably Hoffmann u. Campe, Hamburg, 1987
15Arthur R. Butz’s book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century (1976), Faurisson’s article in Le Monde (1978/79), his Mémoir en Défense (1980), Staeglich’s book Der Auschwitz-Mythos (1979), Sanning’s article on statistics and his book The Dissolution (1980/1983), Henri Roques’s The Confessions of Kurt Gerstein (1985).
16See Rudi Zornig, “Zum Gedenken an Werner Pfeifenberger,” VffG 4(2) (2000), S. 127-130, online: vho.org/VffG/2000/2/Zornig127-130.html.
17These data refer to “thought crimes” as registered by the German “Federal Bureau of Investigation” (Bundeskriminalamt) with confirmed or unconfirmed suspicion of a political background of the offense. This does not mean that all cases lead to a conviction or even to sentences with prison terms. The number of prison terms handed down is probably not exceeding a few hundred per year. We intentionally included only those offenses that cannot be described as real crimes, i.e., which in the States are covered by the First Amendment. That means: constraint, threat, property damage, breach of peace, arson, assault and other offenses are not included.