Transcript — Part 1/2

 

 [69:51 min]

 

 

[NOTE: There are a few parts (6) where the audio was unclear and I couldn’t catch what was said. These are indicated by [xxx]. Please leave a note in the comments sections of the blog post if you know any of the missing parts. Thanks.] 

 

 

[00:00]

 

Henrik: Ladies and gentlemen welcome back. This is Red Ice Radio. I’m Henrik. Wherever you are around the world, whether you are friend, or foe and concerned, like me, about the survival of European identity, or not, I do hope that you care about true diversity and want to preserve it. We live in a world today where soulless materialism, empty consumer driven globalism and endless migration is threatening to displace and eradicate the uniqueness and the beauty of the European people. Now Sweden, where I’m from, is being ruined! As I hope you have realized by now, by a pipe dream, by politicians and internationalists who themselves never live in the neighborhoods that they claim we will benefit so greatly from. This contrived “Oneness” that they are enforcing, is actually leading to division, alienation, terrorism, displacement and unspeakable horrors of sexual assaults and violence and rape.

 

It’s time to wake up and realize that this version that they are pushing on us is actually not working. If you are new to the show definitely check out the website Red Ice dot tv. Beyond the radio shows we do live TV shows, we publish news and we have a members website filled with our entire archives. Plus our live show, “Weekend Warrior” that we do almost every Saturday. So sign up, if you like the show, get access to all our material and help us grow.

 

Well today we have a special show for you with a Germar Rudolf. He joins us to share the story of his life’s work as a revisionist researcher and writer, and the ostracizing and persecution he has endured for daring to tread into the controversy topic of the Holocaust. The few times that I’ve not made long disclaimers before shows like this, I’ve lost newcomers and that’s not a very smart move. I simply, usually, urge people to use their mind and to open their mind. We are going to be treading into a forbidden zone where so many of us never go! Ever! Not even truth seekers and those passionate about history. So many comply, like good little Pavlovian dogs, they respond to the conditioning perfectly, to a tee! Without ever asking themselves, why they react the way they do you when we violate this greatest taboo. Even for free speech advocates, they say here, but no further.

 

When speaking about World War Two and related subjects, I always want to give a perfect preface, you know, to entice you and dare you, urge you to follow along in an exercise that many people never do in their entire lives without ever knowing why. You know, in many countries the governments have built a legal perimeter around the subject. It’s a no go zone, a strictly forbidden enforced, “No Go Zone”. And I ask you, why that is? And out of, you know, a thousand plus shows that we have done over ten-year period, we have done maybe seven, or eight radio shows in total dedicated to this sensitive and emotionally charged subject. That’s only, what about, zero point eight percent of all the things that we’ve discussed on this show. Yet this alone grants us to be banned from iTunes and many previous guests to completely turn their back on everything that we do. For simply daring to question a historical event and come to a different conclusion than the globalists are pushing on us.

 

You know, I always encourage newcomers to listen to the other side, the side that they never share with you. And look at some of the research and professionally made videos and other material that we link up as companions to shows like this, to help you along in not only daring to take the plunge, but also to realize that there truly is something fishy here. Something that they are covering up. Something that they don’t want you to know about!

You know, this if nothing else, is a story of free speech and how the government has enforced restrictions on it. Tight restrictions! In fact, restrictions that will land you in jail in certain European countries. And reasonably everyone who’s concerned with social justice, this should be a concern of them, right? Why should people who have a divergent opinion be treated any different? Right? According to their own standards. So, you know, there’s a thousand things I could say. There is a thousand things I could go through and motivate, but ultimately, it is up to you if you have interest at all in history and if you have the brains to understand the weight of this topic and why it’s so important to look at it in greater detail, considering how the survival of the European people is hinged on this subject of the Holocaust and Nazism.

 

 

 

[04:52]

 

So, Germar Rudolf was born in Limburg, Germany. He studied chemistry at Bonn University where he graduated in 1989 as a “Diplome-Chemist” which is comparable to a US Ph D. Degree. From 1990 to 1993 he prepared a German Ph D. Thesis at the Max Planck Institute for solid state research in conjunction with the University of Stuttgart. Parallel to this and in his spare time Rudolph prepared an expert’s report on chemical and technical questions of the alleged gas chamber of Auschwitz, “The Rudolf Report”. He is the founder of the revisionist outlet, Castle Hill Publishers. Please stay tuned and please listen to what Germar has to say.

 

Henrik: Welcome to the program, Germar, it’s a pleasure to finally have you with us. I’ve been an admirer of your work for many years. It’s a pleasure for me to have you here on the show.

 

Germar: And it’s a pleasure for me to be on the show.

 

Henrik: Excellent! Now, let’s dive into this here. This is a big topic we’re going to discuss today. It’s a controversial topic, obviously. It’s a topic that many people never really dare to tread into for various reasons, actually. But, I’m curious to here a bit about your background and your interest in this topic, Germar. And why you decided to spend your time and looking into an area which, of course, at this day and age, criminalised in many European countries. Tell us a bit about your background.

 

Germar: Well, I’m a German citizen and I had, in school, I had to deal with the Holocaust three times, because I change schools and then it changed around my topics a little bit. And in order to graduate you had to have a minimum of history. In school, I didn’t have that so I had to take more history classes and the “Holocaust” came up again. So three times I was fed it. Until I was fed up.

 

As a student I wasn’t actually appreciative about that topic, since, as a German, it’s kind of getting you in a bad mood, … It’s very unpleasant for Germans, because we perceived ourselves in the situation, of course, as descendants of the perpetrators and it’s all so bad and dark what happened during the “Holocaust” and during the Second World War, that it kind of drives you away from wanting to hear anything about it. Wanting to do to hear anything about the more recent history that has led up to this.

 

So I was kind of deterred from it initially coming out of school, actually. I didn’t want to have anything to do it with. But, on the other hand, I was always interested in German identity and German history, apart from this topic. So I would go up to the First World War. And then kind of quit! [Henrik laughs] and get over to the Federal Republic* [post WW II]. And all the mess of the Weimar Republic, running up to the Third Reich, I would just keep it at arm’s length.

And that changed a little bit while I was studying. I was studying at one university chemistry and during my spare time I was reading a lot of history, of politics, philosophy and just a broad range of interests I had, trying to understand things. And that time I was more and more. Also, because I happened to become a member of the student fraternity, there was emphasizing, patriotism and German identity. That I got interested in these questions and I realized, in particular in the environment where students dominate, that national identity issues and patriotism has such negative image, such a negative connotation for intellectuals in Germany, for young intellectual students, that you are immediately an extreme minority as a student, if you insist that having an identity, having a cultural heritage and taking care of it, is something good. You’re isolated! You’re getting even attacked.

 

I mean, I was not a member of any group, or any movement outside of what was considered socially acceptable back then. So, I was still a part of the German Christian Democratic Union, the Germany party what’s currently ruling Germany. I considered myself more, or less mainstream from that point of view, but living it, inside a left-wing environment of students, is what gave me a completely different view. Now, I was attacked back then, some people drew a swastika and put up on the on a blackboard, or some event that my fraternity was doing. So I quickly became aware of that, even insisting on that there is the German identity and that it’s worth preserving, is something that gets you a lot of hostility in Germany. And the reason I figured out is, because of the Third Reich and all the bad things that happened there.

 

[10:10]

 

So I was aware of it, but that didn’t make me tread into this minefield of history. And that changed actually by accident, I would say, I was trying to convince other students that trying to get Germany to reunite, … At that point we’re talking about middle 80s, late 80s, when I was studying Germany was still divided. There were communists in the center of Germany and “democratic” quote, unquote, West Germany. And I insisted on Germany should get reunited and we should get going on that.

 

And I read books on the what’s gone on in the Soviet Union, the weakening, the economic collapse that some were predicting and I was reading these books and said, “It’s time to do something about it” as the mainstream was going the opposite way. Even the conservative party was eying the option of recognising communist East Germany as a separate country, which West Germany had not done so at that point.

Soviet Union collapsed, Germany suddenly got reunited and there was a little patriotic party “The Republicans” they called themselves [xxx]. But now they are completely marginalized. And they were trying to rekindle patriotism, German identity and then a little bit more acceptable right-wing politics, like the “Alternative for Germany”. The new party is doing right now, so twenty years and the same kind of constellation.

 

Henrik: Right.

 

Germar: And the same thing happened back then, that happens with them. Now they’re being completely ostracized and persecuted and the media just go on a campaign to destroy the party. So, history repeats itself. When I look at what’s going in Germany now, I say we had the same thing twenty five years ago. I was a member of that party and I had to experience all in that. It was the only party sticking to the constitutional demand of fighting for the reunification of Germany. They were the ones, when it actually happened, they were persecuted and marginalized and ostracized. And that upset me, but I again recognized the mechanism in particular in Germany. Later on I learned it’s not much different in other European countries. How that works is that any identity group, European identity movement, gets destroyed and ostracized by ultimately, “putting out the gas chambers”!

 

Henrik: Right.

 

Germar: Anyone saying that, if you want to have your own national way, you want to be proud of yourself, that means that in the long run, down the road you put the others in gas chambers! [Henrik laughing] If you don’t like the Turks in Germany, … I hear, I remember 1989 after the Republicans in Germany had their first electoral victory, in early 89 I think it was, in Berlin, and the leader of the party there was asked by a journalist:

“Well what are you going to do with the Turks? Are you going to shove them into gas chambers?”

[Henrik gives out a big sigh]

 

And that broke it for me, and I said, “I don’t believe it!” They do it over and over and it’s so blunt and so brutal and so obvious that this gas chamber weapon, this “Holocaust” weapon is used by the media, by anything on the left-wing, by anything standing for globalism, internationalism, multi-culturalism, whatever you call it, to destroy anything that tries to preserve identity, to maintain identity, what have you.

 

But, only in the European context. You know, left-wing trickery in Germany, they are always happy to embrace Amazon Indians, or Tibet Asians, when they are struggling for their national identity.

 

Henrik: Of course!

 

Germar: That’s fashionable, because they are not Whites, they are Europeans. And even when in South Africa, now the shoe’s on the other foot and blacks persecute Whites and kill them, and whatever is going on there. In detail, I know a little bit of what’s going on. But nobody talks about it. It’s a reverse situation as it was under apartheid regime to some degree. But black racism, you can see it here in this country. Everybody talks about racism when there was a shooting. But I wonder, you know, the big elephant in the room is that White racism is not acceptable, or racial identity, or any identity! It doesn’t even have to be based on race, it can be on culture, it can be whatever you want to call it. It’s not acceptable if White folks, European folks start with it, but if a black ghetto group here in the United States makes racist remarks, racist attitude, that is not talked about.

 

Henrik: That’s right.

 

[14:58]

 

Germar: And the same in South Africa. Black racism goes around. I can understand it historically why they would have that attitude because it’s been suppressed for so long. I mean, there’s always a reason why people do things and sometimes it’s understandable reasons, but it’s never a justification.

So, I saw these links and it just took an accidental encounter with credible arguments by credible individuals that made me look into, what I had avoided all these, well the first two decades of my life, two and a half, three decades, to look into the “Holocaust” about the facts, claims about it.

 

[Image] The Leuchter Report by Fred Leuchter.

 

That was when I accidentally stumbled over the Leuchter Report, a famous, or infamous Leuchter Report, depending how you look at it. So the American expert [Fred Leuchter] for execution technologies, since they have the death penalty here in the US, they have to have some experts who maintain the equipment, with which capital punishment is executed.

 

And the one guy who was doing it back in the late 80s was asked by a defense team up in Canada, over a Canadian-German [Ernst Zundel] who was on trial for quote, unquote, “Holocaust Denial”. He was asked to write an expert report and to testify in court as to whether or not the facilities in two camps, in Auschwitz and Majdaneck camp in Poland, as they exist today and can be understood from blueprints, … Whether these facilities would have been able to commit the mass murder as is claimed by historians, and others. So he did that.

 

In 1988 he submitted his report in February that year. And I found out about it a little over a year later by this Swiss political scientist who was writing about the use and abuse of, “Coming to terms with the past in Germany”, which is a big issue in Germany, … Third Reich history has been used and abused in politics to destroy opponents, competitors, to marginalize groups and individuals. We see now again with Alternative for Germany [party] . It flows like a red thread through German history after the Second World War.

 

Henrik: Yes.

 

Germar: And he has been writing about it, analyzing it and in a new edition of that book that came out in ‘89, he wrote about the Leuchter Report. And I said:

“Well, what would happen if somebody comes up and says, ‘Well I made an expert report. I investigated the murder weapon’”.

If somebody did that with the claimed murder weapon for the French Revolution, that is the guillotine. And he comes up:

“Well I think the claims about how it is supposed to functioned, how many people were murdered with it and all this. This is wrong. This is the chosen propaganda put out by royalists who were trying to blacken the image of the revolutionaries”.

 

Henrik: Right.

 

Germar: And I said:

“Well that would be a controversial thesis. Historians would organize conferences, would discuss the arguments and what are either refuted, or would not be able to refute it, would maybe have to adjust their new history books to take into consideration the new evidence”.

 

And there would be pretty much about it.

 

Objectively seen it should be the same here. Time wise it is much closer and we’re talking about more victims. But in theory it’s a historical, it’s a factual question. It’s a question of, … It should be open to scientific investigation. And if an expert comes up with a theory:

“No, the gas chambers, as they are claimed, couldn’t have worked“.

 

And what I’ve seen there they were not equipped in a way that would have functioned as claimed. That’s what Leuchter did.

But, of course, nothing like an objective discussion of his thesis ever happened. They just began the marginalisation, ostracism and persecution of him. When I read about this. I didn’t know about the persecution yet. You would have thought that would have probably prevented me from getting into it [laughter].

 

Henrik: You think so?

 

Germar: I don’t know! I mean I know, … I have, … My personality is a little bit of a contrarian in nature, I would say so. If I perceive something to be unjust, persecution to be unjust, appear not warranted, or just plain wrong, I have a tendency to stand up against it and to fight it.

 

Henrik: Right.

 

Germar: In general I have a history, you can ask my mother. She said I have an over-developed sense for justice. I recognize it’s a problem, because your concept of justice is very skewed and very subjective and egocentric. But as you mature you get more and more wider perspective and you can objectivize this. But my attitude hasn’t changed about this. If something is unjust I just won’t take it.

 

 

[20:23]

 

Henrik: Yeah.

 

Germar: And in this regard too, I found out about persecution of revisionists on a scale that I have not considered possible. And it hasn’t deterred me, it has made me more angry and more determined! And the same has happened with my own persecution. A lot of people around me, friends and my first wife too, at some point they have had it and they disassociate and divorce me. Even my first wife. But that’s not what I do. I don’t shrink away from the challenge. I grow with the challenge.

 

So one factor was definitely being, seeing the persecution going on. And there’s no rational discussion. If somebody has an argument it should be listened to, it should be verified or falsified.

 

Henrik: Of course.

 

Germar: You shouldn’t start to call the prosecutor and throw people into prison. And today it’s come to the point where you’re not even allowed to muster a defense in court. Because if you try to in the courtroom to prove that you’re right, … What you did do in the eyes of the court is “denying again” in the courtroom and using the public stage of the courtroom to spread your propaganda!

 

Henrik: Right, right!

 

Germar: And then you get another indictment and another case! Even a lawyer if he just dares to file a motion to introduce evidence, … Just filing the motion can get a lawyer in prison!

 

Henrik: Wow! Really?

 

Germar: And I have two of my lawyers that, … [sighing] You know, I ended up being an expert on Leuchter, writing up an expert report showing up in court on the request of defense lawyers. And the things I had to experience there, how judges violate the law in an attempt to prevent me from testifying was eye-opening! It made me even more angry! To see how the system breaks its own rules, its own laws, too to keep up that taboo and to prevent anyone from speaking up against it or from presenting any factual evidence.

 

Henrik: Yeah.

 

Germar: Mine was purely engineering and chemical in nature and as such nothing, no history and no politics in it at all. It was just forensics. And that’s what every crime should be subjected to.

 

I’ve just had an interview* with Jonas Alexis from Veterans Today. What we dealing with here we’re talking about one of the biggest crimes in the history of mankind as it is claimed. So the mass slaughter all three million plus people in chemical slaughter houses, called gas chambers, and several million more just shot or starved to death, other reasons, other ways they died. So we’re talking about a massive crime! And whether a crime is little, if it’s just one person killed, or raped or injured, or whether it’s six million that have died, it’s still a crime that should be subjected to the same standard of investigation. But it’s completely politicized and any critical investigation that ends up coming to unwanted conclusions gets brutally suppressed! And then the name calling started against me, too.

 

I’ve just heard a remark by someone from the outside, saying, “Well, look at this denier, and anti-semite and racist talking” meaning, talking about me! I’d say I was persecuted and prosecuted for my scholarly writings. For my expert report on Auschwitz and ascertaining chemical issues I was sentenced and eventually spent fourteen months in prison. Not being allowed to present evidence for the fact that my arguments are correct. And later on, …

 

*[http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/07/18/logic-and-reason-can-and-will-destroy-the-holocaust-establishment/]

 

Henrik: Tell the audience when that was, by the way, so we get an idea of the time frame here.

 

Germar: Well, I found out about the Leuchter Report in 1989. In ‘91 I wrote a letter to the editor saying why I’m not convinced, that I’m not convinced that the Leuchter Report is the final word, because there are holes in the arguments and some flawed arguments. That a better job should be done on it. I got contacted, … Can you do that? Can you write an expert report? And I agreed, because I was happy, it was exciting.

 

[25:02]

 

 

That time I was doing my Ph.D in the ivory tower [on a] topic that was kind of boring because it had no application to real life. But this one was so real, it can’t get any more real, more relevant, because obviously nations in the whole world, in the United Nations, are out to suppress any consent in this context. There’s just no other topic where persecution and the will of authorities to suppress any dissent is so massive as in this area.

 

So that was clear evidence for me right there. No matter what you think about any politics of identity and what have you. For the authorities for the powers that be, that is the most important, so I just dig in and that is it. And I decided to do it, because it just made sense. There was nothing more that made more sense to me than going for this topic and trying to thoroughly investigate it.

 

I wrote the report in ‘91, in early ‘92. And it got submitted to various courts. There were seven, eight court cases in the years between ‘91 and ‘94. And I got then, … The current investigation started in ‘93 when my expert report was published, together with a preface and an appendix by the guy who actually published it. And they used that, because it was polemical in nature, it was attacking the historians, politicians and judges for suppressing the debate and for letting people go in prison without giving them a chance to defend themselves. So that was considered polemics and therefore the court that actually sentenced me for that expert report says you can’t claim “scientific freedom”, because of the preface which is not scientific [Henrik laughing] and therefore the whole expert report is unscientific, even though it is a preface that was written by somebody else. I didn’t even know that he had edited it. I found out when they started to distribute it, by as it may.

 

Henrik: Right.

 

Germar: I got then, in ‘95, sentenced to fourteen months in prison for that and, … But it was going through the revision procedure and finally the case was settled in ‘96. I was not taken into custody, because they considered it unlikely that I would flee, but I did then, before the final judgment by the higher court was handed down, I left the country. So I didn’t serve those fourteen months. I went to England instead in ‘96 and started a revisionist publishing company. Just, basically turning my passion into a profession!

 

So, what the German authorities tried to do, to stop me from doing, then I was doing it twenty-four seven because, all bridges were burnt and I had nothing else to do. And I dedicated my life, so to say, to that. And it has been that way ever since.

 

Now, eventually things got bad in England. I wasn’t sure, whether actually would extradite me or not. A lawyer I had then would say, “I stand no chance if Germany asks for extradition”. They were doing that in late ‘99. If the authorities catch me in England they would turn me over without further ado, so I decided to leave the country.

 

I went to the United States and eventually applied for political asylum in the United States. Which at the end didn’t go much of anywhere, because the United States has waged two world wars against Germany to get Germany to do what it’s doing now what is such destruction. And they are not going to revert that by giving me, who is Germans and Europeans in general a tool, a scientific historical that can be used politically to stop that self-destruction of the entire European civilization that being going on and on. Any identity movement needs to be able to withstand accusation of racism and intentions of mass murder. Because that’s what basically comes up each time you want to preserve the Swedish identity, the German identity, any European identity against what’s going on, that is been going on for the past decades.

 

Henrik: And that Germar, that proves that this is a weapon really, that it is being used against us. Which makes it one of the most important questions that we need to address and face if we are going to muster up the courage, if you will, to try to prevent what we’re seeing happening today. Would you agree with that?

 

Germar: Yeah! The Germans have the term, “Wunder Waffe”, “Miracle Weapon” and that is Germany had none in the Second World War, but Germany’s enemies, or Europe’s enemies have it now and that is the “Holocaust” propaganda. Which is used to beat down psychologically everyone who resists anything that the powers that be want to implement.

 

[30:07]

 

And people are aware of that this is such a powerful weapon, such a dangerous weapon that most people are terribly afraid of it and try to stay away, far away from it as they can. And I can understand that. If you have the liberty to dodge away, to get out of the way and not face it, and it’s not doing any harm to you then it’s fine to do that.

 

The problem is you cannot avoid it! It is like you are besieged by the enemy. You are in a small castle, so to say, you are surrounded by the enemy, they are all aiming that “miracle weapon” at you and you can’t dodge it! It is destroying the castle, the walls step by step, bit by bit! And you can pipe dream, just looking away sticking your head in the sand, making it go away. Play the infamous three apes. Close your eyes, close your ears, close your mouth and, but that’s not going away!

 

If you want to achieve anything in regards to standing up against the authorities, then you have to face that. And the absolute proof for it is the fact that for the powers that be, particularly in Europe, nothing is more important when it comes to discussing anything than suppressing Holocaust dissent! Because it’s the only topic in the world, in the history of mankind, when it comes to history that has ever been chiseled in stone by penal law in which dissent is mercilessly prosecuted and persecuted!

 

That is the only real unique thing about the Holocaust is the persecution and prosecution of dissidents. There has always been massacres, there has always been genocides, there’s always been, … There are many cases where millions and millions of people died and where high percentages of ethnic groups were killed. Nothing of it, and they were talking about technologies, the “Holocaust” was highly technological, … If you actually look into it in fact it was not! The claims of [it being] highly technological are ridiculous! If you look into what the eye witnesses claim, things are so primitive that you would say if the Germans had really intended to do something like that they would had the technology, a [technologically] leading nation back then, that would have used a different solution to what’s claimed, which is technically impossible at times, but that’s a different issue.

 

So, the really only unique thing about the Holocaust is the persecution of dissidents!

 

And that shows you already that something must be fishy with the whole thing. And that’s the Achilles’ heel of the powers that be, and they know it. And that’s why they persecute anyone so mercilessly, because they know once that breaks through, once the broader amount, a broader percentage of the normal populace finds out about the real arguments of revisionists, how logical, how self-evident they are and how convincing they are, when once enough people lose the fear, because they are angry enough, … A lot of people, when they find out how they have been lied to and cheated about this and when they first see some pretty convincing arguments, they get really angry, …

 

Henrik: Yes!

 

Germar:… And they don’t care anymore about persecution. Now, if you get a critical mass of people, just a certain critical mass that starts a snowball rolling down the hill, then they’d lose control and they know it, and that’s why they are so merciless with the persecution.

 

Henrik: And also let me add, Germar, that, you know, this topic, this issue that is occurring right now with this historical event. This is really the spearhead of free speech right here as well. And all those that are supposedly free speech advocates, as we know, many of them NEVER stand up in defense of people who are subjected to the kind of persecution that you’ve been talking about. In many cases, of course, it’s been very successful of them to paint many of these people who question this historical event as being somehow almost lunatics, right? That the there’s a mental problem with these people, just because of the fact that you dare to question this event! So it’s almost like a preemptive strategy that has been put in place, where you’re not even supposed to get to the point where you look at some of the material of this, right?

 

Germar: Right! That is the effect of seventy years of propaganda, making everyone think everything is so obvious and so well proven, how could anyone be so deluded to doubt any of this. Now, of course, everybody who talks that way has no, not even a basic knowledge about the “Holocaust”, apart from knowing the name of Auschwitz and Zyklon B, maybe. The less people know it, sometimes, I get the impression that the less people know the more dogmatic they are about it!

 

Henrik: That’s right!

 

[35:22]

 

 

Germar: And it is so easy to actually, in a debate with them, to get them to lose footage on the factual basis, because they don’t know what we’re talking about. But they instantly switch over to an ad hominem attack, to accusations, the usual stuff, Nazi extremists, anti-semite, whatever. Nothing to do with the debate, whatsoever. And sometimes it gets ludicrous, because there are some people who have a Jewish heritage who are revisionists and then they start calling those people anti-semites, you know, it gets ridiculous. But even that works for some people, he’s a Jewish anti-semite, how does that work? A self-hating Jew, whatever!

 

Henrik: Right, right.

 

Germar: I found it edifying, I found it encouraging, funny at times. To how easy it is to get the system to panic. I saw that back then, doing my Ph. D at the Max Planck Institute, appearing in front of a court with my chemical research and the system was panicking! The judges were suddenly in the middle of it, without any reason interrupt the proceedings, run out of the courtroom to get instructions on how to handle the situation, because if an expert witness is present in the courtroom, it can by German law, procedural law, … The defendant’s expert witness cannot be denied to testify. If he is indeed an expert, I had a diploma decree in chemistry and I was going for a Ph. D at the Max Planck Institute, that is recognized as sufficient expertise to testify as an expert witness. So, I was an expert witness. I was an expert. I testified on a topic that was pertinent to the case and I was present in the court room. They could not deny me to testify and yet, after getting instructions — that is to say, “cover my ass” phone call to higher up judges, or whatever — the judges came back and broke the law and denied me to [right to] testify!

 

So I’ve seen how they panic. What tricks they pull off their sleeves to pose this illusion, and that shores up the whole system. So, it’s just one little guy who makes the whole system panic and I’ve seen that again and again, you know! If you look how many actively researching and publishing revisionists there are in the world. Italy just introduced a “Holocaust” denial law a couple of weeks ago.

 

Henrik: Oh, really yeah! Because, I looked at a map and I saw that Italy was not on that map of having these laws. So that’s changed now?

 

 

Germar: The map is outdated. The map was drawn half a year ago and now just a month ago, I think, it’s relatively fresh, they introduced it. And in Italy you have one person, one person who is publishing revisionism. Just one! So they introduce a law to prevent this one person from doing what he is doing and threatening him with three years in jail! Where there’s always bloggers and people who comment and sympathizers to support the guy, but that’s not the issue. The real danger comes from the people who do the research and bring up the convincing evidence and show up in courtrooms and get the system into trouble. Because they, you know:

“Well we have free speech. We are nations under the rule of law and we abide to law and the authorities have to follow the law to”.

 

But if then push comes to shove you experience it yourself. They don’t give a damn about the law! They break it as they need to uphold this whole thing.

 

Henrik: Which would mean that, I mean in that case when you were involved and the judges just changed things on the fly like that, that means that they individually are, … I mean obviously they would be prepped before a case like this, but someone is directing them to make sure that a desired outcome is the end result of something like this. Correct?

 

Germar: Yes! I mean there were precedent cases in Germany. If a judge tried to be accommodating to any kind of defense strategy along that line, the judge can be prosecuted. So the judge is putting his career on the line and even his freedom if he dares to follow the law by allowing evidence, … Now they have changed the law now. Now it is actually that you are not allowed to introduce any evidence as I just earlier mentioned. Back when I was appearing in court, that wasn’t the case, yet. I could still file motions and they couldn’t prosecute. But they have changed that then. Because, actually, of what I was doing back in those years.

 

[40:00]

 

They started prosecuting lawyers and there was no case-law, or written law to prosecute lawyers just for filing a motion to introduce evidence. But, the case-law was then created on two occasions, of two lawyers who had filed motions to introduce me as an expert witness. And at the end of it, such, filing such motions has now been effectively outlawed. So, that’s one of my achievements in this business too.

 

Henrik: Well, very well done! What would you, let’s just give a little bit of time here to the audience that are listening and the newcomer who’s listening and people who, you know, might be at a point where they basically have never looked at any of this material. They might be listening, because they’re intrigued with your story of suppression and active, you know, how the system has been working against you. Just what you’ve been talking about. But, can you describe a little bit of what actually a revisionist is? As opposed to what it is not. I mean, because, usually what happens, as you said, that you get a kind of straw man. They set up a lie, basically of what it is that you represent, when you start going into these topics. But, what would you say really is the case? What are really some of the questions and points that you and others like you are trying to lift forward and highlight?

 

Germar: Well, revisionism is a broad term and we should now limit it maybe to first “Holocaust” revisionism. We should limit it also to those who actually do the research, do the actual publication to get the knowledge together. There are always people who use material that we put out, that have their own agenda and those then get used, at times to blame it back on the revisionist if there’s some racist, or some [xxx] or neo-Nazi, and these people do exist. They come up, use the material to push for their own agenda. That happens to every idea you put out there can be abused by somebody. And that’s where those false claims come to take a neo-Nazi and claim he’s a revisionist. Now if it was the other way, here’s a neo-Nazi and he uses revisionist arguments or abuses them.

 

So, let’s get something straight. What the media tell [us what] revisionists are is a lie! There are very broad terms like, “All revisionists deny that Jews were persecuted.” which we don’t. It’s an undeniable fact that during the Third Reich that Jews were persecuted. They were deprived of their civil rights. They were deported. They were herded into ghettos. They were put into concentration camps and they were put to forced labor in the concentration camps.

 

Yes! There were crematoria where the corpses of those who had died were incinerated. And, there is no doubt that Jews died in great numbers for many reasons in the camps and in the ghettos, for epidemics malnutrition, disease, even mistreatment. And all this is not denied and furthermore there is no denying that other minorities were at times persecuted too. Like gypsies and political dissidents.

 

Now the extent of how many died and who died, for what reasons is then again the topic of discussion. But, the general issue that what happened with all the prosecution going on, that is not denied by revisionists. Furthermore the moral level, we need to get that out of the way. Revisionists don’t say, if you’re really serious, you don’t say that the treatment of the Jews was just. If you put a minority, just because a person belongs to a certain group, you stop persecuting them, mistreating them, that’s not justifiable! Now some people out there might do it and say:

“Well, the Jews have done this and that and therefore they, …”

 

No, that’s not the way you can argue. If some jew did something and you can’t hold this personal jew responsible, you can hold Jews as a group responsible for something only some of them did. So, do we deny the victims dignity? No! Do we want to wipe out the memory of these victims? No! We want victims to be remembered. Not just Jewish victims, all the victims of violence, of persecution, of wars and atrocities. Do we deny showing compassion to these victims? No! Somebody is a victim, there were a lot of victims for a number of reasons and compassion is always due.

 

[45:00]

 

Do we deny that there was a systematic plan by the National Socialist government, enacted by technological means, in terms of homicidal gas chambers, to kill as many Jews as possible, ending up with a total death toll of six million? That is put into question.

 

Henrik: Yes.

 

Germar: So, it’s not about all the persecution that happened, about the many victims that died as a consequence of that and all this was unjust and bad. That is not denied. What we’re talking about is only, was there a plan to systematically wipe off the earth the Jews that the Nazis could lay their hands, primarily by means of chemical slaughterhouses, called gas chambers? And is the death toll at the end, six million? These are the questions. And I got into it by, very specifically, asking, in Auschwitz, the places that claim to have been homicidal gas chambers, were they or were they not, … I wasn’t asking about, “Did Auschwitz exist?” That’s ridiculous to ask, you know. Did Hiroshima exist? Did, does Washington exist? No, that’s a stupid question to ask.

 

[Image – click to enlarge] Map of Auschwitz I, II and III complex.

 

Of course Auschwitz existed! It was a concentration camp. It had disastrous hygienic conditions, epidemic broke out at some point in the summer and fall of 1942. Hundreds of people, every day, died, because of typhus epidemics. And for, the only person who was responsible there is the leadership of the German Reich who decided to send all these people in the camp that wasn’t prepared to receive them. Now to do that, people for no reasons other than they belong to a group, in a camp and you can’t feed them and you can’t keep them healthy that’s your responsibility.

 

[Image – click to enlarge] Map of Auschwitz I (Main Camp) layout.

 

There’s no doubt about it, but was there actually a gas chamber in that camp that was used to kill up to a million people? The death toll that is accepted by revisionists in Auschwitz lies a little bit of a hundred thousand. Now you have one wartime camp and a hundred thousand people within just three or four years, die in that camp! Can you imagine that?

 

Henrik: Yep, yep.

 

Germar: Bad! Awful! Terrible conditions! Over one hundred thousand people is bad news! But it’s better news than having a million people being slaughtered in a chemical slaughterhouse.

 

Herik: Right.

 

Germar: Just because I say:

“Well, this is truth, a hundred twenty thousand died, because of bad conditions that the Germans were responsible for, because they just didn’t handle the situation properly”.

 

That makes me a denier and a bad person and, because I contest that there was a chemical slaughterhouse and I’ve had a zillion enough arguments why they couldn’t have been chemical slaughterhouses to begin with, because the types of epidemics were raging there so badly at the time when those exterminations are said to have happened. Now at that time, for infrastructure reasons, for technological reasons, for a number of reasons the Germans wouldn’t have been able to handle even more dead people than they already had at their hands, because of those epidemics that were raging.

 

Apart from the fact that all the technology, all the forensic evidence, all the documents clearly indicate there was no such thing! It’s just made up. And we have now consistent evidence of systematic torture of people under British and American and Soviet custody after the war, of the former camp, staff members.

 

Henrik: Yep.

 

Germar: To get, to extract from testimonies, which, by just looking at the testimonies and looking at how it could be technically possible what they claim, doesn’t hold up, hold water, compared to the facts we know. We know already by what they stated and how they stated it that it can’t be true. But knowing now by book published by a British journalist just ten years ago, the British and the American actually applied systematic torture! They got all these people from the former concentration camps, put them in these camps and tortured them by the hundreds, systematically to get those confessions out of them! And that’s what history is based upon.

 

And then you look at the witnesses, of those survivors and you see instead a similar pattern of claims that are just as ludicrous, have nothing to do with the reality and are completely off the wall for the most part of those who have claimed this. It’s proof for, … I mean they are a lot of survivors that in and of itself shows that there was no system in it, because if you have two hundred thousand Auschwitz survivors, which we do have, documentation about. Two hundred thousand, I think half of them, more than half are actually Jews. What kind of a systematic mass murder is it if a hundred thousand or two hundred thousand of them get away and are now sent into the world to testify?

 

[50:06]

 

 

No! But of these two hundred thousand that got out of the camp, maybe five hundred or a thousand got public with stories that are supposed to shore up the gas chamber stories. So, out of two hundred thousand we have just, say two thousand, that’s just one percent. And, in wartime situation, there is extreme emotion and extreme political propaganda. To have one percent and of the survivors lie, exaggerate, make up stories. There’s always one percent of the population that lies, exaggerate. This is normal. But you have the 199,000 that didn’t do it!

 

Henrik: Aha.

 

Germar: And all this is taken together makes it very clear in the case of Auschwitz, and this is a very well documented case, because almost all the documentation about Auschwitz survived. Many other camps, there were destroyed by the Germans before being overrun by the Allies, but not so in Auschwitz, not so in Majdanek. We have the documents there and we can reconstruct almost every nail and every brick that was used in the camp to do this or to do that. Every pencil that was shot from one side of the desk to the other is all recorded and documented and we can reconstruct it day by day we see no such thing! No trace!

 

They had other problems, massive problems of trying to man the armament factories with those workers. But then they had epidemics and the whole thing collapsed, because most of the workers were unable to work, because they died like flies, including the guards. Yes they died.

 

Henrik: Right.

 

Germar: They died too because of typhus.

 

Henrik: Yes. Starvation, you had obviously. There were so many things that Germany was struggling with at the time as well. That eventually, specifically towards the end of the war, things just collapsed entirely. And that is where we also got starvation coming into the picture and these kinds of things. But I want to continue to talk more about the evidence that you have, you know, gathered and researched over the years, in the second hour as we continue. But I want to spend about four or five minutes talking a bit about your latest book, so people know, you know, about some of the material that you’re working on and have available for people who want to find out more. It’s called, “Resistance is Obligatory”. Tell us a bit about the book and why you wanted to write this one.

 

 

Germar: As a matter of fact, when I was put into prison eventually, my entire case in the United States went bad and they deported me to Germany and there the police arrested me at the gangway coming out of the plane and put me in a prison to serve my old 14 months for my expert report. And then the put me on trial for the publications I had done in the meantime. And eventually sentenced me. Now in the situation as I was there, I was not allowed to defend myself in the matter itself. I gave a seven-day lecture in court about:

“What is revisionism? Why is revisionism scholarly and scientific and why is the mainstream histography, the mainstream school of Holocaust research, so to say, why they are not scholarly?”

 

And:

“Why is it important to let scientists do their research freely and what importance does it have for our society?”

 

And then also:

“Who is violating laws here, is it me who is insisting on free speech, or is the government that tries to suppress something with illicit methods, or outright illegal methods?”

 

And then coming up to the point:

“What is a citizen to do when they see that the authorities violate the law to suppress civil rights?”

 

That they persecute dissidents, peaceful dissidents. And the conclusion was basically with all the theoretical work that has been done in the West during the years of peaceful resistance, you know, you have the most famous representative is Mahatma Gandhi, everybody knows about him and about peaceful resistance. That’s where I also picked up and all these nice theories that the West has developed during the Cold War when there was the peace movement opposing the armament in general, or nuclear weapons in particular. Nuclear energy even in Germany with battles going on in the seventy’s and eighty’s in the country, almost like civil war where the peace movement was confronting the authorities, not very peacefully. And the theories that were developed then about when does a citizen have the right, or even the obligation, the moral obligation to resist authority?

 

[55:06]

 

And they’ve clearly shown in some cases, you know, if it’s about minor laws you’re not allowed to do it, but I mean if it’s about major principles of civil rights, then resistance is obligatory!

 

And that’s why I come to the conclusion. A human is different from any other animal by its critical capacity. The way we go about to distinguish illusion from reality, an animal has impressions from its environment through its senses and, but it can’t do much about it. It just have to live with whatever he body tells it’s supposed to do. We can be critical. We can communicate with others. We can verify, whether something is an illusion, or an actual fact and that scientific approach, that critical approach that is so unique to humans, that makes us humans. That’s the place of all human dignity. It’s not that we can have sex with what we want to, eat with whom we want to, that’s animal world. The human world is different from the animal world, because we can be critical and we can communicate critically. 

 

And if the government goes in and suppresses that very aspect of human life, they are suppressing human dignity, and that’s the very most important thing in the German constitution, human dignity. And the German government is trampling it into dust. Not just free speech, but human dignity. You want to have the right to doubt, that is where every research, every critical thinking begins! I doubt my sensory input and then I want to go about critically to find out what the truth is and if the government denies me to do that, the government denies me my humanity and then I have the obligation to resistance, to the very end!

 

Henrik: Right.

 

Germar: So, I told the court that. Here I am, I can do no other like Martin Luther* said, “Do with me what we want” but I resist, period!

 

So, basically that is what the book’s about it. It’s written down, my speech, my seven-day speech and then gives an explanation, documentation about of all the things that I said that I could not deliver in the courtroom. Now, I wrote it, actually, while I was in prison. I tried to publish it. While I was in prison and I got another prosecution because, of course, during my trial I was also defending myself against the accusations, that my writings are stirring up too hostile [?] feelings and that they were inaccurate and whatever. And that part of my defense speech was then used by the prosecution who intercepted my proofs going in and out of prison in preparation of the book. They interpreted that as my attempt to again deny and commit another crime! And they started prosecuting. Well, I had a good lawyer and he managed to get that case shelved and it went away. And I waited with publishing the book until I was out of prison and out of the reach of the German authorities.

 

But there it is, it came out just four years ago in the First Edition. However I’m on the second [edition] now.

 

*[Martin Luther (10 November 1483 – 18 February 1546) was a German professor of theology, composer, priest, monk and a seminal figure in the Protestant Reformation. Luther’s major works on the Jews were his 60,000-word treatise Von den Juden und Ihren Lügen (On the Jews and Their Lies), and Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi (On the Holy Name and the Lineage of Christ), both published in 1543.]