Cliquez pour suivre le lien.

The "Rudolf Report" — A "Scientific Landslide"?

Sarah Rembiszewski

Copyright © Sarah Rembiszewski 1994
Reproduction interdite sauf autorisation de l'auteur

The following content was archived in 2005 from the nizkor web site
https://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/r/rudolf.germar/tel-aviv-university-report (the original text is offline, thus our putting it back online).

A french biography of Germar Rudolf can be found here.

The following is an attempt to introduce the latest "scientific" fabrication of a German Holocaust revisionist. The document was produced by Germar Rudolf who seeks to refute the existence of the German death machinery at Auschwitz/Birkenau. Among other things, he tries to establish by "arithmetical simulation", to what extent human sweat - caused by fear of death inside the gas chambers — influenced the speed of the chemical reaction of Zyklon B.

The full title of the "Rudolf Gutachten", or the "Rudolf Report" is _Expert Report on the Formation and Detection of Cyanide Compounds in the "Gas Chambers" of Auschwitz_ (orig.: _Gutachten ueber die Bildung und Nachweisbarkeit von Cyanidverbindungen in den "Gaskammern" von Auschwitz_). The edition we are referring to is the third one, corrected and completed in November 1992, by the author who is also the owner of the rights.

The "Rudolf Report" was commissioned by Otto-Ernst Remer, a notorious Holocaust denier, through one of his lawyers, Hajo Hermann (Luftwaffen Colonel, decorated during WWII), himself a known Holocaust revisionist.

We became aware of the "Gutachten" when we noticed, while studying the publications of the international neo-Nazi scene — the insistent publicity campaign made for the so-called "expert report" of a German scientist. Here are a few examples:

In its November/December edition of 1993, the "Rudolf Report" is called "Germany's Leuchter Report". According to the "Journal of Historical Review", the "Rudolf Gutachten" is available for DM 46 from Cromwell Press, London.

The respected scientist, siding with Holocaust revisionism, becomes a "figurehead" of the neo-Nazi scene.

After the report's completion, it was submitted to at least two courts as an expert testimony, to prove the non-existence of gas chambers in Auschwitz/Birkenau.

The judges at the David Irving trial in Munich, May 1992, as well as those of Otto-Ernst Remer in Schweinfurt, October 1992, declined Rudolf the right to serve as an expert witness, as both courts considered the existence of gas chambers in the death camps unquestionable.

It seems worthwhile mentioning that the judges who have to deal with the offensive behavior of Holocaust deniers, are sometims unsure and irritated. A court in Vienna, that had to pass judgement on Gerd Honsik, (neo-Nazi and Holocaust denier) commissioned an expert opinion by the Austrian professor Gerd Jagschitz, who finally came to the conclusion that there could be no doubt that Jews were mass-murdered by Zyklon B... On May 5th, 1992, Gerd Honsik was sentenced to one and a half years and ten days in prison.

The "Rudolf-Report" is not a new phenomenon. It was the French Holocaust denier, Robert Faurisson, who had the idea of commissioning an expert report which could be used as a legal document in court, for the defense of those accused of Holocaust denial... These "expert documents" were specially fabricated for use in court (although their propaganda value, when distributed amongst "important" personalities and members of the right-wing scene cannot be underestimated), commissioned by the lawyers of the accused and probably financed by all those "concerned". Usually the same "expertise" is used in more than one law suit.

But why should an experienced and successful chemist like Rudolf, get invovled in Holocaust revisionismt, risking his career and reputation?

It seems obvious that the payment he received must have been considerable, as the financiers of these "reports" are usually very generous. Fred Leuchter — whom Rudolf cites very often throughout his analyses — had been hired by the lawyers of Ernst Zundel (Canadian Holocaust denier). In February 1988, Leuchter was paid $37,000.- (at least), for a document which "proved" that carbon-monoxide gas had never been used for killing human beings inside gas vans. (These allegations are widely spread by extremists of the whole spectrum of the right-wing scene in Germany. One cannot but wonder whether these appearances are indirectly encouraged by the "Schlussstrichmentalitaet"* of certain government circles.)

Remer understood the importance of delegating the "report" to a serious scientist, associated with a famous institution.

Although the impact Fred Leuchter's study had on the right-wing scene was significant, the fact that the latter was an imposter, having had no scientific education whatsoever, could not be hidden from the public. Contrary to Leuchter, Rudolf was a real "showpiece".

To underline the respectability of the "Rudolf Gutachten", the author refers to such celebreties as Prof. Ernst Nolte, of the Freie Universitaet Berlin.

In the past, Prof. Nolte (a central figure in the "Historikerstreit") had taken an ambiguous position towards the subject of Holocaust revisionism. Although he rejected the scientific value of an expertise like the "Leuchter-Report" as a means of persuasion, he still considered it to be a "stimulation for further research" and believed that "if revisionism and with it the "Leuchter Report" were able to explain to the general public that Auschwitz too has to be a subject of scientific research and controversy, one should give them due credit." (Feb. 1990, in "Junge Freiheit"). Prof. Nolte implies that 'Auschwitz' can be compared with other historical events (like the "stalinistischen Saeuberungen") and has to be studied in the context of historical relativity.

The conceptualizaton of the Holocaust provokes discussions in the style of those inspired by Mark Weber (famous American Holocaust revisionist) titled: "The Holocaust — Let's Hear Both Sides"; the same idea is behind the thoughts of Bradley R. Smith in "The Holocaust Controversy. The Case of an Open Debate". (A "Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust" (CODOH) was founded in 1987 by Bradley R. Smith.).

The ultimate aim of these discussions is of course the denial of the Holocaust and the rehabilitation of the German nation, which would finally lead to the rehabilitation of National Socialism.

"Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus" (False in one thing, flase in everything) is a saying chosen by Bradley Smith for the title of an article, subtitled: "`The Human Soap' — Holocaust Myth" (IHR Newsletter, May 1992). The above proverb illustrates the latest tactics of Holocaust revisionism. Once the negationist can "scientifically" deny the existence of gas chambers in Nazi concentration camps, he has no difficulties in denying the Holocaust as a whole. This strategy, presented by Otto-Ernst Remer in the appendix of the "Rudolf-Report", works as follows:

As everyone knows, nobody ever pretended that 6 million Jews had been killed in gas chambers. The number describes the total sum of those being murdered as Jews, whether in the gas chambers of the concentration camps or elsewhere. But the tactics of the deniers consists of deliberately misusing this number. They argue consequently: if it can be proven, that 6 million were not gassed, then the first exaggeration has been found. The next step consists of using authentic, as well as false references and in impressing the public, by citing "authorities" like Germar Rudolf.

The danger of these philosophical concepts is obvious. Encouraging a debate on Holocaust revisionism attributes, - due to the nature of a debate, — a legal aspect to both sides concerned. "Discussing" the Holocaust, would finally encourage Holocaust deniers (and other perverts) and be an insult to the memory of millions of Jews, killed by torture, gas or hunger during the Nazi regime.

The Layout of the "Rudolf Gutachten".

When we first received the present 3rd edition of Germar Rudolf's assessment, we were surprised by its expensive layout. 119 pages of A-4 size high-gloss paper, coloured photos to demonstrate the findings, professional graphs and tabulations, detailed references, and of course a long list of "Danksagungen" (notes of thanks). But reading the first few sentences — (without referring to Otto-Ernst Remer's plea on the inside cover-page, asking his readers to contribute to the financing of his defence proceedings in court) — we realized that the "attractive" blue colour of the cover was in fact exactly the same as that on the walls of the gas chambers and "delousing" rooms, left by the traces of the Zyklon B gas. These marks and their intensity was one of the main objects of the "investigation". (Consequently, the report is referred to as "das Blaubuch" ("the blue book") by followers of the German Holocaust revisionist..)

We do not intend to elaborate on the specific falsehoods in Rudolf's report, as its absurd allegations are evidence enough. The language and reasoning explain why Rudolf was chosen by Reme to fabricate the "expert report." There is something chilling about this man, whose language does not even purport to be that of a disinterested scientist, but reveals his offending ideas which are clearly those of a Holocaust denier.

The hypocrisy of the author can hardly be surpassed, as is shown by the choice of the coloured photos, which frequently show a young man (according to the "Journal of Historical Review" of November/December 1993, p.26, the author himself is shown on the photos) inside or outside the gas chambers of Auschwitz/Birkenau taking samples of the traces left by Zyklon B.

Page 88 of the "document" shows Germar Rudolf, pointing to the blue colour on the walls, left by the murderous gas - "innocently" holding a bag in his hand, with the inscription: "environmentalist"....

The "Proofs".

The style, expression, and "scientific" conclusions of the "report" are surely those of a racist and anti-Semite, who does not leave out any of the arguments of the "typical" Holocaust denier. Following are some examples to illustrate this assumption:

The author continues the manipulation of facts in support of his falsifications, coming up with a monstrous lie to justify "a certain" number of deaths in Auschwitz/Birkenau: "According to the official death-books, old age was the number one cause of death among the Jews" and "the typhoid epidemics were the second most frequent cause of death.." (It is a fact, that the very first victims of the Nazis in Auschwitz/Birkenau in December 1941 were terminal patients and prisoners of war, but this is true only for the time before the construction of the ovens in 1942-43, when more than 800,000 Jews were murdered in the gas chambers). Germar Rudolf claims that the Jews, because of their "low hygienic standards", brought with them the seed of their death. And although the Germans tried their best to improve the health of the Jewish inmates (by delousing and medical care....) the prisoners died (if they died) either of natural causes (old age) or of illness. According to Rudolf, the Germans, like the camp commander Hoess, were very cautious with regard to the inmates (p.16).

To prove the non-existence of gas chambers in Auschwitz/Birkenau, the author uses a remarkable cold-blooder and arrogant argument: The efficiency and intelligence of the Germans.

Here are some examples of Rudolf's argumentation:

The gassing of the Jewish inmates in Auschwitz, the most efficient death-machinery in the history of mankind, did not show the German "precision work". Was the gassing and disposal of Jewish bodies at Auschwitz/Birkenau not efficient enough? 4 crematoria with a capacity of 4,456 corpses a day were in use from March 22 until June 28 1943. (Prof. W. Benz concludes in "Legenden Luegen Vorurteile" that until November 1944, almost one million Jews were gassed in Auschwitz/Birkenau).

The scientist tries to confuse his readers (as most Holocaust deniers do) by comparing the techniques used by the operators of the crematoria in Auschwitz/Birkenau with those of the "civilised" world outside the death camp.

Outside Auschwitz/Birkenau, there existed, of course, a normal world, where precise instructions concerning the technical performance of the work of the crematoria were followed. But these were not taken into account inside the death camps where the burning of corpses presented only a problem of "quantity".

The reasoning concerning the "safety provisions" of those working in the gas chambers and crematoria is presented in the same manipulative way. Describing the work of the Jewish inmates of the Sonderkommando, Rudolf cynically suggests that the testimonies of the surivors concerning this work were lies, as the "impossible working conditions" (p.75) could have been a danger to their health — as they had neither "gas masks" nor, "protective clothing"...

It is frightening that the author dares to persuade his audience of the "humane treatment" the Sonderkommandos in Auschwitz/Birkenau would have received (if they had existed..) from their German guards to protect their health. Adopting the strategy of most Holocaust deniers, Rudolf does not reject the use of Zyclon B in Auschwitz/Birkenau altogether. According to him it was only used to prevent the spreading of epidemics and as a means of hygiene (p.58).

(During WWII, the murderous gas Zyklon B was licensed to the "Degesch"-company. Successors to "Degesch" is the "Detia-Freyberg" GmbH in Laudenbach, Germany. As the firm is mentioned by Rudolf as a source of information on Zyklon B, we contacted the "Detia-Freyberg" and asked about their relationship with Germar Rudolf and/or Otto-Ernst Remer. They denied having had any contact with either of them.)

Although the "Rudolf-Report" has been rejected as a legal document whenever presented in court, financing this costly document must have seemed worthwhile to its publishers. The fact is, that it is widely distributed and used by Holocaust deniers to "prove" the non existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz/Birkenau.

As the examples have shown, Rudolf is not afraid to prove himself openly to be a Holocaust denier, even at the risk of being brought to court. In June 1985 the West German Bundestag modified its penal code in order to allow action to be taken against the denial of NS-crimes as well as the "Auschwitz-lie", under Paragraph 194 of the Criminal Code.

The long list of lawyers which is added with appreciation to the "Report", clearly illustrates the kind of legal advice Rudolf can count on, should he need it.

But for the time being he does not consider himself in any kind of danger. He even had the impertinence to offer his "professional services" (together with those of Walter Lueftl) to Prof. Jagschitz "free of charge" during the Honsik trial in Vienna 1992 (p. 106, footnote no. 59). At that time Rudolf was related to Leuftl, president of the Austrian Engineers' and Architects' Association, who had conducted a "study" to prove tha the Holocaust could not have happened. Leuftl conducted his study at the request of a German lawyer and published his conclusions in the Viennese paper "Die Presse" under the title: "Holocaust — Belief and Facts". (Sueddeutsche Zeitung, No. 62, 15.3.1992) Lueftl was forced to resign.

The 'notes of thanks' at the end of the report are of special interest to the attentive reader.

Special mention is reserved for Herr Dipl.-Ing.h.c.W.Lueftl for his contribution to the work of Germar Rudolf. As we have seen above, Lueftl had to quit his work (president of the Austrian Engineers' and Architects' Federation) following the publication of his report denying the Holocaust.

The chemist Germar Rudolf (28) was a graduate student, studying for a doctorate at the famous German institute of sciences, the Max-Planck-Institute in Stuttgart. After querying the Max-Planck-Institute (Minerva Foundation) we learnt that although they had known about the publication of the "Rudolf Report" from early 1992, Rudolf was able to finish his work with his supervisor Prof. von Schnering.

According to the Institute's press release (25th May 1993), Prof. von Schnering had told his student "not to engage in further activities in this matter." This seemed rather surprising, as we had expected at least a public condemnation of Rudolf's involvement in Holocaust revisionism by the very respected and renowned Max-Planck-Institute.

Holocaust denial, or as it is known to German lawyers: "The Auschwitz Lie", is a punishable offence under the German Penal Code (Strafgestzbuch), when it is told in public. The denial of the Holocaust is considered by paragraph 185 of the Penal Code as an "insult to the survivors of the Holocaust". As such it can only be prosecuted upon the filing of charges. Paragraph 194 states, however, that "The Auschwitz Lie" can be prosecuted by the authorities (ex officio) when it was committed publicly, i.e. by propagation in print, in a public gathering and by electronic media.

Referring to the fact that Holocaust denial is only punishable when propagated in public, we understand the insistence of the official press release of the Max-Planck-Institute on the fact that Mr. Germar Rudolf intended his "Gutachten" to serve as an expert report only in court and that he did not "allow" it to be published. But as we have shown before, the "Rudolf Gutachten" is sold in public (DM46.-), propagated by its distributors as the latest "scientific proof of the non-existence of the gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau it can be ordered through Cromwell Press or from Germar Rudolf personally. A slightly altered version of the report has been published by the Grabert Publishing House in Thubingen, Germany, entitled "Vorlesungen Ueber Zeitgeschichte" (Lectures on Contemporary History). The name, Dr. Ernst Gaus, who signs as the author, seems to be a pseudonym for Germar Rudolf.

Paragraph 86 of the Legal Code makes the distribution, production and storing of propaganda-means of unconstitutional organizations punishable. But, if the means of propaganda server certain purposes, such as political education, or artistic and scientific(!) ogals... they are not punishable by law.

A criminal investigation was launched by the procurator's office of Mannheim against Fred Leuchter, the notorious American who claims to have chemical evidence that no gas was used in Auschwitz. It seems important to mention the fact that the "Rudolf Report" openly propagates the forbidden "Leuchter-video", giving the exact distribution address (p.114).

Revealing the existence of a German Holocaust denier — a young scientist, working for a famous institute of science — to the general public, seems to us an urgent necessity in view of the increasing number of publications by so-called experts, perverting science in the name of a terrifying manipulation of history.

The following additional information reached us on completion of the above study in January 1994.

After having completed his written doctorate thesis at the 'Max Planck Institute fuer Festkoerperforschung in Stuttgart' Germar Rudolf was dismissed on June 7th., 1993. According to the 'Minerva Stiftung' (Max-Planck Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der Wissenschaften) Rudolf has initiated a process "for the protection against wrongful dismissal." The outcome of these legal proceedings is still unknown. (Telefax from the Minerva Stiftung of February 8th, 1994). The lawyer, who is defending Rudolf, is the same Dr. G. Herzogenrath-Amelung who figures together with other known right-wing jurists as legal advisers in the report. Herr Rudolf presented his doctoral thesis in June 1993 at the University of Stuttgart. The latter has not yet decided whether to accept Rudolf's thesis.

Two weeks (!) before his dismissal, on May 25th 1993, the 'Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der Wissenschaften E.V.' published a press-release (as a response to the distribution of the 'Rudolf Gutachten' to several hundred personalities in Germany) stating that Germar Rudolf is a graduate student at the 'Max-Planck-Institut fuer Festkoerperforschung in Stuttgart', who has been working for the last years on a report on the "formation and detection of cyanide compounds in the 'gas chambers' of Auschwitz", destined for the defence of Otto-Ernst Remer in court.

According to the press-release, Rudolf stole the official papers of the Max-Planck-Institut Stuttgart to order the analyses of the gas chamber samples at the Fresenius Institut. As this "private" occupation had nothing to do with his work at the MPI (Max-Planck-Institut), the institution did not see any reason to dismiss Rudolf at this date (25 May 1993), but after the 'Rudolf Report' had appeared in public, the members of the MPG distanced themselves from the report.

On February 16th, 1994 we received a copy of a statement signed by Prof. A. Simon, director of the Max-Planck-Institut fuer Festkoerperforschung, Stuttgart, which was published in June 1993, (the day of Rudolf's official dismissal). The statement, addressed to the members of the Institute, expressed consternation over the fact that a member of the MPG was involved in "speculations about the number of those murdered during the 3rd. Reich". Prof. Simon explained that, as the study of Rudolf concerning the material samples of Auschwitz were of a "private nature," he does not see any reason to deal with its statements.

As a result of the absence of any public response to the distribution of the report, stickers with the inscription "Es gab keine Gaskammern, das bestaetigt auch die Max-Planck-Gesellschaft", ("There were no gas chambers at Auschwitz. This is confirmed by the Max-Planck-Society") were found all over.

In order to receive some relevant information about the analysis of the material which seemed to be the main object of Rudolf's study, we turned to the Institut Fresenius in Taunusstein and to the Degussa AG in Frankfurt, both referred to by Germar Rudolf.

Fresenius is widely propagated by the distributors of the "Rudolf-Report". (The "Remer-Depesche" of June 1992 even shows an impressive photo of the Fresenius building on its first page..) The tabulations reproduced by Germar Rudolf are described as: "Cyanide concentrations in the walls of 'gas chambers'/delousing chambers. After Germar Rudolf/Institut Fresenius, Taunusstein, Hessen, Deutschland."

On February 17th., 1994, we received a letter from Prof. Wilhelm Fresenius, asking for our understanding that he is not in the position to give us any information about the analysed materials, as these belong to the client, which in this case is the "Max-Planck-Institut fuer Festkoerperforschung in Stuttgart". We further received a copy of a press release of the Fresenius Institut, dated May, 1993, commenting on the Remer leaflets and the "Rudolf Report."

After a meeting with the representative of the Degussa AG in Israel, and an extensive correspondence with the Degussa AG, Frankfurt, the latter informed us (on April 7, 1994) that they pressed charges against Germar Rudolf for slandering, defamation of character and fraud. According to the Degussa AG, legal steps against Rudolf are also taken by the Fresneius Institut and the public prosecutor's office of Stuttgart.

Germar Rudolf is charged with fraud and slandering by for his real crime, the denial of the gas chambers in Auschwitz, he has not yet been indicted.

Tel-Aviv, April 1994

* describes the general atmosphere of putting a "final stroke" to the German past, including the Holocaust.

[ Germar Rudolf  |  Négationnisme et réfutations  |  Toutes les rubriques ]

Ie