Germar Rudolf is a German chemist and a prolific writer. He studied chemistry at Bonn University and the Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research. Part of his academic journey is provided in this article, which is our third interview.
Alexis: Some writers have proposed that there is a “new tactic of using natural sciences to deny the Holocaust,” and it “seemed to be successful and was able to impress less-informed people.” Those writers place you in the same category. Ironically, they could not provide serious evidence against what you are actually proposing. They are not even trying. They write,
“Although Rudolph’s report, of which several disputed versions exist, appears to be more scientific and serious than Leuchter’s, it is scientifically as flawed as Leuchter’s. Rudolph was finally dismissed by the Max Planck Institute and has now found his way into right-wing extremist circles that exploit his report.”
I had to laugh a bit because I thought they previously argued that your report was “scientifically as flawed as Leuchter’s.” I was expecting to see rigorous scientific evidence against the report, but what I found was mumbo jumbo. They seem to believe that the last statement—that you were dismissed by the Max Planck Institute—is “scientific”. Can you address these points here?
Germar Rudolf: Those people are wrong. I wasn’t dismissed. The Institute tried to fire me, but when I sued them for violating our contract, they agreed to withdraw that dismissal and to replace it with a mutually-agreed-upon termination of my limited employment contract three months prior to its original expiration date. The legal difference between a mutual agreement and a dismissal is considerable. It was important for me to keep the record clean.
Next, science is not a tactic. It’s the reason why we no longer sit in trees eating bananas. And it’s the only way to get things right, even when it comes to researching the Holocaust. It’s also not impressing “less-informed people,” but rather more-informed people, like for instance the science historian Dr. Nicholas Kollerstrom, who, after learning about my research, turned revisionist himself and has since contributed considerably to the field with his book Breaking the Spell (2nd ed., Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield 2015), or like associate professor Dr. Thomas Dalton, author of Debating the Holocaust (Theses & Dissertations Press, New York 2009; 2nd ed., Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield 2015).
There are many more scholars and academics like that, but most of them either use pen names to avoid persecution, or they work merely in the background by helping other revisionists with their research.
Those claiming that my expert report is flawed and has been refuted, usually refer either to a paper by an Austrian chemist first published in the mid-1990s, or to a number of online papers written by the U.S. chemist Dr. Richard Green, which were wiped off the net when the domain where they were posted got deleted earlier this year.
I have scrutinized both so-called “refutations” in detail in Chapter 8.4. of the 2003 and 2011 English editions of my expert report, where I show that their arguments are so deeply flawed that they are truly embarrassing. I also published a deeper critique of their “rebuttal” in a separate book dedicated to discussing these and other, less pertinent attempts at refuting revisionist arguments. That book also contains a critical review of Shermer’s and Grobman’s anti-revisionist book.
As to right-wing extreme circles: the term “extremist” usually refers to individuals willing to employ illegal methods in furthering their ideology. The problem with that is that it is the German government who is employing illegal methods to suppress free speech. Hence, it’s the German government that’s extreme, not its victims.
That has become clear when in 2009 the German Constitutional High Court decided that the German law used to prosecute historical dissidents is a special law designed to suppress only certain views on certain topics. As such, the court stated, it would usually be unconstitutional; but then they rubber-stamped that law anyway, saying that the exceptional experience of National Socialism justifies exceptional laws.
So even the German High Court violates the German Constitution, for even if the highest judges decree that black is white, that doesn’t turn black into white; it only turns judges into criminals in robes.
Furthermore, in the early 1990s, when I was getting involved in revisionism, the German authorities believed their own propaganda that I had to have been some leading figure in “right-wing extremist circles.” One day several cops showed up at my home, asking me out for a chat. They asked me to use my influence on the “scene” to prevent any major demonstrations on occasion of the umpteenth anniversary of the murder of Rudolf Hess.
Fact is that I was neither aware of that anniversary nor of any “scene” organizing anything, because I have never been a part of those circles. But I guess they keep believing in their own false political propaganda, just like they keep believing in their own false Holocaust propaganda.
Alexis: On a side note, I have been fascinated by a Washington Post article entitled, “Auschwitz is a sacred place of Jewish memory. It’s no place for a Catholic church.” It’s written by Avi Weiss, senior rabbi of the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale and the author of the forthcoming book Open Up the Iron Door: Memoirs of a Soviet Jewry Activist. Interestingly, Weiss says that 1.1 million Jews were murdered in Auschwitz!
Whatever happened to the four million figure? I also thought it was interesting for Weiss to say that “Auschwitz is a sacred place of Jewish memory.” This really goes back to what Israel Shamir said, that the so-called Holocaust “replaces Christ with Israel, Golgotha with Auschwitz, and the resurrection with the creation of the Jewish state.”
Germar Rudolf: Very true. The Holocaust has been transmogrified into a secular religion, if there can be such a thing. As Carlo Mattogno has stated in his 2014 book Inside the Gas Chambers (p. 230f.):
“[T]he present belief in the Holocaust is, in effect, a secular religion or ‘superstition.’ This belief has its own
– Crucifixion (the Jewish people as a collective Messiah),
– Lamb of God (the victims slaughtered by the Nazis),
– Priests (the Holocaust historians),
– Cathedrals and Churches (Holocaust Museums and Memorials),
– Holy Days (the “Day of Remembrance,” 27 January),
– Saints (like Elie Wiesel and Yisrael Meir Lau)
– Prophets (the eye-witnesses whose statements of what they saw cannot be questioned),
– Pilgrimages (to the former German concentration camps)
– Inquisition (the media that enforces Holocaust orthodoxy),
– Excommunication (anathema will be pronounced against revisionist heretics)
– Prosecutorial Arm (secular laws and law-courts that punish revisionist utterances),
– Zealots (like French existential writer Albert Camus, and Abe Foxman), and
– The Faithful (the unquestioning believers of Holocaust propaganda).”
As to the four million victims originally claimed for the Auschwitz Camp, competent researchers in western countries never claimed that Auschwitz had a death toll of 4 million.
Take the two most prominent mainstream Holocaust scholars of the 1950s and 1960s: Art historian Gerald Reitlinger claimed some 800,000 to 900,000 victims in his 1953 book The Final Solution (p. 499), and political scientist Dr. Raul Hilberg claimed roughly 1,250,000 victims, a million of them Jews, in his 1961 work The Destruction of the European Jews (p. 958)
The four-million death-toll figure cast in memorial stones at Auschwitz until the early 1990s was a propaganda figure spread first by the Soviet Union, perpetuated by its communist satellite Poland, and happily spread by the anti-fascist media of the entire globe.
 Hermann Kurthen, Werner Bergmann, and Rainer Erb, eds., Anti-Semitism and Xenophobia in Germany after Unification (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 183.
 Josef Bailer, in B. Bailer-Galanda, W. Benz, W. Neugebauer (eds.), Wahrheit und Auschwitzlüge, Deuticke, Vienna 1995, pp. 112-118.
 Germar Rudolf, Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz Lies: Legends, Lies, and Prejudices on the Holocaust, Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago 2005 (2nd ed., The Barnes Review, Washington, D.C., 2011; 3rd ed., Castle Hill Publishers, Uckfield, UK, 2016).
 Decision of 4 Nov. 2009 (1 BvR 2150/08); cf. http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/pressemitteilungen/bvg09-129.html: “In general, restrictions to the freedom of opinion are permissible only on the basis of general laws according to art. 5, para. 2, alternative 1, Basic Law. A law restricting opinions is an inadmissible special law, if it is not formulated in a sufficiently open way and is directed right from the start only against certain convictions, attitudes, or ideologies. […] Although the regulation of art. 130, para. 4, German Penal Code is not a general law […] even as a non-general law it is still compatible with art. 5, para. 1 and 2, Basic Law, as an exception. In view of the injustice and the terror caused by the National Socialist regime, an exception to the prohibition of special laws […] is immanent.”
 Avi Weiss, “Auschwitz is a sacred place of Jewish memory. It’s no place for a Catholic church,” Washington Post, January 28, 2015.
 Israel Shamir, Cabbala of Power (Charleston, SC: BookSurge, 2007), 92.
 Carlo Mattogno, “The Four Million Figure of Auschwitz: Origin, Revisions and Consequences,” The Revisionist, Vol. 1, No. 4 (2003), pp. 387-399.