August 16, 2006
I have been informed that one of the main purposes of your organization is
to defend human rights worldwide. I am writing to you now to inform you of a
very serious human rights violation that is taking place in your own nation,
and to request that you would publicly speak out about it.
Mr. Germar Rudolf, a former chemistry doctoral candidate at the prestigious
Max Planck Institute, is a German citizen who was forced to flee his native
Germany because he has questioned and refuted certain aspects of the Jewish
Holocaust story. In short, I believe that he showed that the alleged Auschwitz
gas chambers never existed. In the United States, near Chicago, Revisionist
scholar Rudolf was recently torn from his American wife and their child and
delivered to Germany. He is in prison in Stuttgart.
You can read Germar Rudolf’s scientific report on the alleged Auschwitz gas
In Germany, freedom of research is guaranteed by the constitution. Yet,
this self-same civil right evaporates if a scholar asks certain questions about
the Holocaust and comes to answers unwelcome by the authorities. That is to
say, in Germany a scholar and publisher of scientific material can be jailed
for his views, peaceful and scientific as they are.
Freedom of research can only exist where one is allowed to ask questions and
to give answers exclusively arrived at by the evidence, but not by orders
from the government or by penal law. Where humans are prohibited to ask
questions and to give answers, not only does science cease to exist, but humanity
To be perfectly specific. Scientist Rudolf asked questions about the
Auschwitz gas chambers, and he gave answers exclusively arrived at by the chemical
and toxicological evidence. In this case, science has ceased to exist and
blatant tyranny is the order of the day, because he has been imprisoned for his
Let us look at this from an even broader perspective. The UN Declaration of
Human Rights is very clear and unequivocal on the right to freedom of speech.
It states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.”
By imprisoning and persecuting Germar Rudolf because of his opinions and
expressions about the Holocaust, the German government is guilty of violating
his right to freedom of opinion and expression.
In response to my accusations, you may defend your government’s actions with
the following line of reasoning: “What Germar Rudolf says about the
Holocaust is racist hate speech that must be banned in order to prevent another
resurgence of Nazism in Germany. His stuff is an incitement to hate. Therefore he
Even if what Rudolf has to say about the Holocaust ideology is “racist hate
speech,” it still could be true. Simply labeling a viewpoint as “racist hate
speech” in no way disproves the viewpoint.
But let us give your government the benefit of the doubt and assume that
everything (!) that Rudolf says about the Holocaust is indeed 100% false, and
that it is indeed “racist hate speech.” A truly democratic society grants its
citizens the right to be hopelessly and demonstrably wrong. The right to
freedom of speech is not to be applied selectively, depending upon the nature of
the viewpoint in question. It is to be applied universally and
consistently to all members of a democratic society. If it means anything at all,
freedom of speech means the right to hold and expound controversial and unpopular
opinions. Don't imprison Rudolf. Release him and defeat his ideas in open
and democratic debate.
If contemporary Germany truly were a liberal democracy that respected
everyone’s right to freedom of expression, the German government would release
Germar Rudolf and defeat his ideas in a nationally televised debate. This would
be the way that you could help to prevent the resurgence of a dictatorial and
oppressive National Socialist form of government. By releasing Germar
Rudolf and engaging him in open debate, this would show the German people that a
democracy that respects everyone’s right to freedom of opinion and expression
is superior to a right wing dictatorship that suppresses freedom of speech.
Let us again give my critics the benefit of the doubt and assume that
Rudolf’s work is indeed an incitement to hate. If you ban hateful material and i
mprison its authors because their work is an incitement to hate, then, to be
fair, you would have to imprison Jewish rabbis that publish certain Jewish
religious literature in Germany.
Indeed, the late Israeli scholar Israel Shahak showed in his scholarly
study, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, that
the Jewish Talmud, some important Judaic religious publications, and certain
rabbinical laws actually incite Jews to hate non-Jews. So, to imprison Germar
Rudolf because he has published incitements to hate, but then allow Jewish
people who publish hateful parts of the Talmud, some important Judaic religious
publications, and certain rabbinical laws go free, is to engage in selective
justice. And selective justice is in fact injustice.
In a word, the continued imprisonment of my friend and colleague Germar
Rudolf (and others like him) for expressing their opinions on the Holocaust
ideology only serves to undermine the German people’s faith in your so-called
As I said at the beginning of this letter, I ask that you publicly speak out
on behalf of Germar Rudolf.
Mr. Rudolf can be contacted at Germar Rudolf
Asperger Str. 60
I await your response.
Copy: Germar Rudolf