"Here, the Dead are Opening the Eyes of the Living"

Federal President Roman Herzog, in a speech on 27.1.1995 in Auschwitz/Birkenau
on the occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp

There is reprinted below a correspondence that Germar Rudolf carried on with Federal President Roman Herzog. It began from a question by a Herr Wiesholler when Germar Rudolf was convicted because of his expert report. Herr Wiesholler quoted the Federal President on the occasion of his presentation of the Peace Prize of the German Book Merchants to Frau Prof. Schimmel (FAZ, 16.10.1995):

When we enter into a dialog with another we bring along some essential, non-negotiable things. Among them are freedom of speech - and more than anything that no-one come to harm on account of his convictions. A long, many-times bloody and gruesome history has taught us in Europe that these rights are no longer in dispute.

In his letter to the Federal President Herr Wiesholler continued:

Nevertheless, these rights are up for grabs in the Federal Republic.

Hans Schmidt, a born German and editor of the "USA-Bericht" was visiting Germany with his wife. At the beginning of August he was arrested for "race persecution" in the Frankfurt airport before his return flight to the USA and imprisoned. He is still in prison today. [At the beginning of 1996 Schmidt was released from detainment for investigation and flew back to the USA.]

Herr President, what Herr Schmidt wrote is not restricted in the USA. There freedom of the press and freedom of opinion are guaranteed without any "if" or "but". There people take the view that "Historical Revisionism should only be fought with better arguments and proofs, not by means of the police and the courts." (Dr. Otto Müller, US citizen, in a letter to Chancellor Kohl because of the arrest of Fred Leuchter [a US citizen] in the Federal Republic [1994]).

I find it horrifying and disgraceful that the liberal(?) Foreign Minister Kinkel makes himself into a running boy for certain circles and demands of the Americans that they prevent the export of "right-radical literature" (FAZ. 16.10.95).

Also the 30-year old chemist Germar Rudolf has been sentenced to 14 months prison without possibility of parole by the Land Court of Stuttgart. Herr Rudolf is the father of a one-year old son and his wife is expecting another child.

He is a former employee of the Max Planck Institute who compiled an expert report on the formation and detectability of cyanide compounds in the "gas-chambers" of Auschwitz. In my view it is one of the most important expert reports in this subject area. It would be better to oppose the expert report with arguments. But with repression? Never!

Herr President, he who is not capable of rational discussion resorts to violence - this is the way article 5.3 of the Fundamental Law, Freedom of Research (a basic right) is put up for grabs!

Herr Wiesholler also quotes some voices from Sweden that have argued forcefully that even Revisionism should have unlimited right to freedom of opinion and of the press (cf. Dagens Nyheter, 18.4.92; Svenska Dagbladet, 29.8.93).

The Federal President's only substantive answer was the short sentence that Rudolf quotes in the first letter reprinted below. The documents that follow speak for themselves - as does the fact that the Federal President's Office has remained silent. I refrain from any commentary.

Note should be taken of two points:

No commentary is needed on that either.


[Transcript]

Germar Rudolf

Diplom Chemist

Dipl.-Chem. Germar Rudolf,
To Federal President
Roman Herzog
Office of the Federal President
Kaiser Friedrich Str. 16
53105 Bonn

Your letter of:
23.11.1995

Your reference:
111-000 10-3546/93

My reference:

Date: 4.12.1995

IN RE: Letter of Herr Georg Wiesholler to you on 20.10.95,
Your answer given date, given ref.

Dear Federal President,

in the above-mentioned letter to Herr Wiesholler you state:

As much as the freedom of intellectual discourse should be protected and supported: it should not be made to serve as a pretext to deny the horror of the Nazi era under cover of science.

Since I know how much claim the duties of your office have on your time, let me simplify for you the response to my letter, if you please. There follows a number of questions that you can easily answer in your reply by giving for each, the number and a mere Yes or No as your answer, as you prefer. If you cannot do this, I ask that you please let me have a more extensive reply.

  1. Should scientists accept their paradigms and dogmas without argument? Yes or No?
  2. Should scientists honor taboos (prohibitions on subject-matter)? Yes or No?
  3. Should everything be open to doubt in science? Yes or No?
  4. Is it allowed to prescribe to science its results? Yes or No?
  5. Is the free dispute on all the different scientific conceptions of a subject a prerequisite that the one most conformable to reality can probably finally prevail? Yes or No?
  6. Is it the duty of a scientist to expose the results of his research to the criticism of other scientists and to the public in public fora? Yes or No?
  7. In science can we establish final and obvious truths? Yes or No?
If you answered Yes to one or more of questions 1, 2, 4 or 7 or No to one or more of questions 3, 5 or 6, I would be interested in knowing your reason.


Only if you answered No to questions 1, 2, 4 and 7 and Yes to questions 3, 5 and 6, I would like to add the following quesions:

  1. Should scientists accept without argument the paradigm that the Holocaust took place in the way that corresponds to present-day majority opinion? Yes or No?
  2. Should scientists honor the taboo (prohibition on subject-matter) "Holocaust Revisionism"? Yes or No?
  3. Should it be open to doubt in science that the history of the Holocaust has been written correctly? Yes or No?
  4. Is it allowed to prescribe to science that it must come to the result that the Holocaust took place in the way that is usually believed? Yes or No?
  5. Is the free dispute on all the different scientific conceptions on the subject of the Holocaust, including the radical Revisionist conception, a prerequisite that the one most conformable to reality can probably finally prevail? Yes or No?
  6. Is it the duty of a scientist, including the radical Revisionist scientist, to expose the results of his research to the criticism of other scientists and to the public in public fora? Yes or No?
  7. In science can we establish the final and obvious truth on the Holocaust? Yes or No?

If you answered any of the last seven questions differently than the corresponding question in the first seven, I would very much like it if you could explain.

Hoping to hear from you, I remain your
/s/ Germar Rudolf


[Transcript]

OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PRESIDENT

Ref.: 111-00 10-3546/93

BONN, the 3rd January 1996

Kaiser Friedrich Str. 16
House zone: 53113 Bonn
Mail zone: 53105 Bonn

(Please use when replying)

Telefon:

Telex:
Telefax:

(0228) 200-303
(operators use 200-0)
adpbn d 8 86 393
(0228) 200-386

To Herr Diplom Chemist
Germar Rudolf

Dear Herr Rudolf,

The Herr Federal President has received your letter of 4th December. He requests that you understand that he will not allow himself to be used in the way you intend.

With kind regards
/s/Ulrich Wember


[Transcript]

Germar Rudolf

Diplom Chemist

Dipl.-Chem. Germar Rudolf,
To Federal President
Roman Herzog
Office of the Federal President
Kaiser Friedrich Str. 16
53105 Bonn

Your letter of:
3.1.1996

Your reference:
111-000 10-3546/93

My reference:

Date: 9.1.1996


Dear Federal President,

Karl R. Popper, who I am sure you hold in high regard, wrote in his internationally recognized work Objektive Forschung (Hoffmann und Campe, Hamburg 1984), that it is only possible to achieve scientific theories that are close to reality by deliberately exposing them to the strongest possible falsification trials. (p. 22, 80, 124, 148). He also asserted that the decisive difference between humans and the rest of the animal world was in the fact that we humans objectify our theories of the world, that is, that we can write them down. Only when our theories become criticizable can there be an advance in our understanding. (p. 25, 71, 153, 257, 277, 360). On the other hand, to immunize hypotheses against their refutation is harmful and leads to the formation of dogmas. (p. 30f.).

In view of these generally recognized ideas on the possibility of objective understanding and in respect to your reply of 3rd January I maintain the following:

  1. You do not want to support the self-evident fundamental principles of free science given in my letter of 4th December.
  2. You do not find yourself in the position to guarantee without restriction the fundamental prerequisites of objective understanding.
  3. You are not willing to allow to scientists the right to unrestricted protection of the freedom of science protected by art. 5(3) of the Fundamental Law?
  4. You are not able to protect that dignity of humans that differentiates them from other forms of life, by defending without restriction the prerequisite of objective understanding.
  5. You have a conception of the duty of the highest representative of the Federal Republic of Germany to preserve and protect human rights that is openly contrary to the constitution.

If you do not concur with this, I would like to request an explanation from you that also explains why you would not or could not answer my questions in my last letter of 4.12.1995.

In the hope of hearing from you, I remain your
/s/ Germar Rudolf


[Transcript]

Germar Rudolf

Diplom Chemist

Dipl.-Chem. Germar Rudolf
To Federal President
Roman Herzog
Office of the Federal President
Kaiser Friedrich Str. 16
53105 Bonn

Your letter of:
3.1.1996

Your reference:
111-000 10-3546/93

My reference:

Date: 15.2.1996

IN RE: My letters of 4.12.1995 and 9.1.1996

Dear Federal President,

In view of the fact that you do not find yourself able to consider my pressing questions in the above-mentioned letter, I would like to ask you how the citizens of this country should regard a Federal President who is not able to or even refuses to defend and uphold human rights in his own country.

In particular there is a need for your explanation as to your behaviour which has given many citizens reason to suspect you support or conceal state activity that is openly contrary to human rights. This could lead these citizens to think that by art. 20, para. 4 of the Fundamental Law they are entitled or even enjoined to actively resist you. Since this can hardly be in your interest, let me entreat you once again to answer the questions I have proposed to you and not to further an interpretation to your behaviour reflective of your blatantly ignoring them.

With kind regards, your
/s/ Germar Rudolf


No reply ever received

next chapter
previous chapter
back to table of contents