"MEMO of July 26, 1994
Re.: Concentration Camp Mauthausen
1) In early 1989 the following message was passed to me:
'Re.: Concentration Camp Mauthausen
With reference to: article in OÖ-Nachrichten of October 8, 1988
To help determine the truth:
The construction firm Peters & Pascher of Linz (today: Peters C. Baugesellschaft
m.b.H., 4020 Linz, Südtirolstr. 28, tel. 0732/57-4-01) installed the
gas chambers in the concentration camp Mauthausen after the War.'
2) In spring 1989 I contacted this construction company. After much hesitation
I was given the (anonymous) information that the state police had 'taken
possession of' the pertinent files.
3) Dr. Dr. Fischer from the Federal Ministry of the Interior - Mauthausen
archive - not only refused to give me any information at all, but also
denied me access to the Mauthausen archive.
4) The inhabitants of Mauthausen do not like to talk about the concentration
camp. In the course of my investigations I found that the gendarmes were
notified immediately. The first time my car was thoroughly checked and
I was made to submit to an alcohol test. My particulars were recorded.
The second time I was officially told to remove myself, otherwise something
unpleasant would happen. The gendarmes did not find me during my further
investigations. When I enter the concentration camp the personnel immediately
notify the gendarmes.
5) During the renovations of the concentration camp the firm of Peters
& Pascher had a site telephone, and is said to even have had a listing
in the telephone book. Unfortunately my source could not tell me the year.
6) The postal authorities of Linz allegedly no longer had any old telephone
7) For this reason I have drawn up an expert report to get to the bottom
of the matter. The after-the-fact installation of the gas chamber is evident/demonstrable
from the following documents:
- Russian site plan by Valentin Sacharow, 'Aufstand in Mauthausen', pub.
Volk und Welt, Berlin, 1961. [...]
- Layout of the former concentration camp Mauthausen, Provincial Government
of Upper Austria, dated February 4, 1949 (not very legible).
- In May 1970 the renovated concentration camp was opened to the public.
The gas chamber exhibited now (it looked different and was at a different
location before! [...]) must therefore have been built by the firm of Peters
& Pascher before May 1970.
- Questioning of a witness, November 7, 1988, District Court Salzburg,
Ref. 32 Hs 577/88 (the witness has requested anonymity).
- I myself am also a witness and can testify to the relocation and renovation
of the gas chamber.
[sgd.] Engineer Emil Lachout, Max-Mauermann-G. 2571, A-1100 Vienna."
Wouldn't it be worth an official investigation to find out whether in Mauthausen
the 'truth desired from the perspective of public education' was actually
launched with the aid of fabrications? Or are there perhaps fears that
the results of such an investigation would give rise to further doubts
about the truthfulness of certain representations? Or are we still under
the sway of what the Polish journalist Ernest Skalski wrote in 1990, regarding
the first great revision of the numbers of Auschwitz victims:1
"The error, though committed a long time ago and by others, remains
tendentious. And it was 'our' error, if 'our' refers to enemies of fascism
and racism. [...]
"I admit that it is sometimes necessary to cover up the truth - ie.
to lie -, at times even for noble reasons, for example out of pity or tact.
But it is always profitable to know why one does that, and what these divergences
from the truth bring [...].
"While truth is not always good, lies are much more often evil [...]."
Shouldn't the admission that historical lies are considered by Leftist
circles to be valuable and appropriate for purposes of 'public education'
suffice to make one sceptical? The kind of fire they are playing with here
was shown clearly by Patrick Bahners when he wrote, in reference to the
verdict against NPD leader Günter Deckert:2
"If Deckert's [revisionist] 'view of the Holocaust' were correct,
it would mean that the Federal Republic of Germany was based on a lie.
Every presidential address, every minute of silence, every history textbook
would be a lie. In denying the murder of the Jews, he denies the Federal
Anyone who tries to make the legitimacy of the Federal Republic of Germany's
existence hinge on the truth or falsehood of historiography about a detail
of contemporary history (and almost all the major media and many politicians
have been doing this lately), suffers from a profound misconception of
the foundations of this our Republic, which is not based on the Holocaust
but on the agreement of its citizens and on inalienable human and national
At the same time, such a person commits two unpardonable sins.
First, he gives the actual enemies of this Republic an easy means for destroying
Second, it is both irresponsible and ridiculous to make the weal and woe
of a nation dependent on a "detail of history".
What is such a state to do when it turns out that the Revisionists really
are right? Is it supposed to dissolve itself? Or is it supposed to ban
the study of history and to jail all the historians?
It is easy to see how far from the straight and narrow such erroneous views
lead: someone who pretends to wish to protect this Republic through the
ruthless defense of the standard Holocaust tales will, in the crunch, find
himself forced to undermine the actual pillars of this state, which are
freedom of expression, freedom of research, teaching and science, and an
independent justice system under the rule of law. He thus becomes, not
the protector of a free and democratic fundamental order, but its greatest
That this threat is more than real was shown by the reactions to the infamous
Mannheim verdict against Günter Deckert. In this instance, one of
the foremost principles and prerequisites of a state under the rule of
law, namely the independence of the trial judges, was annulled in that
two of the three judges were punished for their verdict by means of their
(forcibly extracted) 'notification of illness' for an indefinite length
of time. They were accused not only of having sentenced Deckert too leniently,
but also of having considered the subjective aspects of Deckert's offense
in too much detail and too benevolently.3
While such in-depth and benevolent evaluation of subjective aspects was
introduced as part of the liberal policies of the past few decades, and
is very much desired when what is at issue is the sentencing of common
criminals or even Leftist political offenses (such as violent demonstrations
against industrial construction projects), this practice is suddenly turned
into a scandal when it benefits a Right-winger.
Whether the overemphasis on subjective aspects to the detriment of deterrence
is an advantageous facet of our modern justice system or not is a moot
point. What should be cause for concern, however, is the obvious fact that
in trials against persons who dispute certain aspects of the National Socialist
persecution of the Jews, it is no longer only the objective facts of the
case - for example, the question of whether the claims made by the accused
are true or not - which are decided on by the justice system even before
start of the trial through the "judicial notice" credo.
[Note: "judicial notice" in these cases is when
the court formally declares that the item challenged by the defendant,
said challenge constituting the entire charge against him, is true on its
face and may not be questioned by anyone on any grounds. Thus, the defendant
is placed in an impossible position by not being allowed to demonsrate
that the "truth" he is accused of denying is in fact not "truth"
at all, and therefore there was no crime. Being denied this most basic
of rights, to examine the truth of evidence and charges presented against
him, the only possible verdict is guilty, assuming that the defendant does
not deny publicly expressing the opinions which resulted in the charge.
This is an amazing example of Joseph Heller's fictional "Catch 22"
mechanism come to frightening life.--DT]
If the media, the politicians and even many jurists have their way, the
subjective aspects are now also supposed to be settled beforehand!
A Holocaust revisionist may not, on principle, have any good character
traits, he must perforce have only evil intentions and must therefore be
sentenced without mercy or compassion - that is the basic trend in the
media's reactions. This renders the trials against Holocaust disputers
nothing more than show trials whose results and verdicts are already set
Beyond that, it would be little short of a miracle if the judges in the
Federal Republic of Germany had not learned (from the way in which their
Mannheim colleagues' careers were abruptly cut short) that if they wish
to keep their own heads, they had better convict Revisionists without delay,
question or review. My statement, that a point at issue for the judges
in trials against Revisionists is always whose head it is that will roll
-- that of the accused or that of the judge (a statement that was controversial
even one year ago 4)--
has thus been proven entirely correct. In practice it has even been taken
a step further. To save his own skin it does not suffice for the judge
to merely convict the accused. No, in addition he must also show the accused
to be a monster, and must punish him as harshly as possible.5
The parallel drawn by M. Köhler (in his chapter in this book) between
the medieval witch trials of suspected demonic agents and today's trials
against suspected Holocaust denialists has thus proven more than true.
The misconception about the foundations of the free and democratic basic
order of the Federal Republic of Germany also gives rise to another danger
for this order. This danger lies in the circumstance that the advocates
of this misconception also declare as enemies of the state such people
who wish no evil on this state or its citizens, or who are even prepared
to serve and benefit it. These people are demonized merely for the reason
that they hold different opinions about certain aspects of contemporary
Consequently, imaginary enemies are created. By means of the incitement
against them, loyal citizens of the state are practically forced into the
role of enemy. In other words, the process creates the very enemy one pretends
to fight. This self-generated enemy is then used to justify the escalating
restrictions on the fundamental rights guaranteed by the German Constitution,
as described. With the increasing scientific success of Revisionism, this
forcing of basically well-meaning citizens into an unwanted enemy role
must lead to social polarization which is anything but beneficial to the
internal peace of the Federal Republic of Germany.
To protect the status and reputation of our state, therefore, it is high
time to strive for objective scientific dialogue and to assign to the Holocaust
the role it deserves, namely as merely one stone in the mosaic of history.
The First Reactions to This Book
In the spring of 1994 Germar Rudolf sent several leading German persons
and institutions a preliminary manuscript of this volume. The foremost
request was for an assessment of whether the work meets the standards of
scientific inquiry, for which assessment the criteria set by the German
Federal Constitutional Court (reproduced in the introduction to this volume)
were to serve as guideline. Critiques of content and suggestions for improvement
were also solicited.
We shall now recount some of the reactions that were received. Since the
actual letters of response were confiscated from Germar Rudolf in the course
of a police house-search on August 18, 1994, the following are reconstructions
of the essence of these responses. In the event of errors in these reconstructions
I would ask the person/s in question for their understanding and to make
their complaints to the Public Prosecutor's Office in Stuttgart.
Federal German Chancellor Dr. Helmut Kohl
Federal Chancellor Dr. Helmut Kohl replied, via an official, that he
could not participate in the ongoing discussion about the Holocaust and
referred to the precedents set for the Holocaust matter by the Federal
Constitutional Court and the Federal Supreme Court. From the many handwritten
notes and corrections in the returned manuscript -- for which I would like
to take this opportunity to thank the Chancellor's Office on behalf of
all the contributing authors -- it was clear that the Chancellor's Office
took note of the introduction in full, and of the other chapters at least
Chair of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, I. Bubis.
Herr Bubis accepted the typescript and made no response.
Chair of the Institute for Contemporary History, H. Auerbach
The Institute for Contemporary History refused the delivery of the mailing.
Since the practice of ignoring arguments to the contrary (and, in this
case, even arguments presumed to be contrary!) is generally taken
as the ultimate proof of a non-scientific and unacademic approach, one
consequently cannot help but deny the official Institute for Contemporary
History any and all scientific status in discussions about the Holocaust.
Professor Dr. Wolffsohn
Professor Wolffsohn kept the typescript and wrote that even we could
not make facts go away. He is certainly correct in that. The only question
is: what are the facts in this case, and what is mere belief?
Professor Dr. Dr.h.c. H. G. von Schnering
Germar Rudolf's doctoral thesis supervisor-to-be returned the typescript
unread, stated that he would not tolerate any further mailings, and took
care to emphasize that he would not stand for having anyone dictate to
him the criteria by which he should judge the academic value of a work.
Clearly he overlooked the fact that the criteria suggested as guidelines
had not been selected at random, but rather were those chosen by the Federal
Constitutional Court. His otherwise generally negative attitude fits precisely
with that which he has shown Germar Rudolf for the past two years: Prof.
von Schnering refuses to acknowledge arguments that might run counter to
his own views.6 Since
he did at one time state to Rudolf that someone who ignores arguments opposing
one's own views does not deserve to hold an academic degree, this attitude
on his part is indeed astonishing.
Attorney of the Federal Supreme Court, K. von Nehm
While the attorney of the Federal Supreme Court was not asked for a
critique of content, he was asked to assess whether the manuscript would
violate any criminal laws, and if so, why. In his reply, Herr v. Nehm stated
that even the Table of Contents already exposed the manuscript as an evil
creation and that he did not intend to take further note of it. Further,
he stressed that his reply did not represent any legal evaluation of the
This letter provides ample proof of the Federal Supreme Court's bias and
boundless ignorance, and with that, the Federal Supreme Court has stripped
itself of any moral right to a legal assessment of the present volume.
Several Professors From Various Subject Disciplines
Several qualified academics offered very constructive suggestions for
improvements as well as objective evaluations, and we would like to take
this opportunity to express our sincere gratitude to these individuals.
For obvious reasons I shall refrain from naming them.
One criticism was that the majority of other books on contemporary history
read like easy literature compared to this book.
Another objection was that this volume criticizes only a few aspects of
the Holocaust and that it largely neglects to juxtapose a comprehensive
Revisionist view of the National Socialist persecution of the Jews with
a synopsis of the orthodox view. It is not enough (our critic said) to
quibble about specifics of the historiography that has come down to our
times. Rather, we should show how things really were, if they were not
the way we are generally told today.
I would like to reply to this that the first scientific step in a revision
of prevailing views is always to see whether these prevailing views contain
decisive flaws or shortcomings, and if so, why. The beginning of any such
process is the examination of the old-established, and this examination
may lead to the overthrow of the latter. Only when the old theory has been
successfully questioned has it been demonstrated that there is a need for
research leading to a new theory.
The present volume has taken this first step - providing an examination
and critique of the old view. In our opinion this old view has not held
up to our critique. There is a demonstrated need for research leading to
a new, more correct view of history.
It could not be, and was not supposed to be, the task of this book to draft
this comprehensive, new, more truthful historiography. That is reserved
for future works, whose quest it will be to reexamine, in a comprehensive
way and from a new perspective, the relationship between Jews and Germans
in the 20th century.
ERNST GAUSS, Rothenburg ob der Tauber, September 1994
1. Der Spiegel, no. 30/1990, p. 111.
2. Patrick Bahners, "Objektive Selbstzerstörung", Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung, Aug. 15, 1994, p. 21.
3. cf. the daily and weekly press of the first two weeks of August 1994.
4. E. Gauss, Vorlesungen über Zeitgeschichte, Tübingen:
Grabert, 1993, p. 261.
5. The revocation of the judges' independence was also acknowledged by
the jurist Dr. Martin Kriele, "Ein Eingriff mit Präzedenzwirkung",
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Sept. 15, 1994, p. 14.
6. cf. W. Schlesinger, Der Fall Rudolf, Cromwell, 20 Madeira
Place, Brighton / East Sussex, BN2 1TN, Great Britain.
This epilogue was translated from the original, "Zu guter Letzt"
by Victor Diodon
Back to Dissecting Index