Kända revisionister: Germar Rudolf

S: Thank you Mr Abbot. Ooh Doctor Abbot. Sorry.
B: Dr?
Dr A: Yes?
B: I'm terribly sorry - we hadn't been told.
We hadn't been told you were a doctor.
Dr A: Oh.
B: How do you do doctor. Very nice to have you with us doctor.
Dr A: Thank you.
S: You're in room five. Doctor.
B: And Mrs. Abbot. How do you do?
Dr A: Doctor Abbot actually.
B: Sorry?
Dr A: Doctor Abbot.
Dr A2: Two doctors.
B: You're two doctors?
Dr A2: Yes.
B: Well how did you become two doctors?
That's most unusual. I mean did you take the exam twice or...
Dr A: No my wife's a doctor.
Dr A2: I'm a doctor.
B: You're a doctor too. So you're three doctors.
Dr A: No. I'm just one doctor. My wife is another doctor.

"---S.: Let me now address your pseudonyms. Over the years you have used quite a few of them, as did others. The website "Informationsdienst gegen Rechtsextremismus" (IDGR, Information Service against Right-Wing Extremism) claims that you have used a long list of pseudonyms in order to appear more serious and more scientific by using PhD degrees for some of these pen names.

R.: I had written the manuscript to my book "Vorlesungen zur Zeitgeschichte" under the impression that it will be published around the time when I finish my PhD thesis in chemistry, therefore I used the PhD title in it already. The publisher of the book discussed that with me, and since I was in the process of receiving my PhD title, we went ahead and left it that way. That the university then refused to admit me to the final exams was a result of the persecution resulting from my expert report. So I do not think that there is a moral issue here, at least not on my side.

It is a little different when it comes to the brochure "Die Zeit lügt!" (meaning: The weekly newspaper "The Time" lies). I need to explain this in more detail (see also the explanation in my expert report). In spring and summer of 1992 I had been summoned to several trials in Germany on the initiative of several defense lawyers, where various revisionists were prosecuted for their historical dissident views (Udo Walendy, Bielefeld, February 1992; Gerd Honsik, Munich, March 1992; David Irving, Munich, Mai 1992; Detscher, Munich, July 1992; Max Wahl, Munich, July 1992). During these trials – as in all cases against revisionists – the judges reject any motion to introduce evidence intended to show that the revisionists’ factual statements about the Holocaust are correct. In the meantime it is even forbidden for defense lawyers under the penalty of prosecution to file such motions to begin with! This suppression of evidence includes expert witnesses already present in the court room, even though this is an open violation of German law. In one case I experience how a chemist (I) was rejected as an expert witness because he was neither a toxicologist nor a historian, an engineer (Leuchter) was rejected because was neither a chemist nor a historian, and a historian (Prof. Dr. Georg Werner Haverbeck) was rejected because he was neither an engineer nor a chemist. My conclusion therefore was that you apparently had to be at once an engineer, a chemist, a toxicologist, a Historian and perhaps even a lawyer in order to be accepted by a German court of law as an expert witness. The legal framework of penal proceedings against revisionists have become so perverted so much in Germany that I decided to mock this by "creating" a person being all these experts in one person. This person then would be the author of the brochure "Die Zeit lügt!", which I was writing back in September 1992. But because it was a little unrealistic to have four or even five academic degrees from utterly different areas in one person, I split this person up into four individuals, bestowing a different degree to each of them. That is the background. I would call this a sin of my youth. The motivation was not, however, to suggest competence where there was none, but to ridicule the German legal proceedings.

S.: Let me now list the pen names as given by IDGR:

"Ernst Gauss, Manfred Köhler, Dr. Werner Kretschmer, Dr. Christian Konrad, Dr. Dr. Rainer Scholz, Jakob Sprenger, Wilhelm Schlesinger, Tuisco, Dr. Manfred Gerner, Dr. Lennard Rose. Together with Karl Philipp: Heiko Schwind, Gerhard Körner".

S.: You reacted to this list by writing a letter to IDGR as follows:

"[This list of pseudonyms] is wrong. I never used any pen name together with Karl Philipp. I never used the pen names Wilhelm Schlesinger (the man’s name is Schlesiger, by the way), Tuisco, Dr. Manfred Gerner, Heiko Schwind, Gerhard Körner. These are pseudonyms of other persons. I never used a Dr. for the pseudonym Lennard Rose either."

S.: Do you still maintain this today?

R.: Sure. That list includes names I never used and it does not include names I did use, for example Anton Mägerle, Rudolph Markert, Wolfgang Pfitzner, Ronald Reeves, Angela or Andrea Schneider, Gerd Steiger, Rudi Zornig. For a list of the names I used, see my bibliography. Since the statute of limitation is over, I can now say that the person hiding behind Wilhelm Schlesiger was Karl Philip. He taped an interview with me in late 1993, which I turned into a manuscript for the brochure The Rudolf Case. Manfred Gerner is the pen name of a German engineer whose real name I cannot reveal because he lives in Germany and would probably have the police visit him if I uncover him. Heiko Schwind and Gerhard Körner are names of authors, which to my knowledge published articles in the German language right-wing tabloids Deutschland Report and its follow-up publication National Journal. I never used these names, and it is a riddle to me, how IDGR got to its unfounded claim. Moreover, "Tuisco" is not even a pseudonym, but the headline of an op-ed column of the Remer-Depesche, a publication preceding Deutschland Report and National Journal.

S.: You mentioned before that you wrote the article "Medieval Witch Trials and their parallels in our times") using a pseudonym in order to protect yourself against persecution. Was that the only reason for using the pen name or were there more reasons for that?

R.: Protection from prosecution has always been the main reason. Police officers investigating revisionist "thought crimes" are not stupid. They can recognize authors by certain patterns, like style, mistakes, expressions, vocabulary, etc. If you want to stay beneath their radar, it is advisable to change names, gender, and also the style repeatedly, which is the hardest part.

Another reason was that I wanted to make myself smaller than I was, because if everything I wrote would have been published under my name, the entire world would have immediately seen how large my writing activities were, which would have dramatically increased persecution. To be honest, I have lost oversight, which pen name I used when and where. When I was asked, during my application for political asylum, to list all pseudonyms ever used, I actually ran out of space and I had to start a separate sheet of paper for it. That is the way it is if you are very productive as a writer writing things, for which the German authorities go after you like the devil goes after the poor soul. Most of the pen names listed I used only during my stay in Germany and England. After I felt more secure while residing in the USA, I restricted the use of pen name more and more. Meanwhile I hurt myself when using pen names, because if the public knows the expanse of my writings, it also increases the support I can get – whereas the negative consequences are bearable in the safe haven called USA, and it cannot get any worse anymore anyway when it comes to what the German authorities would like do to me should they ever get a hold of me.

In general I want to say that not those act immorally who have to use pen names for their writings in order to protect themselves from persecution, but those who persecute authors of peaceful writings, which drives them to use pseudonyms to begin with. The whole fuss about my pen names is therefore nothing but a huge hypocrisy of those who are overly eager to put me in jail for my dissenting views. If I had always used my real name, I would never have been able to accomplish what I was able to do during the last 12 years.---"

Who Contributes to The Revisionist?
[...]
Dipl.-Chem. Germar Rudolf [....] Dipl.-Ing. Michael Gärtner, Dipl.-Ing. Manfred Gerner [....] Christian Konrad [....] Anton Maegerle

http://www.vho.org/tr/

And indeed, the Poles quoted one book that intensively deals with that question.[6] But when consulting it, one quickly realizes that it proves the exact opposite of Markiewicz’s thesis. It shows in detail, how and under which circumstances it is possible that walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide do indeed form Prussian Blue, and that it was possible and quite likely to happen at least in the delousing chambers. But do the Poles claim that this book does the opposite? No. As a matter of fact, they don’t quote it in order to refer the reader to the chemical arguments explained in it, but rather as an example for scientific studies these Polish authors intended to fight with their publication. They ignored all arguments brought forward in this book. They simply quoted it as an example of “undesired science”.

Ernst Gauss, Vorlesungen über Zeitgeschichte, Grabert, Tübingen 1993, about the chemistry involved here, cf. pp. 163ff., 290-294 (vho.org/D/vuez/v3.html#v3_4 and ~/v5.html#v5_5).

See the chapter by Manfred Köhler in this volume