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.
Alexis: The Holocaust establishment seems to put a bounty on your head by attacking virtually everything you have done or written, and you have certainly been misunderstood (sometimes deliberately). David Patterson of the University of Memphis has postulated that people like you have contributed to anti-Semitism across Europe. Clear that issue for us right at the outset. Are you an anti-Semite?
Rudolf: Whoa! That’s a loaded question. It’s like asking me whether I have stopped raping my wife yet. The answer depends on how you define an anti-Semite. And that’s more than a rhetorical question, because there are many ways of defining it. But let’s not waste time with this.
Let’s say that an anti-Semite is someone who hates people because they are Jews. I’m sure that people who know me understand that this is not the way I operate. I don’t judge people by their ethnic or religious background. I judge them by their behavior, their manners and attitudes. As a matter of fact, I hardly ever ask people I interact with whether they are Jewish or not, or whether they belong to any other group of people, for that matter. It doesn’t matter to me.
So, no, I don’t hate people because they belong to a particular ethnic group. Hate is too strong a word anyway. It shouldn’t be used when dealing with any person. I dislike or disdain certain aspects of quite a number of political or religious ideologies, yes.
Having said that, let me also say that it is typical for people who have run out of arguments, or who are too lazy to muster convincing arguments, to resort to ad hominem attacks. The accusation of being an anti-Semite is the ultimate attack on a person, the ultimate attempt to destroy his reputation, because in today’s Western society, there is little more vitriolic than the accusation of being anti-Semitic.
The sources you’ve quoted are an example for it. These authors aren’t really interested in factual questions raised about history. They are only interested in proving that someone whose views they detest is an anti-Semite. Once they have “demonstrated” that, they are done. Since they won’t debate anti-Semites, the actual facts no longer matter. In their view, an anti-Semite is always wrong.
But that’s simply not true. Even if I were an anti-Semite, that wouldn’t invalidate any of my scientific or historical arguments. Hence, at the bottom of it, it doesn’t matter what my attitude toward Jews is, or what people think my attitude is. The whole anti-Semitism debate, whenever it is brought up, is a mere smokescreen to distract from the facts.
Accusations of anti-Semitism are also a frontal attack on science and scholarship, because such ad hominem attacks are not only impermissible in a scholarly debate; they are poisonous and destructive to any debate; they are the root of a lot of evil, because they are hateful. Only factual, logical, verifiable arguments count, not emotional ones.
So, no, I don’t hate Jews. But I’m sure that I am the target of a lot of hatred emanating from some Jews—and non-Jews alike. I can even understand that to some degree, because these people have been taught all of their lives to hate people who disagree with them on certain aspects of history or ideology. They are prisoners of that narrow mindset, and that is very deplorable.
Still, as you indicated, even if I am not an anti-Semite, my works are still said to somehow contribute to anti-Semitism across Europe and beyond. I consider that a real possibility. But that is not because of what I say in my works. My works are not about Jews; they are about science and history. Jews are merely mentioned as a side note, as objects of history, if you wish. In fact, in some of my works I try to counteract any potential negative feelings people might develop against Jews. But that won’t stop some people from doing it anyway. So what?
Well, we always have to apply a rule in general to see whether it is legitimate. So, if the rule is that it is inacceptable to say something that might cause ill feelings toward Jews, that rule must be applied to everyone else, too. Let me put that shoe on the other foot to make you realize what that means.
Just think about the millions of mainstream stories spread about National Socialist Germany for the past 70 plus years. They have inevitably spread hatred against Germans and Germany. In fact, the tsunami of ethnic cleansing sweeping through Europe after World War II was nothing else but the manifestation of that hatred, nurtured by stories spread about Germans and Germany before, during and after that war.
Now, should we suppress the bad news of the orthodox Holocaust narrative and other claimed Nazi crimes because it could spread hatred against Germans among some folks? No, that shouldn’t be the motivation. If the mainstream narrative is correct, let it be spread; if it’s flawed, however, then a corrected version needs to be spread.
If we generalize the rule that we spread no news which could cause anti-Semitism, this would mean that we should not talk about anything bad anyone ever did, because that could spread hatred.
But that’s not all. In fact, then we shouldn’t even talk about anything good anyone ever did or encountered either, because that could spread envy, and thus hatred. So, if we want to stop spreading bad feelings with what we say, we ought to stop talking altogether, because there’s always someone who could feel bad about something someone else says.
It’s either the same rule for everyone, or no rule at all. If we are not allowed to dig up facts that may shed a bad light on some aspect of Jewish history or Jewish personalities, then the same must apply for all other identifiable groups. Then we have to end communicating altogether. Or else we have special rules for Jews, but then these rules are the primary suspects for people developing bad feelings.
At the end of it, it depends on how we present the news. If we remain factual and unemotional, then there is no objective reason to suppress such news. In fact, it would be immoral to suppress such news, in particular if it contains facts important for people’s decision-making processes. And I consider this to be the case here.
If the Holocaust were unimportant, we wouldn’t have around 20 countries on this planet outlawing its critical investigation. In fact, this is the only historical topic that is regulated by penal law. This is proof for the fact that the powers that be consider this topic to be the most important issue to keep under their strict control. Those censoring, suppressing powers are the real criminals—not the historical dissidents they send to prison.
Alexis: People of reason will have to examine some of the things you have provided here because they are right in line with rational thought. I appreciate people who build their weltanschauung on logic and reason, and you are certainly one of them. Let’s explore more.
Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman cite you in their fraudulent book Denying History saying, “The mass gassing procedures [at Auschwitz], as reported by witnesses interrogated by the courts, as established in the quoted judgments, and as described in scientific and literary publications, in whatever building one picks at Auschwitz at all, are irreconcilable with the laws of physical science.” Shermer never examined this assertion in his book.
First, tell us your story, and how you came to be involved in evidence for or against the so-called gassings at Auschwitz.
Rudolf: Shermer’s quote is from my expert report on Auschwitz, the current English edition of which can be accessed online at http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=2. Actually, the wording is a little different. If I may quote the last sentence of my expert report, on p. 278 of the 2010 edition:
“The procedures of mass-gassing as attested to by witnesses during their interrogation before various courts of law, as cited in judicial rulings, and as described in scientific and literary publications, in any building of Auschwitz whatsoever, are inconsistent with documentary evidence, technical necessities, and natural scientific law.”
As to how I ended up writing an expert report on Auschwitz, let me very briefly summarize the events leading to it. Readers interested in more details can visit the biographical section of my website.
I grew up in West Germany, where I studied chemistry, graduating in 1989 from Bonn University. In the summer of 1989, I learned about the so-called “Leuchter Report,” which is a study on the claimed homicidal gas chambers at the Auschwitz and Majdanek camps, written by an American expert for execution technologies. I won’t go into details here.
Fact is that I obtained a copy of this study, and after reading it, I found it highly interesting, for one thing because it contained chemical arguments which I could easily relate to. But I also found a number of flaws in it, which made me skeptical as to the reliability of Leuchter’s study. But I didn’t get involved in anything yet back then, primarily because right after graduating, I was drafted into the German Army and had to do my one year of compulsory military service.
After that was over in late 1990, I started my post-graduate studies at the Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research in Stuttgart, with the aim of receiving a Ph.D. degree. That’s when I started thinking about this issue again, because the many resources which the Max Planck Institute allowed me to use could also be used to do research on some of the issues raised by Leuchter.
Around that time, I wrote a letter to the editor of a small periodical summarizing what I considered to be the deficiencies of the Leuchter Report. That was read by a number of people interested in the topic, and not even half a year later, the lawyer of a German defendant accused of “Holocaust denial” contacted me, asking me whether I could prepare an expert report for the upcoming court proceedings against his client. He basically wanted to present to the court a study which eradicated the flaws of the Leuchter Report.
I was very eager to do this, as I found such a task both exciting and challenging. So I contracted with this defense team, agreeing to writing and eventually publishing the report, while they in return would pay all the expenses.
I finished writing this expert report in late 1991/early 1992. It was subsequently presented numerous times in German court proceedings by various defense counsels, but not a single one of these courts ever accepted it as evidence. Quite to the contrary, some of the judges dealing with these cases openly threatened me with prosecution, should I testify along the line indicated in the defense counsel’s motion to introduce me as an expert witness.
Eventually, my expert report got published by the defense team I had contracted with, but not exactly the way I had wanted it: They added a rhetorical foreword and epilogue to it. Eventually, I got prosecuted for that edition, and the court denied that my expert report was scientific, because it included a rhetorical foreword and epilogue. They sentenced me to 14 months in prison.
In the meantime, I had gotten involved in a number of other historical research and publication activities in the same vein, which resulted in numerous other criminal prosecutions. Again, I won’t go into any details here. My website has a detailed section on my persecution for those who want to know details. Fact is that I had to endure a broad range of “persecutorial” measures in subsequent years.
In 1996, I finally had enough of it and decided to leave Germany and settle in England. There, I started a small publishing outlet focusing initially only on German revisionist material. When Germany asked Britain to extradite me in 1999, I fled to the U.S., where I applied for political asylum, expanded my publishing activities to include English language material, and in 2004 married a U.S. citizen.
In late 2005, the U.S. authorities recognized my marriage as valid, but instead of allowing me to now apply for a “green card” based on that marriage, they arrested me and subsequently deported me back to Germany, thus effectively and prematurely aborting my pending asylum case in violation of the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and violating a 1960 U.S. law that expressly allows married foreigners to apply for permanent legal residence – the so-called “green card.”
Back in Germany, I was put on trial for scholarly works I had published while in the U.S., where those works are completely legal: My magnum opus Lectures on the Holocaust, and a FAQ brochure. Those works were banned, and I was sentenced to 30 more months in prison. Since those “offenses” are not a crime under U.S. law, I managed to immigrate permanently to the U.S. in 2011, where I rejoined my U.S. citizen wife and daughter.
Alexis: Again, I cannot detect any irrational idea here at all. We will let people of reason judge with knowledge and wisdom, not with emotion or ad hominem attack or straw man or even red herring. We need to flesh out some of those ideas further because the Holocaust establishment will not do that for us. They want us to remain prisoners in their own ideological matrix. It is high time that people of reason shout from the rooftop: let reason roll like a river, logic like a never-ending stream! Only then will people be free indeed. As the old saying goes, “And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
 See for example Sarah Rembiszewski, The final Lie: Holocaust Denial in Germany (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1996), 34, 87-89; Deborah E. Lipstadt, History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier (New York: Harper Perennial, 2005), 292, 294-295.
 David Patterson, Anti-Semitism and Its Metaphysical Origins (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 173-180.
 For historical studies on some of these issues, see for example R. M. Douglas, Orderly and Humane: The Expulsion of the Germans after the Second World War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012); Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2006); Giles MacDonogh, After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation (New York: Basic Books, 2007); James Bacque, Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians Under Allied Occupation, 1944–1950 (Vancouver: TalonBooks, 2007); Thomas Goodrich, Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947 (Sheridan, CO: Aberdeen Books, 2010); John Sacks, An Eye for an Eye: The Untold Story of Jewish Revenge Against Germans in 1945 (New York: Basic Books, 1993).
 Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000 and 2002), 129.