Up to this day, seven European countries have adopted repressive laws which make holocaust revisionism a criminal offence. Of cause, these laws, which grossly violate the principles of free speech and free historical research, reveal the weakness of the official holocaust version: If the revisionists were wrong, it would be amply sufficient to refute them publicly, for example in TV discussions. But such debates are not allowed in the so-called free world. The only televised discussion between a revisionist and an anti-revisionist took place in April 1979 when professor Robert Faurisson debated German holocaust specialist professor Wolfgang Scheffler on the Italian-language Swiss TV. A survey showed that most spectators felt Faurisson had won.
Since 1979, the revisionist position has been greatly strengthened thanks to the efforts of revisionist researchers, while the adherents of the official holocaust story have made no progress whatsoever. It is therefore easily understandable that the opinion makers of Western society trembles at the very idea of an open discussion on the holocaust – quite apart from the fact that today none of the orthodox historians would have the courage to debate a competent revisionist in public.
Anti-revisionist repression is especially ferocious in Germany where the survival of the entire political system hinges on its ability to keep the holocaust lie alive. Hundreds of German revisionists have been sentenced to stiff fines and jail sentences.
Most of them have been prosecuted according to the paragraph 130 of the Criminal Code (“Incitement to racial hatred”). In October 1992, Major General Otto Ernst Remer, one of the most highly decorated soldiers of World War Two, was sentenced to 22 months imprisonment without probation in Schweinfurt for “holocaust denial.” (Remer, a seriously ill man aged 82 then, was brought to Spain by friends. He died in his Spanish exile on Oct. 4, 1997).
In April 1995, former National Democratic Party chairman Guenther Deckert, a teacher of English and French, was sentenced to two years in jail for translating a technical talk by revisionist US gas chamber expert Fred Leuchter. While in prison, Deckert got another three years for similar offences. In June 1995, chemist Germar Rudolf, who had written a scientific report about the alleged Auschwitz homicidal gas chambers, was sentenced to 14 months incarceration. He went into exile. In May 1996, editor Wigbert Grabert was fined 30.000 Mark for publishing the scientific revisionist anthology Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte (“Foundation of contemporary history,” Grabert Verlag, Tuebingen 1994). Even before the book was forbidden, German citizens were getting up to six months in jail for the crime of ordering more than one copy of the book. Also in May 1996, historian Udo Walendy, who had published the revisionist quarterly Historische Tatsachen, was sentenced to 14 months imprisonment for “trivialising the holocaust.” Walendy, who is now over 70 and chronically sick, later got a second prison of 22 more months in prison for “what-he-didn’t-write.” For those unfamiliar with the case: the historian and university-trained political scientist Udo Walendy was sentenced not for what he had written, but for what he had not written. Judge Knöner:
“We’re not dealing with what you wrote here, that’s not the task of this court, but what you did not write!”(Quoted by Westfalen-Blatt, May 8, 1997).
While I am writing these lines, Walendy, who is now the most prominent political prisoner of the repressive German regime, is still behind bars. Another political prisoner is agricultural engineer Erhard Kempner who has spent years in jail for “holocaust denial” – In none of these abominable terror trials did the court spend as much as one second considering the arguments of the defendants.
In Austria, a revisionist theoretically risks a 20 years prison term, because Austrian law equates revisionism with the attempt to restore National Socialist rule.
In France, where the revisionists are particularly numerous and active, about a hundred trials have taken place, but with one exception (Alain Guionnet), no revisionist has been sent to jail so far since the French courts usually content themselves with huge fines (which the defendants have to pay to jewish organisations).
In Switzerland, nine revisionists (Arthur Vogt, Andreas Studer, Ernst Indlekofer, Aldo Ferraglia, Dr. Max Wahl, Rene-Louis Berclaz, Gaston-Armand Amaudruz, Gerhard Foerster and myself) have been sentenced to fines and/or prison terms since the “anti-racism law” was enacted in 1995.
In Belgium, there has been an anti-revisionist law for several years, but it has never been applied so far, not even against the very active and very efficient editor Siegfried Verbeke who sends revisionist material to almost every European country.
In Spain, historian and publisher Pedro Varela, who is not only a revisionist, but an outspoken anti-Zionist as well, was sentenced to no less than five years in prison in November 1998, but the verdict was later nullified by a higher court.
In Poland, where the anti-revisionist law was enacted in 1999, university professor Dariusz Ratajczak was put on trial in October of that year because he had published a booklet in which he objectively summarised the revisionist arguments and stated that the six million figure was an exaggeration. Ratajczak was acquitted, but he had lost his job even before the trial. – Incidentally, the booklet was named Tematy niebezpeczne (“Dangerous subjects”). When I visited Ratajczak in August of this year, he laughingly told me he now knew that there is only one dangerous subject…
A particularly outrageous feature of anti-revisionist repression is that the defendants are never allowed to prove the validity of their arguments. A revisionist who sticks to his views in court usually faces a particularly severe punishment because of his “obstinacy” and “unwillingness to repent.”
At the Baden trial against Foerster and me, my lawyer Dr. Oswald had summoned two witnesses, professor Faurisson and Austrian engineer Wolfgang Froehlich, who were to testify that the revisionists had cogent arguments against the gas chamber story. Faurisson was not permitted to speak. However, Froehlich, a pest control specialist, was allowed to make a statement. He declared that homicidal gassings as described by former Auschwitz inmates were technically impossible. His statement ran as follows:
“…The insecticide Zyklon B consists of hydrocyanic acid absorbed in a granulate carrier substance. The hydrocyanic acid is released through contact with the air. The boiling point of hydrocyanic acid is 25,7 degrees C. The higher the temperature, the faster the evaporation rate. The delousing chambers in which Zyklon B was used in National Socialist camps and elsewhere were heated up to 30 degrees or more, so that the hydrocyanic acid left the carrier granulate rapidly.
…On the other hand, much lower temperatures prevailed in the half subterranean morgues of the crematoria at Auschwitz-Birkenau, where, according to eyewitness accounts, mass murders are supposed to have taken place using Zyklon B. Even if one assumes the rooms were warmed by the bodies of the hypothetical occupants, the temperature should not have exceeded 15 degrees even in the warm season. The hydrocyanic acid would therefore have taken many hours to evaporate.
…According to the eyewitness accounts, the victims died very rapidly. The eyewitnesses speak of time periods ranging from ‘immediately’ to 15 minutes. To kill the occupants of the gas chambers in such a short amount of time, the Germans would have had to use absurdly high quantities of Zyklon B, I assume from 40 to 50 kg per gassing procedure.
…The members of the Special Kommando who, according to the eyewitnesses, were responsible for removing the bodies from the chamber, would have collapsed at once, even if they had worn gas masks. Immensely great quantities of hydrocyanic acid vapour would have streamed into the open air though the open doors, contaminating the entire camp.”
When the engineer had got to this point, public prosecutor Dominik Aufdenblatten, acting like a madman, interrupted him and threatened to charge him with racial discrimination!
At the Amaudruz trial in Lausanne, the court refused to hear the two witnesses summoned by the defence (Faurisson and French lawyer Eric Delcroix). In Germany, Dr. Ludwig Bock, the lawyer of imprisoned revisionist Guenther Deckert, was fined 10.000 Deutschmark because he had asked for an independent expert report about the technical feasibility of the alleged homicidal gassings! Thus, the defence is practically paralysed, and a lawyer defending his client too vigorously knows that he risks being accused and punished himself.
It is a remarkable fact that the stronghold of Zionism, the USA, has no anti revisionist law as this would constitute a violation of the first amendment of the US constitution which guarantees freedom of speech. The California-based I.H.R. (Institute for Historical review) can publish books and reviews and organise revisionist conferences without fear of legal repression. This does not mean that American revisionists are safe from unpleasant surprises: In July 1984, terrorists eager to silence the voice of US revisionism burnt down the headquarters of the I.H.R. But this only temporarily paralysed the activities of the Institute.