THE RUDOLF REPORT

GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORThad nothing to do with this governmental research institute. It was myprivate activity. However, the fact that I was referred to in Remer’sappendix as an “expert from the Max-Planck-Institute” had the consequencethat the German news media and scientific, legal, and politicalcircles unleashed a storm over the Max-Planck-Institute and demandedto have my head. At the insistence of the Institute, I consulted an attorneyspecializing in copyright law. He, however, made it clear to methat no ‘serious’ attorney would touch such a hot potato, both fromconviction and for the sake of his reputation. Also, it was not clearwhether I had any ground of action against Remer, since the copyrighthad probably gone to him because he had ordered and paid for the reportas I had admitted. 549The question of the copyright to the report has never been clearedup. The Remers always held the position that they have the copyrightto the report because they paid for it, and that they can do with it asthey please. There was a contractual agreement set to paper, but unfortunatelyI lost my copy as a result of house searches and changes ofabode, and the Remers could not find their copy after their flight toSpain, so that the actual contents of the document cannot be determined.I remember only that I was promised to be reimbursed for expensesthat I incurred through the production of the report, and that inturn I was supposed to publish my expert report, but no time limit wasgiven for that. The copyright was not discussed.Also, the Remers have silently accepted that since June 1993,without consulting them, I have on my own determined where, when,and how my report is to appear in each of several languages—German,English, French and Dutch.Thousands of Dollars—for NothingLeft out in the rain, as it were, in mid-April 1993, I tried to divertHerr Remer. At the start of May, I finally succeeded in persuading himto curtail his distribution activities because of the reprisals I was experiencing.Aside from any legal aspect of Remer’s commentary, I would liketo make a few observations. First, Remer’s remarks were composed ina style that would insult any average anti-fascist citizen—and thatwould be about 95% of the population. One could well assume for that549 I was only paid expenses.322