THE RUDOLF REPORT

GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORTlutely not involved in arranging the publication of the brochure DieZeit lügt!, i.e., that it did not lead to any correspondence or meetingsbetween Remer and me (not even the Court claimed that), that it wasnot me who decided to put Remer’s name and publishing house on theimprint of the brochure, 569 and that in the letters and statements quoted569 This brochure was mainly written by me (under four pen names), but made fit for publicationby Karl Philipp, who made some changes to it and chose Remer as editor and publisher to protectme legally (which worked). As far as I know, Remer was not involved in the actual productionof the brochure, and I was never involved in its distribution. Therefore, no link everexisted between my writing the brochure—without any intention to do it for Remer—and thefact that Philipp put Remer’s name on it (probably even without Remer knowing it) after I hadfinished my writings. True, I never complained about it, but there was, realistically seen, noother way than Philipp’s way to have this brochure published swiftly—which was necessarysince it was a reaction to a series of articles in a weekly newspaper—, and I did not intend toreveal my pen names to anybody anyway, so why bother?It should be mentioned in this context that this brochure still causes me some trouble in thatmy use of four pen names for it (Dipl.-Ing. Hans Karl Westphal, engineer; Dr. Werner Kretschmer,barrister, Dr. Christian Konrad, historian, Dr.Dr. Rainer Scholz, chemist and pharmacologist),all of them pretending to have a different academic degree, led to the accusation ofdishonesty and attempted confidence trickery (see, e.g., www.holocausthistory.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/).The background of these pen names wasnot the attempt to impress people with phony doctorates, though I must admit that it can havethis effect. I therefore wish to set the record straight by repeating what I stated already elsewhere(www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/CharacterAssassins.html):The first revisionist publication I was involved in was a brochure with the title Die Zeit lügt!,published in October 1992. It was a reply to two lengthy articles of a certain Till Bastian publishedin summer 1991 in the German weekly Die Zeit (no. 39, Sept. 18, 1992, p. 104, and no.40, Sept. 25, 1992, p. 90). This brochure is the fairest writing about the Holocaust controversythat ever appeared, simply for the reason that both articles of Bastian were reprinted in theirentirety, and discussed afterwards. The reader always has the means to check both points ofview. Nobody else has ever done that before or since—on either side of this discussion.Nowhere in that brochure is reference made to the special expertise and qualifications of theauthors given—simply because these names were added after the brochure was written—norwould the claims and arguments brought forward in this brochure require the qualifications ofthese experts. Though it was certainly incorrect to do this, I would like to explain why it wasdone, as it was certainly not done in order to claim qualifications that are actually not present.Let me therefore be a bit more detailed.In spring and summer 1992, I was called by several defense lawyers as an expert witness inseveral trials imposed on revisionists in Germany (Udo Walendy, District Court Bielefeld,February 1992; Gerd Honsik, Upper District Court Munich, March 1992; David Irving,County Court Munich, May 1992; Detscher, County Court Munich, July 1992; Max Wahl,District Court Munich, July 1992). In these trials—as in all trials against revisionists—thejudges rejected any evidence presented by the defense, including all expert witnesses. In onecase, I had to learn that a chemist (me) was rejected because he was neither a toxicologist nora historian, an engineer (Leuchter) was rejected because he was neither a chemist nor a historian,and a historian (Prof. Haverbeck) was rejected because he was neither a chemist nor anengineer. My conclusions were that one obviously had to be at the same time an engineer, achemist, a toxicologist, a historian and perhaps even a barrister to be accepted as an expertwitness at a German court of law. The legal process being so perverted in Germany, I decidedto mock it with a parody by inventing a person with all these features, but then Karl Philipp338