THE RUDOLF REPORT

GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORT1993 that Ignatz Bubis be elected Federal German President. Takinginto consideration that Bubis had almost no political experience at thattime but had a criminal past, Rudolf commented that the proposal reflectedthe immense importance that was given to him as the leader ofa diminishing minority in the German state (the late Ignatz Bubis washead of the Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland, Central Council ofJews in Germany, at that time). For that reason, Rudolf stated that itwas appropriate to rename the name of the German nation, using thisminority as a prefix: Judenrepublik Deutschland (Jew Republic ofGermany). 630 The Jewish witness Horst Lummert, who testified on behalfof Germar Rudolf, confirmed before the court on January 9, 1995,that this reasoning was justified. 631Given these facts, it remains for Frank Schwaibold to explain to uswhere neo-Nazism is hidden in Rudolf’s remarks.Execution by MediaNaturally, after the announcement of the sentence of the DistrictCourt of Stuttgart, according to which Rudolf was to be punished with14 months imprisonment without probation, the media found it easy todrag Germar Rudolf through the mud. The first was the SüddeutscherRundfunk. Following the imperative of the Zeitgeist, without makinguse of the decision of the court or any other evidence, it labeled Rudolfa “neo-Nazi”. It also attempted to make the Rudolf expert report ridiculousby resurrecting the dpa notice from a year before. SDR 3 simplyclaimed that it was known to competent chemists that cyanide compoundsdisintegrate within a few weeks in rocks. 632The program Landesschau of the regional television station Südwest3 made comments similar to those of SDR 3, but piled even furtheron the defamation by misrepresenting an article that appeared inthe Stuttgarter Nachrichten the week before. This article of June 14,trict Court Stuttgart, ref. 17 KLs 83/94, introduced on Dec. 17, 1994.630 Response of G. Rudolf to accusation May 1994, introduced in trial before District Court Stuttgart,ref. 17 KLs 83/94, on March 17, 1995 in chambers, in records.631 H. Lummert thinks that one should stay with the abbreviation for BRD: “BubisrepublikDeutschland” (Bubis Republic Germany). Approximately 30 witnesses testified that they hadnever heard Germar Rudolf make anti-Semitic remarks and that he had even protested againsttheir use. There was no contrary testimony. The media likewise ignored a speech at an academicfraternity by Rudolf to students which was clearly pro-Jewish. On May 9, 1995, thecourt verified that the speech had taken place.632 SDR 3, June 23, 1995, 13:30 hours.394