THE RUDOLF REPORT

GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORTman internal secret service, the Office for the Defense of the Constitution(Verfassungsschutz) had after Rudolf left the party in summer1991 cannot be taken as a criterion for the evaluation of Rudolf’s politicalviews. Also, Rudolf was not on trial for his political beliefs,which, according to Article 3, Para. 3 of the German Basic Law cannever be cause for deprivation of rights. Finally, it is absurd to try toassociate the patriotic-conservative views of the Republicans with theNational Socialist views of Remer, which was clearly the intention ofthe Süddeutsche Zeitung.The Süddeutsche Zeitung also was the only one of Germany’s biggerdaily newspapers that again trotted out the fable of the supposedlylong-ago refuted Rudolf expert report, based on the dpa notice:“According to information from competent chemists, hydrogen cyanidecompounds disintegrate within a few months from the effects ofweather and are no longer detectable.”With this perpetual falsehood, the point was made to every uninitiatedreader that the Rudolf expert report was the technically worthlesshack-job of an incompetent chemist. At the beginning of the trial onNovember 23, 1994, the Böblinger Bote had spread the same nonsense:“According to expert opinion, no traces of cyanide can be found after50 years since they disintegrate quickly.”In their report of 1997, p. 64, even the Bavarian Office for the Protectionof the Constitution (Bayerisches Amt für Verfassungsschutz)has the nerve to repeat that nonsense.In view of the supposedly proven pseudo-science in the Rudolfexpert report, the newspapers avoided the words “expert report” orprinted them in quotation marks and also characterized it as a “hackjob”(StZ, November 23, 1994). However, on that date, November 23,1994, the court declared that it did not consider itself competent to decideto what extent the expert report satisfied scientific criteria. Itavoided the issue of scientific evidence by attributing to Rudolf thepreface and epilogue written by Remer’s friend in Remer’s version andsentenced Rudolf on that basis.In a wider context, Hans Westra, Director of the Anne FrankFoundation in the Netherlands, has commented on the technical correctnessof the Rudolf expert report. The Anne Frank Foundation isone of the most well-known of the institutions world-wide that occupythemselves with uncovering and documenting proofs of the Holocaust.396