THE RUDOLF REPORT

11. HUNTING GERMAR RUDOLFcussion period, for example, he stated that the German people shouldnot only be considered as murderers, but as plunderers as well. He alsosuggested that the Germans themselves were to blame for the manydeaths among old people, women and children that were caused by theAllied aerial bombardment, because they had started the bombing(which is not true) and had knowingly failed to evacuate the civilpopulation (which was also not true, since many children were sent tothe country). During the Sunday dinner, Körber threatened a fellowparticipant sitting at his table with a dinner knife because the persondid not share his opinion on the Holocaust, and at the close on Sundayafternoon, he loudly called the participants Germar Rudolf and WinfriedZwerenz pigs, because they had disagreed with him on scientificgrounds.On November 5, 1992, this Hermann Körber filed a criminal complaintwith State Attorney Baumann in Schweinfurt against GermarRudolf for instigating Otto Ernst Remer to incitement to racial hatred.644 He claimed that it was Rudolf and his expert report that hadcaused Remer to begin publishing material on the Holocaust in hisRemer Depesche (Remer Dispatches). 645 Subsequently, the state attorneyof Schweinfurt initiated a criminal investigation against Rudolf ongrounds of incitement to racial hatred, and others, in which O. E.Remer was also named. 646 Both accused denied the accusations.Then, on April, 19, 1993, at the state attorney’s office in Bielefeld,Körber filed a witness affidavit in which he stated: 647“As a Diplom Chemist, Rudolf knows and must know that his thesesare scientifically untenable.It can be proven that that which Rudolf convinced Remer of is trickery.”On April 27, 1993, as proof of his assertion that Rudolf was knowinglydeceitful, Körber filed another affidavit in which he interpretedRudolf’s technical arguments made in an exchange of correspondencewith Werner Wegner, as incitement to racial hatred, and characterized644 Investigation File 1 in the trial against Germar Rudolf, District Court of Stuttgart, ref. 17 KLs83/94, sheet 15.645 The Remer Depesche had already appeared in Spring 1991, before Rudolf had begun his researchas expert witness.646 Ref. 8 Js 13182/92, Investigation File 1 (District Court Stuttgart, ref. 17 KLs 83/94), sheet17ff.647 Ibid., sheet 58.405