THE RUDOLF REPORT

GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORTthreatened with prosecution, and eventually send to early retirementbecause they had dared to call a leading revisionist a man of goodcharacter and sentence him only to one year imprisonment with probation.Before the opening of the trial against Rudolf, Rudolf’s judgestherefore carefully inquired with the German Federal Supreme Courtwith respect to its decision against Günter Deckert and receive an immediatereply. 666 Since the German Federal Supreme Court revised theDeckert decision so many times until a sentence of imprisonmentwithout probation was certain, it is obvious that in the Rudolf Case thesame sentence of imprisonment without probation was the only optionif the judges wanted to stay out of trouble.At the same time as the above-mentioned prosecution, there werethree other prosecutions underway against Germar Rudolf. In the firstcase, he was accused of being mainly or at least partially responsiblefor the publication of the journals Remer Depesche and DeutschlandReport. 667 The second involved his publication of the work Grundlagenzur Zeitgeschichte. 668 The third was directed against an exchangeof correspondence between Rudolf and the Cracow Institute for ForensicResearch on chemical questions concerning the gas chambers ofAuschwitz that was published in Sleipnir, issue 3, 1995. 587It was clear already then that these would not be the last measurestaken against Rudolf, especially since he intended to defend himself inprint. In view of the fact that the District Court of Stuttgart was able tofind the defendant guilty contrary to the evidence, one could justifiablyfear that in each outstanding trial, the innocent defendant would befound just as guilty, and that he would find himself incarcerated underthe terms of several sentences of increasing severity.In the meantime, Rudolf’s home had been searched three times,and each time books, archives, correspondence, technical data and hiscomputer equipment were seized. The principal loss was not that ofphysical items, but the intellectual loss of data and archive material.The result was that Rudolf could no longer work as a scientist and alsocould not defend himself unrestrictedly in court, since his resources to666 Trial District Court Stuttgart, ref. 17 KLs 83/94, Letter of the 17th Criminal Justice Chamberof the District Court of Stuttgart to the Federal High Court (BGH) on April 21, 1994. InvestigationFile 2, sheet 768. Answer of the Federal High Court on April 26, 1994 with enclosure:decision on March 15, 1994 re: G. A. Deckert, ref. 1 StR 179/93.667 County Court of Böblingen, ref. 9 Gs 521/94. This case was later dropped due to lack of evidence.668 See chapter 11.4.2.412