Germar Rudolf, as many of us know - and as all Revisionists know! - is a young German fugitive, a victim of Holocaustomania at its worst ***and its most foolish!***
Make a political prisoner languishing in some medieval German dungeon out of this one, and Germany's young people would have the hero that they need!
Germar Rudolf is good-looking, young, smart, solidly accomplished, with impeccable science credentials - ***and he is the one who scientifically checked and then improved on the Leuchter Report***!
Of course all of us wish for Germar Rudolf's safety and continued freedom - but for the cause, nothing could be more attention-getting than to have the Zionist rage focus on Germar and pick him as their newest target to torment - after they lost a few teeth in the Irving Trial in front of the entire world, thanks to the Internet.
Still, many people feel that Germar should not consent to give a requested interview to a British journalist if he doesn't want to waste his most productive years - first in months in a British holding tank prior to deportation, and then 5-7 years, if not more, for what is on his website. They would just keep on charging him and charging him and charging him - just as they did with Deckert.
Germar lived and worked in relative safety in Britain for years, after the German vassal government wanted to put him in prison for the Rudolf Report. His whereabouts were not a secret. He traveled. He lectured. He wrote. He gave interviews. In the wake of the Irving Trial, however, he was once again forced to go into hiding because the Lobby feared that he would testify - and reinforce Leuchter's conclusions, thus improving Irving's chances immeasurably.
Revisionists know that Germar Rudolf is still a lively presence on the Net. His website is probably the finest, and certainly the most scholarly, Revisionist website we have. <www.vho.org> He is a credit to the new generation of scholar activists and courageous journalists all aiding the movement which has as its goal to revise history and to bring the history of World War II in accord with the facts.
Last night, I received this characteristically Germar Rudolf missive:
Dear friends!
A Mark Sanders (mark@sussex2000.fsbusiness.co.uk) claims to collect information about me in order to prepare a TV report on me for the British Broadcasting Corporation BBC. I told him that I am ready for an interview per email or alternatively a live interview.
First, he backed out. But now he came back agreeing to a preliminary email interview and claiming he and his boss would try to arrange a live interview with me, but they cannot yet promise anything about it. I wonder how far they go...
Here is the email interview I conducted with him. All journalists are lazy. I told that one already about most of the articles that I quot(e) in here again. Apparently he doesn't want to read them.
But I get bored telling the same story over and over again, so please excuse that I referred to some articles on my web site.
Best wishes to you all.
Germar Rudolf
Castle Hill Publishers
=======================
Dear Mr. Sanders,
here are my answers:
1. Why did you get involved in the field of revisionist history?
I had to answer that question already many times, so I published an article about it, which is available in English, too. Please read my articles about that posted at www.vho.org/GB/Books/cq/eros.html and www.vho.org/GB/Books/cq/young.html
2. Why did you choose Britain as a base for your activities after you were forced to leave Germany?
Because
a) I thought that Britain has a long tradition of free speech and might not, as many other European countries, change her laws on the demand of Germany and might not easily follow German orders to extradite "thought criminals". This was apparently a wrong assumption;
b) English culture, language and climate are very much similar to what we (my wife and I) were used to in Germany;
c) English was the foreign language we spoke best.
3. Do you think the UK authorities are happy to have you here?
Stupid question. If there are some authorities, which are happy, and if they would admit this publicly, they would no longer be anyone's authorities. Nowadays in the Western world, you can become only an "authority" if you publicly express your contempt for dissenters on WWII historiography. It's as simple as that.
4. How much pressure has there been on you and your family following your prosecution in Germany and your exile in the UK?
I had to answer that question already many times, so I published an article about it, which is available in English, too. Please read my article about that posted at www.vho.org/GB/Books/cq/outlawed.html.html (general), www.vho.org/GB/Books/cq/media.html (media campaigns), www.vho.org/GB/Books/cq/flaws.html and www.vho.org/GB/Books/cq/burn.html (legal persecution)
5. Why is it that many mainstream academics and scientists dispute your findings?
There are two possible reasons:
a) They are convinced that I am wrong;
b) they fear that they will experience similar persecutions if they don't disagree.
It is quite easy to establish, which of both possibilities is actually true:
When a) is true, they would refute/disprove my thesis with proper scientific work;
when b) is true, they would use polemics to defame me, and fraudulent, pseudo-scientific methods to "refute" me.
As I have shown frequently, they use the methods of case b), look for example at www.vho.org/GB/Contributions/Fraudulent.html and www.vho.org/GB/Books/cq/leuchter.html (Krakow), www.vho.org/GB/Books/cq/critique.html (Bailer), www.vho.org/GB/Contributions/Green.html (Green), www.vho.org/GB/Contributions/CharacterAssassins.html (Green & McCarthy), www.vho.org/GB/Contributions/RudolfOnVanPelt.html (van Pelt).
I haven't seen a single publication yet that does not resort to personal attacks and would discuss the scientific matters involved in an unbiased way.
6. How do you explain the testimony of Jewish prisoners in the camps that homicidal gas chambers were in use, when your work contradicts those statements?
How do you explain the testimony of Christians that witches would ride on brooms and have intercourse with the devil, when scientific work contradicts those statements? History teaches us that especially under extreme social pressure, eyewitness accounts are hardly worth anything. Why mak(e) an exception in that case? Since the end of the Holy Inquisition, there has never been a topic that was handled (as) dogmatically as the "Holocaust".
In 1991-1992, I studied the history of the medieval witch trials. It was amazing to read that many people in these times testified voluntarily, without being threatened by anyone, and that all these accounts of apparently independent eyewitnesses all over Europe sounded so similar in so many details - without mass media! How could they have invented it?
In 1994 I studied the atmosphere of the modern "Holocaust" trials, and I was struck by the parallels, see www.vho.org/GB/Books/fsfth/5.html (Köhler is a pen name of mine).
So if you ask how come that so many people in our times testify voluntarily, without being threatened by anyone, and that all these accounts of "independent" eyewitnesses all over the world sound so similar in so many details, one has to ask: how could they have invented it? (By the way: today we *do* have mass media and general "education"!) Then please take a good book about medieval witch trials and start thinking.
7. Does it bother you in any way that Jewish groups in this country say that your presence in the UK and your work causes them great distress?
No. Their work of persecuting me and my family caused and causes distress to me, too, but my distress is a real physical one, not just imagined, as in their case. (...)
8. What do you think of the claim that your work provides a respectable face for racisism?
If there is a respectable face of racism - how is that defined? - (then) so be it. What is respectable should be allowed to be respectable, I guess. I cannot control what other people do with my work. If my thesis is correct, (then) it may be used by everyone. If it is wrong, it needs to be refuted.
The primary question is not whether or not my work can serve purposes welcome or undesired by certain lobby groups, but whether or not it is correct. A scientist must *never* make the outcome of his research dependent on what anyone expects from him.
So, strictly speaking: I don't care if it supports or fights racism, anti-Semitism, anti-anti-Semitism, fascism, communism, anti-Arabism, anti-Whitism, anti-Germanism or what have you. I couldn't care less.
9. There have been reports that you have been in contact with extremist, far-right groups in this country, is that the case?
No, that is wrong. I happened to have been interested in the court case against a British writer who was prosecuted and sentenced for a journal he published. Because I report *every* case of censorship that I can get information about in my own journal, I wanted to get more information about that case as well. And this one was especially interesting for me as a publisher in the UK! It was not my intention to exclude this case, simply because this writer was somehow attached to an ostracised political group. Before I met this person in early 1999, I did not even know his role in any political group. And it is not my intention to judge people according to which political, religious, or racial group they belong to, even not if the British media and authorities want me to. I judge people according to the way they behave.
10. What do you make of calls to have you extradited to Germany?
Sit and wait.
11. Have you at any stage considered ending your research?
Yes, if it is too boring. But as long as they persecute us Revisionists, it is quite an adventure, and as long as they prevent me to get back into a normal live, I have no choice anyway.
I hope that helps. You won't get around reading some stuff published on my site...
Germar S. Rudolf
=====