A Visit in Prison with Ernst Zuendel

[zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org]

-- 






A Visit in Prison with Ernst Zuendel



During the recent conference in Iran (Review of the Holocaust: Global 
Vision) I was in prison in Mannheim, Germany interviewing Ernst 
Zuendel.  Labeled a "Holocaust denier," Ernst has been in jail for 
almost four years without being charged with a violent crime or 
without even being convicted of a non-violent one.  He is 67 year old.



As a six-year old Ernst witnessed the Allied firebombing of Pforzheim 
in which ten to twenty thousand German civilians were killed.  As a 
teenager he became a pacifist; at age 19 he moved to Canada to avoid 
serving in the post-war German army.  In Canada he worked as a 
graphic artist and publisher specializing in 20th century German 
history.  Many of the books he republished questioned the Holocaust, 
such as the underground booklet Did Six Million Really Die? by 
Richard Harwood.  Others he merely distributed, like The Rudolf 
Report by Germar Rudolf, An Eye for an Eye: The Untold Story of 
Jewish Revenge Against Germans in 1945 by John Sack, and Jewish 
Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question by David Duke.  He 
also sold books on UFOs and alternative medicines.



Ernst's interest in history and revisionism led him to dispute and 
challenge specific "facts" about the Holocaust.  He claimed



1.  that Hitler's "Final Solution" was intended to be ethnic 
cleansing, not extermination

2.  that there were no homicidal gas chambers used by the Third 
Reich.  (He did not deny

           that there were gas chambers used for disinfection.)

3.  there were fewer than 6 million Jews killed of the alleged 55 
million who died in WWII



Over the years such firmly held beliefs expressed in writing and 
later on his wife's Internet site (www.zundelsite.org 
<http://www.zundelsite.org/> ) caused him to be charged with 
incitement.  He was tried twice in Canada.  In the middle of the 
second trial in 1988, Ernst sent the first forensic team to 
Auschwitz.  It was this "Leuchter Expedition" and the subsequent 
Leuchter Report that he believed revolutionized Holocaust 
revisionism, taking it beyond the "he said, she said..." testimonies 
and into the realm of solid forensic science.



Such endeavors made him the target of those who protect the standard 
Holocaust narrative.  He survived three assassination attempts, 
including by arson and pipe bomb, and although he lived in Canada for 
42 years, he was never able to gain Canadian citizenship even though 
immigration officials had described his application as "flawless."



While some consider his views to border on heresy, freedom of speech 
in both the United States and Canada protected his right to publish 
and distribute the truth as he sees it.  But neither our Bill of 
Rights nor the pleadings of his lawyers could prevent his being 
rendered by the United States, forced back to Canada, and then on to 
Germany where denying or revising certain aspects of the Holocaust is 
a crime.



The Latest Incarceration



On February 5, 2003, Ernst was arrested at his home in the mountain 
region of eastern Tennessee.  He was seized on the pretext that he 
had violated immigration regulations, or had missed an interview date 
with US immigration authorities, even though he had entered the US 
legally, was married to an American citizen, had been checked out by 
the FBI, had been given a health check, a work permit, and a social 
security number, had no criminal record, and was trying to secure 
status as a permanent legal resident.



After being held for two weeks, he was deported to Canada.  For the 
next two years -- from mid-February 2003 to March 1, 2005 -- he was 
held in solitary confinement in the Toronto West Detention Centre, on 
the charge that he was a threat to national security.  Like others 
who suffer rendition, there was no bail, no public trial, and no 
appeal.  His mail was censored and the lights in his cell were kept 
on day and night.



On March 1, 2005 Ernst was put in handcuffs and leg irons on a 
private jet and deported from Canada to Germany where he has been 
held as an Untersuchungsgefangener or a prisoner under investigation. 
As in Canada, bail was again denied.  On June 29, 2005, the state's 
prosecutor, Mr. Grossman, formally charged him with inciting "hatred" 
by having written or distributed texts that "approve, deny or play 
down" genocidal actions carried out by Germany's wartime regime, and 
which "denigrate the memory of the [Jewish] dead."  The trial began 
on November 8, 2005, eight months after he arrived in Germany.



Ernst is confined to his cell 22 ¾ hours per day.  He has no access 
to phone or Internet and he may not communicate anything about the 
trial.  He is able to receive two 30-minute visits per month, but all 
conversations must be in German or must be conducted through a 
prison-approved translator.



Still Ernst remains upbeat and convinced that he has made a 
contribution to the truth surrounding WWII and the Holocaust.  He 
does not deny that millions of people suffered at the hands of the 
Nazis, including millions of Jews, who were worked to death and 
suffered from disease (especially typhus) and who were often 
deliberately murdered both inside and outside of concentration camps. 
But he does not regard Jewish suffering as unique.  He considers his 
efforts to tell the truth about the Holocaust as ground breaking and 
is satisfied to let others continue the research.



Ernst believes that Zionists treat the Holocaust as a sword and a 
shield to deflect criticism of their racist quest to build a Jewish 
state in Palestine, a state in which over half the people today are 
not Jewish, "the state" being defined as all the land currently 
controlled by Israel, including West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan 
Heights.  He regards himself as a political prisoner of Zionists who 
try to erase his contributions and punish him with defamation and 
imprisonment.



A Day in Court



An admirer once described Ernst Zuendel as "an outgoing, good-humored 
man who is blessed with a rare combination of unflagging optimism and 
practical ability.  He maintains this infectious spirit even under 
very trying conditions.  He is an unusually alert and sensitive 
individual with a keen understanding of human nature.  He inspires 
confidence, loyalty and affection."  On December 7, 2006 I witnessed 
his trial in Mannheim and found this description to be uncannily 
accurate.



On that particular day those in the courtroom included Ernst, three 
judges, three jurors, a court reporter, three defense attorneys, four 
armed guards, twenty-four spectators, and one prosecutor, Mr. 
Grossman.  Ernst wore an old blue suit with a red tie; he was 
attentive; he often smiled approvingly when something was said with 
which he agreed.  The guards were friendly but disinterested.  Facing 
the court, all the participants sat on the left hand side, except the 
state prosecutor who sat all by himself at a table on the right side. 
The jurors and the court reporter sat in line with the judges on an 
elevated platform along the front and the spectators sat in rows 
along the back wall.  No media were present.



The spectators were clearly there for Ernst.  Most were German men in 
their late 60s or 70s; there were also a couple of younger women. 
Several men commented that they were proud of having been to every 
court session with Ernst over the past 21 months.  Although they had 
not met him personally, they were following his trial closely and 
were supportive of him.  They were helpful to my American Jewish 
colleague and me and guided us through the security outside the 
courtroom and made sure we got front row seats so that we could fully 
appreciate the courtroom experience.  Many spoke English and had sons 
and daughters in America.  Most were retired but one younger man had 
taken time off from work to witness this day of the trial.



Ernst and his attorneys have not been allowed to discuss or challenge 
the veracity of the facts about the Holocaust, including facts that 
Ernst disputes and about which he would like to submit scientific 
evidence and expert-witness testimony.  Offenkundigkeit, the German 
version of judicial notice, precludes it.  The court is only allowed 
to consider if Ernst denied these particular facts and if so, when 
and where and how.  During our visit, one of Ernst's attorneys, 
84-year old Dr. Herbert Schaller[1], read a lengthy and impassioned 
statement saying that he believed in the same facts of the Holocaust 
as does Ernst and by so stating this he too is guilty.  He ended by 
saying that in over 53 years of practicing law he had until now never 
been guilty of the same crime as the man he was charged to defend. 
The head judge, Ulrich Meinerzhagen, appeared tired, agitated, and 
ready to explode.



Visiting Ernst in prison



It is not easy to visit Ernst Zuendel.  He is allowed only two 
30-minute visits per month, one hour if the visitor travels more than 
100 km.  Though I wrote and faxed the prison a dozen times beginning 
in February 2006, the answer was always the same, no answer.  But 
through his wife, Ingrid, Ernst knew that a colleague and I wished to 
visit him and he asked the judge to grant us permission to do so. 
Finally on September 23rd Judge Meinerzhagen told Ernst to tell his 
wife to tell me to fax him and formally request a visit.  We were to 
each include a copy of our résumés and a copy of our passports.



Another month passed before we received the visitation permission. 
Once we had that document, stamped and signed by the judge, we were 
able to make an appointment at the prison in Mannheim.



On arrival the guards filled out a long form on each of us.  They 
took our passports and had us put everything else in a locker.  Then 
we were searched, warned against speaking English, and told to cross 
the courtyard to the visitation rooms.  There we sat on one side of a 
table with a plastic shield in the middle; they brought Ernst from 
the other side and allowed him to sit across from us while a guard 
sat at the end to monitor both parties.  We asked if it was 
permissible to shake hands and the guard smiled and said that would 
be all right.



Ernst began by asking us to contact his wife and tell her that he 
looked well and that he missed her.  He had not been in contact with 
her for several weeks and he was worried that she would be worried 
about him.  Then he asked if my colleague's family had discouraged 
him from making this trip.  My friend understood what Ernst was 
asking, but he was unable to answer in German, so I had to tell Ernst 
that indeed pressure had been put on us both not to have anything to 
do with a Holocaust "denier."



We asked Ernst about life in prison and his relationship with guards 
and other prisoners.  He described a typical day and told us that he 
had only limited contact with other prisoners, but that they were 
friendly towards him.  So too were the guards, especially because he 
followed the rules and was a threat to no one.  He often asked the 
man monitoring our visit to corroborate what he was saying, almost as 
if to include him in the conversation.



He talked about history and philosophy and about recent books he had 
read.  He praised the prison library, which he said was markedly 
better than the one in the US jail in Tennessee, which had "only Tom 
Clancy novels and one old book on the US Presidents."  I had been 
forced to leave my notes outside and though I had many questions, I 
was not allowed to ask him anything about the trial, not even the 
names of his attorneys.



The hour passed quickly and the guard soon told us we would have to 
go.  When we stood we looked questioningly at the guard and he nodded 
to us.  We shook hands with Ernst, slowly, he taking each of our 
hands in both of his.  They were big, soft, and warm; although Ernst 
is only six years older than I, he reminded me of my father saying 
goodbye when we last parted.



Holocaust Denial



Contrary to the warning given to people who currently tour Auschwitz, 
"Holocaust denial" is not infectious.  In many ways the term is used 
as an epithet to discredit and demean those who question facts 
surrounding the Holocaust.  Nor is Holocaust denial anti-Semitic; 
there are many Jews who question facts about the Holocaust and many 
more who object to its being used to elevate Jewish suffering above 
that of others.[2]  Treating those who question the Holocaust as 
heretics reveals the degree to which the Holocaust itself has become 
a religion, a faith to be accepted and worshiped with spectacular 
memorials, best-selling books, and mandatory curricula for school 
children.



Ernst believes that Jewish groups have wanted him jailed for 
promoting views that the Jewish-Zionist lobby considers harmful to 
its interests.  He claims that the only sustained and 
institutionalized efforts to imprison him have come from this lobby, 
which includes the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Canadian Jewish 
Congress, the Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association, and the 
League for Human Rights of B'nai B'rith (with the Anti-Defamation 
League, its counterpart in the US).  It is noteworthy that even the 
ACLU refused to defend his right of free speech.[3]



Ernst Zuendel is neither a monster nor a heretic.  He is a man with 
strong convictions and the courage to express them.  He views himself 
not as a Holocaust "denier," but rather as a Holocaust revisionist. 
For that he has been rendered by the United States, which otherwise 
professes to protect the right of free speech and the writ of habeas 
corpus, and by Canada, both countries in which he broke no law.  To 
force him back to his birth country to be tried for a "crime" which 
he never committed in Germany is unjust.  Those who would incarcerate 
revisionists like Ernst Zuendel and hold them, without bail, for 
years on end to drain them of their resources and to silence them as 
"Prisoners of Zion" could well be labeled as "justice deniers."





Daniel McGowan

Professor Emeritus

Hobart and William Smith Colleges

mcgowan at hws.edu <mailto:mcgowan at hws.edu>

December 28, 2006




________________________________

[1] Upon his release from prison in Austria on December 21, 2006, the 
English historian David Irving said, "I have the fine oratory of my 
84-year-old defense lawyer Dr. Herbert Schaller to thank for the 
unexpected victory in the appeal court.  I spent over 400 days in 
solitary confinement in Austria's oldest prison, sentenced in 
February to three years' jail for an opinion I expressed in two talks 
seventeen years ago."

[2] Of the 63 participants at the recent conference in Tehran, six 
were Orthodox rabbis.

[3] Perhaps Benjamin Ginsburg is correct when he infers that the ACLU 
is an organization, which promotes Jewish interests.  "In the realm 
of lobbying and litigation, Jews ... play leadership roles in such 
important public interest groups as the American Civil Liberties 
Union and Common Cause.... Their role in American economic, social, 
and political institutions has enabled Jews to wield considerable 
influence in the nation's public life." ("The Fatal Embrace:  Jews 
and the State," p. 1)