Censorship in Germany? Never! Unless...

By Germar Rudolf

Prologue

In German history, censorship unfortunately has been more of a
rule than an exception. It was introduced by the Catholic Church in the form of
the Inquisition. However, it was left to the well-known Austrian statesman
Metternich to perfect the system of suppressing freedom of speech by means of a
comprehensive spy and surveillance apparatus. Neither the German Empire nor the
Weimar Republic were particularly soft in their dealings with unwelcome
literature,[1] but the worst reputation was doubtless acquired by the
Third Reich, which managed, within the twelve years of its existence, to
black-list some 10,000 books. While these books were not burned, they did
disappear from the shelves of bookstores, to be banished to library archives.[2]

But what is not nearly as well known is the fact that it was
the Allied 'liberators' of Germany who staged the greatest campaign of book
destruction that mankind had ever seen. Among the victims of Allied displeasure
were 34,645 titles as well as, comprehensively, all school textbooks published
between 1933 and 1945; not only were these no longer permitted to be printed and
sold after the war - they also had to vanish from the archives of many
libraries.[3] In the years from 1946 to 1952, the Soviet Occupation Power
published four such lists ("Liste der auszusondernden Literatur", or list
of proscribed literature) of titles earmarked for destruction. In accordance
with the instructions in the censors' introduction to the second and third
volumes, the first three of these lists also went into force in the western
Occupation Zones.

The German Constitution

In its Article 5, Section 1, Clause 3, the current German
Constitution (Grundgesetz, or GG) prohibits censorship. Section 2 of that same
Article, however, limits this freedom from censorship as per the regulations
imposed by "general laws", among other things. A fundamental human right
can thus be suspended, at least theoretically, by everyday laws such as those of
criminal law.[4] In this respect, the German Federal Constitutional Court
(Bundesverfassungsgericht) has determined that "general laws" are such
that do not prohibit a specific opinion, or freedom of speech per se.
Furthermore, general laws may impose limits on a fundamental right only if doing
so serves to safeguard another fundamental right. In accordance with the
principle of proportionality, the benefits of both conflicting fundamental
rights must be weighed against each other.[5]

Further restrictions imposed on freedom of speech by Article 5
Section 2 GG serve the protection of young people and of personal honor.
According to rulings of the German Federal Constitutional Court, the core
significance of the human right to freedom of speech is that censorship of
publications is permitted only if these publications are at least a constant or
typical source of endangerment to the young people who might read, hear or watch
them.

Regarding injury to honor, the Federal Constitutional Court has
ruled that such injury generally has not occurred if no insulting expressions
have been used.

Criminal Law

The German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB) has at its
disposal tools facilitating censorship, particularly in §§ 185, 189 and 130f.
While §§ 185 and 189 (slander, disparagement of the memory of persons deceased)
may be subsumed under the category of "injuries to honor", §§ 130f.
(incitement of the people, incitement to hatred) are a mixed grouping of
injuries to honor, injury to human dignity (Article 1 GG), and endangerment of
the public peace, a conceptual chimera which we shall not investigate in greater
detail here.

The autumn 1994 revision of § 130 StGB (the so-called Lex
Deckert) decreed, among other things, that it is a criminal offense

"publicly or in an assembly, and in a manner likely to lead to
a breach of the peace, [to] endorse, deny or
trivialize any act committed under National Socialist rule [which was] of
the type specified in § 220a Section 1 [i.e., genocide,
A.M...]"

This is precisely the scenario which the Federal Constitutional
Court has actually ruled out: this law criminalizes a specific opinion about one
detail of the history of only one single, past regime. From this perspective
alone, this "hastily passed and unthought-out"[6]
"special law against freedom of speech"[7]
would seem to be unconstitutional, and it has been criticized commensurately in
German legal subject literature, where it is described as being, in effect,
"an attack on the intellectual freedom of dissidents"[8]
and "virtually the classic example of a norm [...] directed against a
specific opinion."[7]

"The legitimacy of this regulation is dubious at the very
least. One can already question whether a lie is a criminal wrong at all; one
must question whether the mere denial of a historical fact, in the absence of
any characteristics of agitation, may be described and dealt with as incitement
of the people, of all things."[9]

The concept of "denying" something which the state deems
true is a new element in German criminal law and poses problems which it seems
quite impossible for criminal procedure to solve. In order for denial to
objectively constitute a criminal offense, it must be done deliberately; that
is, the denier must know that he is not telling the truth and the judge
must prove this knowledge, which in and of itself is already virtually
impossible. But in order to be able to also punish (especially) the so-called
'criminals of conviction' who are convinced that they are telling the truth, the
German judiciary has concocted an entirely new definition of intent:

"In this case, intent can only be the knowledge that one's
conviction puts one into conflict with that which 'general opinion' indisputably
regards as a historical fact. Admittedly, in a state under the rule of law this
places a system of criminal law based on guilt squarely at the crossroads
[to criminal law based on arbitrariness]. Just as
Auschwitz will ever remain a nightmare for the Germans, the 'Auschwitz Lie' will
clearly remain the same for German criminal law."[10]

However, the revised § 130 StGB includes regulations which even
go considerably further. It criminalizes not only dissident views of certain
aspects of National Socialist persecution of minorities, but in a sense anything
and everything which could be considered incitement to hatred against population
subgroups of potentially any definition. In this regard the foremost German
criminal law commentary observes that this amendment means that practically any
kind of criticism of population subgroups - however they are defined - can
become a criminal offense, since the legal right that is supposed to be
protected (the anti-discrimination rule) is rendered too general and vague in
this Section.[11]

Furthermore, it also permits precautionary censorship, as it
were, by providing for the confiscation of publications or other data carriers
which are allegedly intended for distribution. The judiciary holds that the
intent to distribute prohibited publications exists if a person has in his or
her possession, more than one single copy of a data carrier.

That this new German law is difficult to reconcile with
international human rights standards is a fact openly acknowledged by Germany's
leading politicians, but it is excused by virtue of the country's particular
history.[12]

Indexing

The first step in the process of German censorship is the
black-listing or "indexing" of, for example, a book or pamphlet. This
indexing is done by the Federal Review Office for Youth-Endangering Media
(Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien, BPjM).[13] Until 2002, this authority could only become active after
a complaint by, e.g., a public youth welfare department. However, a more
restrictive law introduced in 2002 now allows this authority to index media
without the need of a complaint. This indexing means that the black-listed work
may no longer be advertised and that it may not be sold or otherwise made
available to persons under 18 years of age. In practical terms this means that
the work ceases to exist for the public, as one can then legally learn of its
existence only by private means - or, alternately, via the list of indexed
works, which the BPjM regularly publishes in its Report. By now this list
includes thousands of printed, audio and audio-visual works.[14] Once readily accessible by everybody, this Report
is now sold only to libraries, wholesalers, and retailers, and even
libraries have stopped giving free access to it, which renders the censorship
activities of this authority more and more obscure. This tendency to hide its
censorship activities was even more enhanced in 2002, when the law was changed
so that media, which are regarded to be an especially severe threat to the
mental development of young people, are now listed in secret lists. The victims
of this secret censorship are media whose content violates German criminal law
(libel, denigration of the dead, incitement to hatred, stirring up the people),
which includes basically all revisionist literature.[15]

While the BPjM was initially created primarily to protect
German youth from pornography and the glorification of violence, it has
increasingly also engaged in the battle against politically or historically
unpopular literature. As early as 1990 Eckhard Jesse, who is today a Professor
of Sociology in Chemnitz, criticized that the BPjM had "in many ways turned
out to be a gateway for one-sided anti-Fascism"[16] and that its measures are "difficult to reconcile with
the principles of a liberal society [...], because, on principle, in an
open society the printed and spoken word may not be stifled."[17]

To date, this astonishing admission of the violation of human
rights through censorship under the auspices of the Federal Constitutional
Protection Office, which edited the contribution of Jesse, has received little
attention.

The decision of German courts in the case of the book
Wahrheit für Deutschland (Truth for Germany) has taken on a central
significance where the BPjM's practice of censorship is concerned. This book
dealt in an allegedly unacademic manner with the question of who bears the blame
for World War Two.[18] The BPjM black-listed it in the late 1970s. In 1994 the
Federal Constitutional Court declared this black-listing decision unlawful,[19] but the BPjM promptly re-indexed the book on slightly
reworded grounds.[20] The author's appeal against this, as well as his
complaint to the Administrative Court of Cologne, were successful. According to
the verdict the BPjM had failed to prove that the book posed a danger to the
young people who might read it:

"The BPjM fails to realize that it is precisely the possibility
for open debate among different views which furthers the critical abilities of
young people, and this demands free and unfettered discussion. Besides
instruction in historical events, this requires particularly the critical
examination of divergent views. In its considerations the BPjM has completely
disregarded that this [...] can (perhaps) protect
young people much more effectively from susceptibility to distorting portrayals
of history than indexing can, which latter may even endow such opinions with a
justified attraction."[21]

However, this verdict, as well as the Federal Constitutional
Court's previous verdict, also indicate that these principles do not apply if it
is, for example, the historiography about the fate of the Jews in the Third
Reich that is questioned. Such questioning, the argument goes, not only
represents a scientifically blatantly incorrect opinion, it also glorifies
National Socialism and disparages the Jews as a group. This does not by any
means require that the publication in question verbally attacks the Jews or
identifies itself with National Socialist ideology. Not even an open declaration
of sympathy with the Jews and a condemnation of National Socialist
transgressions in other respects will serve in the publication's favor if the
factual nature of the Holocaust is questioned at even one single point in the
work. German courts consider even one such occurrence to be adequate proof of a
glorification of the National Socialist system and of an intention to slander
the Jews.

To date, appeals against the black-listing of
"Holocaust-denying" books have been uniformly unsuccessful, since German
courts refuse all motions to bring evidence in such trials.[22] Documentation, however, is very fragmentary in this
context. Older books which dispute the factuality of the Holocaust - such as
Geschichte der Verfemung
Deutschlands (History of the Defamation of Germany),[23] Hexeneinmaleins einer Lüge (Magic Square of a
Lie),[24] Feuerzeichen (Fire signal)[25] or Die 2.
babylonische Gefangenschaft (The 2nd Babylonian Captivity)[26] - are not to be found on the Index of the BPjM. On the
other hand, one of the first books of this genre - a book that, regarding its
style, must certainly be accorded scientific and academic credit, namely, Der Jahrhundertbetrug[27] (The Hoax
of the Century) - was black-listed as early as spring 1979.[28]

A work issued by the publisher Kritik-Verlag, lately of
Denmark, has achieved fame at least indirectly. In the early 1970s this
publisher issued a brochure titled Die Auschwitz-Lüge (The Auschwitz
Lie), in which a former German soldier described his experiences in Auschwitz,
which are diametrically opposed to those recounted in the well-known eyewitness
testimony.[29] At least in Germany the title of this publication became
the embodiment of what is otherwise known less polemically as Holocaust
revisionism, i.e., the thesis that there was no Third Reich policy of
extermination of the Jews. A portrait of Thies Christophersen, the brochure's
author, who was prosecuted in Germany and had fled abroad, was used in 1995 by
Amnesty International as advertisement for free speech because even the most
controversial of all opinions, namely the one that disputes the Holocaust, ought
to be protected by the human right to freedom of speech.[30] The publication was not indexed until 1993, fully 20
years after its first publication.[31]

Since the 1994 tightening of criminal law no change has become
apparent in the BPjM's decision-making process, and neither is any change
necessarily to be expected, since the BPjM proceeds in accordance with the Law
for Youth Protection (Gesetz zum Schutz der Jugend, or GjS), not with criminal
law.

Confiscations to 1994

The second stage of German censorship is the so-called
confiscation (or seize-and-destroy) stage. This stage hardly registers with the
public at all, and even Professor E. Jesse, whom we quoted earlier, seems either
not to be aware of it or to ignore it. The confiscation of a publication takes
place on the order of a court. What happens to the confiscated copies of such a
publication is not quite clear, but it probably varies with the police station
in charge. One publisher who is quite frequently the target of such book
confiscations reported that he had been told that the books are burned under
police supervision.[32] In one case the press reported that confiscated
literature is being burnt in waste incinerators.[33]

According to information from the German Federal Government,
and unlike for indexed works, there is no office or authority which publishes an
even remotely complete list of confiscated books; similarly, the confiscation
orders issued by the courts are not published anywhere.[34] Certainly every court that orders or revokes the
confiscation of a publication is required to communicate its decision to the
Federal Criminal Investigation Office (Bundeskriminalamt), which therefore ought
to have a complete and current list, particularly as it serves the courts as
information central regarding confiscation orders already issued.[35] However, these confiscation orders are published only
every now and then in the Bundeskriminalblatt, a publication not readily
accessible to the public. What goes for the public's review of black-listing
does not go for the actual confiscation of the works in question. In this
respect the public is left completely in the dark.

Although pornographic or pro-violent publications are also
affected by confiscations, these are not discussed here, since the destruction
of political or historical publications is a much more explosive issue from a
human-rights point of view.

Up to 1994 it was still possible to keep track of all the
confiscated publications with political or historical content. The most
spectacular case was no doubt the confiscation of the revisionist book Der
Auschwitz-Mythos (The Auschwitz Myth). Due to the book's 'Holocaust-denying'
theses, the author, a former judge, was stripped of his doctorate, and his
pension was reduced.[36]

Another interesting case are the confiscations of the books
published by the revisionist Jew Joseph Ginsburg, under the pseudonym J. G.
Burg. His Holocaust-denying books also fell victim to German book burning, even
though - being a Jew, and in light of the contents of his writings - he could
hardly be accused of anti-Semitism.

Germany
today:
105,678 Criminal Prosecutions
Because of "Thought Crimes"
During the Last Ten
Years:

Year

Right

Left

Foreign

Sum

1994

5,562

185

235

5,982

1995

6,555

256

276

7,087

1996

7,585

557

818

8,960

1997

10,257

1,063

1,029

12,349

1998

9,549

1,141

1,832

12,522

1999

8,698

1,025

1,525

11,248

2000

13,863

979

525

15,367

2001

8,874

429

353

9,656

2002

9,807

331

467

10,605

2003

9,692

431

1,340

11,463

Total:

90,395

6,397

8,886

105,678

•
Right: "Offenses with right wing extremist background", that is:
"Propaganda Offenses" and "Stirring up the People" • Left:
"Offenses with left wing extremist background", generally referred to as
"other offenses"
• Foreign: offenses committed by foreign
extremists, mainly against the German law of organizations
("Vereinsgesetz") by Kurds in the prohibited Kurdish Liberation Army PKK[37]

Especially right-wingers are
persecuted in
Germany.

Up to the winter of 1996, and where political and historical
publications are concerned, the BPjM itself had listed the confiscation of only
a few issues of the Swiss-based revisionist periodical Der Eidgenoss. The
various issues of the revisionist periodical Historische Tatsachen
(Historical Facts), on the other hand - which have long been subject to
confiscation, and which are published by the same publisher whose book
Wahrheit für Deutschland the BPjM has now been trying for over 20 years
to ban - are not mentioned.[38] It was not until the spring of 1997 that the BPjM updated
its list, particularly with four books by the Swiss revisionist author Jürgen
Graf. With one exception, however, these books had all been confiscated before
late 1994, and one had already been de-indexed again in 1995.[39] The BPjM itself is thus even less clear on the state of
confiscations than is the author of the present article.

Confiscations after 1994

This 'moderate' confiscation policy changed radically after the
revised § 130 StGB took effect on December 1, 1994. Even though the time from
December 1, 1994 (the date the new § 130 StGB came into force), and mid-1997
(the authorship date of this article) is only two and a half years, the list of
books ordered seized and destroyed during this period is about as long as that
of the books which to our knowledge were confiscated in the previous 45 years of
the Federal Republic of Germany's existence.

It is important to note that in most instances the court case
reference numbers given refer not only to the confiscation proceedings directed
at the books themselves, but refer also to concomitant criminal trials of
authors, editors, publishers, booksellers, sometimes even against the printers
and multiple-copy purchasers of the publications in question. Criminal
prosecution of the purchasers of prohibited publications is initiated even if
the books were bought at a time when they were not yet prohibited. In actual
fact almost all such trials are of this retroactive nature, i.e., they
deal with cases where books were bought before they were confiscated, since as a
rule it is no longer possible to obtain the books at all after they have been
violently withdrawn from the market.

In reply to an inquiry the Ministry of Justice of the Federal
Land of Baden-Württemberg has stated that in the time between the end of 1994
and mid-1996, in Baden-Württemberg alone, there were 32 cases of preliminary
proceedings being instituted against private individuals for their multiple
purchases of such books.[40] Projected to cover all of Germany, this figure indicates
some 250 to 300 such criminal cases.

Revisionist books which, to our knowledge, have not even been
black-listed yet - such as Feuerzeichen or Die 2. babylonische
Gefangenschaft - were not the only victims of this new wave of censorship.
Books with strictly political content, such as In Sachen Deutschland (In the Matter of
Germany) or Wolfsgesellschaft (society
of wolves), were also destroyed. Both these books deal in an unpolemic but
rejective manner with the problems of multiculturalism and the supposed
incompetence of German politicians. However, since this openly negative attitude
allegedly represents incitement against the foreigners in Germany and against
the establishment political parties and their representatives, in other words
since the books endangered the internal peace of the Federal Republic, they were
confiscated.

It is impossible to discuss every prohibited book adequately
within the scope of this article. We shall therefore focus on only one case,
namely the first seize-and-destroy order that was issued after the legal
revision of December 1, 1994. This order was carried out in late March 1995
against the scientific handbook Grundlagen zur
Zeitgeschichte (German original of Dissecting the Holocaust), which
deals very critically with the Holocaust. Since then, 1,000 persons, primarily
from the ranks of academia, have spoken out publicly in support of de-indexing
this book,[41] and two distinguished historians have even testified in
court that the book is scientific and academic in nature and thus ought to be
protected under Article 5 Section 3 of the Constitution, where freedom of
research is guaranteed without limitations.[42]

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Justice of Baden-Württemberg has
announced that this constitutional provision is not sacrosanct. The Ministry has
ruled that destruction of a scientific work is permissible if said work unduly
restricts the fundamental rights of a third party.[43] This interpretation is not new, as the German
Constitutional High Court decided already in 1985 in the matter of Wilhelm
Stäglich/Der Auschwitz-Mythos, that the
freedom of science is no longer granted when its results allegedly attacks the
human dignity of Jews.[44] The implications of this are that scientists may not
postulate certain theses and may not question or seek to refute certain
establishment theses when this perhaps runs counter to Jewish interests. This
ruling of the German Constitutional High Court is quite obviously a violation of
human rights, for this interpretation strikes at the heart of the fundamental
right to freedom of research, i.e., the right to freedom of choice in the
selection of one's theses and the right to openness of research findings (cf.
Karl R. Popper[45]). Publications of subject specialists have confirmed that
this approach is clearly unconstitutional.[46]

The trial concerning the book Grundlagen zur
Zeitgeschichte - that is, concerning the freedom of its authors, editor,
publisher, printer, sellers and buyers - will likely drag on for several more
years and is indeed a crucial case which will contribute significantly to
shaping the future course of human rights in Germany.

Personal Fates

Naturally, every trial for printing, publishing or
disseminating a prohibited work also involves at least one personal fate.
Exactly how many persons have been punished in recent years for their will to
disseminate publications which were outlawed afterwards is not known; the
aforementioned figure of several hundred preliminary proceedings, however, would
indicate that the number is substantial. In the following we shall touch on only
four of the most prominent examples from recent years. (The corresponding court
case reference numbers may be found with the entries for the books in question,
in the appended list of confiscated books.)

First and foremost, we would mention the case of Günter
Deckert, the former Federal Chairman of the German right-wing
Nationaldemokratische Partei (National Democratic Party). This case even
attracted international attention. As early as 1994 Deckert was sentenced to two
years' imprisonment for having interpreted, in an assenting manner, an American
speaker's English-language presentation which disputed the mass extermination of
the Jews in Auschwitz.[47] This case has been partially recounted in the book Der
Fall Günter Deckert (The Case of G.D.), co-edited by Deckert himself.[48] This book, in which Deckert supported his revisionist
views with new arguments, as well as the sale of 50 copies of the revisionist
anthology Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte, resulted in renewed proceedings
against him, the bottom line of which was that he was sentenced to another 20
months' imprisonment in spring 1997. He is supposed to be released from jail in
August 2000 - after almost 5 years.

The second-worst fate struck a long-time publisher from Vlotho,
the academically accredited political scientist Udo Walendy. In December 1996 he
was sentenced, in his last possible appeal, to 15 months' imprisonment for four
issues (nos. 1 (2nd ed.), 59, 60 and 64) of his revisionist series
Historische Tatsachen, a series which includes 77 issues to date. In May
1997 the County Court of Herford struck a supplemental blow, as it were, by
sentencing Walendy to yet another 14 months' imprisonment for his issues 66 and
68. Subsequently, Walendy's license as a publisher was withdrawn in September
1999, so it is no longer permitted to Herrn Walendy to publish or distribute any
media.[49] This case shows especially clearly how German censorship
has escalated since the introduction of the relevant legal revisions in late
1994: while none of Walendy's issues had had any criminal consequences for the
author prior to the revision, fully six of the twelve issues that appeared
afterwards resulted in trials and convictions, even though neither the style nor
the content of the periodical had changed in any way.[50]

Our third example is the fate of academically accredited
chemist Germar Rudolf, who also publishes under the pseudonym Ernst Gauss. For
drawing up and disseminating a chemical and technical expert report known as
Das Rudolf-Gutachten (The Rudolf Report), which claims to
disprove the mass gassings in Auschwitz, he was sentenced in June 1995 to 14
months' imprisonment and has since been prosecuted and persecuted for authoring
or editing various revisionist books and brochures (for example, Grundlagen
zur Zeitgeschichte, Prof. Dr. Ernst
Nolte: Auch Holocaust-Lügen haben kurze Beine, Auschwitz: Nackte Fakten, Kardinalfragen zur Zeitgeschichte,
various issues of the Journal Vierteljahreshefte für freie
Geschichtsforschung). He avoided his first prison sentence as well as
the trial for editing the book Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte by fleeing
into exile.[51] Wigbert Grabert, the publisher of the book Grundlagen
zur Zeitgeschichte, was unable to avoid his punishment, and was fined DM
30,000.00.

And last but not least, we would mention the case of Hans
Schmidt, an American citizen born in Germany. He is the head of a US-based
right-wing organization that claims to represent the interests of the
German-Americans in the United States. In this capacity he has for many years
annoyed numerous prominent persons in Germany with Open Letters. When Schmidt
visited Germany in the summer of 1995, he was held in custody, awaiting trial,
for more than five months, since one of these Open Letters, in which he had
described the German elites as "infested by Jews and Freemasons",
allegedly constituted incitement of the people. Schmidt avoided prosecution by
fleeing to Florida.[52]

The fact that there is no publicly accessible list of
confiscated books makes it difficult in some cases to determine whether or not a
confiscation order exists. Sometimes one only learns of confiscations by the
various public prosecutors' offices in the course of full-blown criminal
investigations. If proceedings are then stopped or abandoned for reasons other
than supposed innocence (for example, a legally valid conclusion to the
proceedings, lapse, or a consolidation with other proceedings, frequently
accompanied by the withholding of evidence such as the confiscated books), the
legal state of the confiscation proceedings - i.e., with respect to the
'weapon', the book - often remains unclear. And quite a few of the censored
publishers and authors are not very co-operative, as they do not want to see
their case dragged into the public. They fear damage to their reputation, so
they stay silent, too. Obviously, the general confusion regarding the law in
matters of German book confiscations is a constant uncertainty factor for every
publisher, bookseller and book buyer. For this reason a trend towards preventive
self-censorship is becoming increasingly manifest in Germany: to avoid the
incalculable risk of criminal prosecution, one is less and less inclined to pick
up politically or historically hot potatoes which a judiciary might choose to
single out as being right-of-center. This silent, hidden censorship is
admittedly the most effective and thus the most dangerous one that can be. That
in the long term this must bring catastrophic effects on social and political
life in Germany seems not to interest anyone.

Now it does not really matter what one thinks of the theses
advocated by this group of persons. The fact is that the human right to freedom
of speech must be indivisible, as Professor R. Dworkin already put it in
Index on Censorship.[53] And since none of the cases described here involved any
calls to violence, instructions for violent acts, or trivializations of violence
- at most, violence is disputed for certain historical events, or portrayed as
less than generally usual in other accounts - the harshness with which the
German judiciary proceeds against these dissidents is incomprehensible and
unjustified.

If the cases described herein affected any other persons or
groups, then there would be a worldwide outcry in the press, denouncing such
human rights violations. But since the victims are after all only the
right ones, the matter is ignored and hushed up. But from an objective
perspective there is no difference between, for example, Communists and
Jehovah's Witnesses being imprisoned in the Third Reich for their beliefs, and
right-wingers and Revisionists being thrown behind bars in the Federal Republic
of Germany today for the sake of their publications. Human rights remain human
rights. They go for leftist radicals just as for right-wingers.

Considering the results of a more comprehensive, highly recommended study
about the deterioration of civil rights in Germany in general,[54] one must conclude that Germany's tradition of free speech
is rather underdeveloped. The general German attitude behind this - 'tough
measures are justified to prevent the repetition of this dark (Third Reich)
chapter of our history' - is understandable, but it is wrong, too, since it
leads to the paradox and perverse situation where, in order to prevent the
persecution of minorities and the burning of books, minorities are persecuted
and books are burned. This is exactly the situation we are facing in Germany
today. In light of her history, the only correct position for Germany to take
would doubtless be the strict and impartial granting of human rights for
everyone - and that is not to suggest that this time they ought to be denied the
other side for a change, either. Obviously, where human rights are concerned,
Germany is caught in a historical vicious circle, or, to use a different
metaphor: the pendulum is swinging wildly from one extreme to the other. It is
high time that it came to rest in the middle.

Notes

[1]

For more see Claus Nordbruch, Sind Gedanken noch frei? Zensur in
Deutschland, Universitas, Munich 1998.

[2]

The opinions about this differ slightly: acc. to Dietrich Strothmann,
Nationalsozialistische Literaturpolitik, 3rd ed., Bouvier, Bonn
1985, some 12,500 books, acc. to Dietrich Aigner, Die Indizierung
"schädlichen und unerwünschten Schrifttums" im Dritten Reich, vol. XI
of the Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwesen, Buchhändlervereinigung,
Frankfurt/Main 1971, the number was less than 10,000.

[3]

For some more details see, e.g., Martin Lüders, Nation und
Europa, vol. 47(9) (1997), pp. 7-11. The list of all books banned by
the Allies (Liste der auszusondernden Literatur) was recently
reprinted by Uwe Berg-Verlag, Toppenstedt (Germany) 1983/84 (Deutschen
Verwaltung für Volksbildung in der sowjetischen Besatzungszone/Ministerium
für Volksbildung der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik (ed.) Liste der
auszusondernden Literatur. Index der in der sowjetischen
Besatzungszone verbotenen Bücher nach dem Stand vom 1. April 1946; Erster
Nachtrag zum Index der in der sowjetischen Besatzungszone verbotenen
Bücher nach dem Stand vom 1. Januar 1947; Zweiter Nachtrag zum "Index" der
in der sowjetischen Besatzungszone verbotenen Bücher nach dem Stand vom 1.
September 1948; Dritter und letzter Nachtrag zum "Index" der in der
sowjetischen Besatzungszone verbotenen Bücher nach dem Stand vom 1. April
1952, 4 vols., Zentralverlag, Berlin (East) 1946-1948, 1953). It can
be found completely at vho.org/censor/tA.html.

[4]

Two recent studies of censorship in Germany, highly to be recommended:
Jürgen Schwab, Die Meinungsdiktatur. Wie "demokratische" Zensoren die
Freiheit beschneiden, Coburg: Nation Europa Verlag, 1997, 338 pp.;
Claus Nordbruch, op. cit. (note 1).

[5]

The Federal Constitutional Court's decisions were quoted from:
Karl-Heinz Seifert, Dieter Hömig (eds.), Grundgesetz für die
Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 2nd ed., Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden
Baden 1985.

[6]

Eduard Dreher, Herbert Tröndle (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch,
47th ed., Beck, Munich 1995, Strafgesetzbuch, 47th ed.,
MN 18 regarding §130.

[7]

Stefan Huster, "Das Verbot der 'Auschwitz-Lüge', die
Meinungsfreiheit und das Bundesverfassungsgericht", Neue
Juristische Wochenschrift, 1995, pp. 487ff., here p. 489.

[8]

Daniel Beisel, "Die Strafbarkeit der Auschwitz-Lüge", Neue
Juristische Wochenschrift, 1995, pp. 997-1000, here p. 1000.

[9]

Karl Lackner, Strafgesetzbuch, 21st ed., Munich, 1995, MN 8a
regarding §130; the criticisms of this article are legion; cf. Hans A.
Stöcker, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, 1995, pp. 237-240;
Manfred Brunner, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Aug. 17, 1994;
Ernst Nolte, ibid., Sept. 8, 1994; Ronald Dworkin,
Tageszeitung, May 17, 1995; Horst Meier, Die Zeit, Sept. 15,
1995; Horst Meier, Merkur 12/1996: 1128-1131.

[10]

Theodor Leckner, in Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder (eds.),
Strafgesetzbuch, 25th ed., Beck, Munich 1997, p. 1111.

[11]

Ibid., p. 1103.

[12]

Federal Minister of Justice Edzard Schmidt-Jorzig, Ruge. NeunzehnZehn:
"Ehrenschutz für Soldaten - Gesetz gegen die Meinungsfreiheit?",
3-SAT, March 10, 1996, 19:10; same, Mut, no. 351, 11/1996:
32-35; Wolfgang Schäuble, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, April 24,
1996, p. 41.

[13]

Until 2002, this authority carried the name Bundesprüfstelle für
jugendgefährdende Schriften, BPjS.

[14]

The latest "comprehensive listing", Gesamtverzeichnis
indizierter Bücher, Taschenbücher, Broschüren und Comics, Stand
30.4.1993, includes about 2,500 titles. Some 120 more have since
joined the ranks. The list of indexed video tapes is about the same
length. Added to this are several hundred electronic sound and data
carriers. The current indexing lists are published in the periodical of
the Federal Review Office for Youth-Endangering Publications, BPjS
aktuell. To order: Bundesprüfstelle, Postfach 26 01 21, D-53153 Bonn,
Germany.

[15]

See the German government website
www.bmfsfj.de for more information.

[16]

Eckhard Jesse, "Streitbare Demokratie und
'Vergangenheitsbewältigung'", in Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz
(ed.), Verfassungsschutz in der Demokratie, Carl Heymanns Verlag,
Cologne 1990, p. 304, cf. p. 289.

[17]

Ibid., p. 287; cf. also p. 303: "Liberal society may not
stifle or suppress the free exchange of ideas and points of
view."

[18]

Udo Walendy, Wahrheit für Deutschland, 3rd ed., Verlag für
Volkstum und Zeitgeschichtsforschung, Vlotho 1976; engl.: Truth for
Germany, ibid.

[19]

Ref. 1 BvR 434/87.

[20]

JMS-Report, February 1/1995, pp. 52-54.

[21]

Ref. 17 K 9534/94.

[22]

In article 244 the German Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the
option to refuse evidence if the point at issue is self-evident, which is
a fundamental premise on the part of the courts, where the Holocaust is
concerned ("judicial notice").

[23]

Franz J. Scheidl, self-pub., 6 vols., Vienna 1967. Most of the books
mentioned here can be found on the web site vho.org, some of them even in
an English translation (at least linked to).

[24]

Emil Aretz, Verlag Hohe Warte, Pähl 1973.

[25]

Ingrid Weckert, Grabert, Tübingen 1981; ordered seized and destroyed
in 1995; in English: Flashpoint: Kristallnacht 1938, Institute for
Historical Review, Newport Beach (CA) 1991.

[26]

Steffen Werner, 2nd ed., Grabert, Tübingen 1991; ordered seized and
destroyed in 1995.

[27]

Arthur R. Butz; in German: Verlag für Volkstum und
Zeitgeschichtsforschung; in English: The Hoax of the Twentieth
Century, Institute for Historical Review, Newport Beach (CA) 1976,
1992.

[28]

Gesamtverzeichnis indizierter Bücher, Taschenbücher, Broschüren und
Comics, Stand 30.4.1993, p. 8: Index No. E 2765, Bundesanzeiger
no. 95 of May 22, 1979.

[29]

Thies Christophersen, "Die Auschwitz-Lüge", Kritik issue
no. 23, Mohrkirch: Kritik Verlag, 1973, available today from Vrij
Historisch Onderzoek, Berchem Belgium.

[30]

The leftist Tageszeitung (Berlin) reported on this in a
surprisingly fair manner, Dec. 12, 1995.

[31]

Bundesanzeiger of Sept. 30, 1994.

[32]

Wigbert Grabert, of Grabert Verlag in Tübingen, to the author.

[33]

Abendzeitung (Munich), March 7./8., 1998: "The remaining
copies are occasionally being burnt in a wast incinerator.", regarding
R. J. Eibicht, Hellmut Diwald; cf. Zur Zeit (Vienna), no.
9/1998 (Febr. 27): "65 years ago this happened publicly, today this is
being achieved on the quiet in waste incinerators."

[34]

Admission of the Federal Government, Bundestagsdrucksache
13/4222, March 26, 1996, p. 6. Germar Rudolf tries to compile a list of
books confiscated in Germany, see vho.org/censor/Censor.html.
Due to lack of official information, this list is necessarily incomplete.
Links to confiscated books that are available online can be found there,
so no further URLs are given for them in this article's footnotes.

[35]

Richtlinien für das Strafverfahren und das Bußgeldverfahren
(Guidelines for penal procedure and fining procedure), No. 208, II + IV;
according to Gerd Pfeiffer (ed.), Karlsruher Kommentar zur
Strafprozeßordnung, 3rd ed., Beck, Munich 1993, p. 2174.

[36]

Cf. Wigbert Grabert (ed.), Geschichtsbetrachtung als Wagnis,
Grabert, Tübingen 1984; see also DGG, "Bundesverwaltungsgericht im
Dienste der Umerzieher. Erstmalig Doktorgrad aus politischen Gründen
aberkannt", in Deutschland Geschichte und Gegenwart 36(3)
(1988), p. 18 (online: vho.org/D/DGG/DGG36_3_2.html);
DGG, "Unglaubliches Urteil im Fall Dr. Stäglich", ibid.,
36(1) (1988), p. 7 (online: .../DGG36_1_1.html); DGG,
"Vernunft wird Unsinn ... Späte Rache für den
'Auschwitz-Mythos'", ibid., 31(1) (1983), pp. 19f. (online: .../DGG31_1.html); DGG,
"Ende der Wissenschaftsfreiheit?", ibid., 29(3) (1981), p.
38 (online: .../DGG29_3_1.html).

[37]

Bundesministerium des Inneren (ed.), Bundesverfassungsschutzbericht
(Report of the German Office for the Protection of the Constitution),
Bundesdruckerei, Bonn 1995-2003, quoting data as provided by the German
Federal Bureau of Investigation (Bundeskriminalamt). Since the German
government keeps changing the online addresses of their publications, only
the addresses of the two latest reports are given here:
2001: www.bmi.bund.de/Annex/de_20737/Verfassungsschutzbericht_2001_-_Pressefassung.pdf;
2002:
www.bmi.bund.de/Annex/de_24336/Verfassungsschutzbericht_2002.pdf.

[38]

However, the black-listing of two of these issues is mentioned:
Historische Tatsachen no. 23 ("Zigeuner bewältigen eine 1/2
Million"), Decision No. 4208, Bundesanzeiger 204 of Oct. 31,
1991, and Historische Tatsachen no. 36 ("Ein Prozeß, der
Geschichte macht"), Decision No. 4029, Bundesanzeiger 64 of
March 31, 1990.

[39]

Jürgen Graf, Auschwitz. Tätergeständnisse und Augenzeugen des
Holocaust, Neue Visionen, Würenlos 1994; confiscated by the Mannheim
County Court, 41 Gs 2626/94, released by the Mannheim District Court, 5
KLs 7/95.

[40]

Landtag (state parliament) of Baden-Württemberg, 12th session, Paper
12/334, Parliamentary question by Rep. Michael Herbricht REP, "Appell
der 500" Stuttgart, Aug. 27, 1996. Position of the Baden-Württemberg
Ministry of Justice, Stuttgart, Sept. 23, 1996, Ref. 4104 - III/185, Dr.
Ulrich Goll.

[41]

"Appell der 100 · Die Meinungsfreiheit ist in Gefahr!",
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, May 17, 1996; in the Stuttgarter
Nachrichten and the Stuttgarter Zeitung on July 19, 1996, with
500 signatures; in the Westfalen-Blatt on Sept. 13 and 18, 1996,
with 1,000 signatures each.

[42]

Expert reports by Prof. Dr. Ernst Nolte and Dr. Joachim Hoffmann,
Tübingen County Court, Ref. 4 Gs 173/95; the latter was published in
Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung, 1(3) (1997), pp.
205ff.; an English translation was printed in G. Rudolf, Dissecting the
Holocaust, 2nd. ed., Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago, IL,
2003, pp. 563-566 (online: www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndHoffmann.html).

[43]

As a reaction to the appeal referred to in note 41 during the
parliamental session referred to in note 40, see IDN, "'Appell der 500'
vor Landtag", DGG 44(4) (1996), S. 9f. (online: vho.org/D/DGG/IDN44_4.html);
VHO, "Zur Wissenschaftsfreiheit in Deutschland. Justizminister
Württemberg: Wissenschaftsfreiheit ist nicht existent",
Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung 1(1) (1997), pp.
34-37 (online: vho.org/VffG/1997/1/VHOWiss1.html)

[44]

Federal Constitutional Court, ref. 1 BvR 408f./83, reprinted in W.
Grabert, op. cit. (note 36), pp. 287ff.

[45]

Karl Raimund Popper, Objektive Erkenntnis, 2nd. ed., Hoffmann
& Campe, Hamburg 1984.

[46]

Cf. also Daniel Beisel, op. cit. (note 8).

[47]

Incidentally, this American citizen, Frederick A. Leuchter, was
arrested in Germany shortly before he was to appear on a major German
television show. He fled to the United States when he was released from
pre-trial detention, to await his trial in freedom.

[48]

G. Anntohn, H. Roques, DAGD/Germania Verlag, Weinheim 1995

[49]

Oberkreisdirektor Herford, ref. 32/33.31.10.

[50]

U. Walendy has published a separate issue on his own case:
Historische Tatsachen no. 69: "Ausgehebelte Grundrechte",
and no. 77 "'Vv'-Strafhäftling Walendy", Verlag für Volkstum und
Zeitgeschichtsforschung, Vlotho/Weser 1996/1999. Of course it is
necessary, when reading this work, to distinguish carefully between facts
and the author's opinions, which are perforce subjective.

[51]

About Germar Rudolf see Wilhelm Schlesiger, Der Fall Rudolf,
Cromwell Press, London 1994 (Engl. online at www.vho.org/GB/Books/trc);
Herbert Verbeke (ed.), Kardinalfragen zur Zeitgeschichte, Vrij
Historisch Onderzoek, Berchem 1996 (Engl. online at www.vho.org/GB/Books/cq).
Naturally, the need to distinguish carefully between facts and the
subjective opinion of the author(s) applies in this case as well. See also
online "Hunting Germar Rudolf", www.vho.org/Authors/RudolfCase.html.

[52]

Hans Schmidt has also reported on this: Jailed in "Democratic"
Germany. The Ordeal of an American Writer, Milton/FL: Guderian Books,
1997, 490p. Again, it is necessary to distinguish carefully between facts
and the author's subjective opinion. The Australian citizen Dr. Fredrick
Toben shared Schmidt's fate in spring 1999 when he traveled to Germany in
order to challenge the censorship of the German authorities. He was
subsequently arrested and sentenced; see his website at http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/.

[53]

R. Dworkin, "A new map of censorship", in Index on
Censorship, 1/2 (1994), pp. 9-15; cf. R. Dworkin, "Forked tongues,
faked doctrines", ibid., no. 3 (1997), pp. 148-151.

[54]

G. Rudolf, "Discovering Absurdistan", The Revisionist
1(1) (2003), pp. 203-219 (online: vho.org/tr/2003/2/Rudolf203-219.html
and right here
).

Back to
Civil Rights Page
Back
to Germar Rudolf' Home Page