Talk:Germar Rudolf

Translation

Partial translation from de:Germar_Rudolf, some details and links added, most is still missing. --Marek Moehling 09:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll work on it, once we finish the other project. Fadix 15:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

In 1990, after a military service, he had an employment at the Max-Planck, research in natural science, as a part of his studies to complete a PhD degree from which, he was expelled for his unauthorised use of the institute's name to get samples analysed that were illegitimately taken from the gas chamber sites at Auschwitz and Birkenau. He was trialed in Stuttgart on 22 November 1994, and sentenced (June 1995) to fourteen months in prison. His appeal was rejected in March 1996, but since, Rudolf had fled to Spain, and then to the UK. Knowing him as a fugitive, British authorities have not arrested him. Since the, his revisionist movement worldwide hasn’t stop growing. From his home in Kent, Rudolf runs the "Stiftung Vrij Historisch Onderzoek", which he took control of from the Belgian far rightist Herbert Verbecke, mainly because of its financial and legal problems. Fadix

The correct English legalese for Volksverhetzung seems to be "incitement of the people", as found at this unhchr url (use ctrl+F). As it is a peculiarity of German law and ofthe an issue with German based holocaut denial, pardon my stuffiness. --Tickle me 21:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The discussion on this page is inacurate and biased. My edits have been repeatedly removed. It is clear that someone is attempting to present only one side to this issue. -- Hetware

I believe it is illegal to question the holocaust or any part of it in Germany - this explains the name changes ( not some nefarious plot to create co-authors). There is only limited free speech in Europe, etc. His trial had no mention of the merits of his science - neither did the Planck institute ever discuss his scientific work - they could go to jail for even supporting him.

They could not go to jail for supporting him, that is just rubbish. Only limited free speech...pfff. Maybe you should take a look at the laws that are actually in place in ' Europe' (Hint: Europe consists of several different countries with different legal systems). Free speech is limited by laws against hate speech, discrimination and racism: rights end where they infringe the rights of others. This is a well accepted legal standard internationally, even in the U.S.! This is completely normal in a decent society where people seek ways to live together, in spite of existing differences. Annika27 (talk) 10:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)130.37.121.13 (talk) 10:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You westerners are crazy. You have lost your minds and forgotten about what's really important. I really wish you would have stayed on your side of the ocean with your laws, your hatred, your wars and your genocide. Would you let someone silence your child? Would you pay someone to prevent someone's child from talking? You all lose kindness the second your society forces you to be "free" adults. Greetings from the former Wallmapu! --Natives — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.160.121.84 (talk) 04:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

People need to stop saying he is a denier. Where are the sources? he never said "HOLOCAUST DIDNT HAPPEN." How is he denying it? he is simply saying that statistics are wrong which they are since end of Communism and public records show. Usurpsynapse 13:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The page automatically assume Germar Rudolf is wrong. Germar Rudolf is a very intelligent scientist who is fully qualified to analyse the evidence he collected. When I attempted to add factual and verifiable information to the article, my edits were removed.

False Accusations

The article is catagorized as German neo-Nazi, which insinuates that Germar Rudolf is a neo-Nazi. That is facutally wrong and, quite frankly, slanderous.

Germar Rudolf makes this clear in Dissecting the Holocaust

"It must be said here and now that none of the authors contributing to the present work considers himself ideologically anywhere in the vicinity of National Socialism.[150] This aside, however, such an accusation is no argument suited to invalidating our own. It seems reasonable to suspect that the establishment historians resort to this verbal garrote merely to distract attention from those factual questions, which they obviously do not feel competent to field. In any case, it is clear that anyone who evades factual arguments by means of political accusations cannot have any scientific motivation for doing so, since a scientifically motivated researcher is interested first and foremost in factual arguments. Political motivation is the only thing that could possibly prompt these historians to voice political accusations; this, however, places the charge of political choreography of our understanding of history squarely back on their own shoulders."

If someone wishes to associate him with neo-Nazis then that person needs to substantiate the accusation. If that is not done. The categorization of neo-Nazi should be removed from the article.

As a student, Rudolf was a member of the German party "Die Republikaner", which had been a Neo-Nazi organization at the time. (Today, this party has become insignificant, and German Neo-Nazis are more often organized within the "NPD" or "DVU".) Thus, the claim to be "idiologically not anywhere in the vincinity of National Socialism" is most likely an attempt to lend his arguments more credibility. --77.188.115.58 (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"Die Republikaner" were never a neo-Nazi organization, nor did the German authorities ever claim this. Such organizations are illegal in Germany and are always banned. There has never been a move to ban this party. The German authorities' monitoring of this party ever since its inception was eventually declared illegal and unconstitutional by a German court of law. GermarRudolf (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Just ignore IP-man. Not being a nazi does not add ot take more credibility to anyone. His whole line of reasoning starts from a fallacy so there's no point in analizing anything that comes after that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.160.121.84 (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

History and Scrutiny

Why is everything around the Germans and their treatment of the Jews not allowed to be scrutinised? Yet Germans who died in Allied concentration camps after the war has gone into the memory hole. It was the British who invented concentration camps used during the Boar War, where we know many thousands were allowed to die due to disease. Hopefully the truth will come out, before WWIII is started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.121.186.28 (talk) 07:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Factual and Scientific Accuracy

No Testing for Traces of Zyklon B

No one has, as the article claims, tested for traces of Zyklon B. That is simply factually incorrect. You cannot understand even the basic science involved and believe that anybody tested for traces of Zyklon B decades after the fact. What has been tested for are traces of cyanide compounds. When I attempted to correct that error, my modification was reverted.

If you test for cyanide you get results that agree with wiki. If you test for cyanide compounds you don't agree with wiki. If you understand the science brhind this you are a denier. Get the drift?159.105.80.63 14:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Other Sources of Cyanide Compounds

The following relevant and verifiable information was removed from the article:

Rudolf's contentions are indeed reasonable in view of the fact that cyanide does exist in the environment, as is described on the EPA's Technology Transfer Network Air Toxics Website: Cyanide Compounds page.

It was removed? ( I checked and unless I missed it, it was removed. However,a footnote almost concedes the point I believe.) If the EPA is not a good citation then could an editor suggest approved ones? Removing a citation and a statement that supports both Rudolf and Cracow's work ( indirectly thought it may be ) leaves the scientific discussion rather hollow. Maybe the article could be more like the one for Dr Green - kinda friendly and low key ( if you don't want it too serious).159.105.80.63 14:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Quotations

Germar Rudolf stated what his motivations for his research are. When I quoted that statement, the quotation was removed.

"Secondly - and this is the most important argument - the ethically correct evaluation that even one victim would be too many must not be a pretext for prohibiting scientific research. This is intolerable for the simple reason that science must always be allowed to find precise answers. What would we think of an official who demanded that a physicist not be allowed to determine the exact value of his stress experiment, because even a small value would be bad enough? A physicist subjected to such an absurd demand would quickly arrive at incorrect results and would be a threat to any company that hired him. The same holds true for the historian. If the historian is forbidden to conduct critical investigations because they might be considered morally untenable, then we have to assume that the results of such skewed historiography are unreliable. And since our knowledge of contemporary history exerts a direct influence on politics, our public policies are mistaken and unreliable as well. It is the key function and responsibility of every branch of science to provide accurate figures and values. The principles which hold true for engineering, physics, and chemistry can not suddenly be abandoned in historiography for political reasons - unless one is intellectually prepared to retreat deep into the darkest middle ages."

Legal Matters

The rejection of Germar Rudolf's appeal for asylum was a violation of US statute. When I quoted that statute, it was removed from the article.

The following are varifiablly accurate quotations of applicable US Statute.

Applicable Statutes

Real ID Act of 2005

The "Real ID Act of 2005" was signed into law (Pub. Law No. 109-13) on May 11, 2005, as Division B of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005, and became effective on the date of enactment.

(Sec. 101) Amends Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provisions concerning asylum to:

1. authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security, in addition to the Attorney General, to grant asylum (retroactive to March 1, 2003);
2. require asylum applicants to prove that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be (if removed) the central reason for their persecution; and
3. provide that an applicant's testimony may be sufficient to sustain this burden of proof only if the trier of fact determines that it is credible, persuasive, and fact-specific. Requires corroborating evidence where requested by the trier of fact unless the applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain it without departing the United States. States that the inability to obtain corroborating evidence does not excuse the applicant from meeting his or her burden of proof.

The Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Supporting Evidence

The following supporting evidence that the denial of Rudolf's appeal for asylum was was illegal was also removed from the article.

ICE DEPORTS "HOLOCAUST REVISIONIST" TO GERMANY

ICE DEPORTS "HOLOCAUST REVISIONIST" TO GERMANY

Rudolf, a former chemist from Stuttgart and author of "Dissecting the Holocaust," was sentenced by the German government to 14 months in prison for publishing a "scientific" report refuting the deaths of thousands of Jews in the gas chambers at Auschwitz. Rudolf tested bricks in the gas chambers for traces of Zyklon B, deadly cyanide used to kill Jews during the Holocaust. His report claimed that because he did not find evidence of Zyklon B on the sampled bricks it was unlikely that the mass gassings of Jews occurred at Auschwitz.

External Links

The article provides a link to a supposed refutation of the Rudolf Report, but when I added a link to the report that was supposedly refuted, that link was twice removed.

-- hetware 02:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the Rudolf report link and changed Zyklon B to cyanide compound. Presently his homepage and two vho.org sites are linked too - enough to allow for further information to all interested. What you're are doing with the rest of your edits amounts to POV, as you're trying to prove he's right. You may do so at vho.org. --tickle me 02:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

A number of things that you should consider, Wikipedia does not establish 'Truth' it only present positions. That you claim things about him which you consider as facts are your opinions that have no place in Wikipedia unless they are claimed by a notable source or that you are Rudolf and you are defending yourself. The material in this article can be backed from reputable materials about what is said about Rudolf. You are right though about Zyklon B vs cyanide traces. The rest has no bearing with the text, sorry. Regards. Fad (ix) 03:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have made no modification to the article without providing direct references to authoritative sources. --hetware 14:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Just saw you wanted to add a link to vho.org. That website is known for it's antisemitic and right-wing extremist articles and should not be considered a reliable

source for information on sensitive themes like the holocaust. Yours, Braveheart.

There were already links to vho.org in the article. I simply added a link to the actual document under descussion. If the document under discussion is not a reliable source as to what is in the document under discussion, what is? As for vho.org being anti-Semitic, or right-wing extremeist, your claim that it is such does not make it so.

Hetware 17:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

neo-Nazi Catagorization is still there

The article is still catagorized as neo-Nazi. Germar Ruldof asserts clearly that this does not characterise his political views. I provided an exact and verifiable quote stating his opinion. There has been no effort to justify catagorizing this article as neo-Nazi. Please either give clear and justifiable grounds for this catagorization, or remove it.--hetware 05:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well - because Rudolf is classified by the official "protection of the constitution" (German: Verfassungsschutz) authorities of Germany as a right-wing extreme and Neo-Nazi. If you want to tell us, that he is not - I´m sorry - I think you are trying to sell us white for brown! --KarlV 06:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Karl, You have not provided verifiable references in support of this assertion. Furthermore, being classified as such by a political advesaries hardly constitutes proof. The accusation really needs to be supported by direct evidence such as verifiable statements by Germar Rudolf. The charge of neo-Nazi is the modern equivalent of the medieval charge of Witchcraft. Once it has been made, people no longer feel any obligation to think rationally or to follow traditional Anglo-American standards of justice. It is a dangerous and infammatory epithet intended to get folks riled up in hatred and ill-will. I believe the German word for that is Volksverhetzung.

Hetware 15:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Hetware here. Are we providing facts or opinions here? "Categories" like anti-semitic, neo-nazi, etc are not facts but simple stigmatizing. Hey, we can create category "bad people" also, it goes without saying that anti-semitic and neo-nazi are bad people. Lets stick to facts! Magabund 07:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I am leaving the dispute tag until we have some clarification on this issue. I have no reason to believe that Germar Rudolf has neo-Nazi leanings. It seems to me the categorization of neo-Nazi is circulus in demonstrando. Hetware 01:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Unclear claim that the work is disputed

It is claimed that the work is disputed, but no description of that dispute is given. It is not explained what is meant by "disputed".--Hetware 05:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It has been refuted succinctly by Richard Green and Jamie McCarthy. Rudolf acknowledged this, stating:

"Furthermore, I am convinced that chemistry is not the science which can prove or refute any allegations about the Holocaust »rigorously«." [1]

He went on with denial though, switching to historical and forensic argumentation, fields of study he's not qualified for. However, that's not the topic of the report. So the report is at least disputed, but in fact, it's been refuted, I amended accordingly. --tickle me 11:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I note that Rudolf is more than willing to cite and provide references to works presenting opposing view points. Rather the antithesis of Hitlarian - silence the opposition - propaganda. It is not Rudolf who imprisons, harasses or otherwise attempts to silence those with whom he disagrees.--Hetware 15:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

"but no description of that dispute is given": has been addressed. "...opposing view points": Cite the authoritative ones among them. --tickle me 14:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Reading in context I believe Rudolf was saying that chemistry could disprove the gassing story but other areas of research would have to be used in other areas. Chemistry in chemical disputes, document verification with documents, etc. This doesn't seem too hard to understand but it seems to have become a slogan ( ie chemistry is not the ......). He is more than ready to step aside for others outside chemistry - ( by the way Green never refuted him, but he did try.)159.105.80.63 14:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting to see that Rudolf's refutation of Richard Green's "response" (half the contents of which is character assassination) hasn't even been mentioned in this usual Wikipedia hit piece. Of course nothing to do with an intention to let Green have the last word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.162.241.244 (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Unsupport alleged motivation for pseudonyms

The article asserts that Rudolf's motivation for using pseudonyms is to give the appearance that multiple experts agree with him. Rudolf himself, however, provides a different explanation for his behavior. Namely, that it was an effort to avoid persecution. I will provide a citation as soon as I find the exact wording.--Hetware 05:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Give us all a brake, had this been the cases he would have used one pseudo and not various agreeing with eachothers when reviewing his work. He used various pseudonyms attempting to give credence to his work. If I were to submit for a wider audience a thesis, and then to answer critics invent pseudonyms, not one but various, I wonder how can it be interpreted in anyway as being done to avoid persecution. To the contrary it is a clear example of intellectual dishonesty. Fad (ix) 17:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You have no idea how living in a country looks like where the authorities are literally hunting you for your writings. Had I used only one pen name, the authorities would have had to prove only once that it's me, and they could have nailed me for all I had written. Each time a publisher or editor of mine or I myself had a house search or confiscation by the German State Protection Police (and there were many such cases during the years from 1993 to 1996), I changed to another pen name. I also used several different names at any time, because if you're under constant attack you don't give the enemy a clear and identifiable target. You make the enemy believe that their target is scattered far and wide. It worked pretty well. They always only nailed me for what I had published under my real name (my expert report and the Lectures, second German edition). Not even while in the U.S. I lived under the illusion that, as a non-citizen, the U.S.'s First Amendment would protect me from a potential deportation, exposing me to more persecution and prosecution in Germany. Not to mention that societal persecution of historical dissidents is alive and kicking in the U.S. as well. In brief: in a society that persecutes and prosecutes dissidents, not the dissidents are at fault when they protect themselves by using pen names, but the society that violates basic civil rights. GermarRudolf (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

In fact, the denying of the Holocaust in Germany is a criminal offence - and of course he tried - in his coward attitude - not to be noticeable to much with his clear name. But - also a welcome side effect - right wing extremists and Holocaust deniers always are (and were) on the search for a "scientific explenation" for their crimes (or for their view of what had happened in concentration camps), so more "experts" indeed should also give the impression that multiple experts agree with him.--KarlV 10:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It may be a crime in Germany, yet the focus of Wikipedia is Anglo-American. By the superior vlues of our ancestors, it is not Germar Rudolf who is the criminal. Instead it is the totalitarian oppression of free speech on the part of the German government that we deem criminal. --Hetware 15:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I addressed the issue via [2]. --tickle me 15:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

As have I in quoting Rudolf on the matter. Consider this contested aspect closed Hetware 17:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This is what Rudolf has to say on the matter:

http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/cq/flaws.html

Germar Rudolf, Flaws of the State Under the Rule of Law

footnote #10

This brochure was mainly written by me (under four pen names), but made fit for publication by Karl Philipp, who made some changes to it and chose Remer as editor and publisher to protect me legally (which worked). As far as I know, Remer was not involved in the actual production of the brochure, and I was never involved in its distribution. Therefore, no link ever existed between my writing the brochure-without any intention to do it for Remer-and the fact that Philipp put Remer’s name on it (probably even without Remer knowing it) after I had finished my writings. True, I never complained about it, but there was, realistically seen, no other way than Philipp’s way to have this brochure published swiftly-which was necessary since it was a reaction to a series of articles in a weekly newspaper-, and I did not intend to reveal my pen names to anybody anyway, so why bother?

It should be mentioned in this context that this brochure still causes me some trouble in that my use of four pen names for it (Dipl.-Ing. Hans Karl Westphal, engineer; Dr. Werner Kretschmer, barrister, Dr. Christian Konrad, historian, Dr.Dr. Rainer Scholz, chemist and pharmacologist), all of them pretending to have a different academic degree, led to the accusation of dishonesty and attempted confidence trickery (see, e.g., www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/che ... e-science/). The background of these pen names was not the attempt to impress people with phony doctorates, though I must admit that it can have this effect. I therefore wish to set the record straight by repeating what I stated already elsewhere (www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/CharacterAssassins.html):

The first revisionist publication I was involved in was a brochure with the title Die Zeit lügt!, published in October 1992. It was a reply to two lengthy articles of a certain Till Bastian published in summer 1991 in the German weekly Die Zeit (no. 39, Sept. 18, 1992, p. 104, and no. 40, Sept. 25, 1992, p. 90). This brochure is the fairest writing about the Holocaust controversy that ever appeared, simply for the reason that both articles of Bastian were reprinted in their entirety, and discussed afterwards. The reader always has the means to check both points of view. Nobody else has ever done that before or since-on either side of this discussion.

Nowhere in that brochure is reference made to the special expertise and qualifications of the authors given-simply because these names were added after the brochure was written-nor would the claims and arguments brought forward in this brochure require the qualifications of these experts. Though it was certainly incorrect to do this, I would like to explain why it was done, as it was certainly not done in order to claim qualifications that are actually not present. Let me therefore be a bit more detailed.

In spring and summer 1992, I was called by several defense lawyers as an expert witness in several trials imposed on revisionists in Germany (Udo Walendy, District Court Bielefeld, February 1992; Gerd Honsik, Upper District Court Munich, March 1992; David Irving, County Court Munich, May 1992; Detscher, County Court Munich, July 1992; Max Wahl, District Court Munich, July 1992). In these trials-as in all trials against revisionists-the judges rejected any evidence presented by the defense, including all expert witnesses. In one case, I had to learn that a chemist (me) was rejected because he was neither a toxicologist nor a historian, an engineer (Leuchter) was rejected because he was neither a chemist nor a historian, and a historian (Prof. Haverbeck) was rejected because he was neither a chemist nor an engineer. My conclusions were that one obviously had to be at the same time an engineer, a chemist, a toxicologist, a historian and perhaps even a barrister to be accepted as an expert witness at a German court of law. The legal process being so perverted in Germany, I decided to mock it with a parody by inventing a person with all these features, but then Karl Philipp and I realized that this would be a bit unrealistic, so we split that person into many. That is the background. I think it is both tragic-for the victims of those German kangaroo trials-as well as funny-for the neutral observer to see the desperate attempts of German judges to keep any evidence out-, but the reader does, of course, not have to agree with me on that.

and in his article "Character Assassins" [3] ----The sections Quoting Pen Names, Trademark Pen Names, and Phony Doctorates are relevant 70.119.244.15 (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

General Remer...

... was never a member of the NSDAP, hence calling him "Nazi activist" is attributing something wrongly to him.

Erronious representation of Rudolf's work

The representation of Germar Rudolf's work in this article is misleading. I have attempted to correct this deficiency by adding clarifying phrasing. The most recent such edit was reverted to the incorrect form. I'm not really sure why that was done. I apologize for adding an edit comment when I submitted. I am not a frequent contributor, so I don't always remember the details of how it works when I do contribute.

Nonetheless, my edits should have been self-explanatory.

E pur si muove!

Hetware 21:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I still think this is a hatchet job, but I remove this objection if the footnote and link to TRR I added remains. Hetware 01:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the section discussing the contents of my expert report. This entry is about me, not about my publications. If the latter are to be included, all publications need to be mentioned, of which there are many more.

Since attempts at including links to my expert report have been repeatedly sabotaged, I deleted all references to works claiming to refute it as well. In one case it was claimed such a link to my expert report would be superfluous due to a general link to my personal homepage. But to be balanced, the link to the paper by Richard Green and Jamie McCarthy in footnote 2 ought to be deleted as well, because the website where this is posted was already referenced and linked to in the main article. Papers on that website do not even fulfill the Wikipedia definition of reliable sources (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction_to_referencing/4): they are neither "Academic and peer-reviewed publications" nor "university textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers." Further, this paper is a "Self-published media, where the author and publisher are the same, such as ... group blogs." Such sources "are largely not acceptable as sources," all the more so since the authors are not "established expert[s] with a previous record of third-party publications" on the topic. Another entry claimed that including a link to my expert report amounts to disseminating hatred. Hatred is defined by the choice of words when talking about individuals or identifiable groups. My expert report does not address any individuals or identifiable groups as such and does not use insulting or hateful words anywhere, whereas Green's and McCarthy's papers are filled with innuendos and ad hominem attacks. Hence it is better to delete this entire section. Otherwise all of my works will be discussed here, with audiatur et altera pars. GermarRudolf (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

9/11 and Dewdney

I fixed the typo in Alexander Dewdney's name, but then took a short look to the linked article and it does not seem that they have "co-authored" anything. Maybe "tried to repeat" Dewdney's experiments would do. Or rather remove Dewdney altogether. --Magabund 11:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the reference that the work was done together with Dewdney. It was not, and I never claimed or gave the impression that it was. Dewdney merely had a copy of my paper posted on his website for a while, but he removed it after he found out about my controversial background. GermarRudolf (talk) 04:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

EXTREMELY BIASED article

I'm tagging this with NPOV because reading this article feels as though the author is attempting to make Germar Rudolf appear as a neo-Nazi as well as being a quack which he is not, there are many flaws in this article. It needs to be re-structured and written in a more apporpiate context. Piecraft 02:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

While the article has its faults, your critique is vague and hard to tie down. His politics are all listed as "alleged", and followed up with his rebuttals, so I don't think that is on point.

I don't think he's portrayed as "a quack", but his questionable academic methods and approaches do cast serious doubt on his work and therefore the conclustions he draws from it. Cantankrus 14:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Who really read the book ??? Judging about something you have not personally read is like following the Führer again.

You can only make your own mind It is God damned easy to believe what others say.

By the way there has been a holocaust but even by saying something like that you are called very quickly NEO NAZI--80.142.216.35 15:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Even without reading "the book" (he's written a few works now), someone can review his method. He's used a number of pseudonyms, each purporting to be in a different specialty, and then having them cite each other. While it might make sense to have ONE pseudonym, the only purpose having several, and then cross citing them can have is to have it appear that several "colleagues" are backing the same thesis.

So, casting aside his political leanings, his method and approach are not academic and cast doubt on his work.

Now, most revisionists deny any links to right wing groups, but plenty of them have definite links. I haven't researched his politics to know, but the presentation here seems to present his critics and his own statements. In any case, I don't think there is anything that is of "extreme bias". Cantankrus 21:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This is flawed thinking. I've addressed the issue of my having used several pen names above. One pseudonym works well until the authorities have revealed by means of a house search that you're the guy, but then you're in trouble for everything you've written under pseudonym. Hence it is better to use several such names, so that not all of your covers get blown if one gets exposed. And what name will you use after exposure? A new one, of course. And how do you refer to your own writings under pen name without revealing to the Gestapo that it's you? Duh! GermarRudolf (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

He is a court-declared Holocaust denier, not a Holocaust denier. If this website makes qualifications based on what the government declares and does not make a note of this, we are in a system of totalitarian thought. How are you able to make sure the system does not acquire an objectional bias if you take its declarations for granted? If Wikipedia existed in the 1800's:

"A person born in America of African descent is 3/5 of a man"

should be

"According to the U.S. court of law, a person born in America of African descent is 3/5 of a man."

but given this example of Germar Rudolf and Holocaust denial, I wonder if this would happen.

And if you don't know anything about him, who are you to decide whether or not there is anything of "extreme bias"--172.163.46.76 18:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"He's used a number of psuedonyms"

Does this apply to his years of residence in the USA? As far as I know, and I might be wrong, all of the cases of him using pennames are from the time when he was in Europe. On the internet here in the USA I've encountered quite a few people, some fervent defenders of the orthodox version of Third Reich history, who have used multiple pseudonyms. But I haven't seen any sign that Rudolf did it while he was here. The case would be stronger if one could show that Rudolf had used multiple pseudonyms during the period when he wrongly believed that the US Constitution would defend his free speech.

One consequence of the anti-revisionist laws in Europe is that normal methods of advertising are hindered. As I understand the argument made about Rudolf using pennames, it's being asserted that apart from simply using the "Ernst Gauss" title he also may have used some other pennames as a way of promoting his book. Honest advertising usually requires that one be able to place an ad in a newspaper without having to fear legal consequences. If, under the conditions of European censorship laws, Rudolf chose to promote his works by unorthodox methods then that really doesn't count very strongly as a critique. If you can show that Rudolf was practicing deceptive advertising here in the USA where he imagined that free speech was protected, then you'll have a stronger case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.43 (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"Now, most revisionists deny any links to right wing groups, but plenty of them have definate links"

While that undoubtedly has some partial truth to it, it's meaningless in a context where laws banning free speech on an issue are enforced in several countries. This is rather similar to the fact that any noteworthy champion of civil rights for blacks in the 1930s would almost certainly have had links to the Communist Party USA. Stanley Levison, the tutor of Martin Luther King, belonged to the CPUSA. In that era you simply couldn't be black and be appointed to a Republican administration or elected as the candidate of a Democratic one. If you wished to be politically active while black, then the Communist Party was the natural place to go. Similarly, the fact that so many ostensibly liberal websites, magazines and newspapers simply ban any revisionist discussion out of hand is bound to mean that many revisionists will be taking their points of view elsewhere. In such an environment that does not count as evidence that revisionist views are racist per se, anymore than one could have argued that advocates of black civil rights were inherently Communist. When the issue receives greater freedom then differences can become more clearly apparent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.247.137.117 (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalzing the Article by deleting relevant links

I keep adding very specifically relevant links to the pseudoscientific history and research of Germar Rudolf and they keep getting deleted, if you look below, the following are 4 relevant and specific links that pertain to Germar Rudolf and they keep getting deleted by Wikipedia USERS: WilliamH and DOUGWELLER

• (links to hate-sites deleted by User:RCS 13:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC) )

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Markacohen (talk • contribs) 12:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, they are being deleted because Wikipedia isn't a directory of hate sites. Google is the friend of readers who want to read such junk. And you really need to read WP:Vandalism during the 2 days you're blocked, and WP:AGF and WP:Civil. Dougweller (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This is very uncivilized behavior editing my talk discussion posts and also deleting the list of books which Germar Rudolf wrote. Adding references or a list of the books a person wrote is not against any rules on Wikipedia. If you look at other Authors out there, like steven king and george orwell, many of their most notable works are listed. Just because germar rudolf is a hater and a holocaust denier does not mean that his books should not listed on his page.

These are some of the books this hater wrote

Pseudoscience and research  

• vho.org/dl/ENG/dth.pdf Germar Rudolf (ed.), Dissecting the Holocaust. The Growing Critique of ‘Truth’ and 'Memory', 2nd., revised paperback edition PDF

• /vho.org/dl/ENG/trr.pdf Germar Rudolf, The Rudolf Report. Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the "Gas Chambers" of Auschwitz] PDF

• vho.org/dl/ENG/apf.pdf Germar Rudolf (ed.), Special Treatment in Auschwitz. Origin and Meaning of a Term PDF

• vho.org/dl/ENG/al.pdf Germar Rudolf, Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz Lies. Legends, Lies, and Prejudices on the Holocaust PDF

These books should be included even if they are hateful and deny the holocaust, because they pertain to the author. Please keep emotionalism and hurtful feelings out of this, wikipedia is about knowledge and information, not about feelings. Again, there is nothing listed anywhere in wikipedia you cant post a list of hate books by the hate author, on the article about the hate author.

Please stop this uncivilized behavior. I think you're a nice guy with a good heart, I am criticizing the behavior, not you personally.

Markacohen (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you are making personal attacks, there is no other way to understand 'Please stop this uncivilized behavior'. I've edited the raw urls so that it is clear what they are but they don't link. Dougweller (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Since wikipedia uses no follow tags, there is no other reason for you to delete, edit or modify my discussion posts and my reference links other than to disrupt my ability to have a rational neutral discussion on these links. I'm criticizing your behavior, not making personal attacks against you. There is no policy on wikipedia that says you can not link to hate sites, this has some emotional political basis behind it.

Look DougWeller, I know you are a very nice and sensitive guy - these are valuable traits. I know the Holocaust brings up a lot of hurtful emotions and feelings for you, it does for me as well. I lost a lot of relatives in the Holocaust, but preventing a neutral, rational and civilized discussion by editing my posts in the discussion area is not helpful in having a neutral discussion about this topic. I feel your pain dougweller. I know your sensitive emotions, I share in them, but these kinds of misbehaving actions do not help us. Lets work together DougWeller, lets work together as a community, in good faith, working together towards making wikipedia an excellent online encyclopedia with relevant external links and references. We are on the same team DougWeller, lets not do any more dirty tricks against each other and work together towards making Wikipedia having relevant references and links. I want you to know I really think you are a great guy and Im glad your on the Light side of the force.

Markacohen (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"Any more dirty tricks?" Do you really think that this accusation isn't a personal attack? I've played no dirty tricks on you. You've called other editors names (neo-Nazi comes to mind) but I don't recall any dirty tricks from you either. I feel no pain, only irritation at your edit warring, which led to you being blocked, your personal attacks and your unwillingness to work with other editors. I'm not preventing any discussion by removing 'http://' from urls, urls which when reverted in article space by other editors (4 at least) you try to put here despite the fact that everyone interested knows what they are. You seem to learn quickly about some things, eg no follow tags, but are slow to learn about other things, eg forum shopping, consensus, etc.

Now as to the issue of the links. You seem very keen to link to hate sites. So keen that you miss fact that there's no point to your links other than linking to those sites, simply because we already have links to his works. Since we already link to his works, why are you making an issue insisting on links as well to hate sites containing his works? Please note that if I were the person you think I am, I would have removed the present links. Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing my discussion threads is what I call a dirty trick. What is the proper wikipedia term to use when a user is editing, modifying or deleting portions of your discussion post? I don't want to use the word Dirty Tricks if there is a proper term. The reason I called it a dirty trick, is not to make a personal attack against you personally, but to criticize the behavior.

The rules are clear on wikipedia, you can post links to hate sites when they pertain to an individual or organization.

You manipulating/editing my discussion posts could be considered uncivilized behavior. Again, im criticizing the behavior, not you personally. Personally, I think you are a nice guy, I just wish we could put the sensitive feelings and emotions aside and work together on a solution on to discuss the proper way to list, reference and link to the books written by Germar Rudolf.

What do you say you stop editing my legitimate discussion posts, and we discuss the issues with neutrality.

Markacohen (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

What say when people have said they don't want to link to hate sites you discuss before adding the links? Particularly when we already link to Rudolf's works. The link has been there more or less since the article was created over 2 years ago (I didn't check the exact date). Given that the link is there, why are you trying to add links to hate sites? Dougweller (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the policy regarding hate sites? How do we decide when something is a hate site? 175.193.212.64 (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

How about responding to my question above your post? We have a link to the report. Why do you want a 2nd link? As for hate sites, if you don't think a page that says it is "dedicated to Ernst Zündel" is a hate site, then we will never agree. But the bottom line is we only need one link - we have an official link - his website, any other link is superfluous and against our guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Dougweller. The link is superfluous, and the sole purpose of the site is to disseminate hatred. It has no enclyclopedic value, and thus no place in WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI - It's really hard to take someone seriously who describes a chemical analysis report as "disseminating hatred"... It's worrisome that this kind of hysterical attitude would be considered acceptable behavior for a wikipedia editor. 71.169.166.73 (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

As to superfluous links: to be balanced, the link to the paper by Richard Green and Jamie McCarthy in footnote 2 ought to be deleted as well, because the website where this is posted is already referenced and linked to in the main article. Papers on that website do not even fulfill the Wikipedia definition of reliable sources (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction_to_referencing/4): they are neither "Academic and peer-reviewed publications" nor "university textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers." Further, this paper is a "Self-published media, where the author and publisher are the same, such as ... group blogs." Such sources "are largely not acceptable as sources," all the more so since the authors are not "established expert[s] with a previous record of third-party publications" on the topic. As to disseminating hatred: hatred is defined by the choice of words when talking about individuals or identifiable groups. My expert report does not address any individuals or identifiable groups as such and does not use insulting or hateful words anywhere, whereas Green's and McCarthy's papers are filled with innuendos and ad hominem attacks. Hence, if your words are to be taken seriously and unbiased, you ought to delete all references to Green/McCarthy. GermarRudolf (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Posters on a supposedly academic and encyclopedic site going the narcissistic route of calling that which they dislike the product of psychological problems and irrational hatred, just ludicrous. You hurt my ego? Why all the hate! hate site! They all be hatin'! It's all political mania I tells ya! Hate is just an emotion, not a name to apply to categories of ideas you find distasteful. Are there sad sites and enthusiasm sites and doubleplusungood sites too? Cake (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

WilliamH what is a directory, what is a hate directory?

William, I am trying to publish reference links to works Germar Rudolf published.

What constitutes a directory? how many links have to be posted, for there to be too many?

How does posting reference links to the actual books Germar Rudolf Wrote in the Germar Rudolf article constitute me making wikipedia into a directory of links?

What is a hate directory, or a directory of hate links, or a hate directory? There is nothing in wikipedia that says you can not link to books in an article about the author, if that author is a hater?

Can you please explain, because in my own humble opinion, these deletions appear to be more political and emotional, than reasons that have real substance or merit. Im not attacking you, im criticizing your behavior.

Like DougWeller, I think you are a great guy. I have a feeling like me you lost a lot of relatives in the Holocaust, and that maybe this is about sensitive feelings and emotional politics, so can we drop the Hitler Card and Hate card?

Find healing in your soul WilliamH, im not asking that Holocaust / Genocide deniers be used as mainstream resources on articles, but I feel we should mention these works he authored in an article about him.

Im not attacking you, im criticizing your behavior.

Markacohen (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

ISBN References

Would it be normal to have ISBN References to those works of literature that Markacohen has been trying to add links to?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Works of "literature". It's a way of qualifying them. "Fiction" would also be appropriate.--RCS (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

PHD

On his website, Germar Rudolf stated that he withdrew his application for his final PhD program at the Max Planck institute after only three years of research (although he claims to have finished his thesis). This means he does NOT have a PhD so this claim should be removed. I think even the 'controversials' among us will not argue with me when I say that if Rudolf would have 'finished his PhD after military service' he would proudly put this on his website (as he did with his Diplomprüfung für den Studiengang Chemie). Sources: http://www.germarrudolf.com/shortbio.html and http://www.germarrudolf.com/pics/Diplom.gif.Annika27 (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The article as it reads now quite rightly points out that Rudolf did not complete his Ph.D. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I know, I changed the paragraph that started with the sentence 'After completing his PhD, Germar Rudolf....'Annika27 (talk) 10:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

More propaganda from the German haters of wikipedia. Every word these liars write is to degrade those they don't like. He worked for the Max Planck institute for three years and he was fired under the censorship laws the German gov't instituted under pressure from Jews. Wikipedia says he worked for the Max Planck institute "temporarily". You mean like a "temp". Was he a typist or clerk? I worked for my last company eight years. Was I also "temporarily employed" by them. I know people that worked at the company for forty years. Were they "temporarily employed"? The writers of this article don't want to say he worked for one of the most prestigious science institutes in the world (Planck, Heisenberg and Einstein all worked there) for three years, so they say he was a "temp", or "temporarily employed".Pgg804 (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It WAS temporary, as I had only a limited three year contract with the MPI which would have expired at the end of Sept. 1993 anyway, three months after my dismissal. GermarRudolf (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Green's Criticism

"iron-based cyanide compounds, which are not a reliable indicator of the presence of cyanide" This point is bizarre and frankly retarded. You might as well claim detecting oxygen gas is not a reliable indicator of the presence of oxygen. Green obviously quote mines Rudolf, which his response makes clear. From Rudolf: "'The Prussian-Blue staining indeed owes its presence to exposure to HCN, but the conditions under which it formed were not universally present in all facilities exposed to HCN. The rate of Prussian-Blue formation may be very different under the conditions used in homicidal chamber versus the conditions in delousing chambers.' And again, I agree with Green that this is the correct approach to this problem.

But I strongly disagree when Green continues arguing:

'Answer number one is, of course, untenable. We know that homicidal gassings occurred from historical evidence independently of the chemistry involved."'

Green simply quotes the first point as if this means Rudolf agrees finding iron-based cyanide compounds is meaningless to see whether bricks were exposed to cyanide. This is obviously false, hence he wrote the report. Green also dishonestly quote mines at the top of the article, Rudolf says "Green's second prerequisite is that I have to "demonstrate rigorously" "that the kinetics involved with the formation of such pigments dictate that significant quantities should be formed in all of the homicidal gas chambers." I stated before that this is nearly impossible. Consequently we must conclude that chemistry is not a science with the power to prove or refute human gassings in Auschwitz "rigorously." But when considering that..(goes on to list his many reasons)..Certainly, this is not a "rigorous" proof, but it is a well founded expert opinion. I never claimed to have rigorously proved this." Obviously, Rudolf is only saying such evidence is not like a proof of Euclid, or even more precisely he's saying it doesn't meet Green's standards but Green's standards are intentional, arbitrary bar raising to an absurd degree. Such piss poor citations are, unfortunately, all too common amongst wikipedia articles on the subject of the Second World War. This only helps the heretics. Cake (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOTAFORUM..Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Fleenier (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

None of what I said falls under what that is talking about. I am discussing flaws with the article's biased sourcing and sins of omission in the discussion section of the article. What you said is just a total non-response. The article might as well say "Green totally owned Rudolf by pointing out that cyanide isn't cyanide. Rudolf disagreed." Cake (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at WP:OR as well. If you can find WP:RS reliable sources that make your argument, then cite them. Having said that, Holocaust denial of the Rudolf sort is considered WP:FRINGE here. Fleenier (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't bring up any original research as if I posted my own study, nor did I argue for the article on the holocaust to be half about "holocaust denial" as WP:FRINGE talks about. I simply showed the bias of the article in how it presents really dreadful sources in a manner of "Green totally owned Rudolf by pointing out that cyanide isn't cyanide. Rudolf disagreed," instead of providing Rudolf's counterargument in his own article, or even caring if his opponents sound sane, which makes it look like a farce having no neutral point of view. Cake (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, look at it from their perspective.. this is wikipedia and they need to put something up there to make the "denier" look bad... I guess if illogical and non-sensical statements are all that's available then you just go with what you got. They may as well just drop the pretense and write "Rudolph's report was flawed because he's a denier". 72.73.107.161 (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Jonas E. Alexis

He's a writer for Veterans Today[4] a very unpleasant right-wing website featuring conspiracy theories and anti-antisemitism.[5] Doug Weller talk 09:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Philip Cross (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Germar Rudolf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080604152626/http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/ to http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)