In a speech that he gave at the gala dinner of the Jewish World Congress in New York on 11 September 2000, Joschka Fischer, former Federal German Minister of Foreign Affairs, emphasized that he understands “how vitally important it is to preserve awareness of our responsibility for preserving Remembrance (of ‘Holocaust’). Remembrance is a constant obligation for a democraticGermany. It must remain a perpetual obligation in future as well.” Elaborating on this implied obligation for all Germans for all time, he went on to explain: “We know that we cannot abandon our history and put it behind us. All those who attempted to drop penance have perished on the shoals of Auschwitz and German guilt for Shoa -- and justly so. An ancient Jewish proverb teaches us that the desire to forget merely prolongs our exile. “The secret of salvation is eternal Remembrance! -- Remembrance primarily of the six million murdered sons and daughters of the Jewish Nation, but also of the other victims of Hitler’s war and racism and of National Socialist viciousness.”
Thus, Fischer declared “Remembrance” to be the foundation on which the Federal Republic is built. He has endowed us with the following creed: “The origin and inherent nature of our present German democracy are conceivable only against the backgroud of Holocaust. In 1933, Germany began its descent into atrocity with its contemptuous treatment of the Jews, with a brutal denial of their human dignity and human rights. These German Jews were citizens of the Reich, many of whom courageously sacrificed their lives for their German homeland during the First World War. The lesson of this is clear and unmistakable: The dignity of mankind must never again be violated. Respect for human dignity is the minimum requirement for the civilized coexistence of nations. This imperative forms the first article of our Consitution, which reads: ‘Man’s dignity is inviolable. It is the obligation of state power to observe and protect all human dignity.’ This is the very foundation of our democracy. This is the legacy that the victims of the Nazi terror, especially the murdered Jews, have bequeathed to us Germans; andwe have accepted this obligation... Germany is aware of its special historical obligation to insure the security of the state of Israel and its right to exist. This obligation will continue to be firm and unalterable for us Germans. It cannot be relativized. In future as well as the present, it will continue to define the unique character of our relations with Israel. Israel can rely on a democratic Germany as an undaunted friend and ally for all time. This is our moral obligation, and this is the firm political will of all the generations that inherit the difficult legacy of German history. Our watchword will always be: guard Remembrance and accept the responsibility that goes with it.”
For Elan Steinberg, Speaker of the Jewish World Congress, Fischer’s words were “an estraordinary acknowledgment of guilt and responsibility.” Fischer had done more than just apologize on behalf of Germany -- he also demanded that his own generation, which was born after the War, take responsibility for events of the past. In December 2002, President Johannes Rau, following a visit by his Israeli colleague Moshe Katzav, emphasized the “special obligation of Germany for the security of Israel,” stating “...we as Germans have a very great responsibility, towards Israel , a responsibility greater than that of any other country.  We must do everything in our power to ensure that Israel can live free of terror and within secure borders.” This statement might just as easily originated with an Israeli politician -- except that it would not have sounded so presumptuous coming from an Israeli! The issuance of such portentous blank checks by German politicians to third parties, in particular the nation of Israel, makes sense only if one is aware of the political foundations on which the Federal Republic of Germany is built -- the state in whose name Fischer, Rau and their colleagues were speaking.
In his work dealing with today’s basic issues, Sind Gedanken noch frei? (Are Thoughts Still Free), published in Munich in 2001, the author presented the thesis that the underlying legal foundation of the Federal Republic of Germany is characterized by two basic principles. These are acknowledgment of sole guilt for the Second World War and acknowledgment of guilt for the genocidal murder of millions of innocent persons during the Third Reich, primarily on racial grounds. In the Federal Republic, both acknowledgments enjoy the status of indisputable fact; and expressing skepticism about their validity can entail serious legal consequences. In order to understand this unique phenomenon of national self-castigation, we have to return to 1945 and review essential aspects of Germany’s “liberation.”
Walter Lippmann, the son of German Jews born in New York, was one of the most influential American journalists and authors of books from the 1920s until the 1950s. In 1920 he became the chief editor of the New York World and in 1931 he gained international prominence as a columnist with the Herald Tribune. Writing on the subject of total defeat of an enemy, Lipmann declared that, in addition to the necessary occupation of an enemy country and criminal trials and executions of its vanquished leaders in “war crimes trials,” the most important guarantor of total and permanent victory could be accomplished only when and if “the vanquished are subjected to a thoroughgoing re-education process. The obvious method for accomplishing this is the implantation of the version of history as viewed by the victor, into the mind of the vanquished. The transplantation of the ‘moral’ categories of the war propaganda of the victorious country into the consciousness of the vanquished is of decisive significance in this regard... Re-education cannot be considered truly successful until the war propaganda of the victors has found its way into the history books of the vanquished and is accepted as true by subsequent generations.”
After 1945 these theoretical plans for “re-education” – a euphemism for brainwashing – were successfully put into practice in Germany by the United States. These guidelines for re-education were printed in a noncommercial booklet entitled What to do with Germany and distributed by the Special Services Division for Psychological Warfare of the US Army, and they are frequently quoted in secondary literature. “Re-education will be required equally for young and old, and it must not be limited to the classroom. The persuasive power of dramatic presentation must be exploited, and movies can be used to greatest effect here... Under the guidance of the ‘International University,’ the greatest authors, producers and stars will dramatize the infinite evil of Nazism and contrast it with the beauty and simplicity of a Germany that is no longer preoccupied with militarism and marching in step. They will have the mission of presenting an attractive picture of democracy. In addition, radio will penetrate individual homes with discussions as well as undisguised lectures.
Authors, dramatists, publishers and printers must all be subjected to constant testing by the “International University,” since they are all educators. All non-democratic publications must be suppressed from the outset. Only after the German way of thinking has had opportunity to be reenforced in the new ideals may opposing views be allowed, when we are confident that the (Nazi) virus has no further medium in which to grow. This will provide still greater immunity in future. The re-education process must cover and permeate all Germany. Even workers should receive simplified lessons in democracy, in their leisure time.
Summer vacations and opportunities for higher education of the masses must also support this endeavor... The ‘International University’ is in the best position to monitor and control the details of the German education system: the curricula of schools, choice of teachers and textbooks – in short, all pedagogical matters. We need a command structure for this aggressive re-education. Outsanding German students will be given opportunities to continue their education in our schools. They will return to Germany as teachers and found a new cultural tradition in conjunction with an international sense of citizenship. Insofar as possible, the professsors should be German liberals and democrats. The introduction of ‘aliens’ could have a stimulating effect but must be kept to a minimum, since it must not lead to our losing control.
Every imaginable kind of intellectual influence that is compatible with democratic culture should be placed in the service of re-education. The roles of churches, movies, theatre, radio, press and labor unions are all specifically called for here... Re-education will replace military conscription, and will be compulsory for every German, just as compulsory military service formerly was. Our task is to reestablish freedom and peace -- the freedom that was born on Mount Sinai and lay in the crib of Bethlehem. The peace whose tender youth was spent in England; whose iron schoolmaster was France; whose young manhood was spent in the US; and which, if we do our part, is destined to live prevail all over the world!” 
The prerequisite for carrying out this re-education was German acceptance of the doctrine of “double collective guilt.” Since the founding of the Federal Republic, this has been incessantly emphasized and repeated by politicians and leading intellectuals.
This prompted the political scientist Theodor Eschenburg to describe the foundation of the West German state in these words: “Unquestioning acknowledgment of the sole guilt of Hitler (in starting the War) is clearly a basic founding principle of the Federal Republic.” The journalist Sebastian Haffner (real name Raimund Pretzel), who immigrated to Britain in 1938, also shared this view. As a persistent advocate of partitioning Germany, he was decisive in “re-educating” the German nation. According to Haffner, anyone who challenges the status quo threatens the peace in Europe. (By “status quo” he meant the national-pedagogical concept of history that was considered positive by the victorious powers.)
In his address to the Federal Parliament of 9 November 1988, President Philipp Jenninger acknowledged that “every political question in the Federal Republic orbits about a conscious awareness of Auschwitz.” Former District Court President Rudolf Wassermann reaffirmed this view in 1994: “Whoever denies the truth about National Socialist extermination camps is abandoning the foundations on which the Federal Republic is built... Whoever denies Auschwitz attacks more than the human dignity of the Jews -- he threatens the very basis of our society’s credulity.”
Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, who in Spiegel magazine (Vol. 28/1987) designated Auschwitz as “Our Reason for Existance” 20 years ago, declared in the Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung on 18 February 1999: “Every democracy has a basis, a foundation. For France this is 1789, for the USA it is the Declaration of Independence, and for Spain it is the Spanish Civil War. Well, for Germany it is Auschwitz. It can only be Auschwitz. In my eyes, the remembrance of Auschwitz, of “Never-again Auschwitz” is the only possible foundation for the new Republic in Berlin.”
These acknowledgments by influential personalities, derived over several decades, introduce the logical second step in our theory. The “historically established facts” of Germany’s sole guilt for the War and Germany’s “policy of genocide” (meaning collective guilt) form the basis on which the Federal Republic of Germany was founded. They also represent the essential factor for determining whether a given opinion may be freely expressed in the Federal Republic of Germany: that is, whether the opinion is legally irrelevant, or whether it violates one or both of the basic acknowledged “facts” and therefore does not enjoy the constitutional protection of free speech. The situation in Austria is very similar.
The party bearing sole responsibility the outbreak the Second World War is as irrefutable in the Berlin Republic as the “fact” of the murder of six million Jews (no fewer than six million!) by Germans. One is not allowed to discuss such inviolable historical “facts.” One simply does not discuss them if one does not want to run the risk of being charged with “understatement”, “relativization” or “denial,” all of which are criminal acts in the Federal Republic. These “facts” are “offenkundig” or manifestly obvious and self-evident, hence they need not be proven, as do other crimes. This double collective guilt of the German nation – acknowledgment of sole responsiility for the Second World War and systematic genocide of Jews -- has become the intellectual content of historical awareness hereabouts.
It is not surprising that at nearly every wreath-laying, treaty signing or or state visit by a Federal Republic politician this very same reason for our national existence is repeated. Even on inappropriate occasions! At the Durban World Conference on Racism, Discrimination and Xenophobia in September 2001, Joschka Fischer, as official representative of his country, placed great stress on the following observation: “The most terrible atrocity of the 20th Century took place in my country, the genocide of six million European Jews as well as Roma and Sinti gypsies. Remembrance of this deed must not be relativized, and the responsibility for it will affect Germany’s policies forever. This is why Germany cannot accept understatement, relativization or denial of Holocaust. Germany must vigorously oppose and repress such things.”
Germany’s “Double Collective Guilt” is the central point and pivot of Federal Republic historiography. It has long been applied to more that just the period of the Third Reich. In the above mentioned speech, History Genius Fischer promptly confessed German “guilt” for crimes committed in Africa during the Wilhelmenian era as well. He introduced his gallant confession on behalf of Germany with these equally gallant words: “I would also like to express thanks to our host, the South African government. Under its own volition, this country has succeeded in peacefully liberating itself from a dictatorship based on racism, succeeded in finding its way to a more just society. The courage of the South Africans to come together despite all scars of the past should be an inspiration for us at this conferenc.”
All roads lead to Auschwitz -- and all roads come from there as well, if one is to believe the philosophy of history that is officially propagated by the Federal Republic. Thus, “Auschwitz” and “War Guilt” form the intellectual as well as official foundation of this country.
Doesn’t a nation’s concept of history reflect its image of itself? If this is true, and we believe that it is, then “...this systematic cultivation of a collective guilt complex is destroying our national consciousness. It is bringing about the intellectual de-nationalization of our people and turning them into a well-fed population of fellahs, a German variant of mass-man. The cultivation of this type is far advanced In our kindergartens, primary schools, high schools, colleges and above all, in the mass media.”
More than any other organizations, the “System” or “Establishment” political parties are the bearers and agents of this policy of denationalization, which, we assume, does not displease the victorious powers. Such a pervasive denationalization has long been the official policy of the Federal Republic. In our socalled republic, all tendencies toward nationalism are dismissed by the media and government representatives as “Germanic claptrap” or even more strongly disparaged, often in ways that are truly grotesque. One example of this occurred several years ago, with a disgraceful attempt to change the inscription “Dem Deutschen Volke” (Dedicated to the German Nation) above the entrance of the Reichstag to “Der Bevölkerung” (Dedicated to The Population.)
Another such example was that of the “fat hen.” Ornithologists are not the only ones asking themselves about that fat round Bundesadler (Federal Eagle) in the plenary chamber of the Parliament Building. If he were a real bird, it is unlikely he would even be able to fly, much less soar majestically through the air. And yet, this grotesque symbol was highly praised by Wolfgang Thierse. He observed that the highly stylized bird was so peaceful and unaggressive that it was an appropriate symbol for the political consensus prevailing in the Federal Republic. In this point at least, one can hardly contradict the Federal President. The problem is that, while other nations of the world display the eagle as a mighty raptor on their emblem, a symbol of pride, dignity and freedom, the ladies and gentlemen in the Berlin Parliament gaze upon a ridiculous caricature that symbolizes the exact opposite of a proud eagle.
This country’s hostility toward Inländer (natives) is another remarkable Federal phenomenon that is found in Germany and nowhere else. Among Germans – but only among Germans -- patriotism is passé, something to be rejected and eradicated.
Meantime it would never occur to even the most hard-baked bourgeois or socialistic Frenchmen, Democratic or Republican American, liberal or conservative Scandinavian, or any other citizen of any other nation to designate a fellow citizen as “rightwing extremist” for displaying pride in their nation and cultivating a nationalist consciousness – provided they are not doing so within an outlawed party such as the National Front, Vlaams Blok, etc. In countries other than the Federal Republic of Germany, patriotism is considered natural and appropriate. In other countries, love of one’s own nation is not tainted with the odor of suspicion and subversion.
The situation is entirely different in the Berlin republic, where love of country is officially discouraged. Here there is ever increasing stigmatization of art and literature that oppose or cirticize the present repressive regime. Official stigmatization necessitates the suppression of artistic and intellectual dissent that might influence public opinion with images as well as written or oral literary art. The opinions suppressed for contradicting the educational theories and interests of the German Establishment seldom “endanger the youth” or “incite the masses“ in any meaningful sense of those terms. Instead, they express opinions that challenge the monopoly of the opinion cartel -- certain powerful political and economic interests and institutions.
In order to gain legal advantage over those who express politically incorrect opinions, these institutions had to be presented to the public in pseudo legalistic fashion. This was accomplished in April of 1994, when the Bundesgerichtshof or Federal Constitutional Court made the incontestable ruling that those who questioned the socalled “Auschwitz Lie” (concerning homicidal gassings of millions of Jews during the Third Reich) were no longer protected by constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of speech and opinion. The organization “Human Rights Watch,” which according to Amnesty International is the second largest human rights organization in the world, commented: “The Court’s ruling appears to unduly restrict guaranteed freedoms of speech and expression.” In this context, he word “unduly” is quite conspicuous: Human Rights Watch was remarking that the Court has limited these protected rights of freedom of speech and opinion in an exaggerated manner. Consequently, freedom of scientific research in the Federal Republic has been seriously damaged by misuse of the criminal law to protect vested political interests and socalled historical facts.
In a long and detailed letter to the editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung dated 8 September 1994, the historian Ernst Nolte demonstrated rare courage by stating that he is unable to refute the arguments of several Revisionists regarding the technical impossibility of mass murder using Zyklon B, since he is not a natural scientist. The eminent historian went on to describe how, on numerous occasions, he has come across documents that were generally and officially accepted as “undeniably authentic,” and which he treated as such, but which after forensic examination were exposed as falsifications. Nolte ended his letter with the observation that all questions concerning authenticity and feasibility have to be treated as objects for scientific investigation. For this reason, he has pleaded for unbiased consideration of the arguments of the “Auschwitz Revisionists.” As a result of official governmental policy, there is no longer freedom to investigate and discuss Auschwitz, “Holocaust” and World War II. The following sobering assessment, and the implications that go with it, were published in a letter to the editor of Welt magazine that was published on 4 November 1994. “No serious reader doubts that Jews were persecuted during the Third Reich. In a nation of laws, however, researchers must be free to investigate what is credible and what is not credible, what is scientifically possible and what is not.
When the criminal law is used to prohibit historical research of the “Holocaust” complex, and competent and highly respected professionals are not allowed to give expert testimony under threats of prosecution, one inevitably suspects that these serious charges levelled against Germany by the present government cannot withstand investigation.” On 20 May 1994, as a direct consequence of the Constitutional Court decision mentioned above, the Federal Parliament passed the ambiguously labelled Auschwitz-Lügen-Gesetz (Auschwitz Lie Law.) Section 130, Paragraph 3 of the Penal Code specifically states: “Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or renders harmless an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 220a subsection (1) [Genocide], in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace, shall be punished with imprisonment not to exceed five years, or a fine.”
At the time of its passage, this controversial legislation met with vigorous criticism and protest. The liberal journalist Horst Meier, who has often publicly championed freedom of speech for nonconformists, sharply criticized the “Auschwitz Lie Law.” In the newspaper die tageszeitung he characterized “the alliance of official historicity and monopoly of power” as “proof of the poverty of democracy in Germany.” In a detailed statement, Meier emphasized that the increasing represssiveness of the “Incitement” clause “places everyone’s political freedom in jeopardy and erodes confidence in our democracy.
Max Güdes, former Federal Attorney General and CDU representative in Parliament, also pointed out that using the criminal law for political purposes is extremely dangerous to democratic institutions. He warned that government should not be allowed to pursue such a questionable political deterrent by means of severe punitive measures. The public must be free to develop and express its political will in constant debate or plebiscite, which represents the will of the law abiding citizenry. He emphasized that government should not be allowed to pursue such a questionable deterrent effect by means of punitive measures... rather, the public will must be free to evolve and express itself in constant debate or plebiscite, which represents the will of the law abiding citizenry.
The severe legal restrictions on freedom of opinion and scientific research that result from Section 130 are obvious to everyone, including the Süddeutsche Zeitung. On 8 October 1998, this newspaper observed that the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Constitutional Court) had heretofore insisted that freedom of speech is sacrosanct in any democracy. It pointed out that not only valid and well informed opinions are protected in a democracy. Aberrant and even repugnant opinions are protected as well: “It would indeed be absurd for the state to be allowed to decide which opinions are protected by our constitutional guarantee of free of speech, but this is precisely what it does with the new Paragraph 130, Section 3 of the Penal Code. The law prescribes historical facts and then, under criminal penalty, not only forbids denial of these official facts; it even forbids interpreting them in an unnapproved manner, by ‘understating’ their significance... The government that uses criminal law in such a way is entering on a very dangerous course. It is endangering our intellectual freedom.” Truer words were never spoken!
Gottfried Dietze, a specialist in human rights at John Hopkins University, observed that Paragraph 130 of the Penal Code “directly contradicts our cherished legal protection of freedom of opinion, thus violating what is universally acknowledged as the most basic freedom.” Professsor Dietze raises the question of whether Paragraph 130 has moved outside the framework of the Basic Law and must therefore be ruled unconstitutional. After all, the creation of the Basic Law had been enthusiastically received as a rejection of National Socialist tyranny. The attempts that were made in those days to avoid a relapse into dictatorship were very praiseworthy, even though they sometimes limited other laws. Sixty years after World War II it is very doubtful whether legislation such as Paragraph 130 is justified, in view of the fact that the danger of a relapse (into National Socialism) does not exist... in my opinion, it is not.” 
Prof. Dietze is obviously correct since there is no such thing as collective guilt. As Professor of Psychology Herbert Speidel has explained, “Collective Guilt” contradicts prevailing principles of justice and legality. Every citizen understands that guilt must be established on an individual basis; and the accused is assumed to be innocent until and unless guilt has been established. This process of proving guilt individually is the principal test of cultural level and civilized procedure in the Western world. Furthermore, the acknowledgment of collective German guilt was not an official demand of the victorious powers. This is repeatedly expressed in statements by their representatives. No less imposing figure than Josef Stalin categorically dismissed the idea of collective German guilt. On 23 February he stated: “It would be ridiculous to equate the Hitler clique with the German people and nation. History teaches us that Hitlers come and go, but the German people and the German nation remain.” Even Winston Churchill, who insisted on the idea of collective guilt during the War, rejected it a year after the capitulation of the Wehrmacht. In his speech before the Lower House on 5 June 1946 he quoted the liberal politician Edmund Burke (1729 – 1797), saying “I cannot condemn an entire nation.” And US President Ronald Reagan, during his visit to the German military cemetery in Bitburg on 5 May 1985, acknowledged that “A sense of guilt has been forced upon the Germans -- unjustly imposed upon them!”
The peculiar notion of collective guilt, along with the related cult of Vergangenheitsbewältigung (“Overcoming the Past”) was not conceived or imposed on Germany by the victorious powers, as is commonly assumed. Instead, it was concocted by Marxist intellectuals in West Germany during the 1960s and augmented In the 1970s before entering the statutes in the 1980s. Alexander and Margaret Mitscherlich, Karl Jaspers, Jürgen Habermas, Ralph Giordano, Richard von Weizsäcker, Roman Herzog, Joschka Fischer und Johannes Rau served as its godparents. As Herbert Speidel explains, it has had disastrous consequences as a national concept.
“Domestically, it hinders our national independence by destroying our positive sense of nationalism and creativity, along with the qualities and attitudes that would promote them. It damages the positive feeling of our inclusion in the family of nations as well our sense of educational competence and our intellectual independence... It creates psychological submissiveness and a satellite mentality.”
There is good reason to criticize the above named politicians and intellectuals who gave us the “Auschwitz Law.” The “truth paragraph” as the public sarcastically calls Paragraph 130 of the Penal Code, represents nothing less than the government’s silencing of public debate, thereby hindering expression of the public will. It is obviously incompatible with freedom and democracy, since it renduces public debate to absurdity. These ever-increasing special laws, which emanate from the legislative and administrative bodies, expose authors, editors, journalists, publishers and scientists to prosecution for “criminal wrongthinking” on account of the opinions they express. They are clear and indisputable proof of an interruption of freedom of the press, freedom of opinion and freedom of scientific research in the Federal Republic. Following are a few recent examples of this practice in recent times.
Hans-Jürgen Witzsch, a 62-year-old high school teacher of history and social sciences who was also a member of Fürth City Council, was jailed in 2002 and is now barred from his profession. Witsch refused to take his class on school trips to former Concentration Camp Dachau because, according to raumzeit, a newspaper for the Nürnberg-Fürth-Erlangen area, it was his opinion that most or all of the photographs displayed there are montages and fakes. Raumzeit reported Witzsch as saying that the homicidal gas chambers there had been set up by the Americans, who claimed that disinfectant chambers used to delouse clothing and blankets had been used to murder prisoners. In January 2002 the Bavarian Superior District Court rejected Witzsch’s appeal of the verdict of Nürnberg/Fürth District Court.
In the verdict, Witzsch was sentenced to three months in jail for making comments that understated the evil nature of Hitler and the immensity of “Holocaust.” The verdict was appealed by both the prosector, who considered the sentence too light and the defendant, who pled for exoneration. The criminal complaint had arisen from a letter that the teacher wrote to the Jewish historian Michael Wolffsohn in 1999 Among other items that he mentioned was the fact that there is no documentary or empirical evidence to support the allegation that Hitler ordered the murder of Jews. Witzsch observed that the alleged order had been “an invention of postwar atrocity propaganda,” and he also remarked that the number of six million Jews murdered during the Third Reich is also “pure propaganda.” The complaint against Witzsch was not filed by the recipient of his letter, who, a trained academic, responded to Witzsch’s remarks in an objective and professional manner. The complaint had been filed by Arno Hamburger, chairperson of the Israeli Cultural Association in Nürnberg, who stressed the political significance of Witzsch’s letter. Judge Klaus Kriegel considered the complaint valid, even though the letter had not been addressed to Hamburger. In his opinion the letter “defamed the memory of the dead” and therefore Hamburger, either as chairperson of the IKG or as a private individual who had lost relatives in “extermination camps,” was qualified to file a criminal complaint against Witzsch. Kriegel ruled that under Section 189 of Penal Code, the accused had incriminated himself by making untrue allegations that contradicted the official truths. (Section 189: “Whoever disparages the memory of a deceased person shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than two years or a fine.”)
The Court ruled that not only were the allegations of the accused “monstrous and absurd,” they also “mocked the fate of Jews murdered during the Third Reich.” The Bavarian Supreme Court rejected the appeal with a single sentence, finding “no legal errors that might have disadvantaged the accused.”
On 13 January 2003, Attorney Horst Mahler pointed out that under the decree of Offenkundigkeit or “manifest obviousness” as contained in the Basic Law, Germans who deny the existence of homicidal gas chambers at Dachau, like those who had denied their existence at Ravensbrück, Mauthausen, Bergen-Belsen, Flossenbürg, Sachsenhausen and Theresienstadt, have been sentenced to long prison sentences. The concept of Offenkundigkeit, which the Federal Republic borrowed from the Moscow show trials and the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, allows the court or tribunal to convict defendants of without having to prove that a crime occurred. In the case of the alleged mass murders of Jews in homicidal gas chambers, the IMF simply decreed that the existence of such devices for mass murder during the War was “common knowledge” or “manifestly obvious” and therefore did not have to be proven with documentary, empirical or forensic evidence.
Mahler points out: “They (the persons indicted under Sections 130 and 189 of the Penal Code) are all innocent, they are all victims of ‘victors justice.’ It is now generally accepted that homicidal gas chambers never existed within the area of the Reich... We have many individual researchers, including non Germans, to thank for the fact that this revision of anti-German propaganda has now become generally accepted. Many citizens of foreign countries have devoted their lives to privartely researching historical truth, defying the victors who triumphed over Germany. Many others have become acquainted with German prisons from the inside, or else they are forced to live in exile. Some have been physically attacked and severely injured and some have been targets of assassinaation attempts and arson attacks.”
High school instructor Witzsch did not deny that prisoners died in concentration camps, as the daily newspaper Fränkischer Tag erroneously reported. His criminal offense consisted of pointing out that no written order of Hitler has ever been found that related to the murder of a single Jew, much less millions of Jews. Witzsch is correct in this; it must be emphasized here that no such order has ever been found. The forcibly retired academician was not imprisoned because he might possibly be a member of a “rightwing extremist” organization or because he questioned the methodical murder of Jews during the Third Reich. In order to imprison this highly respected member of his community, a “pillar of society,” it was quite enough for the Federal Republic to establish that he had written to Wolffsohn pointing out that historical research had not yet succeeded in finding a directive of Hitler that ordered the murder of Jews.
Such established and esteemed historians as Martin Broszat, Hans Mommsen and Karl Schleunes have arrived at the same conclusion as high school teacher Witzsch. For example, in his response to Daniel Goldhagen’s book Hitler’s Willing Executioners, which enjoyed high official acclaim in the Federal Republic, Mommsen wrote in the Süddeutsche Zeitung on 20 July 1996 that it is very clear “...the Holocaust does not represent any officially planned action. Instead, the systematic mass murders arose from a chain of spectacular mistakes and misunderstandings. Even Heinrich Himmler, in his directive Behandlung der Fremdvölkischen im Osten (The Treatment of Alien Peoples in the East) had excluded any such actions as late as May 1940, “on principle.” As to Hitler’s intentions, we have to rely on assumptions. Even the antifascist book Wahrheit und Auschwitzlüge (Truth and the Auschwitz Lie) published by the Dokumentationsarchiv des Österreichischen Widerstandes (Documentation Archive of Austrian Resistance) in Vienna states, “A written directive by Hitler ordering the extermination of European Jews was probably never given and therefore cannot be found.” This makes the sentencing of Witzsch even more questionable. The monthly news magazine Nation & Europa accurately commented: “With this verdict, freedom of opinion and research, which was already severely limited where Holocaust is concerned, has been reduced to zero.”
This conclusion is confirmed by still another striking incident. In January 2002 Munich Regional Court convicted university student Wolf Andreas Heß, the 23 year old grandson of freedom flyer Rudolf Heß, of “Incitement of the Masses.” Over the Internet, Heß had quoted statements by his father, Wolf Rüdiger Heß, now deceased, to the effect that there were no homicidal gas chambers at Dachau Concentration Camp. Hess had observed that the Dachau museum staff camp even displayed a sign confirming that no one had ever been gassed there. The City of Dachau also attempts to make the matter clear, as they wrote to the author: “In response to your inquiry, I wish to inform you that homicidal gassings did not take place in the former concentration camp at Dachau, although facilities for gas chambers were found there following the War.” This factual statement has repeatedly been confirmed by many other competent sources as well. Above the door of the room now designated “Shower Room” is an explanation placed there many years ago informing museum visitors that the “gas chamber” on display was never put into use. On 1 February 1979 the Dachau Camp Museum sent this letter of explanation to the University of Toronto: “In the crematorium of Dachau Camp a (homicidal) gas chamber was constructed that was never put in operation. In addition, a number of small gas chambers were used for delousing clothing and blankets.”
Here we must avoid playing numbers games or referring to the findings of scientists who are “Revisionists” or “Holocaust Deniers” according to the Federal German courts and the “truth findings” of the “Constitutional Court.” Such scientists are stereotyped as “rightwing extremists.” Their research does not conform to the official official Lehrmeinung (pedagogical theory) and must therefore be rejected as undesirable, regardless of how convincing and well documented it may be. It does not matter if their findings are scientifically irrefutable: we would make ourselves liable to prosecution if we referred to them. This is because in the Federal Republic, most of their writings have been “indexed” or outlawed. The ever-present threat of prosecution is an unmistakable indicator of the degree of democratic maturity in present day Germany, since it depicts the actual extent to which freedoms of opinion and research may be exercised. We hope you will forgive our obligatory self-censorship in not documenting our presentation with the publications of such noted researchers as Ernst Stäglich, Arthur Butz, Germar Rudolf alias Ernst Gauss, Robert Faurisson, Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf oder Friedrich Toben, to name just a few. However, we will dare to quote Joachim Hoffmann, the former scientific director of Militärgeschichtlichen Forschungsamtes der Bundeswehr (Military History Department of the Bundeswehr. In the introduction to his seminal work Stalins Vernichtungskrieg 1941-1945, he refers to Germany’s drastic censorship as “a near total disgrace.” We would simply drop the word “near” from his evaluation. For any free, independent minded and mature person, this censorship is absolutely disgraceful -- and totally unacceptable.
However, there are a number of scientists and researchers who openly state opinions very similar to those of the Revisionists, yet continue to be tolerated by Germany’s opinion cartel and penal code. Ernst Nolte, Ferdinand Otto Mischke and Norman Finkelstein are among the scientists who refuse to allow their independence and professional integrity to be taken away. On numerous occasions, they have proven their courage to contradict the allegations of the powers that be. To an extent, even Michael Wolffsohn can be included in this courageous circle. In January 1991 Wolffsohn engaged in a controversial public debate with the president of the Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland (Central Committee of Jews in Germany) Heinz Galinski on the topic of the number of Jews murdered at Auschwitz. Galinski insisted on the figure of “four million” as decreed by the Nuremberg Military Tribunal in 1946. Wolffsohn on the other hand, referred to the still horrific figure of around 1.3 million, which, he pointed out, is “uncontested” by the scientific community. He pointed out that authentic research is never static: it is constantly changing as new discoveries are made, new insights won, and existing opinions adapted to the new level of knowledge. In short, real history undergoes constant revision. Thus is of course true of research, but it is paticularly true of historical research.
In his research, the Polish historian Franciszek Piper arrived at the estimate of 1.11 million Jewish victims. In 1994 Jean-Claude Pressac, the French consultant to the Polish Auschwitz Museum, estimated the total number of Auschwitz deaths at between 631,000 and 711,000 persons. This followed shortly after the Russian government opened the Moscow Archives to the public, which made the Auschwitz death books available for pubic inspection. In May 2002, Spiegel editor Fritjof Meyer again lowered the estimated number of Auschwitz victims, this time to approximately 510,000. He estimated that around 356,000 were “killed by gas.” His article, entitled Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz. Neue Erkenntnisse durch neue Archivfunde (The Number of Auscwitz Victims: New Evidence from Archival Discoveries ) appeared in the professional journal Osteuropa: Zeitschrift für Gegenwartsfragen des Ostens.
Referring to the research of the Canadian architect Robert-Jan von Pelt, Meyer announced what (for mainstream historians) was a sensational breakthrough: “In 1945, the Soviet investigatory commission announced that four million persons had been murdered in the National Socialist labor and extermination camp Auschwitz-Birkenau. This was the product of wartime propaganda. Under coercion, Camp Commandant Höß initially signed a confession stating that three million Jews had been gassed, but he later denied this figure. Until now it has only been possible to roughly estimate the number of victims of this mass murder. The first Holocaust historian, Gerald Reitlinger swas of the opinion that one million had been murdered, while the most recent state of research suggests several hundred thousands fewer. Two new articles based on the capacities of the crematories now confirm existing documents relating to deliveries of prisoners to the camp. With these new publications the actual dimension of that collapse of civilization has finally moved into the realm of the comprehensible. At last, there is a convincing Menetekel (admonition) for those born after the War.”
It remains to be seen whether Meyer’s unorthodox findings will be allowed into the history books; or whether he will face criminal charges of “inciting the masses” or “”dishonoring the memory of the dead.” If his findings are acknowledged, the Auschwitz Museum will once again have to install new memorial plaques. In 1989 the plaques that heretofore had been displayed, lamenting four million victims, were removed and replaced with plaques lamenting one and a half million victims. No official recognizance is made of the best documented research of all, namely that carried out by the International Red Cross in Switzerland. It estimates the number of racial and political murders in all German prisons and concentration camps at around 300,000. None of these findings by serious and impartial researchers has found its way the mass media, much less schoolbooks and official histories. This does not reflect favorably on the credibility of the present educational establishment. There are exceptions, however, and sometimes from the most unexpected quarter. In his groundbreaking work The Holocaust Industry, the US political scientist Norman G. Finkelstein, who is Jewish, states very clearly (even in the German edition, which is inflated with countless commentaries) what the severely persecuted Revisionists have long maintained: “In view of these considerations, not only is the number of six million even less defensible, but the numbers maintained by the Holocaust Industry itself are rapidly approaching those of the Holocaust Deniers.”
In closing this complex section, we wish to point out a circumstance that is usually neglected or ignored. By persecuting revisionist scientists and sentencing them to heavy fines and prison sentences, it was our German justice officials themselves who first called attention to the school of “Historical Revisionism” and its adherents. Without the criminal prosecutions of many responsible researchers, their teachings would never have gained as much attention as they did. These revisionists did not have the journalistic or publicistic means, much less the financial reserves to reach large segments of the public with the results of their research. Thus, paradoxically, we have in no small measure the German justice system to thank for making Holocaust Revisionism known to the world, and thereby making it a distinct area of research as well.
Congresses of Historical Revisionists with their lectures before institutions of higher learning (such as Pretoria, Teheran, Moscow or Triest) are no longer considered highly unusual. Increasingly, public media report on them with some degree of factuality and objectivity. In its issue of 1 February 2002, Pravda announced that Revisionists from the whole world were holding a “unique forum” in Moscow and described Jürgen Graf’s research as follows: “Jürgen Graf reported that electromagnetic measurements of the soil at former concentration camps at Treblinka and Belzec had scientifically demolished the allegations that mass graves were to be found there... The investigations prove that the ground there is undisturbed.”
Even in the Federal Republic, half the Germans, according to Henryk M. Broder, no longer believe the “court historians.” On 3 August 2001, this prominent Jewish journalist and publicist told the Potsdamer Neuesten Nachrichten: “Some believe the Holocaust happened and others believe the opposite.” In 1999, even Chancellor Gerhard Schröder acknowledged that the neverending rituals of Holocaust veneration annoyed him. Die Welt commented wryly: “...Schröder knows that it enhances the sex appeal of an SPD chancellor if he lets it be known that these eternal remembrances get on his nerves.” The overriding question is: how much longer can the sacrosanct Holocaust Industry survive unquestioned? The answer to this is also the answer to the question of when the foundations of the Federal Republic will collapse.
Thomas Dehler, Vice President of the Bundestag, acknowledged in 1961: “The German Reich will disappear when and if the opinion becomes widespread that the Federal Republic is not provisional -- that it is the only German state, identical with the Reich. I am opposed to such a demon.” In 1958, when he was still Minister President of Baden- Württemberg, subsequent Chancellor Kurt Georg Kiesinger made this remark concerning the status of the Federal Republic: “We are in fact a protectorate of the USA.” This was not exactly flattering for the apologists of the Federal Republic, who in those days pretended to be free and sovereign.
Is all this merely the “snows of yesteryear?” Not at all. In his book The Grand Chessboard, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who from 1977 until 1981 was Security Adviser for US President Jimmy Carter and is today Professor of American Foireign Policy at John Hopkins University in Washington, explains that Washington regards most of Europe – but above all the Federal Republic -- as American vassals, obligated to pay tribute, “some of whom some would like all too gladly to be still more closely tied to Washington.” This is good reason to inspect more closely the present status quo. Contrary to what many believe, the German Reich still exists, although it is unable to act under present conditions. As the Bundesverfassungsgericht (“Constitutional Court”) ruled on 31 July 1973, the Reich did not perish in 1945, and the Federal Republic is not a legitimate successor to it. The legal grounds cited in that decision (2 BvF 1/73), which has never been set aside, state the following: “The Basic Law itself, not just some abstract theory of nations and or international law, proceeds from the assumption that the Reich survived the collapse of 1945. Furthermore the Reich did not perish at a later date, either with military capitulation or the exercise of foreign power by Allied occupation forces... The German Reich continues to exist. It still possess its legal capacity and potential, although it is unable to function as a complete state because of a present lack of organization, specifically of institutionalized state departments ... The establishment of the Federal Republic did not create a new West German state, it merely reorganized a part of Germany. Therefore, the Federal Republic is not the ‘legal successor’ to the Reich... Its sovereignty is legally limited to the Geltungsbereich des Grundgesetzes (geographical realm of jurisdiction the Basic Law).”
There can be no doubt this ruling continues valid for the Berlin Republic (the government that has existed since the reunification of Central and West Germany.) This is because the geographic jurisdiction of the Basic Law does not include the entirety of the German Reich."
In view of all this, can the Federal Republic of Germany even exist legally? The present Berlin Republic or “BRDDR” as it is increasingly called, dismisses the question of its legality as obvious and self evident. It is clear that in 1990 the area of the German Democratic Republic joined the area of the Federal Republic. This joining or annexation took place on the basis of a complex of treaties under which, in official explanations of the Berlin Republic, the postwar era was concluded and Germany restored to full sovereignty.
A classic peace treaty was thus made irrelevant and the necessity of concluding such a treaty overtaken by political events. At any rate, that is what the Berlin Republic states in its official declarations. It ignores the fact that the Germany enlarged by the area of the former German Democratic Republic is still not Germany, however. Its claims about regaining sovereignty cannot withstand close scrutiny.
The so-called “Two Plus Four Treaty” is generally viewed as the principal treaty between the four victorious powers of the Second World War and the two provisional German partial-states, the Federal Republic of Germany and Democratic Republic of Germany. Under the terms of this treaty, Germany is supposed to have regained full sovereignty, according to Article 7 (2): “By the terms of this treaty, a united Germany has full domestic and international sovereignty over its domestic and foreign affairs.” For the citizen of normal intelligence, this phrasing would clearly indicate that no occupation regulations of any kind could continue in effect.
The informed reader is reminded of the socalled Überleitungsvertrag (Transitional Treaty) of 1954, officially called the Vertrag zur Regelung aus Krieg und Besatzung entstandener Fragen (Treaty for Regulation of Questions Resulting from War and Occupation.) This occupation treaty, which provided the basis for continuing Allied occupation in the Federal Republic, originally had 12 parts. Of the original parts, Parts II, VIII and XI were omitted in the version signed on 23 October 1954 because they had already been dropped. Consequently, the Transitional Treaty contained 9 parts with a total of 83 articles and 224 paragraphs containing the current Allied directives. As long as this treaty continued in effect in its entirety, that is, until September 1990, despite the pretensions by representatives of the Federal Republic, one could not speak real sovereignty of the Federal Republic. The politicians, teachers, docents and representatives of the media, who for decades had been pretending that the Federal Republic was a sovereign country, had either been acting against their better judgment or else were ignorant of the terms of the treaty. In order for the Federal Republic to achieve full sovereignty under international law, it would have been necessary in 1990 to clearly state that the Transitional Treaty and all its directives were no longer in effect. This is not what happened.
Neither the agreement of 12 September 1990 on the Vertrag zur Regelung aus Krieg und Besatzung entstandener Fragen (Treaty on the Regulation of Questions Relating to War and Occupation – amended version, also called the “Two Plus Four Treaty”) nor the agreement of 27 and 28 September 1990 on the Vertrag über die Beziehung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und den Drei Mächten (Treaty Concerning the Relationship of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Three Powers -- amended version), revoked the 1954 Agreement (Treaty for the Regulation of Questions Resulting from War and Occupation or Transitional Treaty) in its entirety. Point 1 specified that the Allied directives are suspended and no longer in force -- with exception of what is specified in Point 3 (of the Transitional Treaty of 1954.)
This startling exception reads as follows: “... The following directives of the Transitional Treaty shall remain in effect, however:
“Part I: Article 1, Paragraph 1, Points 1 (’Procedure for rescinding or amending legal regulations’ as well as Paragraghs 3, 4 and 5; Article 2, Paragraph 1; Article 3, Paragraphs 2 and 3; Article 5, Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5; Article 7, Paragraph 1; Article 8;
Part III: Article 3, Paragraph 5, no. a of appendix; Article 6, Paragraph 3 of appendix
Part VI: Article 3, Paragraphs 1 and 3;
Part VII: Articles 1 and 2;
Part IX: Article 1;
Part X: Article 4.
This is by no means a complete list of all the significant and highly sensitive limitations on Germany’s sovereignty. In addition to these specific limitations, Point 4c of the agreement of September 1990 specifies that the suspensions of other parts of the Transitional Treaty as enumerated in Point 1 of the agreement “does not diminish the necessity for Germany’s continuing observance of certain other obligations.” How can anyone speak of a “suspension” of the Agreement of 1954 when the Agreement of 1990 specifies that the fundamental directives of 1954 remain in force? The Auswärtiges Amt (equivalent of the US State Department) explains that the Federal Republic is bound by the earlier “international obligations” with no resultant “diminution of the present full sovereignty of the Federal Republic.” Is such an explanation logically comprehensible?
Hans-Peter Thietz, a former representative in the last freely elected Volkskammer (People’s Chamber) of the German Democratic Republic and representative in the European Parliament, discusses this question at length in his treatment Souveräner Staat oder noch immer unter Besatzungsrecht? (Sovereign State or Still Under Occupation Law?), which is indespensible reading on the subject.
In order to explain the immense significance of the above mentioned treaties, we must specify here the directives that have remained in force. Part 1 of Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Transitional Treaty of 1954 reads as follows: “All laws and obligations that have been established or decreed through legislative measures, court orders or administrative directives of the Allied agencies are in force and shall remain in force in all respects under German law, regardless of whether they are in agreement with other legal directives that may be issued or determined. Without exception these (Allied) laws and obligations shall take precedence over legislative, court or administrative measures, as well as similar laws and obligations based on domestic German law or (subsequently) established or determined laws and obligations.” In view of this directive, it is very obvious that the basic directives of occupation law are still in effect.
In plain language, this article means that Allied occupation measures that were decreed for Germany under earier occupation law continue in effect, regardless of whether they are compatible with present German policies and legal system. It means that in future as in the past, German policies must accomodate and adhere to Allied (American) occupation directives. The continuing applicability of the above quoted article, as well as other articles of the Transitional Treaty, proves that the Berlin Republic will continue to be subordinated to former occupation directives, whose duration is unlimited.
This sobering acknowledgment is further evidenced by an additional fact. Article 1 of Part Nine, which also continues in effect, reads as follows: “Unless provided for in the provisions of a peace agreement with Germany, no citizen of Germany who is subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Republic may raise any claims of any sort against the countries that signed the Declaration of the United Nations of 1 January 1942; or joined and supported it; or were at war with Germany; or are named in Article 5 of the 5th Part of this treaty. Furthermore, no citizen of Germany who is subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Republic may raise any claims of any sort against the citizens of these countries on account of measures that were taken by the governments of these countries or under their authority during the period between 1 September 1939 and 5 June 1945, on account of the condition of war that existed in Europe. Furthermore, no one shall be allowed to make such claims before any court of the Federal Republic.”
Part 6, Article 3, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Transitional Treaty go on to state: “(1) The Federal Republic will in future raise no objections against measures that have been carried out against German foreign assets or any other German assets; or that shall be carried out against such assets in future; or against assets that have been confiscated for purposes of reparations or restitution; or on account of a state of war; or agreements that the Three Powers have concluded or will conclude with other Allied countries, neutral states or former allies of Germany... (3) Claims and complaints will not be allowed against any persons who have acquired or transferred property on the basis of the measures indicated in Paragraph (1) and (2) of this article. Likewise, claims and complaints will not be allowed against international organizations, foreign governments or persons who have acted on instructions of these organizations or governments.”
These legal declarations mean that the victorious powers have placed themselves beyond all legal responsibilities for their actions. Thus they can never be charged with their own wartime atrocities and terroristic acts, even though in the Nürnberg trials they they punished Germans for these same real or alleged crimes, and continue to prosecute and punish them to this day. The unsurpassed atrocities of the infernos that were deliberately created by carpet bombings and fire bombings of German cities such as Dresden, Köln and Hamburg with hundreds of thousands of innocent victims among refugees, women and children at the end of the War, or the Allies’ flagrant violations of international law committed against millions of German prisoners of war and ethnically cleansed persons after the conclusion of the war, cannot be legally prosecuted under the present government. Those who sided with the Allies especially Czechs, Poles, and Slovenes have especially good reason to rejoice: Nothing stands in the way of their joining the European Union. They cannot be brought to justice for their crimes under the present status quo. And Berlin will not veto the anticipated entrance into the EU by Poland, the Czech Republic or Slovenia.
In fact, Berlin cannot exercise such a veto. This is because the formulation at the end of Article 3, Paragraph 1, “...have completed or will complete” means that the victorious powers still, and for an unlimited period in the future, will continue to be allowed to confiscate and seize German assets in foreign countries, or any other assets for purposes of “...reparations, restitution or any other war related reason” (or pretext) and even have the right, in furtherance of this goal, to continue passing additional special measures in future. At present, the Germans are unable even to raise objections to these outrageous measures by the victorious powers. In the present situation they can only themselves to this situation, since the first sentence of Article 1 expressly states, “The Federal Republic will raise no objections...”
Today, more than 60 years after the ceasefire, we Germans are still living de facto under a great many continuing occupation measures of the the victorious Allies. As a result, Federal German policies are to a great extent established by foreign powers, as we will demonstrate in the following chapter, with reference to the USA and Israel. In addition to everything else, the thus far uncontested validity of the UNO “Enemy Country” clauses provides additional proof that Germany, in response to official political calls for the conclusion of a peace treaty, simply cannot refrain from them. Otherwise, the present situation would continue in effect indefinitely. The “enemy country” provisions of the United Nations charter (Articles 53 and 107) allow the victors of World War II to take “forceful measures” against the “enemy countries” Germany and Japan, even without approval of the Security Council. The result is that, under international law and according to United Nations criteria, the Federal Republic continues to be an “enemy country.”
Around the end of September 2002, the well known US liberal journalist Richard Reeves shocked his naive contemporaries by posing the rather odd question, “Is it time to invade Germany again? It was a question that Reeves asked seriously as well as sarcastically. Proceeding from the supposition that the United States has the divine mission of bringing to reason those countries and eliminating the statesmen that the US does not like, or who fail to do as they are told, Reeves expressed misgivings about Germany, which was not showing sufficient enthusiasm for the Irak war. In other words, Germany was not doing what the US expected it to do. He pointed out that bringing about regime change in Irak was easy enough, but doing the same thing in Germany was more difficult since “In Germany, we may have to get rid of tens of millions of voters who defied our warnings and re-elected Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and his Social Democrats. Schroeder and his ilk were returned to power in Berlin after he said the United States must be nuts to want to invade Iraq – and good Germans should have nothing to with that.”
Finally, since the end of the 1990s, Washington has been developing plans to intervene militarily in friendly countries such as France, the Benelux Nations and the Federal Republic in case the “domestic situation” in these countries should “make it necessary.” Such a “domestic situation” might be, for example, electoral victories by the French National Front or acts of violence against foreigners in Flanders or Brandenburg.
This article is based on extracts from the relevant book written by the author. See chapter 4 of Der Angriff (The Assault), published in Tübingen in 2003.
Translated by James Damon.
© Dr. Claus Nordbruch, authorized version
“Vierzig Jahre Jugendwahn”. (Interview mit Johannes Rau). – in: Die Zeit, 12 Dec.2002.
 Walter Lippmann quoted in Die Welt, 20 Nov 1982.
 Quoted in Anweisungen 1945 für die Re-education in Nation & Europa, Vol. 8/1958, p. 10.
Secondary literature constantly refers to this text. The author has been unable to verify with certainty whether it is authentic or not. Without doubt, several passages were taken from Louis Nizer’s What to do with Germany, which appeared in 1944. The author suspects that the Guidelines are identical with portions of Nizer’s book, 100,000 copies of which Gen. Eisenhower is known to have distributed within the US Army. He required his officers to write essays on the book. If this suspicion is correct the text should be read with caution, since peculiar interpretations are often to be found in the various German translations.
In particular, the last paragraph of the quoted text could not be found. The author has a copy of the original edition of Nizer’s book, but he has so far been unable to find a copy of the “Guidelines.” Detailed enquiries with media, universities and the Institut für Zeitgeschichte in Munich as well as research institutes for contemporary history in Ingolstadt have thus far produced no satisfactory answers.
 All quotations taken from Claus Nordbruch’s Sind Gedanken noch frei? Zensur in Deutschland (Is there still freedom of thought? Censorship in Germany.) Munich, 2001, pp. 41-
 Georg Franz-Willing: Vergangenheitsbewältigung. – Coburg 1992, S. 60.
 See Claus Nordbruch: Sind Gedanken noch frei?, where this aspect is more thoroughly discussed.
 Human Rights Watch (Hrsg.): Human Rights Watch World Report 1995.Events of 1994. – New York 1995, p. 209.
 Quoted from Junge Freiheit, 16 Dec 1994.
 See Max Güdes: Die Verwirrung unseres Staatsschutzrechtes. - in: Max Güdes (u.a.): Zur Verfassung unserer Demokratie. – op. cit., 1978, p. 28.
 Gottfried Dietze: Ein Schritt zurück in polizeistaatliche Intoleranz. – in: Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung, Heft 3/1998, S. 221.
 The author has treated this complex in detail. See Claus Nordbruch: Der deutsche Aderlaß, op. cit., pp. 419.
 See the postscript by Herbert Speidel in Heinz Nawratil: Der Kult mit der Schuld, op. cit., p. 239.
 Ibid., p. 256.
 “Oberlehrer muß in den Knast.” – in: raumzeit, Nr. 13/Februar 2002.
 Gudrun Bayer: Ex-Lehrer ins Gefängnis. – in: Nürnberger Nachrichten, 20 Aug 2002.
 Witzsch muß jetzt einsitzen. – in: Nürnberger Nachrichten v. 2 Aug 2002.
 Grounds for appeal listed by defense attorney Horst Mahler, Berlin, 13 Jan 2003, in the case of Frank Rennicke, Landgericht Stuttgart, 38 Ns 6 Js 88181/98, p. 197.
 “Lehrer leugnet KZ-Opfer – drei Monate Haft.” Fränkischer Tag, 20 Aug 2002.
 Fritz Stenzel: “Streit um Hitler-Befehl.” Nation & Europa, Heft 3/2002, p. 59.
 Stadt Dachau, Zeichen: 4.2/Ra/Se, 28 Jan 1988.
 Dachau Concentation Camp, Zeichen: 55/79 di/mg dated 1 Feb 1979. The English text reads: In the crematorium of the Dachau camp a gas chamber was installed which was never used. In addition, there were in the crematorium several small rooms which were used to disinfect clothing.
 Michael Wolffsohn: “Alles hat seine Zeit.” Die Welt, 26 Feb 1994.
 Die Zahl der Opfer von Auschwitz. – in: Osteuropa, Heft 5/2002, S. 631.
 See Cannstatter Zeitung, 12 May 1956.
 Norman G. Finkelstein: Die Holocaust-Industrie. – München/Zürich 2001, S. 133.
 Organizations having a distorted relationship to opinion, information, research and freedom of assembly react very differently. For example, when in mid December a Revisionist Congress was announced in Triest, the Simon Wiesenthal Center of New York slandered the meeting as an “international Neonazi hatefest” and urged the Italian authorities “...to move against any such suspects who enter the country and are fugitives from the law. They should be promptly deported to the democracies where they are sought for trial.” The Wiesenthal Center urged the government to “take all necessary measures to ban this gathering that, if allowed to take place, would aid and abet the forces of terrorism, racism and antisemitism.”
 Die Welt, 17 Aug 1999, p. 3.
 Zbigniew Brzezinski: Die einzige Weltmacht. Amerikas Strategie der Vorherrschaft. – Weinheim/Berlin 1997, pp. 41--.
 The answer to the question / is problematic / question of who is internationally authorized / to sign / the long overdue peace treaty / for the German side.
In this regard / there have / recently / various interest groups / made comments / mor or less anspruchsvoll. On this subject see www.deutsches-kolleg.de, www.kommissarische-reichsregierung, www.deutsches-reich.de.
 Letter from Auswärtigen Amtes (gez. Tietz) dated 20 Feb 2002 to Axel Michaelis.
 Richard Reeves: Is it time to invade ... Germany? – in: The Gainsville Sun, 29 September 2002: In Germany, we may have to get rid of tens of millions of voters who defied our warnings and re-elected Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and his Social Democrats. Schroeder and his ilk were returned to power in Berlin after (perhaps because) he said the United States must be nuts to want to invade Iraq – and good Germans should have nothing to with that.«