Kevin Käther’s Questions That Caused Berlin

Kevin Käther’s Questions That Caused Berlin
District Court to Drop His Case

Written by Kevin Käther
Translated by J M Damon
The original German is posted at



{Germanophiles everywhere are following the self-accusation trials of young dissidents such as Kevin Käther and Dirk Zimmermann with great interest, and we are encouraged by the growth of dissident sentiment in the judiciary of the “Federal Republic.”
As dissident attorney Sylvia Stolz remarked at her own sentencing: “NICHT ALLE RICHTER SIND SCHURKEN!” (Not all judges are scoundrels).}

Kevin Käther’s most recent self-accusation trial began before Berlin District Court on 25 October 2010.
The background to his trials is posted on website along with his original trial reports.

Kevin had originally mailed CDs of Germar Rudolf’s Lectures on the Holocaust to the Berlin Attorney General, Lea Rosh, Professor Wolfgang Benz and Professor Ernst Nolte.
Under the provisions of Section 130 of the German Penal Code he then filed charges against himself, accusing himself of VOLKSVERHETZUNG (Incitement of the Masses) in order to compel a WAHRHEITSERHEBUNG (judicial truth ascertainment) of the official “Holocaust” narrative.
For this crime he was initially sentenced to eight months imprisonment without parole.
However, the Berlin Superior Court set aside this sentence, ruling that mailing CDs did not comprise incitement of the masses and was not a punishable offense.
His case was scheduled for retrial on 25 October 2010.
This time, the persons to whom the CDs had been addressed were called as witnesses.

Kevin, who has doubts about the veracity of the official “Holocaust” narrative, welcomed an opportunity to be educated by the facts and the arguments of such an officially acknowledged “Holocaust” expert as Prof. Wolfgang Benz, who was summoned as a witness.
He welcomed the opportunity to be convinced that six million Jews had really been gassed under Hitler and that he, Kevin Käther, was in fact suffering under misapprehensions.
And he hoped for enlightenment from Professor Ernst Nolte as well.

The Court should have shown a lively interest in allowing the accused to be enlightened by these famous professors.
The defendant, a so-called “Holocaust Denier” was standing before the Court eager to be instructed.
He was prepared to abandon his heresies if presented with sufficient evidence of the veracity of “Holocaust.”
Alas – his redemption was not to be!
Performing an abrupt about-face, the Court would not allow questioning of these knowledgeable witnesses by a defendant who was thirsting for knowledge and enlightenment.
After just two questions directed at Prof. Ernst Nolte, the Court terminated Kevin’s questioning of witnesses.

On 1 November 2010, before Kevin could ask Prof. Wolfgang Benz a single question, the Court discontinued his trial.
In preparation for his trial Kevin had submitted the following questions for the witnesses in the form of an evidentiary motion which the Court apparently considered dangerous.
By discontinuing the trial, the Court was able to delete Kevin’s questions.
They were not entered into the trial record as an evidentiary motion.
Thus the Inquisitorial Court of the so-called Federal Republic of Germany preferred to discontinue a “Holocaust” trial rather than expose its experts to the questions of a heretical Revisionist intent on enlightening himself!

Can anyone with any vestiges of a conscience believe anything this government says?
”Holocaust” experts such as Professor Benz, on whom the System so confidently relies as long as Revisionists are not allowed to put them through the wringer, have to be protected from the questions of an eager-to-learn defendant.
Such is the unmistakable reality in our Federal Republic of Germany.



Questions For Witnesses Ernst Nolte and Wolfgang Benz
from Käther’s Evidentiary Motion


From the above mentioned contents we must determine whether the present book sent through the mails, Germar Rudolf’s LECTURES ON THE HOLOCAUST, meets the criteria for “Denying ‘Holocaust’” or whether we are dealing with a scientific work that is based on empirical facts, and whose sending through the mails therefore cannot be proscribed.
In addition, questioning of the witnesses will reveal uncertainty regarding the ruling by the BUNDESGERICHTSHOF (Federal Supreme Court) on OFFENKUNDIGKEIT (“Manifest Obviousness”) and necessitate additional evidentiary motions regarding the “Holocaust” complex.
In order to ascertain and debate these circumstances, all the witnesses must be asked the following questions:

1. Have you read the book that I sent to you, LECTURES ON THE HOLOCAUST, by the diploma chemist Germar Rudolf?

2. Did you read this book?
-Yes or no?

3. Did you disseminate this book?
-Yes or no?

4. Did you make this book available to a third person?
-Yes or no?

5. Did you find any errors or mistakes in the book LECTURES ON THE -HOLOCAUST?
-Yes or no?

********

6. (Question for Witness Nolte).
Is the following quotation taken from your book “STREITPUNKTE” applicable?
[FOOTNOTE 1: ERNST Nolte, Streitpunkte, Ullstein, Frankfurt am Main – Berlin, 1993, p. 308]
“The widely held opinion that all doubt about the prevailing conceptions of ‘Holocaust’ with its six million Jewish victims is evidence of an inherently evil attitude and contempt for all mankind, and that it must be suppressed whenever possible, is completely unacceptable to science.
This is because of the fundamental and overriding significance of the maxim ‘DE OMNIBUS DUBITANDUM EST’ (Everything must be questioned) for the verification of truth.
We must reject the proscription of doubts about ‘Holocaust’ because such proscription is an attack on the very principle of freedom of scientific investigation.”

7. (Question for Witness Nolte.)
Do you perceive an assault on freedom of scientific investigation in the conviction of Germar Rudolf by Mannheim District Court?

8. (Question for Witness Nolte.)
Is the following quotation, which is taken from your book STREITPUNKTE, relevant to the issue of freedom of scientific investigation?
[FOOTNOTE 2: Nolte, ibid., p. 9]
“Although I felt more challenged by ‘Revisionism’ than did other contemporary German historians, I was soon convinced that this school was being treated unscientifically in mainstream literature.
It was treated solely with rejection, with suspicion of the motives of the authors, and by completely ignoring them.”

9. (Question for Witness Nolte).
In addition, you write the following in your work “STREITPUNKTE:”
“...Questions about the reliability of eyewitnesses, authenticity of documents, the scientific possibility or impossibility of certain processes and events, the credibility of statistics and the emphasis placed on certain circumstances are not only permissible, they are scientifically indispensable.
Every attempt to banish certain arguments and evidence by ignoring or proscribing them must be considered illegitimate.”

- Prof. Nolte, in regard to this quotation, may we conclude that considerations and investigations by Revisionists should be considered legitimate and desirable?

10. (Question for Witness Nolte).
In 1999, you published the work FEINDLICHE NÄHE in association with the leftist French philosopher Francois Furet.
Here is a quotation that you yourself wrote.
[FOOTNOTE 3: François Furet - Ernst Nolte. "Feindliche Nähe”. Kommunismus und Faschismus im 20. Jahrhundert. Ein Briefwechsel. München (Herbig), 1998, pp. 74-79]

“If radical Revisionism were correct in its contention that a ‘Holocaust,’ in the sense of extensive and systematic extermination measures originating in the highest levels of government never existed, I would have to make the following confession: National Socialism was not a ‘VERZERRTE KOPIE DES BOLSCHEWISMUS’ (deformed copy of Bolshevism).
Rather, National Socialism was occupied exclusively with the survival struggle of a Germany that had been internationally forced onto the defensive.
No author willingly admits that his work is lying in ruins, and so I have a vital interest in demonstrating that Revisionism is incorrect -at least in its radical version.”

Prof. Nolte, more than 12 years have now passed since the publication of FEINDLICHE NÄHE.
In the course of ongoing Revisionist findings, have you already had to admit or concede incorrectness in any of your earlier historical publications?
If so, which ones?

11. (Question for Witness Nolte).
In your work DER KAUSALE NEXUS., you cover the “confession” of Rudolf Höß, Commandant of Auschwitz Camp, as well as the Gerstein documents and eyewitness testimony, and you write the following.
(FOOTNOTE 4: Ernst Nolte, DER KAUSALE NEXUS. ÜBER REVISIONEN UND REVISIONISTEN IN DER GESCHICHTSWISSENSCHAFT, Herbig. München, 2002, pp. 96-.)
“The confessions of the commandant of Auschwitz, Rudolf Höß, which undeniably contributed greatly to the collapse of the defense of alleged war criminals in the Nuremberg trials, were obtained by the use of torture.
Under the rules of Western jurisprudence, they would have been inadmissible in a court of law.
The so-called Gerstein Documents are so filled with contradictions, and include so many scientific impossibilities, that they must be dismissed as worthless.
The greater part by far of witness testimony rests on hearsay and unsubstantiated assumptions.
The reports of the few eyewitnesses contradict one another, which creates doubt concerning their credibility...
In contrast to the investigations of the Katyn massacre following the Wehrmacht’s discovery of mass graves in 1943, no international commissions of experts were allowed to scientifically investigate the allegations of homicidal gassings in German concentrations following World War II.
The responsibility for this lack of investigation rests with the Soviet and Polish Communists...
The widespread publications of photographs of crematoria as well as canisters with the label ‘Cyclon B Poison Gas’ have no evidentiary significance, since crematoria were necessitated by the recurrent epidemics and Cyclon B was the standard pesticide used to control typhus-bearing lice everywhere that large numbers of people lived under poor sanitary conditions...
For these reasons, it is vitally necessary to question postwar rulings that mass exterminations in homicidal gas chambers were “proven” by countless statements and unsubstantiated “facts” of which there are no doubts whatsoever.
Such questioning must be allowed, or else scientific truth in this area of history is ruled out – it is simply not a possibility.”

Professor Nolte, did I state the passage correctly?
If so, what information and insight can we now consider obvious and allowable in court?

12. (Question for Witness Nolte).
In your book DER KAUSALE NEXUS (FOOTNOTE 5: E. Nolte, ibid., p. 122) you write the following:
“At issue is the allegation that, on the basis of scientific evidence and matters of fact, there either were no mass killings by gassings or else they did not occur to the extent alleged.
Here I am referring to chemical investigations, including an expert report [the Rudolf Report] comparing residues of cyanide in delousing chambers at Auschwitz with residues in areas designated in construction plans as crematoria morgues.
[The Rudolf Expert Report was commissioned by a German court during the trial of Gen. Remer in 1992 and carried out by Diploma Chemist Germar Rudolf of Max Planck Institute, who was subsequently sentenced to thirty months imprisonment.]
These investigations were carried out by Leuchter, Rudolf and Lüftl. They also include extremely detailed studies by Carlo Mattogno that include burn-hours, coke consumption and similar matters.
It is impossible to objectively argue against the recurrent thesis that what is scientifically or technically impossible could not have taken place, notwithstanding hundreds of confessions and eyewitness accounts asserted the contrary.
Such a thesis cannot be scientifically argued, on principle.
Objectively and scientifically speaking, the admission is unavoidable that humanities scholars and ideologists should have no voice in such an argument [that pertains to the realm of the natural sciences].”

Prof. Nolte, please explain to us whether Rudolf erred and, in case his work contains mistakes, tell us what they are.
In 1993, 300 professors of anorganic chemistry were unable to find a single mistake in Rudolf’s Expert Report, and Swiss expert witness Prof. Henri Ramuz attested to its correctness before Court Chatel-St. Denis on 18 May 1997.

13. (Question for Witness Nolte).
Shortly before his death in June 2006, the “Holocaust” specialist Raul Hilberg, who is frequently quoted by official historians, felt obliged to admit that a great deal of research is still required in “Holocaust” historiography.
Hilberg [author of the extensive three-volume DESTRUCTION OF EUROPEAN JEWRY] admitted, “We understand perhaps twenty percent of the Holocaust (DER STANDARD, Vienna, 10 June 2006, p. 42).
Jürgen Heynsel of the Warsaw Jewish Historical Institute endorsed this assessment: “The decisive stage of writing the history of the Holocaust is still before us.” (“Kein Schindler” in NEUES DEUTSCHLAND, 13 October 2009.)

Prof. Nolte - in view of Hilberg’s and Heynsel’s elucidations, do you consider the “Holocaust” to be a “manifestly obvious” fact that has no need of supporting evidence and further research?


14. (It is not stated for whom this question was intended; apparently it was intended for Prof. Wolfgang Benz.)
The Federal Republic of Germany has decreed that HOLOCAUST-OFFENKUNDIGKEIT (the Manifest Obviousness of “Holocaust”) is unquestionable and the BUNDESGERICHTSHOF (Federal Supreme Court) has decreed that it is unchallengeable.
Since the Deckert trial, “...genocide committed against the Jews, primarily in gas chambers of concentration camps is a manifestly obvious historical fact.”
(Court Verdict 1 StR 179/94)
Why then was Daniel Goldhagen’s book HITLER’S WILLING EXECUTIONERS not placed on the index of proscribed books and why was he not charged with a crime, since he writes in his book that gassing was a “minor event” in the murder of Jews?

15. (Question apparently intended for Witness Benz)
Are you aware that both Rita Süßmuth (former president of the BUNDESTAG) and Fritjof Meyer (former editor of SPIEGEL magazine) reduced the number of Jewish victims gassed at Auschwitz to 356,000 and relocated the “murder weapons” or places of mass murder (the alleged “gas chambers” of official historiography) to two farm houses that stood outside Auschwitz Camp and no longer exist?

16. (Question apparently intended for Witness Benz)
The office of the District Attorney of Stuttgart accepted these revisions as authentic and declined to prosecute author Fritjof Meyer, chief editor of SPIEGEL magazine, and former President of the BUNDESTAG Rita Süßmuth, publisher of the article "DIE ZAHL DER OPFER VON AUSCHWITZ - NEUE ERKENNTNISSE DURCH NEUE ARCHIVFUNDE" (in the periodical OSTEUROPA, 5, 2002, pp. 631-.)
The District Attorney declined to prosecute Meyer and Süßmuth for violating Section 130 of the Penal Code - the corresponding Order to Stop Proceedings) was released on 28 May 2003 in Document 4 Js 75185/02.
In your opinion, is the principle of Manifest Obviousness still operative?

17. (Question apparently intended for Witness Benz)
How can the obvious fact be explained that obviously the official number of “Holocaust” victims is continuing to melt like snow in the sun of springtime?
Can acceptance of the evidence submitted by Fritjof Meyer be ascribed to the fact that the last camp commander of Auschwitz, Rudolf Höß, signed this confession with its fantastical numbers under torture - in the hope and expectation that the exaggerations would be recognized and attention directed to the circumstances under which the incriminating testimony was obtained?

18. (Question apparently intended for Witness Benz)
The world-renowned Jewish “Holocaust” researcher and author Gitta Sereny stated in the London Times on 29 August 2001:
“Why in the world have these people made Auschwitz into a holy cow?
Auschwitz was a terrible place, but it was not an extermination camp!”
As a distinguished historian, can you explain why I, an independent researcher, should not believe the distinguished “Holocaust” historian Gitta Sereny, especially considering that according to official historiography, Auschwitz was supposed to be the center of “Jewish Extermination?”

19. (Question apparently intended for Witness Benz)
In conjunction with the article by Fritjof Meyer and Rita Süßmuth as well as the statements of Hilberg, Sereney and Heynsel, do you consider an examination and revision of the official account of Auschwitz necessary?

20. (Question apparently intended for Witness Benz)
What is your opinion of the findings of official historiography that after 1960, Dachau could no longer be considered the center of alleged National Socialist “exterminations”?
Also, what brought about the sudden recent findings that no homicidal gassings took place there at all?

21. (Question apparently intended for Witness Benz)
On which facts and documents are the new findings based, that no one was gassed at Dachau, even though the Allied “factfinders” at Nuremberg alleged the exact opposite?

22. (Question apparently intended for Witness Benz)
Why is it not explained in detail which “facts” were originally used to allege mass exterminations at Dachau, and what evidence was later used to prove that the opposite was true?

23. (Question apparently intended for Witness Benz)
As an acknowledged expert, you can surely inform me as to which of the two following National Socialist verdicts in our so-called “nation of laws” is true and which false, as well as why it is true or false:
a) “Concentration Camp Maidanek contained no gas chamber” (Verdict of Berlin District Court (8.5.1950, PKs 3/50) and
b) “Mass gassings took place in Maidanek.”
(Verdict of Düsseldorf District Court, 30.6.1981, XVII-1/75 S).
In order to come right to the point, let me point out that both verdicts refer to the same period of time.
I sincerely request elucidation in this matter.

24. (Question apparently intended for Witness Benz)
In addition, you can surely also instruct me in my quest for real truth as to which truth is correct: the truth proclaimed in the Nuremberg Tribunal or the truth proclaimed in Düsseldorf District Court.
Nuremberg Tribunal Document 3311-PS “proved” that hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed with steam at Treblinka, but decades later Düsseldorf District Court (K I Is 2/64) proclaimed that these victims were not steamed but rather gassed.
I sincerely request elucidation in this matter.

25. (Question apparently intended for Witness Benz)
Why does the so-called “Federal Republic” enact legal ordinances to protect narratives and allegations that even the government itself cannot coherently explain?
For lack of space, I have listed only a few isolated examples of these contradictions.
Why does the “Federal Republic” not allow free and independent historical research into the historical subject of “Holocaust?”
Why are historians who arrive at differing conclusions regarding “Holocaust” slandered, demonized and incarcerated, even though their findings have never been disproven in court?

Kevin Käther

****************

The translator is a Germanophile who makes German articles about Germany’s historical plight accessible to those who do not read German.

Here's freedom to him who would speak,
Here's freedom to him who would write;
For there's none ever feared that the truth should be heard,
Save him whom the truth would indict!
ROBERT BURNS (1759–96)