Germar Rudolf
Oberer Fauler Pelz 1
69117 Heidelberg
13 Feb 2007
My dear Mr. Deckert,

Today I received a copy of the report that you wrote concerning the 8th day of my trial, which was 29 January 2007.
Sadly I must again conclude that you have presented the events of that day in a distorted, incomplete and even untruthful manner.
Again I must request that you distribute my following counter- presentation through your network.
My account as follows:

Günter Deckert’s report on the 8th day of the Rudolf trial, dated 19 Jan 2007, contains several inaccuracies and omissions that I wish to correct.
According to Deckert, the witness Brockmüller of the BKA [Bundeskriminalamt: the German national police, counterpart of the FBI] stated in testimony that I had requested a “personal interview” in which I offered to collaborate with the government in combating Revisionism, by turning over the rights to my website and surrendering data pertaining to my customers and circulation.
Accoring to Deckert, Agent Brockmüller testified that In case the government rejected my offer for a deal (“Kuhhandel”), I would see to it that the market would be flooded with Revisionist literature, and I was the only person who could prevent this.

These accounts are false and misleading.
The truth is that witness Brockmüller testified that I had offered to collaborate with the government, specifically by surrendering the website <www.vho.org>, which would presumably allow the BKA to directly deal Revisionists.
At no time did the BKA agent mention handing over data pertaining to customers and circulation.
Furthermore, Agent Brockmüller did not allege that I had threatened to “flood the market.”
Rather, he testified that I had remarked that the market could become flooded with revisionist materials – he did not mention me as the initiator of the “flood,” however.

Deckert suggests that during my examination of Agent Brockmüller I stated to him that I had been “extremely emotional, no longer able to remember details.”
The truth is that my first testimony regarding my emotional agitation occurred at the beginning of my statement of position with regard to Brockmüller’s testimony, which occurred only after he had left the courtroom.
Deckert’s assertion that I said I was unable to remember details is false and misleading.
The truth is that I asked Agent Brockmüller if he were certain that I had offered to assist him in combating Revisionists.
At that point I was calling into question the witness’s ability to recall details, not my own ability to do so.

Equally false and misleading is Deckert’s allegation that I had “clearly given the BKA agent to understand that he could not have both: that is, himself (Germar) as well as his assistance in combating Revisionism” is also false and misleading.
The truth is that following dismissal of Agent Brockmüller, I included the following explanations in my statement of position.
a) I explained that, agitated by Agent Brockmüller, I was in fact strongly affected emotionally, unable to control my emotions. At one point I even cried. This testimony then led to another emotional collapse, which is the reason why the presiding judge asked if I needed a court recess.
b) I explained that my recollection of the discussion with Agent Brockmüller was very different from Agent Brockmüller’s testimony. For lack of better evidence, however, the only thing I could counterpose to his testimony was my own.
c) I explained what I had meant when, during my initial conversation with the Agent Brockmüller, I told him that the BKA could “not have both Revisionism and me.”
d) I explained that I had offered only to close down the websites under my control and to give the BKA nothing more than control over the domain names.
e) I explained that Agent Brockmüller dismissed this as totally inadequate since the deleted data could reappear at any time under a different domain name and so, in his view, this made my offer worthless.
f) I also explained that I most certainly never offered to collaborate in combating Revisionists.

Deckert’s allegation that Agent Brockmüller was dismissed without having been placed under oath after I explained my position on customer data is likewise false and misleading.
The truth is that I stated my position on customer data AFTER Brockmüller had been dismissed, NOT BEFORE.

Deckert’s allegation that I said the customer data consisted of “75% names from the German speaking area” is also misleading.
What I actually said was that 90% of these addresses had come from Germany proper.

In summarization, I have here established that Deckert’s presentation of the events of Day 8 is chronologically inconsistent. It is also factually confused and largely false and incomplete, primarily because he omitted the fact that I denied having offered to collaborate with the BKA in combating Revisionism and prosecuting Revisionists.
Deckert’s presentation is primarily an attack on my character and reputation..

Clarification: my statement to Agent Brockmüller to the effect that the BKA “could not have both me and Revisionism” was clearly misinterpreted by both Brockmüller and Deckert.
They took it to mean that I was making an offer to the BKA that if they would allow me to go free, they could “have Revisionism” in the sense that I would somehow be able to deliver Revisionists over to them.
The truth is that I never even remotely meant to make such a proposal.
Such a misinterpretation and such an offer might well be found in the pysche of a BKA agent; however, considering the context in which that utterance was made during the conversation with Agent Brockmüller, they cannot be objectively supported.

This context, which Agent Brockmüller did not mention in his account of my statement and which I also did not mention in my position statement, is as follows:
At the beginning of 2005, as I explained in my opening statement, describing my personal situation, I found myself in the position of a husband and head of family and household. I made the decision to give this role priority; therefore I could not continue my activities as full time revisionist publisher. Having to choose between the two, I had chosen the former over the latter.
For this reason I drastically curtailed my publishing activities, with exception of books in the English language.
Since my wife and I intended to have at least one additional child, it was very clear that with the arrival of that child, my time would be completely taken up with the domestic duties of father and “house husband.”
The discontinuation of the two magazines “Vffg” (Zeitschrift für freie Geschichtsforschung) and The Revisionist was inevitable in the near future, as was withdrawal from the German language book enterprise.

I explained all this to Agent Brockmüller in the initial interview: he may or may not have understood what I was telling him.
I said that it must be evident even to the BKA that since early 2005, both magazines had gone into hibernation, and that hardly any more updates had been posted on my website.
I said the German government had hurt itself by taking me into custody, since my efforts would now be taken up and continued by others who would revitalize the activities I had discontinued.
I told him that if the German government had left me in peace, then I in return would have left it in peace, where historical research and revisionism are concerned.
But now, I said, the exact opposite was going to happen and the “BRDDR” would again be exposed as a tyrannical regime with no regard for basic human rights guaranteed under the UN Charter.)
I told him that now, a section of the diverse Revisionist movement would take over the rudder.
This section would not insist on high quality work printed in modest editions and directed at historians, as I had done.
Rather, they would flood the market with inexpensive mass mailings and Internet postings.
In particular the Government would have to expect retaliatory actions on account of my arrest.
These actions would take the form of mass distribution of Revisionist materials.
At home in the United States I would be in a position to hinder or discourage such retaliatory actions, but not if I were under lock and key in Germany.
I warned Agent Brockmüller that my imprisonment would backfire on the German government and I said that government would have to decide whether they wanted to have me under lock and key, or renewed and expnded efforts by the Revisionist movement.
I told him that both together would not be a possibility (meaning the government could not expect to imprison me without increasing revisionist activities.

Against this background, it is clear that I was NOT offering to collaborate in persecuting and combating historical revisionism. Instead, I was attempting to make clear to the BKA that my Revisionist efforts, in the sense of broadly based activities in the German language, had already been greatly reduced, and would continue to be quiescent if the German government would release me and allow me to concentrate on my family.

In response to justified criticisms of Deckert’s deletion of my denial in his trial report posted on 4 Feb 07, he posted his own position, in which he repeats and reenforces his above mentioned falsifications.
Going still further, Deckert makes the additional assertions:
“Only a few people know what all I have contributed concerning various aspects of the Rudolf trial while sitting in the second row, without being paid by anyone.
By this I am referring not only my presence on all trial days, but also the time and expenses connected with attending it.”

Here one should note the following:
 a) Being present at a trial is not necessarily contributing to it, especially when one disturbs the main trial with exclamations from the visitors gallery.
b) I am among those who do not understand what Mr. Deckert contributed to my trial “without being paid for his efforts,” outside of his grotesque and malicious reporting “from the second row.”
Certainly I never desired his presence or his reporting.
I would dearly like to know what he contributed.

In the same report, Deckert erroneously alleges that: “...He (Rudolf) must have known from official documents that on a basis of the search of the home of Dr. G. in connection with the confiscation of the bank account... the BKA was already in possession of customer data.”
The truth is as follows:
a) As I explained above, the BKA did not allege that I had offered customer data to it: I never made any such offer.
b) At the time of my arrest and interrogation by the BKA, I had no access to the documents. I could not have turned them over, even if I had so desired!
c) In all the documents pertaining to my case there is no mention of customer data, nor is there any evidence to suggest that the BKA has such materials.
d) We did not even know that the BKA possessed such data until we learned it from the testimony of the BKA agent on 29 January 2007.

This data consists of a bare Word file with customer names and no additional
information whatsoever concerning details of transactions.
Furthermore the data file is almost 10 years old and around 70% of the names are inactive.
Thus the data is of very little use to the BKA.
This conclusion is supported by the fact that in the two and a half years since confiscation of the list, no searches of the customers’ homes has occurred.
This is true as of the end of 2005, as nearly as I can tell
(I assume that 2006 will not be different, since additional searches did not occur in 2004 and 2005.)

In conclusion, I offer the following observations:
1. People should judge me by my actions, not by the slanders of my enemies.
2. It is the mission and the modus operandi of BKA agents such as Brockmüller to not only imprison Revisionists, but to damage their reputations as well, and to sow discord within Revisionist ranks (This BKA operation is reminiscent of the FBI Operation COINTELPRO during the late 1960s and 70s)
3. Agent Brockmüller gave false testimony before the Court, although it is impossible to determine whether he was intentionally lying.
There is no doubt that his false testimony supports one of the principal tasks assigned by his superiors, namely to damage or destroy the reputations of Revisionists and sow discord among their ranks.
4. However, government agents such as Brockmüller can only initiate such character assassination and discord.
In order to accomplish this task the government relies on the assistance of the Deckerts of this world, who “point out the motes in the eyes of others while ignoring the beams in their own eyes.”

Germar Rudolf, Heidelberg, den 13. 02. 2007