Truth Seekers Will Be Forever Maligned By Christine Miller

Truth Seekers Will Be Forever Maligned
By Christine Miller
November, 2016

About a month ago I forced myself to watch Churchill’s Secret on Wisconsin Public TV. The program dealt with Winston’s stroke in 1953 and was, as I expected, most complimentary in emphasizing his pluck. In reality it was not Churchill’s secret, but the media which censored the fact of his stroke.

Praising Mephisto
After having watched Churchill’s Secret I checked out the title, Clementine, by Sonia Purnell, from our library. Most of the information in this article is from that book. On page 388 Purnell informs us: “His towering reputation cross the globe was secure…”

But, does this author realize what a devastating picture she has painted of the man? I do not think so. The media still love Churchill and have an undying hatred for Hitler. We know, or should know, that the media can make a sow’s ear out of a silk purse and change a silk purse into a sow’s ear. Churchill was the latter.

Clement Attlee described Churchill as fifty per cent genius and fifty per cent bloody fool. I see nothing of that genius, and Churchill’s being a fool was due to his megalomania which bordered on insanity. During WWII he became a visual dictator invoking fear, terrifying ministers, military commanders and officials. Even by his family’s account, that leadership style was “tyrannical.”

Alan Brooke called him an infantile tyrant. He was an alcoholic and a gambler. Roosevelt, another German hater, told his cabinet that he supposed Churchill was the best man England had, even if he was drunk half the time. Churchill’s wife Clementine was opposed to his gambling, rashness and financial irresponsibility. He bought a farm and houses which he could not afford. He insisted on having expensive, pale pink silk underpants for his “delicate skin.” He was easily satisfied with the best.

During WWI he made it to First Lord of the Admiralty. In 1915 he pushed his plan through to attack Germany’s ally, Turkey, which turned into a disaster, about 30,000 English soldiers, 8,700 Australians and 2,700 New Zealanders dying there. In order to refurbish his reputation he joined the English Army in France. As a major he saw the trenches but did not live in them. He wrote a letter to his wife: “Do you realize what a very important person a major is? 99 people out of a 100 in this great army have to touch their hats to me.”

His idea that batmen – military servants assigned to commissioned officers – should also act as bodyguards and willingly sacrifice their lives for their superiors was reportedly drowned out by laughter from his men (page 103).

When his little daughter Marigold died at the age of almost three, Churchill was all tears, but for others not his useful friends and family he had no empathy. He said the Palestinians were barbaric hordes who ate little but camel dung. It did not occur to him that they were a poor, abused people.

He was a gourmand. When out of power and having to rely on reduced meat rations he threw a fit at his staff. Contemplating the restive population in northwest Asia he lamented the squeamishness of colleagues who were not in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes. He presided over the 1943 famine in Bengal, chuckling at the prospect of reducing “a population that bred like rabbits.” His private nurse, Roy Howells, found him exhausting: “He drained the people around him of every last drop of energy.”

To me that sounds like a vampire.

Hitler’s ennobling gesture
The anti-German bias of author Sonia Purnell is revealed by her calling the rout of the English army at Dunkirk “a miraculous rescue.” It was no miracle. And that brings me to Adolf Hitler. England and France declared war on Germany. Hitler wanted peace, and made repeated peace offerings to England. The Germans at that time could have captured the English army –as was suggested by Hitler’s generals. But Hitler, as a sign of good will, let all those soldiers return to England.

While Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin were vainglorious egotists thinking mainly of themselves, Hitler only thought about Germany. Stalin had many statues erected to himself, Hitler none. During that short war against Poland, Hitler inspected the front. His underlings, wanting to please him, brought tables with tablecloths and flowers to the line. Hitler was not pleased. He left in disgust. He was a vegetarian and lived frugally. But he did everything for the workers. His having organized Kraft durch Freude gave many workers for the first time a chance to see the big world. But the ships were not allowed into any English harbour, as British workers were not to see how well the National Socialist Workers’ Party treated its members.

Adolf Hitler was both an animal lover and a non-meat eater

No leader was ever loved more by the German people than Adolf Hitler

Adored by both adults and children

Always willing to stop and show his appreciation to the youth of Germany who loved him

The Churchills paid their staff poorly, but expected perfection. Not many stayed long; there was a continuous turnover.

Hitler’s staff loved him, especially his secretaries, because he took personal interest in their well-being. But there was never any sex involved. He remained faithful to his Eva and she to him. The Churchills employed sex, gourmand cooking, and the grandeur of English mansions to seduce the Americans. Pamela Churchill, married to Randolph Churchill, son of the future prime minister, had a steamy affair with Averell Harriman who pushed for the Lend-Lease Act. This affair was approved by the otherwise puritanical Clementine Churchill.

“Hitler took a country that was defeated, starving and decadent and brought it back politically, economically and morally, while Churchill had an empire and lost it.”

Hitler took a country that was defeated, starving and decadent and brought it back politically, economically and morally, while Churchill had an empire and lost it.

When Croesus, King of Lydia, asked the oracle at Delphi about the outcome of an upcoming battle, the answer was, “You will destroy a great empire.” It was his own. In old age Churchill became very despondent. In a lucid moment, he said, “We butchered the wrong pig,” meaning Germany instead of Soviet Russia.

In reality, Churchill was the pig. He loved to show himself in the nude to his visitors. they described him as “a rosy piggy.” When Winston was in the White House and Roosevelt came to see him, Winston received him in the nude. “Mr. President, as you see, I have nothing to hide from you.”

Churchill died in 1965 and received a hero’s funeral, but he lived long enough to see Germany’s resurgence and the English empire’s demise. Churchill divides men, the majority of whom will always side with the victor even if he’s a Mephisto leading to destruction, while others – truth seekers, a tiny minority – will be forever maligned.

Christine B. Miller is the American author of Reality Check, a book containing Letters to the Marshfield New Herald, Correspondence with the Marshfield (Wisconsin) Board of Education, Articles published in Community News and Articles published in First Freedom. Christine Miller was born in Muensterhausen, Bavaria in 1935 and at a very early age took an avid interest in history and politics. She lived throughout the reign of National Socialism in Germany and at the age of 21 immigrated to the United States. Her letters and articles are a ringing endorsement supportive of Adolf Hitler and National Socialism and exposes of the litany of lies against Germany and Hitler including the greatest of all lies the alleged “Jewish Holocaust”.

Christine Miller can be contacted at:


Kill the Germans! Kill the Germans: An Open Letter to the Marshfield, Wisconsin School Board by Christine Miller



December 10, 2014


Letter to the Marshfield School Board:


Several weeks ago while flipping through the TV channels I suddenly heard: Kill the Germans, kill the Germans, kill the Germans. It came from Wisconsin Public TV and was from a scene used as advertisement for the coming attraction “Escape from a Nazi death camp.” Lately I have noticed that Wisconsin Public TV is having more and more anti German programs. These programs are funded by foundations, most of them with Jewish names. It is a truism: Whose money I take whose song I sing. All the channels, but especially Wisconsin Public TV are singing a Jewish song and You, the members of the Marshfield School Board are merrily humming along.

Last year three candidates were running for election to the School Board: Amber Leifheit, Mark Konrardy and Jason Angell. A forum was held at the Senior High School. My question to the candidates was: In the Marshfield elementary school libraries are innumerable Holocaust books. These books contain faked pictures (a Nazi cutting off the beard of a rabbi ) and faked captions. I enclose the picture of the dead concentration camp inmates of Nordhausen.


This photo first appeared in Life magazine July 1945 and found its way into the book WWII which is in the elementary school libraries at Granton and Madison. Nordhausen was bombed by the USAF April 4, 1945. If you look closely at the photo you can make out the destroyed buildings in the background. The dead were not the victims of the Germans, but the Americans. My question was: Do you think it is appropriate for these books to stay in the elementary school libraries? Mr. Angell answer was: The books should stay. Ms. Leifheit seconded the answer. Mr. Konrardy equivocated.

Last year the school board eliminated the German language from it curriculum. The reason given was budgetary constraints, and since German had the lowest enrollment of the three languages being taught, Spanish, French and German, German had to go. If you put a sponge in the water and expect it not to get wet, you are stupid. If you expect kids to want to learn German with the continued anti German atrocity propaganda starting in our grade schools, then again, you are stupid.

1976 saw the first printing of Arthur Butz’s The Hoax of the Twentieth Century.

 The HOAX of the 20th C.600 copy

Hollywood sprang into action with damage control and made the TV series: The Holocaust. Do I guess right saying that you never read Butz’s book but were glued to the tube watching The Holocaust? Our youngest son was in third grade at that time. Every day for a week he came home crying, did not want to go to school anymore because he was mercilessly bullied. Kids knew he had a German born mother. Spare me therefore your anti bullying programs. They were not for my kids.

About a month ago I listen to Putin’s speech (on the Internet) which Putin gave to the German parliament. He gave it in accent free, perfect German.  He stressed the close and beneficial cooperation between Russia and Germany through the centuries. He mentioned the fact that the first German unification (1871) was only possible with the good will of the czar. The second partial unification (1989) was the work of Gorby.

Remember back to 1962, or the beginning of l963. There were two space programs, the Vanguard, headed by an American Team and the Redstone program headed by Wernher von Braun. The Vanguard rockets fizzled. I still remember Kennedy appearing on TV accompanied by von Braun. Kennedy gave von Braun and his German team the go ahead.

von Braun & JFK

After von Braun had died the Apollo program was headed by Arthur Rudolph, another of the German space scientists. The moon landing was successful. But now the Office of Special Investigation sprang into action. The OSI is a Jewish construct created to ferret out Nazis because Nazis are automatically considered “war criminals.” The OSI gave Rudolph a choice: Leave this country, or face a war crime trial. Rudolph left for Germany. A few years later he wanted to visit his daughter and his grandchildren in California. He applied for a visa: the visa was denied. The Russians also had “recruited” their contingent of German space scientists.  After their job was done they were honored and dismissed with the good wishes of the Soviet government. 

Right now horrible things are happening in Gaza. I can see the pale little faces of the dead Palestinian children.

Dead Palestinian child

They look so peaceful that I cannot feel sorry for them. But the mangled little bodies of the children still alive sear my memory. Are you looking?


Mutilated Palestinian boy

I don’t think so. The cowards prefer to fight the real or perceived injustices of the past. Your memory is with the “Holocaust victims.” You pretend to be patriots. But you patriotism is a farce, for you are nothing more than Judea’s Willing Executioners.


Christine B. Miller

Marshfield, WI







“Give us Palestine and we’ll bring you those Americans” By Christine Miller


“Give us Palestine and we’ll bring you those Americans”

By Christine Miller

In 1961 Benjamin Freedman, Jewish, gave a talk in the Willard Hotel in Washington. The gist of the talk was the exoneration of Germany and the indictment of Zionism.

In 1916 WWI was more or less won by Germany. After the horrendous bloodletting at Verdun whole units of the French Army mutinied. Due to the submarine warfare the English had about two more weeks of supplies left and then had to give up. Germany offered an equitable peace. “Let us go back to the status quo before the war with no winners and no losers.”

Enter the Zionists. This is what they said to the English: “You do not have to give up. Give us Palestine and we bring the United States into the war on your side.” Naturally the Jews wanted something in writing which they received in 1917 – the Balfour Declaration.

The Zionists kept their promise, and as we all know the United States entered the war against Germany April l917. How did the Zionists accomplish that feat? They used their control of the media and swamped this country with anti-German atrocity propaganda. In his book 1984 George Orwell describes the frenzy of the weekly two minutes of hate. For the German minority this frenzy of hate directed against them lasted several years. In a subdued version it is still with us.


My family and I moved to Marshfield in 1970. At that time there were still oldsters left who as youngster lived during WWI. I met two of them and that’s what they told me. Mr. Wendt: “We had a farm of forty acres. When the war started the sheriff and his deputy paid us a visit. The sheriff “recommended” to my father to buy war bonds. He had taken his pistol out of the holster and was twirling it. My father went to the bank and took out a loan of $500 with which to buy the bonds. This was at a time when a pound of butter went for a few pennies. We were e never able to pay off the loan.”

Related Ms. Roddies, daughter of a timber baron and respected doyenne of Marshfield. “I had a girlfriend who had a lovely doll with long, blond hair. One day when she was combing the hair of her doll she noticed on the back of the neck the trade mark ‘Made in Germany’. This caused her a tremendous amount of turmoil. On one hand it was her most beloved doll, on the other hand, her beloved doll was made by the enemy, the Huns. “Loyalty and duty” won out over love and she threw her doll into the pond.”

Magisterial mobs

Ms. Roddis went on how the German minority saw the light and turned themselves into goodly war supporting Americans who were ready to kill their own. An aside: While accompanying my husband to a meeting in Toronto it just so happened that Ernst Zuendel had to appear in front of the Human Rights Commission. It was pathetic. On a small table next to the wall sat Ernst Zuendel with his two lawyers.

ErnstZVictimThe middle of the room was occupied by a slew of Jewish lawyers who spelled each other trying to have Ernst Zuendel convicted of hate crimes. The Jewish lawyer for the prosecution, a Mr. Posner called two German witnesses. One of the witnesses, an elderly German gentleman said: “Yes, I was in the Hitler youth.”

Mr. Posner, the lawyer: “And you were indoctrinated into hate for Jews.”

The German witness: “We were not indoctrinated into hate for anybody. The word Jew was never mentioned.”

Mr. Posner, returning to his seat, with his back to the tribunal but facing us, the audience, muttered under his breath: “You are a liar!”

No, he was not a liar. I can say the same thing, namely that we were not indoctrinated into hate for anybody, including the Jews. I never even heard the word “Jew” mentioned.

Now back to the anti-German hysteria. Among the most tragic of these acts of “patriotism” was the mob lynching of Robert Prager on April 5, l918, in Collinsvillle, Illinois.

Robert Paul Prager

When war broke out with Germany, Prager felt a strong sense of loyalty to the United States. By 1917 he was working in a coal mine. At that time a rumor was circulating around town that German agents planned to blow up the mine with the miners still in it. Several local persons came under suspicion and were forced to publicly declare their loyalty and kiss the American flag. Prager too was suspect. Prager was stripped down to his under wear, draped in the American flag and forced barefoot to stumble through the streets of Collinsville.

At this point, some level headed citizen called the police who took Prager into protective custody. The police hid Prager in the basement and told the mob he was no longer there. They allowed an Army veteran named Joseph Riegel inside to confirm the claim. When the police opened the door the mob swarmed in. They found Prager and took him back outside. The police followed the mob, but did nothing to stop the procession. When the mob crossed the city line the police simply stopped following.

German, therefore guilty

Prager was dragged to a tree. Someone had made a noose out of a tow rope. As many as fifteen grabbed the rope. When their effort to kill him failed someone suggested Prager be allowed to say something. He wrote a quick goodbye to his parents. He asked for and was granted permission to pray. After asking forgiveness for his sins, and once again stating his loyalty Prager spoke his last words: “All right boys, go ahead and kill me, but wrap me in the American flag when you bury me.”

Prager was yanked back into the air and hanged.


Twelve persons were charged with murder. The trial took three days. After forty minutes of deliberation the jury found all of the defendants not guilty.” The Prager case was researched and written up by John Heinl.

Let’s turn to the present. George Will of the New York Times is equating Vladimir Putin with Adolph Hitler. In the established media Hitler is featured as the incarnation of evil. Evil Hitler equals evil Putin who has to be stopped before he can commit More Evil.

Let’s go back to l996. Yeltsin, the drunkard, was the head of the Russian government.

Boris YeltsinUnder him the Jewish oligarch plundered and thereby impoverished the Russian people. The Duma (the Russian parliament) objected and tried to put an end to the Jewish plunder. Yeltsin, under the thumb of the oligarchs had the entrances and the exits of Duma building barricaded, brought in tanks and artillery and began the massacre. In the Milwaukee Journal this event was worth a notice of six lines.

Oct.4,1993RussiancrisisIn retrospect

Yes, Putin is another Hitler. For Hitler brought back the German nation from the abyss – politically, economically and morally. The crowds who enthusiastically cheered Hitler were in the thousands. I have seen nobody cheering for Merkel, the patsy for USA. I saw nobody cheering for Yeltsin, but Putin’s approval rating is in the high 80%.


What are the approval ratings of our politicians?


Source: Originally published in The First Freedom, October 2014

Christine Miller was born in Muensterhausen, Germany in 1935 and now lives in Marshfield, Wisconsin. She is the author of Reality Check a book of compiled letters and articles published in the Marshfield News Herald and The First Freedom.

Christine can be reached at: C Miller


An open letter to the clergy of Sts. Anne & Joachim Catholic Church, Fargo, North Dakota by Christine B. Miller


Last Spring my son and I flew to Fargo. It was Lent and my son wanted to attend Sunday mass. Sts. Anne & Joachim Catholic Church was conveniently down the road.

I left the service at the very beginning. Before Vatican II the priest exhorted the faithful: “Sursum cord!” But whenever I tried to lift up my heart I was brought down to this earth by baby crying and the unruliness of the children. While waiting for the mass to end I spent my time in the vestibule of the church browsing through the literature. Among it I found the pamphlet: Pope Benedict XVI composed by Amy Welborn, and published by Our Sunday Visitor. Under the heading: “Who is Pope Benedict?” I read: “Pope Benedict was born on April 16, 1927, on Holy Saturday. In his youth, he was exposed to the horrors of Nazi Germany, which left a lasting impression on him.

Pope Benedict was not exposed to the horrors of Nazi Germany, but since he was a flak-helper he experienced first hand the horrors of the English and American bombing raids. It was a sunny spring day toward the very end of the war. I was out in the farm yard when a squadron of American bombers flew over Muensterhausen. They flew so low that I could see the crew in the cockpits. They came from the East and were flying West. I assumed the target on which they would drop their load of bombes, air mines and phosphor canisters was Ulm. To this day my heart beats faster when I hear the drones of an airplane. I do not like airports.

Likewise, Pius XII was exposed to horrors in Germany, the horrors of Judeo Communism. In 1919 Pacelli, the later Pope Pius XII was nuncio in Munich, Bavaria. He was on location when the Jews Eisner, Levine, Levien and Axelrod overthrew the legitimate elected government of Bavaria and imposed a soviet regime (Raete Republic). Eugenio Pacelli was in fear of his bodily integrity. He knew that the danger to Christianity did not come from the Nazis, but from Judeo Communism. The Jews never forgave this pope for excommunicating the members of the Communist party, but not the members of the Nazi Party. He was a saintly man, but could not be beatified because of Jewish opposition. In the meanwhile we had John Paul II who completely did Jewish bidding. Benedict XVI was not far behind in his subservience to the Jews. He beatified John Paul II, a profligate spender, and a publicity hog who wanted to be buried in Poland.

Christian churches, but especially the Vatican, seem to suffer from a severe case of schizophrenia. Just one example. The combatants and Jewish supporters of the Spanish “Red” Republic (1936 – 1939) conducted a vicious war against the Catholic Church. Churches were defiled, hundreds of of priest were killed, dead nuns were exhumed and their decayed bodies put on public display. John Paul II bestowed collective beatification on the priests martyred during this civil war. The Nazis with their Condor legion turned the tide in favour of Franco and thereby the survival of the Spanish church. The Red Republic was supported by Soviet Russia which had sent weapons, airplanes and pilots. In return they got Spanish gold. But to this day the Germans are reviled for Guernica. Guernica was already destroyed by Red artillery before the Germans dropped their bombs (asked for by Franco) meant for a bridge in order to cut off the advancement of the Reds to Bilbao. An aside. Picasso’s picture “Guernica” had been painted before anybody had heard of that city.

In Soviet Russia churches were closed, turned into warehouses, or dance halls. In Nazi Germany no church was closed and since it was a period of economic prosperity about 400 new churches were built.

Pforzheim was bombed by the English February 23, 1945. When the warm weather came the city started to stink. The death toll was over 20,000; the majority of the victims were children. But since I do not expect any sympathy from you for “Nazi” children, maybe I can move you with pictures of the gutted churches. The horrors Ratzinger was exposed to were the horrors of Christian countries being ground into the dust by fellow Christians.

Christine B. Miller
Marshfield, WI 54449

churchinside copy

Crucifix Image


desolateyear1945 copy

GemPforzheim copy


Christine B. Miller is the author of Reality Check. She lives in Marshfield, Wisconsin, USA.

She can be reached at

The Trial of Guenter Deckert by Sylvia Stolz (English translation by Christine B. Miller)

GuenterDeckerHeader copy

The Trial of Guenter Deckert

By Sylvia Stolz

Translated from the German language
by Christine Miller

“A prison sentence will not force me into believing.”
~ Guenter Deckert

“When I have doubts I demand the right to express them …They talk about tolerance, but mean the inquisition.  … The hunt to find incorrect literature pretending to fight crime. For a short time people can be intimidated by the threat of punishment, but the brain continues to reason.”

Guenter Deckert1 copy

Thus spoke Guenter Deckert in his final comment at his sentencing February, 2012 in front of the state court Mannheim. The report of his trial follows.

Since January 2, 2013 Guenter has been in prison on account of aiding and abetting so-called Holocaust denial. We accompanied him on his journey to prison and took leave of him at the Mannheim prison gate.

We expressed our thanks for his courage and his commitment to freedom, justice and truth. We will always remember that. The day will come when the Germans and other people will appreciate his zeal.

He is supposed to be released May 2013. We will be there waiting for him starting at nine o’clock.
Address: Herzogenriedstrasse 111, 68169 Mannheim. Whoever wants to be there and greet him is cordially invited.

Screen Shot 2013-04-26 at 7.18.38 PM
The Opinion Terror

By Sylvia Stolz
Screen Shot 2013-04-26 at 7.19.03 PM

A prison sentence for doubting the “Holocaust.”

No probation for expressing one’s opinion in these times of alleged “right wing terror.”

In these times of the “resurfacing” of right wing extremism which, without question, is due to the criminal deeds of the alleged “NSU”,  Holocaust denial constitutes a considerable danger for public peace.

Guenter Deckert, former high school teacher, on February 2, 2012  was sentenced by the state court of Mannheim to a prison sentence of six months without probation on account of aiding and abetting so-called Holocaust denial. As well, because of the “radical” law and in spite of high evaluations he was dismissed from his high school teaching job in November, 1988 in the State of Baden-Wuertenberg and was denied his pension.

He is charged with having cooperated in the translation into German of the book by Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz – the First Gassings, Rumors and Reality (December, Castle Hill Publishers.)


Screen Shot 2013-04-26 at 7.19.27 PM


On July 28, 2010 Guenter Deckert had been sentenced by the lower court of Weinheim to a prison term of 4 months with probation. The charges were: promotion of incitement of the public by means of Holocaust denial and defamation of the memory of the dead. (&&130 III, IV, 189 STGB-BRD. Aktenzeichen: 2Ds 503 Js 14219/08 – AK 579/09).

The prosecutor appealed and on February 2, 2012 the sentence by the state court of Mannheim was increased to six months without probation. Guenter Deckert’s appeal was thrown out (Aktenzeichen: 12Ns 503 Js 14219/08)

Many people in the BRD (Germany), the BRO (Austria), Switzerland, France, Spain, Greece and other countries have been sentenced because they denied or doubted the Holocaust when defined as systematic genocide.  At times very high prison sentences have been handed down. For example  the sentence against lawyer Horst Mahler.
Screen Shot 2013-04-26 at 7.19.45 PM

The Holocaust is not defined

During his appeal Guenter Deckert  wanted to know the concrete facts which he, according to the accusations, deliberately ignored and the truth he contested. He received no answer.

It is especially telling that the so-called “Holocaust” is not legally defined (This is against the principal of the penal law). In the first trial no concrete facts as to the place of the crime, the methods of killing or other proofs, directly or indirectly  presented in the findings of other trials, were presented.

Concerning his denial the court pointed to &130 section 3StGB , &6 section of the international penal law which defines genocide as being when a member of an ethnic or religious group is killed with the intent to destroy or partially destroy the whole group. According to &130 section 3StGB i.V.m &6 section VStGB people can be punished who deny that under the rule of National Socialism, without knowledge or intent of the German Reichsregierung,  a Jew, by someone or another   (even by a none German), had been killed with the intent to partially destroy Jewry as an ethnic and religious group.

“Known to the court” to be challenged”

Guenter Deckert at the beginning of his appeal made the following motion:

“I move for the court to discuss point by point the principles on which the court rests its “known to the court” facts which, since the beginning of the Seventies of the Twentieth Century, generally go under the notation “Holocaust.”

The court should establish if and how far the persons who are called to judge have knowledge of these “facts” or only base their judgment on hearsay or secondary literature.”

Before coming to a decision about this motion the court should take into consideration the resolution by the petition caucus of the German Bundestag (upper house) Pet 12-4-07-45-5699 Deutscher Bundestag  12. election period – print 12/2849.

An excerpt: During a main trial the court is duty bound to discuss those facts of which the court has taken judicial notice in order to give the accused the opportunity to contest them. In addition it has to be acknowledged that “known to the court” does need to exist in perpetuity or has to remain unchanged. New information might have been gotten and new events might have happened which will bring about a different conclusion. If the accused presents such circumstances which in the past have not been mentioned or discussed the “known to the court” can be challenged and new proofs concerning these facts have to be considered. In this way the accused and his defender have the possibility to counter “it is known to the court.”

The decision concerning “it is “known to the court” & 244 lies therefore exclusively in the hands of the court in question and is subject to the principle of independence in respect to judges. It is also possible that in individual cases a different judgment may be the result.”

Judgment based on the media

Concerning “it is known to the court”  the following decisions have been made: (…)

The county court Bernau presided over by the female judge Kroh rejected the motion to discuss the principles of  “known to the court,” stating that the facts and the legal situation were the same. She simply gave judicial notice that during the National Socialist (NS) period, the genocide of the Jews in gas chambers located in the concentration camps happened.

The 3. Senate of the Bavarian state court rejected the motion concerning “the Holocaust is a  fact, known to the court” with the pronouncement that it does not have any doubts as to the reality of the Holocaust, referring to the accessible and common information in words, pictures, and sound. (decision 1/14/2011, Bay AGH II – 27/09). The motion of the defense to challenge which material the senate based its certainty of “known to the court” was denied citing material in newspapers, on TV, in reference and history books (decision 2/8/2011).

The judiciary degrades itself to a grotesque caricature if it bases its judgments on the media and TV. Judiciary contains the word justice. It does not deserve its name.

No actual facts

It is worthy of notice that the so-called Holocaust is not legally defined and facts are avoided. In & 130 StGB-BRD which is used to convict “Holocaust deniers” the so-called Holocaust is not defined. It is not even mentioned.

The sentencing of Guenter Deckert in the first instance at the local court in Weinheim contains no determination of the crime of “Holocaust denial”. In other words there is no determination of the Holocaust in regard to the place of the crime, the methods of killing, the number of the dead, the time frame, the perpetrators, the bodies, no deposition taken of the witnesses, no proof of the intent by National Socialism to completely or partially exterminate the Jews. There is no determination about decisions, planes, orders or documents not even in the form of references to other judicial sentences.

In addition there is no determination of the knowledge the accused had, or is supposed to have had, or must have had, or could have had.

As long as the courts do not name the location on which the mass murder was suppose to have happened; as long as the courts do not describe how the killing was done; as long as the courts do not mention any proofs; a judgment that mass murder has occurred is not possible. The same is the case for “it is known to the court.”
Without submitting proof as to actual facts a sentencing for Holocaust denial is not valid.

Without the determination of what knowledge of the so-called Holocaust the accused had or could have had, the charge that he acted against his better knowledge is void.

If the above mentioned points are not addressed a sentencing for the denial of the Holocaust is arbitrary and a corruption of the law.

A defense is not possible

The refusal by the judiciary to bring up for discussion the principle of “it is known to the court that the holocaust happened” makes any defense impossible. Not knowing the concrete facts on which the accusation is based emasculates the defense. The law used to sentence an accused without the defense being able to challenge “it is known to the court” defeats the ends of the law.

“The Holocaust as fact is known to the court.” Which facts however the court knows are not stated.

For example: Dr. Martin Broszart, director for the federal Institute fuer Zeitgeschichte published the following: “Neither in Dachau, nor in Bergen-Belsen, nor in Buchenwald were Jews or other inmates gassed.” (Die Zeit, 8/19/1960, p 16). On the other hand there are publications which talk about the gassings in Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald. Which of the two is, according to the judiciary, “…known to the court?” Is it “known to the court” that inmates were gassed at Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald, or is it “… known to the court” that nobody was gassed at Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald? Both cannot be “… known to the court.”

An entire event such as the so-called “Holocaust” can only be undisputed (facts known to the court) when the individual events are undisputed (facts known to the court).

The history Professor Dr. Gerhard Jagschitz of the Institute for Contemporary History at the University of Vienna wrote the following expert opinion: “Substantial doubts about the trials in question have been raised by the presentation of expert opinions to national and international courts. The relentless repetition of judgments using “ facts known to the court,” namely that the Jews were killed by gas in the concentration camp of Auschwitz, will not be enough on which to base sentencing in a democratic nation which is supposed to be founded on justice and right.” (letter to the state court Vienna, 1/10/l991, AZ:26b Vr 14 184/86)

The Ruhr –Nachrichten (Bochum) No. 277 (11/29/2005) printed a citation by the Israeli writer and musician Gilad Atzmon: “The historiography known to us about WWII and the Holocaust is a complete falsification initiated by the Americans and Zionists.”

Is the Holocaust indisputably “a fact known to the court” or is it indisputably “a fact known to the court” that the Holocaust is frequently challenged and therefore can not be “a fact known to the court?”

It is therefore illogical to call a certain alleged historical event which is frequently contested as “a fact known to the court”, a concept which the authorities then use to persecute and penalize the “deniers.”

Abuse of procedural rights

After reading the motion Guenter Deckert wanted to know what he has to accept as “facts known to the court.” The prosecutor, Andreas Grossmann replied (11/14). “That you will find out during sentencing.” During the sentencing however nothing was said.

The chairman, Ross, decreed to postpone the decision concerning the motion. He said: first  principles have to be established. Prosecutor Grossmann remarked (January 13, 2012) that the motion only will be dealt with after the pleading. The purpose became obvious when (January 13, 2012) the motion was denied. In the meantime Guenter Deckert took up his case again. In order to show that the “facts are known to the court” must be fully discussed he described in detail   circumstances and facts which made him doubt the “Holocaust.” For example he mentioned Dr. Benedikt  Kautzky who, for seven years, was in German concentration camps among others, in Auschwitz-Birkenau, and who wrote  that in no camp did he ever see a gas chamber.

The chamber denied the motion to discuss “facts are known to the court“ (chairman – Roos, jurors-Wolfgang W. and Helmut M.) using, among other arguments, the reason, “the Holocaust defined as mass killings of Jews especially in the gas chambers of the concentration camps during WWII is “a fact known to the court” (January 13, 2012). The Holocaust as historical event is considering evidence beyond discussion.”

“The facts are known to the court” is not to be discussed because “the facts are known to the court” is a circular argument incompatible with logic and beyond reason and the principles of justice.

The resolution goes on to accuse Guenter Deckert of abusing procedural rights. The need for proofs is not applicable since Guenter Deckert’s demands in that regard, during the main trial, are only designed to involve the court in order to spread his revisionist ideas. This is obvious from his presentation in which he declared that “facts known to the court” needs to be discussed.

According to the court it is an abuse of the justice system when an accused, before being sentenced, tries to move the court to examine the facts of which he is accused.  

The resolution furthermore implies that the chamber considers the discussion which forms the basis of the accusation as “court research” to which the accused is not entitled.

The court in this resolution has obviously ignored the laws of reason.

On one hand the court looks at the motion to discuss “the Holocaust, a fact known to the court” (contrary to what Guenter Deckert has said) as a move for proof, on the other hand, in contradiction to this, as a motion to obtain “court research”. The motion however implies neither one nor the other.

Historical facts are deliberately ignored

The resolution further states that Guenter Deckert deliberately ignores historical facts and obstinately refuses to accept the truth.

Reacting to the resolution (January 13, 2012) Guenter Deckert moved (February 2, 2012) that the chamber communicate the following:

According to the court’s knowledge “the ‘Holocaust’ is a fact” in which concentration camps and gas chambers existed.

According to the court’s knowledge in what ways did additional killings take place?

According to its knowledge what were the number of victims?

According to the court’s opinion which facts of the so-called Holocaust have I ignored and accepted?

Since the prosecutor and the court have not produced any facts in regard to the accusation I cannot know which facts I supposedly ignore.

I made the motion to discuss the principles of the “Holocaust is a fact known to the court” in order to be able to defend myself against the accusation of Holocaust denial. I stated in detail that the court is duty bound to discuss their determination that the “Holocaust is a fact known to the court.”

In addition I have pointed out that there is no concrete definition of the so-called Holocaust.

Furthermore no determination has been made about which knowledge of the so-called Holocaust I had or was supposed to have had or could have had.

In the resolution of January 13, 2012 the so-called decision does not contain any determination to the circumstances and “it is known to the court,” nor are there any references.

Without defining the deed in question a sentencing for Holocaust denial is not possible.

Without determining which concrete knowledge the accused had about the so called “Holocaust”, or could have had, an accusation to have acted against his better knowledge is void, and therefore a sentencing for denying the truth is not possible.

What is “fact known to the court”

During my argument I presented facts which show that there is a need for a discussion about “fact known to the court.”

“Known to the court” are historical facts which by means of historical research are considered proven and everybody therefore without specific knowledge can inform himself from history books, encyclopedia and similar reference books (Alsberg/Nuesse/Meyer, proof in a trial, 5. edition, Carl Heymanns publishing house, Berlin 1983, p.539.

The acceptance of “the fact is known to the court” rests on the preliminary condition that the fact is not challenged (vglAlsber/Nuesse/meyer, a.a.O., p. 568.

If however in historiography the truth of an event is contested it does not become accepted knowledge just because much has been written about it and disseminated (Alsberg/Nuesse/Meyer, a.a.O.,P. 540).

In my motion to discuss “the Holocaust happened is known to the court”  I cited examples of publications, especially non revisionist publications which prove that the Holocaust historiography is not in agreement, does not speak with one voice, is not unchallenged, and contradicts itself. The Holocaust therefore cannot be claimed as “a fact known to the court.”

A sentencing for denying the Holocaust on the basis of “the Holocaust is known to the court” is therefore not possible. I made the motion not in order to spread revisionism, as maintained by the chamber, but for the simple reason that I have been accused of Holocaust denial and that I want to use my right to defend myself.

To dismiss my motion because I intended for the court to deal with “the Holocaust is known to the court” is arbitrary. Before sentencing it is an essential duty and the task of the court to deal with the underlying facts.

It is factually and judicially not understandable why in a trial for Holocaust denial a motion is supposed to be abusive which is meant to bring clarity in regard to “a fact known to the court.”

“Fact known to the court” is in need of discussion

When a French historian, Jacques Baynac, a proponent of the Holocaust writes that for the existence of the Nazi gas chambers only the lack of documents, traces and other material proofs can be confirmed (Le Noveau Quotidien de Lausanne, Switzerland , September 2, l996, p.16 and September 3/l996, p.14) then this means that there is a need to discuss “the Holocaust is known to the court.”

Michel de Bouaerd, professor for history and dean of the faculty for the Arts and Sciences at the University of Caen (Normandy) states that the documentation concerning the Holocaust is rotten, that the documentation about the system of the German concentration camps is permeated by a mass of invented stories, relentless repetitions of falsifications, especially in regard to numbers, and confusion and generalizations (Ouest-France v. 2-3 August l986, p. 6). This again proves that there is a need to discuss “the Holocaust is known to the court.”

Historian Professor Ernst Nolte seconds the need for a discussion of “fact known to the court. “The testimony of witnesses rests to a large part on hearsay and mere surmises; the testimony of the few eyewitness are in part contradictory and create doubts in regard to their veracity.”

The director of the Yad Vashem memorial, Shmuel Krakowski, in the same vain states (Jerusalem Post, August 17, l986): “Most of the 20,000 witnesses’ testimony concerning the Holocaust are unbelievable, falsified, cannot be verified, or in other ways are not true.”

On January 13, 2012 during a pause in the proceedings (around 16:30) the chairman Ross directed the following words to me: “You would be surprised at the knowledge of history by the jurors.” But judges have to make an unencumbered decision, based on their conviction which they formed during the proceedings in question (& 261 StPO). In addition “facts known to the court” in order to be useable have to be introduced during the main trial in order to give the participants the opportunity to take a position.

It would therefore be useful if the members of the chamber would reveal their knowledge of history to the accused before they convict him on the basis of this knowledge.

If not it will remain obscure on which facts the members of chamber base their views. It (the Holocaust) is supposed to be a wrong removed from common categories and therefore &130 StGB is an exception to the prohibition of having a special law. (motion of cessation of the trial on account of  the special law & 130 which is contrary to the German basic law. The motion was denied January 13, 2012)

Permanent misjudgment

The chamber misrepresents my motion. It considers it a motion for proof which is obvious from their choice of words. “The chamber is supposed to furnish proof,” “makes proof unnecessary.” “proof is also inadmissible,” “a motion for proof is inadmissible (p.2 of the resolution).”

But it is unequivocally clear that the motion was not a motion for proof.

The motion to discuss the principle of “the Holocaust, a fact known to the court” does not mean, that the Holocaust did not happen (p. 2 of the resolution), but was a motion to examine the facts on which “fact known to the court” are based.

The chamber maintains that I contested “facts known to the court.” The chamber is mistaken.  I did not contest facts, but demanded the discussion of facts.

What is a circular argument?

A circular argument is to deny the motion for discussion of the principle of “fact known to the court” with the argument that a discussion is not necessary since the Holocaust is “a fact known to the court.” (p.2 of the resolution.)

The chamber misunderstands not only the meaning of a “circular argument,” but also the concept of “an established fact known to the court.” What is frequently contested can’t be “an established fact known to the court” since “an established fact known to the court” is defined as undisputed, unchallenged (see above).

It is a circular argument if I would say “the holocaust is not “a fact known to the court” because “it is not known to the court.” It is, however, not a circular argument if I say: “the Holocaust is not fact known to the court” because “known to the court” is equivalent to conformity and indisputability. The historiography of the Holocaust is not in conformity and is not unchallenged.  The resolution stated by the chamber shows a lack of capacity to reason.

It is inconsequential if it happened or not 

My motion of  January 13, 2012 in which I stated that the incriminating book is scientifically correct was denied. The following reason was given: It does not matter if the book is scientifically correct.  I am guilty since I assisted in the formation of the book.

It looks as if the chamber agrees with the view of the Mannheim court who convicted Ernst Zuendel. “It does not matter if the Holocaust did or did not take place.” The “tageszeitung (February 9, 2007, p.6)” writes about the Zuendel trial: “At the end the court denied all the motions with the lapidary reason (a shock to some of the antifascists among the audience): “It does not matter one wit if the Holocaust did or did not take place. Its denial is punishable under German law. Only this is what counts.”

[Read more…]