"But no-one would say anything publicly  ... for fear of the Jews." (The Bible, John 7:13)

The Trial of Graf Inquisition

The criminal trial of Gerhard Förster and Jürgen Graf for "Racial Discrimination" in Baden!

(Baden, Switzerland) on 16 June 1998.

Based on Xavier Marx’s report on the trial for RECHT + FREIHEIT(22 July).

Presiding judge:
State prosecutor:
Sentence Graf:
Sentence Förster:

Andrea Stäubli
Dominik Aufdenblatten
15 months prison + fine
12 months prison + fine

graf.gif (34778 Byte)


According to the 17 July Aargauer Tageblatt, Graf’s interrogation was "much livelier" than Förster’s; this was undoubtedly true. The cat-and-mouse exchange of questions and answers lasted more than two hours.

Graf defended the views expressed in his books with great forcefulness.

Judge Stäubli: Was there a holocaust?

Graf: That is a matter of definition. If, by ‘Holocaust’, you mean brutal persecution, mass deportations to camps, and the death of many Jews through epidemics, exhaustion, and malnutrition, then, of course, it is a historical fact. But the Greek term ‘Holocaust’ means ‘total burning’, or ‘victim of fire’, and is used by orthodox historians for the alleged mass gassing and burning of Jews in ‘extermination camps’. That is a myth.

Judge Stäubli: Do you consider yourself a revisionist? What does this expression mean?

Graf: Yes, I consider myself a revisionist. In general, the term revisionist is applied to historians who subject the official version of history to critical examination. The Holocaust revisionists under discussion here dispute three central points: 1) the existence of a plan for the physical destruction of the Jews; 2) the existence of extermination camps and execution gas chambers 3) the number of 5 to 6 million Jewish victims. The exact number of victims is unknown, since the documentation is incomplete. Personally, I assume less than a million.

Judge Stäubli: Are you a trained historian?

Graf: No. I must, however, point out to you that the two best-known representatives of the orthodox ‘Holocaust’ literature, the Jews Gerald Reitlinger and Raul Hilberg, were not, or are not, trained historians either. Reitlinger was an expert in the history of art, while Hilberg is a jurist. The Frenchman Jean-Claude Pressac, whom the media have praised as the rebutter of revisionism, is a pharmacologist. If an art historian, a jurist, and a pharmacologist have the right to express themselves on the Holocaust, then a philologist has that right, too.

Judge Stäubli: What was your motiviation in writing these books?

Graf: My central motive is not the defence of the German people, although I like the Germans. My central motive is a love of truth. I cannot tolerate lying.

Judge Stäubli: What is your definition of scientific writing?

Graf: The characteristics of scientific writing is that all counter arguments must be taken into account and examined before formulating one’s own opinion. Only the revisionists do this.

Judge Stäubli: Would you term your own books as scientific?

Graf: I would classify them in three categories. "Auschwitz. Tätergeständnisse und Augenzeugen des Holocaust", as well as the book on Majdanek, written by myself in collaboration with Mattogno, which will soon be published, are scientific books. ‘The Holocaust Swindle’ and "The Holocaust Under the Scanner" I would call popular science. In these books, for the most part, I do not set forth my own knowledge; rather, I present a general summary of revisionism. "Totesursache: Zeitgeschictsforschung" is, finally, quite simply a novel, and as such is not scientific.

Judge Stäubli: What moved you to write your Auschwitz books?

Graf: There is no technical or documentary proof of the reported mass gassings at Auschwitz, but rather, only eyewitness accounts. This suggested the idea of collating the most important eyewitness statements, quoting them, and analysing them. If no historian ever thought of this before, that is not my fault.

Judge Stäubli: Do you consider the eyewitness statements incredible?

Graf: Yes. Let us assume that three witnesses describe an alleged automobile accident. The first witness says the automobile left the highway, caught fire, and exploded; the second says the automobile had a head-on collision with an on-coming car; while the third says that the automobile hit a bridge, the bridge collapsed, and the automobile fell into a river. What do you do? And what do you do when there is no wreckage of any automobile to seen anywhere around, and there is no bridge and no river? The eyewitness testimonies on gassings contradict each other on all possible points; and where they agree, they repeat the same impossibilities over and over again, depriving them of all credibility. For example, many witnesses claim that, in Auschwitz, three bodies were burnt in one oven muffle in three quarters of an hour. The actual capacity was one body per muffle per hour; the capacity stated by the witnesses is therefore exgaggerated twelve-fold. This proves that the eyetwitness testimonies were coordinated in advance. The exact manner in which these testimonies were coordinated, is known in complete detail.

Judge Stäubli: In the introduction to the Auschwitz book, you write that there is no documentary proof of the extermination of the Jews in the extermination camps. Do you stand by that statement?

Graf: The anti-revisionist historian Jacques Baynac, in the "Nouveau Quotidien" on 3 September 1996, wrote that the absence of evidence makes it impossible to prove the existence of the gas chambers. In 1995, I spent almost two months in two Moscow archives, together with Carlo Mattogno, where we viewed 88,000 pages of documents from Auschwitz, and thousands of pages from other camps. Not one document refers to the gassing of a single Jew. This did not surprise us, since if such document had existed, the Communists would have triumphantly displayed them to the world in 1945. But no, the documents disappeared for 46 years and were only made available to researchers in 1991. Why? The German documents set forth the objectives of National Socialist Jewish policy quite clearly. They wanted to transfer the Jews out of Europe, and, in the meantime, during the war, they used their labour power.

Judge Stäubli: In "The Holocaust Swindle" you write: "After the war, the Jews were still there." What do you mean by that?

Graf: I mean that most of the Jews in the German sphere of influence surived. Rolf Bloch, President of the Holocaust Fund, in the "Handelzeitung" of 4 February of this year, said that more than one million Holocaust survivors were still alive today. Any actuary can easily compute that there must have been more than three million survivors in February 1945. As shown by Walter Sanning in his study "The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry", published in 1983 and based almost exclucively on Jewish sources, there could not have been more than four million Jews at most in the German sphere of influence at the time of its broadest geopgraphical expansion. Of these, as admitted above, over three million survived. How can one arrive at a figure of Six Million victims?

Judge Stäubli: Can you imagine that Jews may feel offended by your books?

Graf: Yes, and also many non-Jews. The brain-washing is so complete that anyone who accidentally stumbles accros the truth is easily upset.

Judge Stäubli: And don’t you care whether Jews feel offended by your books?

Graf: Edgar Bronfmann recently said that Switzerland was like a man who needed to have his feet held in the fire to make him see reason. Can you imgine that a Swiss citizen could be offended at that? Why is there only talk of the feelings of the Jews, and never the feelings of other people?

Judge Stäubli: The ARG (Anti-Racism-Law) was approved by a democratic referendum. Don’t you have to respect that?

Graf: The people of that time were told that the law was to protect foreigners from racist violence. In reality, it is used exclusively to protect Jews from any criticism. This is irrefutably proven in the brochure "Abscheid vom Rechtsstaat", to which I participated with two short papers. Not one Swiss citizen has ever been indicted or sentenced for criticizing blacks, arabs, or Turks. The only people indicted and sentenced are people who criticize Jews.

Judge Stäubli: Did the events described by yourself in your "Totesursache Zeitgeschichtsforschung", depicted as a debate in a German high school classroom, really take place?

Graf: The events are obviously invented.

Judge Stäubli: But in your introduction, you describe it as if it really took place.

Graf: That is an ancient, and well-known, literary technique. Many authors pretend to have found an old manuscript or a letter in a bottle.

Judge Stäubli: In the book, one school girl, Marietta, says that, if the Germans had had more Zyklon, fewer inmates would have died. Please explain that statement!

Graf: The main reason for the extremely high mortality rate in Auschwitz was typhus fever, which is transmitted by lice. In the late summer of 1942, this epidemic disease caused 403 deaths in a single day. The documents show that the Germans constantly demanded more and more Zyklon to eliminate lice, but that the stocks were nevertheless insufficient.Thus, Marietta’s statement is nothing less than historical fact. Moreover, I must inform you that deliveries of Zyklon were also made to Switzerland, Norway, and Finnland during the war. Does that mean that Jews were gassed in these countries too?

Judge Stäubli: In the brochure, "Vom Untergang der Schweizerischen Freiheit", you write that, to the Jews, the Holocaust has become a religion. What is your comment?

Graf: An estimated one third of all Jews today no longer believe in God, but they all believe in the gas chambers. The Holocaust faith is the mortar binding Jews together today.

Judge Stäubli: In the same brochure, you say: "The march into the police state has begun." Why do you speak of a "march into a police state"?

Graf: If we already had a total police state, I would be in prison or dead, and could not speak freely here today. We still possess the possibility of protest today. In five years, that will no longer be true, if present developments continue.

Graf described the trial of Förster and himself as a "classical political trial". The defendants had not been indicted for their actions, but rather, for their opinions. The oppresssion of dissenting opinion through criminal law was the classic characteristic of dictatorship.

Judge Stäubli: Did you inquire whether the publication of your books violated the ARG?

Graf: No revisionist can be convicted under the ARG in correct legal proceedings in a state of law, since the wording of the law is not specific; no one can be punished for any action not expressly stated to be punishable. But I knew ahead of time that our adversaries have no concept of fairness or justice, and that sooner or later, there would be a trial.

In addition to "Racial Discrimination", Graf was also indicted for "Intimidation", and "Libel". The offence of "Intimidation", according to the state prosecutor’s office, was alleged to have consisted of sending the manuscript of an article entitled "How Many People Died at Auschwitz?", in February 1995, to numerous university history professors, among other people, asking them to reply, indicating any errors it might contain. If no errors were reported by a certain date, the article would be published in the newspaper "Aurora" [Postfach 386, 8105 Regensdorf, Switzerland]. In fact, no errors were ever reported; several of the recipients nevertheless replied, that, as specialists in ancient history or as medievalists, they were not competent to express an opinion on the matter. Graf answered questions from the presiding judge in this regard by stating that his procedure in this matter testified to the seriousness of revisionist attempts to determine the truth. He wanted to know whether there were any errors in his text, and if so, where. If no one told informed him of any errors, that was not his fault.

The offence of "Libel" was said to have been committed in the autum of 1997, when Graf sent a copy of the book "Totesursache Zeitgeschictsforschung" to the theology professor Ekkehard Stegemann, with a dedication reading, "To Professor Stegemann, so that he may serve Christ in future instead of the foes of Christ". Stegemann is one of those theologists who make the guilt of Christian churches for anti-Semitism the central point of their theology, and are awarded for this by rapid career advancement.

Judge Stäubli: Why did you send Prof. Stegemann this book?

Graf: I knew that he had long engaged in discussion with the well-known revisionist Arthur Vogt, and I therefore considered him ready for dialogue.

[Stegemann later stated that he had not known that Vogt was a revisionist; otherwise he would not have engaged in discussion with him.]

Judge Stäubli: By means of this introduction, did you wish to imply that Prof. Stegemann did not take his duty as a theologist seriously, and did not serve Christ at all?

Graf: Prof. Stegemann calls himself a Christian. To a Christian, Jesus Christ must be more important than anything else. But his only commitment is to serve the interests of Jewry. In front of me, I have a book written by the Israeli professor Israel Shahak, published in 1994 and entitled "Jewish History, Jewish Religion". Shahak shows in great detail that Jewish hatred for all non-Jews, and, in particular, for Christians, is the central motive of the Jewish Religion. According to the Talmud, a book which many Jews place higher than the Torah, Jesus Christ is in Hell, boiling in excrement…"

[Graf’s attempts to introduce further evidence of Jewish hatred of Christ from Shahak’s book were interrupted by the presiding judge.]

Graf: A person for whom Jesus Christ should be more important than anything else, should not toady up to people who claim that Jesus is in Hell, boiling in excrement."

Judge Stäubli: Then, by "foes of Christ", you mean the Jews?

Graf: Not individual Jews as persons, but the Jewish religion.


After a pause, prosecutor Dominik Aufdenblatten began his final summation. His miserable performance was purely rhetorical, and, as one trial observer expressed it, speaking crudely, "unter allen Sau" ["really lousy"]. Aufdenblatten made no attempt to show any relation between the passages in the books published by Förster and which were the subject of the indictment, and the wording of the ARG; rather, he contented himself with reeling off an endless litany of phrases ("pseudoscience", "anti-semitic incitation", racist propaganda", etc.). Graf was said to be an intelligent man, and, therefore, doubly dangerous. Graf was said not to have sought the truth, but to have knowingly distorted the truth. His writings were said to have incited anti-Semitism and xenophobia. Since Graf was unreasonable, and and fully acknowledged his revisionist views, there could be no favourable social prognosis. He could not therefore be given merely a suspended sentence. The same was true of Förster, who was just as unreasonable as Graf. Förster’s poor health was allegedly no reason why he should not be sentenced to imprisonment without probabation, since it was not the court’s responsibility to determine the defendant’s fitness to endure imprisonment; that was the responsibility of a doctor.


Jewish attorney Peter Liatowitsch confirmed that his client, Professor Stegemann, felt himself seriously libelled, both professionally and personally, by the dedication to the book. He demanded compensation for his client in the sum of 1000 SF, to be paid into a "Solidary Fund". Stegemann described himself as "somatized" (whatever that might mean) by Graf’s book and its mocking dedication.


Dr. Urs Oswald, court-appointed defence attorney for defendant Jürgen Graf, spoke for more than an hour, sharply attacking state prosecutor Audfenblatten. Although he respected Aufdenblatten as a human being, and recognized his competence, he felt it his duty to state that the indictment was very badly written and completely untenable.

According to the principle of "nulla pöna sine lege" (no punishment without law), the books, which were written before entry into effect of the ARG, should never have been the subject of an indictment. For that reason, he would not discuss the content. "Auschwitz. Tatergeständnisse…" was undeniably written in May 1994, and published in August of the same year. No one claimed that Graf had marketed the book himself. The prosecutor’s claim to justification on the grounds that Graf had not expressly forbidden the publishing firm from further distribution after 1 January 1995, and even declared himself to be in agreement with such distribution, was insufficient in law, and contrary to all customary legal practice.

Nor was Graf subject to punishment for continuing to sell his first two books after entry of effect of the ARG, since the "public" element of the offence prescribed by the text of the law, was entirely lacking. Graf carried on no advertising for these two books; he had sent no copies libraries or other places where they might have been available for inspection by the public. On the contrary, he sent them only to people who ordered them. How could this constitute the "public" nature of the offence, as required by the text of the law? In custormary legal practice, not even a small group of friends was considered to be "public", much less so a single individual.

There was no proof that Graf had written "Totesursache Zeitgeschichtsforschung" after 1.1.95. (In this, Dr. Oswald was in error, an error which Graf later corrected.) The broschure "Vom Untergang der Schweizerischen Freiheit" was, of course, indisputably written after entry into effect of article 261bis, but the passages which were the subject of the indictment, in which the author summarizes his Auschwitz books, were written in his own defense. Had he been granted a court-appointed attorney at that point in time, he would not have needed to write the brochure.

That Graf admittedly sent diskettes to Ernst Zündel in Canada and Ahmed Rami in Sweden, who then posted the texts on the Internet, was not a punishable offence, since the crime, in this case, was not committed in Switzerland. The texts were posted on the Internet in Canada, the USA, and Sweden, where there were no laws against revisionism. Any text on the Internet can be retrieved anywhere in the world; they cannot be expected to conform to the laws of every nation in the world. An extensive study recently published by a jurist named Widmer -- of course, not available to the state prosecuting attorney prior to trial -- showed very clearly that only the provider is responsible for the content of the texts. In the case at issue, however, the provider was in a foreign country.

The count of the indictment mentioning "intimidation" was untenable. Asking historians to report any errors in a text did not constitute the crime of intimidation. No prejudice was caused to any of these historians by the subsequent publication of the article; yet the threat of prejudice was the central characteristic of intimidation (Note: Graf was acquitted on this charge in the first instance.)

The count of the indictment relating to "libel" was civil in nature, and actually had no place in the present trial. In addition, Prof. Stegemann and his attorney had missed the cut-off date; the accusation was now barred by the statute of limitations. Graf was acquitted on this point, as well.

Graf’s motive was not to degrade the Jews, but rather, to search for truth. The prosecutor alleged the contrary, but was unable to provide any proof, having made no effort to justify his accusation of "pseudoscience" in any manner whatever.

Dr. Oswald demanded that Graf be acquitted on all points.

Dr. Oswald’s summation, like Stehrenberger’s, was greatly appreciated by the majority of persons attending the trial, who were favourably disposed towards the defendants. Both lawyers did as much as they possibly could for their clients without jeopardizing their own position, displaying true commitment.


"Your Honour, the court, ladies and gentlemen. I would first like to make two remarks. I would like to thank the presiding judge, for the fair manner in which you have conducted this trial [editor’s comment: for rejecting Robert Faurisson’s appearance as defence witness!?] You have permitted me to speak and defend my statements without hinderance, and you deserve thanks for so doing.

I would like to thank my attorney, Dr. Oswald for his excellent summation, but I would like to permit myself to correct one error. "Totesursache Zeitgeschichtsforschung" was written mostly in 1995; I say so openly, because I despise lying.

An emminently qualified engineer appeared here today as a defence witness, an expert on the construction of gas chambers for the extermination of vermin and the eradication of viruses. Wolfgang Fröhlich was expressly warned of his duty to tell the truth and took due note of that warning. The state prosecuting attorney Aufdenblatten asked him whether it was possible to gas human beings in gas chambers using Zyklon B in the manner described, and if not, why not. In accordance with his profound technical knowledge and true to his duty to testify truthfully, Fröhlich answered the question in the negative, and justified his answer in detail. What did the state prosecuting attorney do then? He demanded an indictment for "Racial descrimination" (but not for perjury). That is pure Stalinism, ladies and gentlemen! I know that this is a serious accusation, but I maintain it. Your Honour, you made an effort to ensure a fair trial, but that is not true of the prosecutor.

A few words about myself, although I do not like to call attention to myself. I knowingly exchanged a well-paying job in a state school for an uncertain future [as a revisionist researcher]. Yet the prosecutor has the nerve to attempt to read my mind, and makes the accusation that I never sought the truth, but instead, lies. Do you believe that anyone would willingly risk the destruction of his existence [and jail] for a known lie?

We revisionists make an effort to approximate historical truth insofar as possible. We demand nothing else than to be shown our errors. Of course, there are errors in my books, but do you know who showed them to me? Other revisionists! From the other side, the sole reaction has consisted of insults, incitement, threats, indictments, and trials.

The statements of the prosecutor or Prof. Stegemann betray absolute helpnessness in the face of revisionist arguments; this helplessness is as visible here as it was, for instance, in the article published in the "Weltwoche", not long ago, by the famous Hans Stutz. There are never any factual arguments, but rather, empty phrases such as "pseudoscience, anti-Semitism, racist incitement, etc."

Sigi Feigel [Swiss Jewish leader] and his people want to imprison Förster and myself, and to prohibit our books. I would never dream of imprisoning Sigi Feigel [for his incitement against Switzerland]. If he ever wrote a book, I would never dream of prohibiting it. I challenge Mr. Feigel or Mr. Stegemann, or any other spokeman for the official view of the Holocaust, to a factual, dispassionate open debate, on radio or television, as to the existence of the gas chambers and the number of Jewish victims.

In living memory, no one in Switzerland has been arrested for the non-violent expression of an opinion. The last example dates far back into the last century. Ladies and gentlemen of the court, shortly before the end of the 20th century, do you want to break with this tradition? If you absolutely must jail someone, then please jail me; not the mortally ill Mr. Förster!

Jailing me would bring no shame upon myself. But it would bring shame on our country, Switzerland. A Switzerland in which the freedom of expression has been abolished, in which 0.6 percent of the population may decide what the other 99.4% can read, write, say, and think, is a dead Switzerland.

I would like to end my remarks with a quotation from my friend Gaston-Armand Amaudruz from western Switzerland, against whom a trial similar to that held today against Mr. Förster and myself, is now pending in Lausanne.

In number 371 of his "Courrier du Continent" Amaudruz wrote:

"As in earlier historical times, it is a sign of weakness to attempt to enforce a dogma by force. The exponents of the Jewish extermation thesis may win trials based on censorship law today; but they will lose the last trial before the court of future generations."

Back to table of contents
To the next chapter
To previous chapter
Back to archive