The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: documents/mueller.report/lachout-document


Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: The Lachout Document: Anatomy of a Forgery

Archive/File: pub/orgs/austrian/austrian-resistance-archives/lachout-document
Last-Modified: 1996/008/20

                     THE LACHOUT "DOCUMENT"
                      ANATOMY OF A FORGERY

                              by
                    Brigitte Bailer-Galanda
                         Wilhelm Lasek
                      Wolfgang Neugebauer
                         Gustav Spann

                   Financially Supported by
                   ISAAC ZIERING FOUNDATION

           Vienna: Austrian Resistance Archives, 1990

[Transciption note: This document contains both German and
English translations, as well as photocopies of all original
documents. I have excluded all but the English text in this
transcription, but will add graphics files to the archive when
time permits. Typos mine. knm]

                     [The "document"]

Military Police Service			Vienna, Oct. 1, 1948
					10th. copy
                     Circular No 31/48

1. The Allied Investigation Commission have established so far
that no persons were killed by the use of poison gas in the
following concentration camps: Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald,
Dachau, Flossenbuerg, Gross-Rosen, Mauthausen and its
extension camps, Natzweler, Neuengamme, Niederhagen
(Wewelsburg), Ravensbrueck, Sachsenhausen, Stutthof,
Theriesienstadt.

In all these cases it could be proved that the confessions
were the result of torture and the testimonies were false.

This fact has to be taken into account in war crime
investigations and interrogations.

Former concentration camp prisoners testifying that persons,
especially Jews, were killed with poison gas in these
concentration camps, are to be informed of this finding by the
Allied Investigation Commissions. Should they insist in their
testimony, a charge of false testimony is to be filed against
them.

2. Paragraph 1 of circular 15/48 can be cancelled.

				The commander of the
				Military Police Service:
				Mueller, Major
For the correctness
of the contents:
Lachout, Lieutenant

For the correctness  
of the contents:
(Stamp) Republic of Austria
Guard Battalion Vienna
Command (Signature)

			I hereby testify that on October 1,
                        1948, as a member of the military
 			police service of the Allied Military
			Command, I certified the correctness
			of the contents of the copy of the
			(Law of General Administrative
			Procedure). Vienna, October 27, 1987.
			(Signature)

(Stamp)
The authenticity of the signature
of Ing. Emil Lachout
(address) is certified.
This document consists of 1/2 sheet and was stamped with 120,
-- ATS attached to -- reported to the Internal Revenue Office --
Attached to -- at a fee of -- District Court of Favoriten
1101 Vienna, Angeligasse 35	Vienna, October 27, 1987
(Signature)

                       ["document" ends]

                           FOREWARD

The Austrian Resistance Archives (DOEW, Dokumentationsarchiv
des oesterreichischen Widerstandes) dealt initially mainly
with the collection, scientific evaluation, and publication of
material about resistance, persecution and exile during the
period 1934-1945. However, after the Archive's formation in
1963, it became apparent that the DOEW would also have to keep
its collective eye on neo-Nazi and racist manifestations in
Austria after 1945 as well. The continuing proliferation of
neo-Nazi propaganda concentrates the majority of its
activities and publications not only on trivializing or
denying the unparalleled crimes of the Nazi regime, but also
on defaming anti-fascists and resistance fighters as traitors
and criminals. The DOEW's landmark publication in this
anti-fascist civic work was Rechtsextremismus in Oesterreich
nach 1945.[1] This book not only went through five editions
bewteen 1979-1981 (now out of print), it also generated
countless protests and litigation from radical right activists
and organizations.

Among the radical right activists in North America and Western
Europe are a group of pseudo-historians such as from Great
Britain David Irving[2] and from France Robert Faurisson, who
call themselves "revisionists" and proclaim that the
mass-murder of Jews in National-Socialist concentration camps
is pure invention ("Auschwitz Lie", "Gas-Chamber Swindle",
etc.).

Gerd Honsik's publication of the "Lachout-document" in his
neo-Nazi publication, "Halt" (November 1987), contributed to
"revisionist" literature with an Austrian variation known as
the "Mauthausen Lie". According to this "document" which
claims to be a legally notarized memorandum written by a
"Lieutenant" Lachout of the (non-existant) 'Militaerpolizeiliche
Dienst" the "Alliierte Untersuchungskommissionen"[3] supposedly
prove that there had never been any gassings in Mauthausen or
in twelve other concentration camps. Experts were easily able
to prove that this document was a forgery. Consequently, the
DOEW filed charges against Lachout for reviving National
Socialist activities. Unfortunately, the authorities have not
pursued the matter aggressively, as is usual in such cases,
and the proceedings have still not come to an end, but all
copies of the reproduced Lachout "document" have been
confiscated and judicial pre-trial investigations initiated
against Lachout and Honsik. Lachout retaliated by filing
defamation suits against the DOEW, the Gesellschaft fuer
Aufklaerung,[4] profil, Wochenpresse, and other newspapers for
accusing him of forgery. To defend its case the DOEW prepared
an extensive rebuttal, which not only proved the Lachout
"document" to be a forgery, but that several other documents
discovered in the process of DOEWs research were forgeries as
well. The DOEW then filed a charge of Documentation
Falsification with the Public Prosecutor's Office in Vienna.

The DOEW decided to publish the main parts of the rebuttal in
this pamphlet for two reasons: First, the Lachout "document"
(distributed by Halt and other groups primarily to school
students) has caused a great deal of confusion among students
and teachers because Lachaout was falsely portrayed in these
handouts as an "official expert", "special agent of the
Federal Government" and "gendarmerie major". Second, the
responsible authorities and the judical system are apparently
not capable of putting a quick, effective end as proscribed by
the Constitution to forgeries like this and other neo-Nazi
propaganda, even though two parliamentary inquiries about this
matter have been addressed to the Justice Minister. Allowing
allegations about the non-existence of gas-chambers in
Austrian concentration camps to be spread unchallenged is, in
our opinion, intolerable. What can relatives and the
descendents of persons murdered in these gas-chambers think
about an Austria where such obscenities are allowed to go
un-punished?

Brigitte Bailer-Galanda and Willi Lasek, DOEW staff members
and specialists on Austria's radical right, wrote the chapters
on the Lachout "document". Gustav Spann, of the Institute of
Contemporary History, University of Vienna, contributed a
chapter on the methodology of Nazi apologists. The DOEW want
to thank them, our tireless researcher Hans Landauer, and all
those who contributed material, information and advice, as
well as Martin Much, who read the galleys. Despite many
negative experiences, not the least of which was the recent
scandalous acquittal of the neo-Nazi Walter Ochensberger in
Vararlberg, we still hope and expect the Austrian courts to
prosecute forgeries, like the one described here, as well as
neo-Nazi propaganda in general. It would be devastating for
Austria's reputation and position in the world if our country,
reborn in the struggle against Nazi-fascism, should become a
breeding ground for neo-Nazis and anti-Semites. The DOEW will
in any case stalwarthly continue its efforts to spread
awareness about the facts of contemporary history.

Wolfgang Neugebauer
DOEW Director

1. PUBLICATION OF THE LACHOUT "DOCUMENT" AND ITS NEO-NAZI
   SUPPORTERS

The so-called Lachout "document", Memorandum Nr. 31/48,
supposedly circulated by the "Militaerpolizeilicher Dienst"
(Military Police Service) in 1948, has been published in
several radical-right and neo-Nazi publications in Austrian
and in the Federal Republic of Germany. It was first published
in Austria in the neo-Nazi periodical "Halt" (No. 40, 1987) in
an article entitled "Mauthasuenbetrug amtsbekannt".[5] Copies
of this document were sent to large numbers of students in the
hope that an official-looking document would succeed in
convincing them that there had never been a gas-chamber in
Mauthausen.

The group backing "Halt" was organized in 1980 as a successor
organization to the group "Kameradschaft Babenberg", which had
been disbanded by the authorities in April 1980. The editorial
staff of the publication is made up of activists from that
"Kameradschaft", as well as members of the neo-Nazi groups
"Aktion Neue Rechte", the "Nationalistischer Bund Nordland"
and the "Nationaldemokratische Partei" (NDP) whose membership
includes Gottfried Kussel and Gerd Honsik who have records of
violating the Law Against Renewing National Socialist
Activities. Honsik has an especially long record of
violations. The group has tried repeatedly, but
unsuccessfully, to form a new party. Their last efforst were
in November 1984, when they tried to found a "National Front
Party"; however, an Austrian Consititutional Court decision of
March 3, 1987 declared that the party's program strongly
paralleled the NSDAPs program.[6] The activites of the group
backing "Halt" have repeatedly been subjected to parliamentary
inquiries because of their propaganda which was spread
particularly among young people.

Emil Lachout had not been prominent in neo-Nazi circles before
the publication of this "document", which soon gave him a
certain prominence among groups who denied the existence of
gas-chambers during the Third Reich. While Lachout insists
that he has not supplied neo-nazi groups with documents, these
groups say the contrary. For instance, Lachout's role was
described in "Sieg", another neo-Nazi publication:

  "October 27, shortly before his retirement, the former
  special agent of the Austrian Federal Government broke
  his silence and gave the magazine 'Halt' exclusive 
  rights to an officially notarized document."[7]

Walter Ochensberger, the publisher of this neo-Nazi magazine,
comes from Austria's westermost state, Vorarlberg. "Sieg" has
repeatedly been confiscated due to its offences against the
Law Against the Renewal of National Socialist Activity. The
above mentioned issue of "Sieg" contained a statement by
Lachout, certified by the Viennese District Court of
Favoriten, that could not have reached the magazine's office
had Lachout not sent it himself. In this document Lachout said
"There never were gas-chambers in Mauthausen that were used
for killing people before the camp's liberation in 1945."[8]

Another issue of "Sieg" published correspondence between
Lachout and the Ministry for Education, Art and Sport which,
in all probability, also could only ahve reached the newspaper
through Lachout himself.[9]

The publisher of Halt, Gerd Honsik, recently published a book
titled, "Freispruch fuer Hitler? - 36 ungehoerte Zeugen wider
die Gaskammer"[10] which has already been confiscated by the
Vienna Public Prosecutor's Office. In this book, another
Lachout "document" appears that again could only have been
included because Lachout personally turned it over to Honsik.

According to further reports in Halt (No. 43, 1988) and the
"Germania. Ein Ziel, ein Wille, ein Sieg!" (the newsletter of
the infamous German-Canadian Ernst Zuendel), Lachout also
testified at Zuendel's trial in Toronto, Canada on Zuendel's
behalf. The German-Canadian, who was on trial for denying the
existence of gas-chambers in Auschwitz, received a nine-month
jail sentence in May, 1988. [Transcription note: subsequently,
the Supreme Court of Canada declared the law, "Publishing
False News," unconstitutional, and reversed the conviction. knm]

As a witness, Lachout has consorted with a number of
internationally renowned "revisionist" historians such as the
French Robert Faurisson, the "uncrowned king of the
revisionists" as Zuendel calls him, and the West German Udo
Walendy. Another "historian" who testified for Zuendel was the
British David Irving, a frequent guest of radical-right and
neo-Nazi circles in Austria and the Federal Republic of
Germany.

Zuendel's publishing house, Samisdat Verlag, produced a
half-hour video with Lachout that was distributed by the West
German neo-Nazi magazine "Der Bismarck-Deutsche." In the video
Lachout says, "the reason (for testifying in Canada) is my
"document" that I've published and presented to the
court."[11] The DOEW thus drew the following conclusion in the
rebuttal it prepared for Lachout's civil litigation against
it:

  "Lachout's assertion that he had nothing to do with the
  publication of the 'document,' nor had contacts with 
  neo-Nazis, does not represent the truth."[12]

  "The 'document's' debut publication in the neo-Nazi paper
  'Halt' leads us to believe that a definitive political   
  intention to propagate National Socialism existed in the
  publication of this 'document.' The 'document' does not
  meant [sic] to reveal the truth. On the contrary: it is
  meant to support the neo-Nazis' argumentation who have
  for years denied the mass murder of the Jewish people.
  That this publication was aimed at supporting this denial
  can be seen in the headline 'Government Agent Breaks
  Silence - Mauthausen Swindle Officially Recognized'.
  This document strengthens propaganda published by 'Halt,'
  which whitewashes and trivializes the harm done by the
  Nazi regime. 'Halt' (no. 17, 1983) had already maintained
  that there had never been any gas-chambers.[13]

Revisionists - including neo-Nazi circles abroad - have been
trying since the 1970s to prove that there were no poison-gas
mass murders during the Third Reich. In 1973, the well known
revisionist Thies Christophersen, a former concentration camp
guard in Auschwitz, published a pamphlet entitled "Die
Auschwitzluege" ("The Auschwitz Lie") which denied the
existence of gas-chambers in Auschwitz. A West German court
ordered it sequestrated in 1979. In 1986, Christophersen, who
has a long record of sentences for neo-Nazi crimes, was again
facing trial. He fled to Denmark rather than risk another
sentence and has been active there ever since. Other
revisionists include the West German judge Welhelm Staeglich,
author of "Der Auschwitzmythos" (The Auschwitz Myth, trans.);
Udo Walendy, West-German publisher of the neo-Nazi magazine
"Historische Tatsachen"; the American Arthur Butz, author ot
"The Hoax of the Century"; the French pseudo-historian Paul
Rassnier, whom neo-Nazis like to call "the father of
revisionism", and Robert Faurisson, also French, who is
another neo-Nazi "expert" on gas-chambers.

Dr. Gustav Spann, Institute of Contemporary History,
University of Vienna, characterizes this "evidence" against
the existence of gas-chambers as follows:

  "The goal and purpose of all radical-right apologists'
  historical writings is not the discovery of historical
  truth through rational analysis, but the fabrication
  of propaganda justifying National Socialism and the
  Third Reich."[14]

Until recently, international revisionist groups have focused
their efforts on the Auschwitz concentration camp. Now an
Austrian variation of the theme "Auschwitz Lie", the
"Mauthausen Lie", is being constructed with the help of the
Lachout "document."

The former Mauthausen concentration camp serves as a memorial
and museum and is used by Austria's school system as an
important pedagogical tool for teaching contemporary history
to its students. That is why the Austrian radical right
devotes so much time and effort to this subject, rather than
to Auschwtiz which for them is geographically far, far away...

II. THE FORGERY

Whenever a new document is discovered, historical methodology
demands that the document's authenticity be checked first.
This is just as mandatory for contemporary history as it is
for older historical periods. In our age of carbon copies or
photocopies, a document's genuiness is generally proven by
matching it with an authenticated original, or, lacking that,
by tracing the path of the document to the issuing authority
or institution. Neither method was possible in the case of the
Lachout "document".

Emil Lachout has never produced an original that can be
forensically tested. What he has submitted are different
statements concerning the origins of the "document". He refers
to the "document" published in "Halt" (No. 40) in an extensive
video interview produced by the German-Canadian Ernst Zuendel,
who owns the neo-Nazi Samisdat Verlag. His comments make it
clear once more that this "document" was obviously published
for specific propaganda reasons rather than out of historical
interest. For instance, when asked about where the "document"
came from, he replied:

  "Well, that can be explained like that: I pointed out this
  document, as well as other documents, years ago.
  Unfortunately, nobody was interested in them. It was only
  later that people realized what it was about. And then, I'll
  be quite open during the Waldheim investigations - the
  Waldheim Commission, document publication, etc - two 
  gentlemen from this Commission, not those who make up the
  Commission, but rather government employees asked me if it
  was true that I had signed the document back then. I
  confirmed this and so on, as certification for the
  Commission - sworn testimony -, and then reserved the right
  to check. I took a copy of this document and checked it,
  to see if it agreed with the notes that I have at home. I
  then realized it agreed, had it notarized again, and turned
  this 'document' over to the President's office."

This confused information certainly does not allow the path of
the "document" to be traced from its supposed origin in 1948
to its publication in 1987. The Austrian Resistance Archives
asked Prof. Manfred Messerschmidt, member of the Historical
Commission that investigated Waldheim's war-time past and head
of the Freiburg Office for Military History Research, about
Lachout's role in the Waldheim investigations. Prof.
Messerschmidt replied that the Historical Commission neither
knew about Lachout nor of the "document" in question.
Furthermore:

  "I am not aware that the Historical Commission ever saw or
  discussed the document in question. There was no request
  to the President's Office to ask Lachout if such a circular
  existed. Had this circular been part of the Historical
  Commission's investigation, it would, of course, have gotten
  in touch with Mr. Lachout itself and would not have left the
  examination to the President's Office."[15]

Taking a closer look at the "document", one notices a number
of details, which (in addition to wrong allegations in the
text itself that will be dealt with in a later chapter) allows
one to recognize that it is a forgery or falsification. The
only point of the purported "document" is to "prove" neo-Nazi
claims that there were neither gas-chambers nor murder by
poison gas in the concentration camps.

The following has been established about the "document's"
formal criteria:

A. Purported Provenance

Whenever Lachout has presented "statements" in order to
"confirm" the "authenticity" of the "document" (which have
already been partly proven to be falsifications), he has given
a different account of the "document's" origins as well as
different "statements", which have already proven to be
falsifications. The official source has been given different
titles: either "Military Police Service", or "Allied Military
Command Austria", etc.[16] But, according to all the
information we have about the Four-Power Occupation of
Austria, such an Allied authority never existed.

The "Gazette of the Allied Commission for Austria" published
regulations for public security which state:

  "b) Austrian Civilian Police may be included in Inter-
  Allied Police or Military Patrols."[17]

The March 1946 edition published the personnel lists of the
Allied Military Missions in Austria and stated:

  "2. The Allied Council decided that Allied Missions in
  Vienna, whether military or political, should not include
  military guards, and that their protection should be
  assured by the Austrian police except where non-military
  guards are required."[18]

Police duties within Austria could only be undertaken by all
the four Allies in one body, the Inter-Allied Command, and
then only at the request of the Austrian police
authorities.[19] The commander-in-chief of an Allied zone
could only use the Inter-Allied Patrol ("Four-in-a-jeep") even
in an emergency. Hans Landauer, a retired policeman who began
service in 1945, described the usual procedure as follows:

  "If the Soviet occupation power (whose zone included
  Lower Austria, parts of Upper Austria and parts of
  Vienna) had some sort of request from the criminal 
  police, this information would be conveyed by the Soviet
  Headquarters, whose seat was in Purkersdorf, Lower Austria,
  but which also had some office space in the Lower Austrian
  state government building on Herrengasse in Vienna, to the
  Lower Austrian Police Headquarters."[20]

The Allied Control Agreement for Austria, signed on July 4,
1945, set up a control apparatus, whereby

  "supreme authority was to be vested in an Allied Council 
  consisting of the four Commanders-in-Chief, each of whom....
  was to have supreme authority in his own zone ...Below the
  Council was to be an Executive Committee, responsible for
  ensuring implementation ... of the Council's decisions on
  matters effecting Austria as a whole."[21]

This supreme authority was given the title "Allied Commission
for Austria".[22] In addition, there was an Allied Command for
the administration of the City of Vienna consisting of four
commanders who were nominated by the respective
Commanders-in-Chief.[23] Organizations that appear in the
certificates of authenticity supplied by Lachout, like the
"Allied Investigation Commission", therefore did not exist.

Furthermore, the Allies as a rule only accepted Austrians, or
former Austrians, into their service if they had either worked
for one of the Allied authorities or had been part of one of
the Allied military units while in emigration, and were known
to be trustworthy. The Soviet military power did not accept
former Austrians into the service of the occupying authorities
at all. Never were interned POWs accepted for occupying duty
in 1945 and certainly not with an officer's rank, as Lachout
maintains.[24]

B. The "Document's" Language

The official Allied languages were English, French and
Russian. Also the above mentioned Allied gazette appeared with
a trilingual title. Its forward read

  "The 'Gazette' will appear monthly in four languages:
  English, French, Russian and German. The English, Russian,
  and French languages are official languages, and only
  text in these languages are authentic."[25]

Even if the Lachout "document" were only a translation into
German, one can be certain that the Allies would never have
used an abbreviation as "F.d.R.dA." (Fuer die Richtigkeit der
Ausfertigung, Responsible for the correctness of the content)
or "RS" (Rundschreiben, circular), which are only found in
Austrian civil servant usage.[26]

C. The Stamp "Republic Oesterreich-Wachbataillon
   Wien-Kommando"[27]

Austria did not have her own military force until 1955. In
1945 the Under-Secretariat for Military Affairs, then under
Franz Winterer, was part of the Chancellory of the Provisional
Chancellor, Karl Renner and was dissolved at the Allies'
request with the resignation of the provisional government on
December 21, 1945. The newly elected National Assembly
reaffirmed this on January 18, 1946. The gendarmerie's
alarm-formation was only formed in 1949.  The so-called
B-Gendarmerie, a small number of para-military units, was only
established on August 1, 1952. It was put under the command of
the Interior Ministry. Therefore, there was no "Guard
Battalion Vienna" in 1948. This has been confirmed in letters
from the Defense and Interior Ministers to the DOEW.[28] A
further problem: How was it possible that an "original" stamp
of the "Guard Battalion Vienna" ever got on a "copy" of a
tenth copy, as it appears on the published facsimile? This
could only have been possible years later with the advent of
photocopying.

D. The Missing "Document" Heading

It is impossible that the Allied authorities' official
stationery would not carry a letterhead showing the name of
the responsible command. This letterhead and, more
importantly, the name of the occupation authority in question,
are missing on Lachout's "document."

E. "Allied Investigating Commissions"

There was no such organization as an "Allied Investigating
Commission" in such a general form. The United States, Great
Britain and other Allied nations had already formed the
"War-Crimes Commission of the United Nations" during the
Second World War. This met in London for the first time in
October, 1943 to organize the collection of material about
war-crimes.[29] The Commission formed the starting point for
the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. The trial
against those responsible for the Mauthausen concentration
camp was processed by a United States court in Dachau. Here
the question of poison-gas murders was investigated. It would
have been absurd for the very authority that carried out these
extensive trials to produce such a "document". Besides, the
question of poison gassing in the Mauthausen concentration
camp had already been dealt with during the Allies' Nuremberg
trials.[30]

F. The Use of the Allgemeines Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz by
   Allied Authorities.[31]

The Allied authorities were not under the jurisdiction of the
Austrian legal system for their internal correspondence. That
means, it was impossible that an Allied authority would have
bothered to state that the "document" was correct according to
criteria set down in Para 18 of the Allgemeines
Verwaltungsverfahrens-gesetz, which is normal procedure for
Austrian authorities and as it is confirmed by Lachout's
signature on his "document".

G. Lachout's Alleged Role with the "Military Police Service"

Lachout signed the "document" as "lieutenant". He was only
twenty years old at the time. He was too young to have had
such a rank. Moreover, there were no Austrian officers among
the Allied Powers, unless that person had already volunteered
as an emigrant to serve with the troops of his country of
exile during the war. It was impossible to "moonlight" with an
Allied authority while at the same time being a civil servant
of the City of Vienna as Lachout supposedly did. To serve in a
non-Austrian military organization also meant automatic
forfeiture of one's Austrian citizenship.

An officer's appointment needs several years of intensive
training. Even during the war, officer's training lasted more
than a year and as a rule required a high-school diploma.
Lachout says that he got his Austrian highschool diploma in
1946. The DOEW has, therefore, concluded in its court rebuttal
that "Lachout's claims must be ... qualified as obviously
false."[32]

Lachout could never have served as a member of an Austrian
executive body (police, gendarmerie, B-gendarmerie) in a
"Military Police Service", because he never belonged to an
Austrian executive body after 1945.[33] Furthermore,
moonlighting for an Allied organization would have been
inconceivable.[34]

III. LACHOUT'S BIOGRAPHY AND HIS WAY WITH "DOCUMENTS"

An autobiographical record of Emil Lachout emerges from the
"documents" he presented to the Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund
Oesterreichs (ASBO)[35] and the stories Lachout told in the
video interview produced by the neo-Nazi Samidat Verlag. It is
a biography riddled with contradictions and inconsistancies.
This can be "documented" by the following examples.

Lachout was born on October 20, 1928. Yet, in the video, he
told some strange stories about his war experiences and his
experiences during the immediate post war years. For instance,
his description of how he came to enter the "Military Police
Service":

  "How I came to that is a somewhat long story, which I'll have
  to shorten. During the war I carried out special tasks for the
  German Wehrmacht. These special duties were well known to the
  Russians. And, while carrying out these missions, I learned
  there had been a secret school for spies in the Mauthausen
  concentration camp, in which there were Jews. As incredible as
  that may seem, but it's been well documented that there were
  over 1000 Jews who had been trained as spies for the Germans.
  These spies were never caught by the Allies, because they
  could not imagine that a Jew would spy for the Germans. And,
  therefore I have, for some, not all but some of these people -
  they were picked up as injured, as sick on stretchers from the
  Mauthausen concentration camp to the military airfield at
  Schwechat, to be dropped by airplane behind enemy lines. I
  served on these transports as a medic. Of course we soon
  became aware, that these people were not sick. On the
  contrary, they were pumperlgesund,[36] as one says in Austria,
  men who had gone to special duty."[37]

Furthermore:

  "I was in a special unit during the war, and I want to
  emphasize that it was not the SS. I had to capture
  paratroopers, and they came to a POW camp in Gross-wetzdorf.
  In this POW camp everything was quite normal. Everyone had to
  sleep on straw, but we had to sleep on straw too. And as far
  as sleeping on straw is concerned, I'd like to say, the
  concentration camp beds were the same beds as we had in the
  army training camp, also in the barracks. And wen the war came
  to an end, all these prisoners were released.[38]

  ...And then after I had fled from Russian imprisonment for
  the umpteenth time, I don't know anymore how many times I
  fled, but when I was already home, a Russian commission came
  to me. I was very ill. I had typhoid fever, and a Russian
  Commission - Officers' Commission - gave me an ultimatum. I
  had two choices: as seriously ill, as deathly ill, to be sent
  to Siberia, or to work with the Military Police Service. I
  picked the second choice...

  Our job was to go along with the Military Police, with the
  Russian patrols, when civilians were arrested to make sure
  they were neither tortured nor in the case of women, raped....
  and that was our job. That was the Military Police Service.
  There were commissions that investigated war crimes. We were
  with them. And our job with the Military Police Service was to
  ask prisoners, when we were alone with them, if they had been
  tortured."[39]

Lachout's video testimony contradicts the statement he made to
the ASBO about his military service. New versions about his
war experiences appear there:

  "I was called up to serve in the emergency service as an
  airforce medic's helper with the Wehrmacht, when I was
  fourteen. The official drafting, I mean registration, followed
  later. ... I requested a confirmation from the War Archive
  because the kind of malicious discussion (within the ASBO,
  author) - above and beyond libel - angered me. There it can
  be seen that I already had an NCO rank as Truppfuehrer on
  September 16, 1944. On December 2, 1944 I was promoted to
  San-Gruppenfuehrer. Since in peace-time in the Wehrmacht one
  could become an NCO with two years of service and an officer
  with two and a half years, as a youngster in wartime ... After
  I had been with the engineer corps (catastrophy aid like
  today's air-raid protection troops), I received the usual
  Feldmeister rank with this troop."[40]

In addition to the stories in the various documents Lachout
gave the ASBO, there are additional stories about other
functions and activities from the period 1944-1945 that he
supposedly carried out: for example, acting instructor with
the German Life-Saving Society on September 18, 1944,[41]
sporting team manager on October 16, 1944,[42] appointment to
medic mate in the navy on February 4, 1945,[43]] Feldmeister
in the Reichsarbeitsdienst on March 27, 1945,[44] etc.

Another "document", supposedly from the Professoriate of the
First Accident Surgery (University Clinics, Vienna, trans.) -
whose forgery is dealt with later on - purports that Lachout
was appointed Sanitaetswachtmeister (Medic Sergeant) on May 1,
1945 by the Austrian Chancellory for Military Affairs.[45]
Yet, in light of what he said on the video this was at a time
when he was still a member of a special unit of the German
Wehrmacht, trained to capture paratroopers. One must also note
that although the Under-Secretariat for Military Affairs was
placed under Karl Renner's Chancellory command during the 1945
provisional government, there never was a "Chancellory for
Military Affairs".

Statements in copies of two of the "documents" he presented to
the ASBO also contradict his stories in the video about his
post-war experiences (Russian POW camp, from which he claimed
to have escaped umpteen times). These statements maintain that
he was already an NCO medic with the Russian Army on May 9, a
day after the capitulation of the Third Reich, and served in
this function until May 16, 1945.[46] There is no mention of
his asserted service with the Russian military police, after
the POW camp, in the ASBO documents. According to a copy of an
"official notarization, MA 2", he was a sergeant and
department leader in the Catastrophy Help and Work Service
from August 7, to September 2, 1945, where he cleared away
rubble and did reconstruction work. Furthermore, Lachout
maintains that except for the period from December 20, 1945 to
June 21, 1946, when he was supposedly working as military
police NCO with the Russian military command, his work with
the Russian Army from June 30, 1946 until June 1, 1947 was as
a medic NCO, in the POW medic service.[47]

In the same "document", one reads that Lachout passed his
medic NCO test on February 15, 1954 because of his foreign
mission with the Red Cross and with the medical corps of the
United Nations, and that he was also appointed medic NCO with
the mechant marines.[48] The remarkable thing here is that
Austria did not join the United Nations until December 15,
1955.

The "documents" Lachout gave ASBO are for the most part copies
or duplicates of supposed transcripts. The DOEW thus surmised
in its rebuttal for its civil litigation against Lachout that

  "...it must be noted here that transcribing documents is a
  practice that ceased in the 1960s; on the contrary,
  photocopies of original documents are usually presented.[49]
  Furthermore, Lachout's 'documents' are in many cases on
  official stationary - usually from the City Board of
  Education, or the Office of the Viennese State Government, or
  of a city department - although the contents make it seem
  improbable that these offices would certify the same.
  Notarizations (also copied) occurred in many cases through the
  notarization of Lachout's signature, or by the certification
  of a transcript. Therefore it appears that a great number of
  the presented 'documents' are implausible, and, in some cases,
  have already proven to be obvious forgeries."[50]

One of the more interesting documents in this connection had
already been published by Lachout in the previously mentioned
neo-nazi book by Gerd Honsik, "Freispruch fuer Hitler?" It is
a transcript produced by the Federal Chancellory on October
18, 1955, and has the stamp and the "Richtigkeit der
Ausfertigung"[51] of the Viennese Board of Education and is
"certified" by the Vienna Board of Education as well. The
contents of this "official notarization" establish that
Lachout served as a "military police and line officer" from
1947-1955 and was also with the "Mountain Troops" and the
gendarmie where he was promoted to Hauptmann (captain) in
1954.[52] These assertions are false. A letter from the
Ministry of the Interior to the DOEW asserts Lauchout never
belonged to any branch of the Austrian executive body.
Besides, during those years Austria did not have any armed
forces.[53] Research has shown that under the file number of
this "official notarization" (No. 508.191-I/Pers/55), there is
indeed a Federal Chancellory file where Lachout petitioned the
Office for Defense for the use of the title of a reserve
officer, but his petition was turned down. The original
petition can be found in the Archive of the Republic.
Moreover, in 1954 there was no rank of "Hauptmann" in the
gendarmie, only Rittmeister. The Office for Defense could
never have confirmed such a title. Under these circumstances
"the conclusion follows that the official notarization
presented by Lachout is a forgery."[54]

The two documents already mentioned above and supposedly
produced by the Chair of the First Accident Surgery have
already been proven to be forgeries. Prof. Trojan, Chief of
the University Clinic for Accident Surgery answered the DOEWs
inquiry:

  "As far as the 'official notarization' of August 3, 1972 is
  concerned, I think it is out of the question that such was or
  could have been issued. I also find the second notarization
  from Aug. 2, 1972 about the use of the title 'Oberpfleger'
  improbable, because we have never had an 'Oberpfleger'.
  Besides the signature is completely illegible and
  unidentifiable. In conclusion, I am convinced that such
  certificates were never issued by the Chair for Accident
  Surgery. Furthermore, copies of all such certificates and
  grade reports from the year 1972 are kept at the First
  University Clinic for Accident Surgery, then the Professiorate
  for Accident Surgery. Such certificates as mentioned above can
  not be found and therefore were never issued."[55]

Thus, on the basis of these obvious forgeries, the Austrian
Resistance Archives filed charges on suspicion of document
forgery against Lachout at the Public Prosecutor's Office.

EMIL LACHOUT'S CURRICULUM VITAE

Born October 20, 1928
1942-1945 From his own account, various activities
 for the German Wehrmacht and Reichsarbeitsdienst
1945-1955 From his own account, various activities for
 the Allies
1946 Finished eight semesters polytechnical training
1947-1971 B-Level civil servant with the city of Vienna
1966-1988 Teacher of Protestant religion in Vienna's public  
 schools.

IV. AUSTRIAN COURT DECISIONS AGAINST NAZI PROPAGANDA

One of the first tasks that Karl Renner's provisional
government after Austria's liberation in 1945 has to face, was
to rid Austria's economic and political life of Nazis. For
this reason a constitutional amendment known as the
NS-Verbotsgesetz[56] was passed. It established the legal
basis for denazification and the prohibition of the formation
of similar new groups, and the publishing of neo-Nazi
propaganda. As such, it is still an important pillar of
Austria's constitution. Articles Four, Nine and Ten of the
Austrian State Treaty complimented this law and have also been
amended to the Austrian Constitution.

From a practical point of view, the most important legal tool
for the fight against neo-Nazi activities today is Para 3 of
the Verbotsgesetz. It provides for the punishment of anyone
reviving National Socialist organizations, campaigning for
such organizations, approving of National Socialist measures,
and trivializing National Socialist crimes against humanity.
Austria's Constitutional Court has elaborated on just how the
Verbotsgesetz should be applied, and, just as importantly, the
implied duty to implement the law. It states that no act
entailing a revival of National Socialist activity can be
considered legal. There is no doubt that Para 3 should be
applied by every official authority within its area of
influence, regardless of whether its implementation is
specified in the laws governing the activities of that
authority explicitly or implicitly. Paragraph Three is to be
considered a "universal clause" applicable everywhere and by
everyone, not just by one specific agency of Austria's
executive and law-enforcement organizations. The
uncompromising rejection of National Socialism is a
cornerstone of the Republic. Every act of the State has to
abide, without exception, to this ban. No official act may
indicate the State's complicity in a revival of National
Socialist activity.[57]

The Austrian courts have always taken a clear stand against
the neo-Nazi propaganda lies that there were never gas-chamber
mass murders in the National Socialist concentration camps.

In 1984 a group of activists from the magazine "Halt" tried to
register a new political party under the name "Nationale
Front" with the Ministry of Interior. The Ministry did not
recognize this party as legitimate. The party-founders then
took their case to the Constitutional Court, which rejected
its appeal:

  "The question of whether a revival of activity in the
  sense of the Verbotzgesetz exists, can not be answered -
  as the Supreme Court (in reference to earlier judicature)
  already aptly demonstrated in its judgement of June 25,
  1986, 9 Os 132-85 - through an accompanying description of all
  possible areas of activity, because the goals of the NSDAP and
  its subsidiary organziations were all too manifold and
  multifarious. In any case, an apology or trivialization of the
  (criminal) measures of the Nazi regime and the glorification
  of the annexation of Austria in 1938 constitutes a revial of
  activity according to the Verbotsgesetz just like any other
  one-sided propagandistic positive description of National
  Socialist measures and goals. /.../

  In the case at hand, the Minister of the Interior came to
  the supposition that a revival of activity existed. He
  substantiated this supposition comprehensively and logically
  in the contested order.

  The'Provisional Program for the Nationale Front',
  'Suggestions for Eliminating the Existing System', published
  in Halt (No 23, Nov., 1984), clearly shows that the attempted
  formation of the 'Nationale Front' represented a revival of
  (Nazi) activity."[58]

Another example is the repeated confiscation of newspaper
"Deutsche National-Zeitung" which comes to Austria from
Munich. It is published by Gerhard Frey, founder of the
radical-right "Deutsche Volksunion". The Austrian courts have
repeatedly ordered the newspaper confiscated for denying the
Holocaust. Frey filed a complaint against one such
confiscation (issue March 9, 1979, No. 4, Vol. 29) but was
rebuffed by the Austrian Supreme Court in its decision of
March 6, 1980. The Court found that many of the texts that had
appeared in an article entitled "Dangerous Doubts About
Gassings"[59] were examples of the revival of Nazi activity as
seen in Para 3 of the Verbotsgesetz. It also found that the
Lower Court had correctly and objectively recognized such a
"one-sided" trivialization of what Austrian courts had already
identified as the "inhuman National Socialist measures" as "in
line with the meaning of Para 3 of the Verbotsgesetz". The
Lower Court had correctly recognized the illegality of certain
passages which described conditions in the Nazi concentration
camps, especially those in Auschwitz and Birkenau, maintained
that there had never been any mass-murders of Jews or other
persons in gas chambers and insisted it was all a swindle
perpetrated by false witnesses.[60]

The Supreme Court's decisions were later reflected by the
Vienna Criminal Court which ruled in April 1980 that "one of
the main propaganda tactics used to promote National Socialism
is to deny the historical reality of Nazi crimes, to insist
they are all lies, and, when the crimes are acknowledged, to
trivialize them, and to put these crimes on the same footing
with Allied war-crimes, often doing so in the most macabre
fashion."[61]

Authorities have other possibilities in addition to the
constitutional regulations mentioned above. For instance,
there is a law against wearing or displaying certain medals
and symbols.[62] The introductory law to the Administrative
Procedure Laws passed by the National Assembly in February
1986 authorize every policeman to take immediate action
whenever neo-Nazi leaflets or similar material are
distributed.[63]

Moreover, the Criminal Code, Para 283 of January 23, 1974,
(BGBI. No. 60/1974), states that it is illegal to agitate in
any form against "any church or religious community existing
within the country, or against any group because of their
race, nationality, or ethnic background".

V. LITIGATION AROUND LACHOUT'S "DOCUMENT"

The contents of the Lachout "document" published in "Halt" and
the formal points mentioned in an earlier chapter make it
clear that this is not a genuine Allied document. The Vienna
Public Prosecutor's Office, therefore, requested and received
permission from the court to have "Halt" and all the other
neo-Nazi publications that had published the "document"
confiscated. Nevertheless, it was only six months later that
the preliminary investigation against Emil Lachout for
suspicion of violating Para 3 of the Verbotsgesetz got
underway. This caused one MP, Sepp Rieder, the Socialist Party
Parliamentary Speaker for Judical Affairs, to direct a
parliamentary inquiry to the Minister of Justice Egmont
Foregger. 

Minister Foregger answered in September 1988:

  "On November 27, 1987, the Vienna Public Prosecutor ordered
  a preliminary investigation of the 'legal and ideological
  advisor' named on the masthead of the periodical 'Halt', and
  also asked for the confiscation of this publication because
  the publication's contents had violated Para 3, clause 1, of
  the Verbotsgesetz. Vienna's Criminal Court sactioned the
  confiscation order on December 1, 1987. The January 1988 issue
  of 'Halt', No. 41, again published 'Circular No. 31-48' that
  had appeared in Halt's previous issue (No. 40), which
  included the denial of the gas-chambers' existence. The Vienna
  Prosecutor's Office thus ordered a preliminary investigation
  against those who appeared on the publication's masthead. A
  request for the confiscation of No. 41 of 'Halt' was also made
  and granted on January 27, 1988 by the State Criminal Court's
  investigation judge. On July 28, 1988, the Prosecutor's Office
  requested permission from the Vienna Criminal Court to begin
  proceedings against Emil Lachout for his involvement in the
  production and publication of this 'circular' for suspicion of
  violating Para 3, clause 1 of the Verbotsgesetz."[64]

This litigation was still in progress at the time of the
printing of this pamphlet. MP Rieder, along with MPs Schranz
and Ederer, again directed a parliamentary inquiry about this
matter to Minister Foregger in March 1989.[65]

Emil Lachout in turn started civil proceedings against various
institutions and publications that were critical about him or
his falsified "document" while criminal proceedings were
started against him. Among these institutions were the DOEW
for an article in their newsletter, the magazines "profil" and
"Wochenpresse", and several Styrian newpapers. The DOEW put
together and submitted an extensive rebuttal to prove its case
before the court. It goes into exhaustive detail over the
question of the asserted "genuineness" of the "document" as
well as into Lachout's credability. During the research for
this evidence, researchers of the DOEW came across many
"documents" which Lachout had already given to various other
institutions, and were without doubt forgeries as well (see
chapter 3). These findings resulted in the DOEW's decision to
press charges of document forgery against Emil Lachout at the
Public Prosecutor's Office. These proceedings are still in
progress.

[photocopy of Lachout's Red Cross "certificate": The "issuing"
district office address given on the stamp is a warehouse with
no office space.]

Footnotes:

1. "The Radical Right in Austria Since 1945," trans.
2. David Irving was deported from Austria in 1984. He then
   sued the Republic of Austria and won in the Lower Court.
   The Republic of Austria appealed and on Feb. 27, 1989,
   the Vienna Superior Court turned over the Lower Court's
   decision on the grounds Irving represents National
   Socialist views.
3. "Military Police Service" and "Allied Investigation 
   Commission", trans.
4. Society for Political Information, Innsbruck.
5. "Mauthausen Swindle Now Officially Recognized", trans.
6. Erkenntniz des Verfassungsgerichtshofes, B 682/86-10, 
   March 3, 1987.
7. Sieg. AJ-Presse-Dienst, No. 11-12, November-December, 1987.
8. Ibid.
9. Sieg. AJ-Presse_Dienst, No. 3, March 1988
10. "Acquittal for Hitler? Thirty-Six Unheard Witnesses Against
    the Gas-Chambers," trans.
11. See video transcript, "Das Lachout Dokument", Samisdat
    Video-Medig, p. 6, available at the DOEW
12. Rebuttal, "Wahreitsbeweis des Dokumentationsarchivs im
    Privatanklageverfarher Lachout" DOEW c. Emil Lachout,
    Vienna, January, 1989, p.23.
13. Ibid, p. 25
14. Gustav Spann, Florian Freund, "Zur Auseinandersetzung mit
    der Apologie des Nationalsozialismus im Schulunterricht am
    Beispiel der Vernichtung der Juden," Zeitgeschichte, Heft
    5, (February 1981).
15. Letter, Manfred Messerschmidt, Freiburg.Breisgau, FRG,
    July 14, 1988, to the DOEW.
16. "Militaerpolizeilicher Dienst" or "Alliiertes
    Militaerkommando fuer Oesterreich".
17. "Gazette of the Allied Commissions for Austria" 
    (February, 1946), p. 8. The Allied Council decided to
    publish a monthly gazette at their meeting on December 18,
    1945, _Gazette_, p. 24.
18. _Gazette_, March 1946, p. 18
19. Protocol of Allied Council Vienna, August 7, 1945;
    Protocol No. 75 of Inter-Allied Command, January 9, 1947, in
    Papers of Dr. Albert Loewy, Chief of Legal Department, U.S.
    High Commissioner for Austria; Institut fuer Zeitgeschichte,
    University of Vienna. 
20. Deposition, Hans Landauer, Vienna, February 1988,
    available at DOEW.
21. John Mair, "Four-Power control in Germany and Austria,
    1945-1946, Part II, Austria" Survey of International
    Affairs 1939-1946 (London-New York-Toronto: Oxford University
    Press; 1956), p. 308, 21a.
22. Ibid., p. 309
23. _Gazette_, February 1946
24. See video transcript, "Das Lachout-Dokument", Samisdat
    Video Medig, p. 2, available at the DOEW.
25. _Gazette_, December 1945-January 1946, p. 24.
26. The expression used by the Allies in the _Gazette_ is
    "Certified true copy". See _Gazette_, Dec. 1945-Jan. 1946,
    p. 40.
27. "Republic of Austria - guard Battalion Command Vienna"
28. Letter, Robert Lichal, Minister of Defense, Vienna, 
    Feb. 20, 1989, to the DOEW; Letter, Karl Blecha, Minister
    of the Interior, Vienna, Jan. 27, 1989, to the DOEW.
29. Rolf Vogel, ed., "Ein Weg aus der Vergangenkeit. Eine
    Dokumentation zur Verjaeh-rungsfrage und zu den
    NS-Prozesse. (Frankfurt/Main-Berlin: Ullstein Verlag, 
    1969), p. 9; Telford Taylor, "Die Nuernberger Prozesse. 
    Kriegsverbrechen und Voelkerrecht" (Zurich: Europa Verlag,
    1951), p. 13.
30. IMT Document 3870-PS, in "Der Prozess gegen
    Hauptkriegsverbrecher vor dem Internationalen
    Militaergerichtshof. Nuernberg 14. November -1. Oktober 1946"
    Vol. 33, Official Text, German Edition (Nuremberg: Inter.
    Militaergerichtshof: 1949), p. 279f.
31. "Law of General Administrative Procedure" trans.
32. Rebuttal, "Wahrheitsbeweis", p. 31
33. Letter, Karl Blecha, Minister of the Interior, Vienna,
    Feb. 5, 1988 to the DOEW, Justification exhibit.
34. Contents of the "document" (especially the denial of
    mass murder through poison gas in concentration camps)
    are dealt with in chapter six below.
35. "Worker's Samaritan Association of Austria", which among
    other things runs an ambulance service. trans.
36. Fit as a fiddle. trans.
37. See video transcript, "Das Lachout-Dokument".
    Samisdat-Video-Medig, p. 2, available at the DOEW.
38. Ibid., p. 5 f.
39. Ibid., p 2 f.
40. Lachout's "Statement to District Board (ASBO Leopoldstadt
    District, author) About My War Years", Oct. 1, 1982.
41. Excerpt from personal file, MA 6, City of Vienna, that
    Lachout presneted to ASBO. (MA, Magistratsamt, is the
    Viennese equivalent of a city department. trans)
42. Ibid
43. Transcript of a "Dienstzettel," German Red Cross, District
    17, Feb. 12, 1945.
44. Transcript of a "diploma", signed by Reichsarbeitsfuehrer
    Hierl, March 30, 1945.
45. "Official Certification", Chair for Accident Surgery I,
    Aug. 3, 1972.
46. Duplicate of "Training Certificate" from MA 15, City of
    Vienna, Jan. 26, 1949; Transcript of an official
    certification of MA 2, City of Vienna, Sept. 2, 1971
47. Transcript of an "Official Certificate", MA 2, City of
    Vienna, Sept. 2, 1971
48. "Certificate" duplicate, Feb. 15, 1954
49. Photocopy machines were in common use then. trans.
50. Wahrheitsbeweis, p. 18
51. "For the production's correctness", trans.
52. "Official Certification", Federal Chancellory, Office
    for Defense, Archive of the Republic, Vienna, No. 
    508.191-I/Pers/55, Oct. 18, 1955.
53. Letter, Karl Blecha, Minister of the Interior, Vienna,
    Feb. 5, 1988
54. "Wahrheitsbeweis", p. 19
55. Letter, Prof. Trojan, Chief, First University Clinic for
    Accident Surgery, Vienna, Jan. 23, 1989, to the DOEW.
56. see Original, S. 26, Footnote 55.
    Nationalsozialistengesetz 1947 (Federal Constitutional
    Law of February 6, 1947) in Bundesgesetzblatt, No. 25
    (1947) concerning the treatment of the National Socialists.
57. "Kein Rechtsakt kann Wirksamkeit entfalten, der
    nationalsozialistische Wiederbetaetgung darstellt. Unter
    diesen Umstaended kann nicht zweifelhaft sein, dass [Para]
    3 VerbotsG von jeder staatlichen Behoerde im Rahmen ihres
    Wirkungsberiches unmittelbar anzuwenden ist. /.../ [Para]
    3 VerbotsG ist auch dann anwendbar, wenn das fuer die
    Behoerde massgebliche Gesetz seine Beachtung nicht
    ausdruecklich oder durch einen allgemeinen Vorbehalt der
    Rechtmaessigkeit des Vorhabens oder Begehrens vorschreibt. Als
    allgemeine Generalklausel steht dieses Verbot neben und ueber
    allen Einzelvorschriften. /.../ Das Wiederbetaetigungsverbot
    ist auch nich blosser Teilzweck der staatlichen Taetigkeit
    fuer einen bestimmten Bereich, der hinter anderen Teilzwecken
    anderer Bereiche zurueckstehen muesste, sondern umfassende
    Massgabe jeglichen staatlichen Verhaltens. Die kompromisslose
    Abelnung des Nationalsozialismus ist ein grundlegendes Mermal
    der wiedererstandenen Republik. Ausnahmslos jede Staats-taetigkeit
    hat sich an diesem Verbot zu orientieren. Es darf kein
    behoerlicher Akt gesetzt werden, der eine Mitwikung des
    Staates an nationalsozialistischer Wieder-betaetigung bedeuten
    wuerde." _Erkenntnis des Verfassungsgerichtshofes G 175/84-34,
    November 29, 1985_.
58. Erkenntnis des Verfassungsgerichthofes B 682/86-10, Mar.
    3, 1987.
59. "Gefaehrliche Zweifel an Vergasungen".
60. Decision, Oberster Gerichtshof, 13 Os 14-80, Mar. 6, 1980.
61. Decision, Landesgericht fuer Strafsachen Wien, 6 bE
    3271/78, Oct. 6, 1980, p. 81.
62. Abzeichengesetz 1960 (April 5, 1960) in
    _Bundesgesetzblatt_, No. 84 (1960) forbids certain medals and
    symbols. This law was later amended by the Federal Law of
    March 5, 1980 in _Bundesgesetzblatt_, No. 117 (1980)
64. Reply of Minister of Justice, Egmont Foregger, to the
    Parliamentary Query (7143/I-Pr- 1/88), Sept. 1, 1988.
65. Minister Foregger still had not answered at the time of
    this printing.


Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.