Horst Mahler – Interview with a
note: The following translation of the interview between Michel Friedman and
Horst Mahler is based on the edited version published in Germany’s Vanity
Fair, Nr. 45 from 1 November 2007, pp. 82 – 91. The original
interview was over two hours long (60 pages) and can be found on the website of
Parts of interest which didn’t make it into the magazine are included here.
Footnotes and insertions in [square] brackets are by the translator.)
By Michel Friedman
Horst Mahler is the father of the RAF [Red Army Faction]. It
was he who convinced Andreas Baader and Gudrun Ensslin at the beginning of the
1970s to form a “guerrilla” against the supposedly fascist Federal Republic of
Germany. Mahler is now a Nazi. As an attorney he saved the NPD [National
Democratic Party of Germany] from being banned. He has inspired the extreme
Right with his anti-Semitic theories like nobody else in Germany. If there is a
connection between the left-wing insanity from back then and the right-wing
madness of today, then Mahler is the key figure.
We realised it would not be an easy conversation when we met
him on 4 October in the Kempinski Airport-Hotel in Munich. But we had not
anticipated a two hour long battle of words. Mahler does not wish to speak about
the RAF. He wants to relate about the Jews who in his opinion suppress the
divine German Reich. He wants to talk about Hitler, his “saviour”, and about the
Holocaust that never took place for him. Should such an interview be published?
Would it be helping a lunatic infect others?
No. Neo-Nazis listen to Mahler because he philosophically
refines their lunacy. He represents an extreme minority. Yet in Saxony and
Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania the NPD already has seats in the Landtag.
We are publishing this interview because we believe there has
never been a better exposure of German right-wing extremism, even though he says
things that are forbidden in Germany: Mahler denies the Holocaust and uses the
Hitler salute (after the interview Michel Friedman, as a private individual
brought charges against Horst Mahler. – ed.).
The following passages are a verbatim rendition of this
dialogue. Our abridgements are marked by (…). The unabridged interview can be
www.vanityfair.de . Mahler waived his right to authorise the interview prior
to publication. We decided not to polish it up.
HORST MAHLER: Heil Hitler, Herr
MICHEL FRIEDMAN: How are
H.M. I’m well, as you can
M.F. When do you have to
go back to gaol?
H.M. I don’t know when I
have to go back, it’s not yet determined. At the moment everything’s open.
M.F. What was it like for
you in prison?
H.M. Oh, you know, it’s a
time where you can do things that you don’t get round to doing anymore. That’s
M.F. From that
perspective you actually have a desire to get back there? You can be really
H.M. Well, I have other
desires. As such you’re a little wrong with your expectations.
M.F. Yes well, you just
said that you can do things that you don’t get round to doing anymore.
H.M. Yes, that’s an
ascertainment, which doesn’t mean that I have a desire for it. I have a desire
for the German Reich and …
M.F. Oh, I thought you
might desire love and friendship …
H.M. You know, these are
M.F. … and a good book.
H.M. Yes, the things you
M.F. I just thought you
still have blood coursing through your veins, and that you enjoy life. Well,
better things than the German Reich come to my mind.
H.M. You know the question
is what you understand by life. By life, I understand freedom, and part of that
is the German Reich’s capacity to act. Only then are we again free, and that is
M.F. Oh, but you’re
pretty free, aren’t you?
H.M. You think so?
M.F. I asked a question.
H.M. For example, if I now
say: “Heil Hitler, Herr Friedman”, then there will certainly be charges brought
M.F. You can be sure of
the fact that charges will be brought against you.
H.M. That’s how free we are
in this country.
M.F. Okay, but you know
what you’re getting yourself into, the country doesn’t have a secret police, or
secret laws. You can decide to breach the law
[German: right] and have to deal with the consequences.
H.M. This is no breach of
right [English: law] since it is not a right which forbids this. This is not the
will of the German People, but that of foreign rule.
M.F. Do you recognise the
M.F. Do you recognise any
of Germany’s laws?
H.M. Of course, the laws of
the German Reich. But they’re currently not operant because foreign rule has
imposed itself upon them and determines matters.
M.F. Who are the
H.M. Well, the Jews of
course. This is perfectly clear. He is the lord over all lords in the
background, right? The Jew aspires to make himself prince over his lords. He
strives for world domination. Morally this is not at all condemnable. It’s an
ascertainment. And the question is how the Peoples react to this, whether they
put up with this or not, and for me this is the decisive question.
M.F. Don’t you have the
feeling that you’re suffering from a persecution complex, that you’re paranoid?
H.M. (laughs) No, not at
all. Look, I’m not paranoid, I just see things the way they are.
M.F. What do you think
about the Jews?
H.M. They’re a different
type of people, and I now always stress the importance of the realisation, that
when you speak of people, you also have to consider the double nature of a
person, just as Churchill put it. The Jews have a redemption-historical mission
which Martin Buber, a well-known Jew, clearly formulated: “Jewry is the No
toward the life of the Peoples.” And because of that …
M.F. That’s all too
complicated for me.
H.M. No, no, no, no.
M.F. I’m not as clever as
H.M. Not what you consider
complicated, but what I have to say is decisive.
M.F. Yes, yes, but I want
to understand it. There’s no point in us talking and me not understanding you.
That’s stupid. I mean, I want to talk. So back to my question … and why do you
always quote others? Quote yourself. We don’t need Churchill, and all that. I
mean, you’re Herr Mahler, a clever man as you consider yourself.
H.M. Don’t bother me with
M.F. But I’m not assuming
anything. (laughs) Is it an assumption if I consider you an intelligent man?
H.M. (laughs) You see, what
are Jews, what are Germans, what are French? Those are actually silly questions.
When we speak about Jews, everybody knows what is meant.
M.F. I don’t.
H.M. That’s probably a
result of your being Jewish, and that you cannot see yourself the way we do.
M.F. Then how do you see
H.M. Look, I just tried.
M.F. Yes, but in your own
words. I find that far more exciting.
H.M. They are the embodiment
of a god, who according to our understanding is Satan, and they play a tragic
role in the corruption and negation of the life of all the other Peoples. But
you probably also know from texts which you may have taken note of that I do not
connect a moral judgement to this, but that as Goethe said …
M.F. Now we’re back to
Goethe. Look, if it’s Satan, then that’s already a moral judgement.
H.M. Yes, certainly. No, no,
that’s not a moral judgement.
H.M. Satan is God’s servant,
a part of the force that always desires evil and always creates good.
M.F. What would you do
with the Jews? After all, they exist.
H.M. Look, I don’t want to
do anything with the Jews, I want to do something with us, that we recognise the
Jews the way they are and for what they are.
M.F. And then what does
H.M. And then they’re
powerless. Once we’ve recognised the Jews they lose their power over us. And
that is what I strive for, and that’s where I act, and according to the
definition of the Jews that’s incitement of the People. I understand the fact
that the Jews fight against this.
M.F. Well, Frau Merkel
H.M. No, but she’s their
puppet. This is what they aspire to.
M.F. I see. But you’re
not my puppet?
H.M. That will be difficult
M.F. The question isn’t
whether or not it can be demonstrated. The question is whether you might not be
a puppet as well. Maybe you belong in the game, the fact that people like you
H.M. There are people who
depict and interpret it in exactly this manner – who knows for what reasons.
But, you shouldn’t think that I would then take this to be my own conviction.
I’m not really bothered about the convictions of others.
M.F. You started this
conversation with “Heil Hitler!”
M.F. Tell us, who is
Hitler for you? What kind of figure is he?
H.M. Hitler was the saviour
of the German People. Not just the German People. And as saviour he was
demonised by Satan so that each thought for the saviour is eradicated from the
consciousness of the German People and the world on the whole.
M.F. To quote you,
Hitler, in order to save the German People and the world, killed six million
H.M. That’s what you say. I
say: that is a lie, and you know it.
M.F. Auschwitz is a lie?
H.M. Yes, of course. I mean
Auschwitz as a concentration camp, as a labour camp existed – just to make sure
there’s no misunderstanding here – but the systematic destruction of the Jews in
Auschwitz is a lie. And you know it.
M.F. Then where did the
six million go?
H.M. Well, where did they
come from? Please. We have the statistics which the Jews themselves published in
their encyclopaedia. Before the supposed destruction of the Jews there were
roughly 14 or 16 million, and afterwards it was 16 million. I ask: Where were
the six million? Only gradually, after 1956 were the figures reduced.
M.F. So no Jews were
M.F. No Jews were killed?
H.M. I didn’t say that. It
M.F. So Jews were not
gassed in the concentration camps?
H.M. No, that’s a lie.
M.F. That’s a lie?
M.F. Tell me … or, no,
why don’t you tell me something about your father?
H.M. You know, it’s not my
intention to talk about my father. Ask me what you want to know.
M.F. How was your
relationship with your father?
H.M. It was a good
relationship, an intact family in a seemingly intact world, and I lovingly think
back to him.
M.F. He was a man who was
near to Hitler, right?
H.M. Who loved Hitler to the
end of his life.
M.F. Your father killed
H.M. He voluntarily left
this life, yes.
M.F. Did this affect you
in any way, in the sense that it … What happens to a son who is just 13 when his
father kills himself? What happens to him?
H.M. At the end of the day,
that can probably be judged by a third party. One doesn’t really reflect it in
that manner. There is a feeling. It is certainly …
M.F. Did he abandon you?
H.M. He then no longer was.
Anyway, that’s not the point. You know, we Germans have a history, which is
being robbed from us.
M.F. So, when you say
that you didn’t reflect upon the suicide of your father, that’s remarkable.
H.M. Yes, that’s remarkable.
M.F. That’s remarkable,
don’t you think? But instead, you prefer to talk about the Germans, Jews and the
H.M. You know, I know, or
believe to know why my father killed himself.
M.F. Why? What do you
H.M. He couldn’t come to
terms with the defeat of the German Reich and everything that was connected to
this. He believed in it with his whole heart. And for me he wasn’t a do-gooder
of which we find so many these days, but a good person, a kind-hearted person.
M.F. Are you continuing
H.M. He wasn’t involved in a
struggle in this sense. He worked as a dentist and did his duty. And for me this
event is of course a reason for me to go beyond my mere occupation and to fight
for what he too lived, for that which fulfilled him – and above all, to fight
against the exorbitant demonisation of this time and against the lies which are
being poured over us by the bucket.
M.F. Did Hitler
start the war?
H.M. No, it was downright
and systematically forced upon him.
M.F. Forced upon, maybe,
but he started the war, didn’t he? (…)
H.M. You know, the war – as
a war of guns – began with the massacres of Germans in Poland. And no leader of
the German Reich could watch this without taking action. And when he then used
the means permitted and given by international law [German: jus gentium] to put
an end to this, he acted legitimately. But these massacres were part of the
strategy of Roosevelt and the people behind him. These were Jewish – not just
advisors, but men of power. Then they had the war which they wanted to force
upon the German Reich, in order to cast a veil over the charisma of the German
Reich in the smoking ruins of the war. That’s the situation.
M.F. But Hitler
definitely lost the war.
H.M. The German Reich lost
the war militarily, and that’s the prerequisite for the victory of the German
folk-spirit [Volksgeist], just as Nahum Goldmann predicted in 1915/16.
And exactly this will happen.
M.F. (…) By the way, are
Jews as valuable as non-Jews?
H.M. You know, Jews are
different. They are the negation toward the others, and as such they bear a
heavy burden. And that’s why they’re promised world domination, as compensation
for the fact that they are hated by the Peoples.
M.F. Are they worth less,
or not? Yes or no?
H.M. I do not differentiate
H.M. (…) I’m trying to tell
you what Jews are for me. Just as one can see a course of development in an
insect, first it’s an egg, then a caterpillar, then a pupa and then a butterfly,
in this phase of development the Jews are a necessary factor, but in their
And that is why the Jews are hated and persecuted everywhere at all times. This
is a hard fate. It’s in Isaiah: Because they have been the hated ones.
M.F. Eighty percent of
the Germans don’t hate the Jews.
H.M. But of course they do.
The Germans are enemies of the Jews because the Jews are enemies of the Germans.
Whether that goes hand in hand with hatred is a matter of the individual’s
M.F. What is your faith?
I always speak about belief and you always speak about the Germans. So the
answer to: Jew, I don’t like being Jewish, is: I’d like to be a Moslem, I’d like
to be a Buddhist.
H.M. You know, according to
German understanding, the Peoples insofar as they are states are shapes of God.
And if I then conceive of myself as a German, then as a member of the German
Reich which is a state, and as a state is a shape of God. And in this God I
M.F. What kind of god is
this, a Christian God?
H.M. Certainly, he is
identical with the Christian God, who also embraces everything within him, and
who does not exclude the world and mankind and only chooses one chosen People
for himself as an instrument to destroy all other Peoples.
M.F. When I was young,
very young, you were a left-winger. Is that correct?
H.M. You know, the
definitions “right” “left” are the old story of the perspective of the person
who stands in front of parliament and perceives a right and a left half. That’s
the origin of it. I have only ever been who I am, but always developing. And if
somebody outside says: “That was right” or “that was left” then that’s a matter
of the observer, and no matter of mine.
M.F. Was the RAF as far
as your position is concerned, that the Jews are of the devil … did Andreas
Baader, Ensslin, Meinhof
share your opinion already back
H.M. Yes certainly, but not
in the sense in which you just expressed it.
M.F. In what sense?
H.M. In those days the
concept for us was that of “US imperialism”, and today we can see clearer what
US imperialism is, and as such the enemy is the same. The means of fighting it
have changed with the knowledge that has grown out of this process.
M.F. So how did you speak
about the Jews back then? You must have spoken about them.
H.M. Well, we had a feeling
of guilt towards the Jews, and were embarrassed when in Palestine, when we were
in the camp of the Fedayeen, the Fedayeen came with pictures of Hitler and said:
“Good man.” That was difficult for us.
M.F. But you didn’t need
to feel embarrassed, you must’ve felt right at home, after all he’s your best
H.M. No, no. Look, back then
I was not yet free of the consciousness that has been planted in us through
these lies: the feeling of guilt. That was a problem. This whole story
determines my entire life, and my life can only be understood through this
M.F. Why did you have
feelings of guilt in those days?
H.M. Well, you know, if
somebody reproaches us Germans of having committed the absolute mega-crime, of
having exterminated an entire People, systematically, then that is of great
significance for Germans. After all we have a tendency to self-reproach.
M.F. And twenty years
later, I mean, you were an adult: what didn’t you understand back then? Twenty
years later you should also have felt the inspiration that you’ve been feeling
these last years.
H.M. That’s not an
inspiration, these are facts which through the decades have been unearthed in
painstaking detail-work by the so-called Revisionists. For that they get sent to
prison, or are murdered. And these are things which only then came about.
M.F. That means that in
the era of Baader-Meinhof an anti-Judaism, in the way you represent it today,
was not an aspect of your awareness?
M.F. Was it an awareness
of (…) the “left-wingers”?
H.M. What you now consider
as anti-Judaism, was back then the anti-Zionism and the criticism of the
politics of Israel as a Jewish state in relationship to its neighbours. We were
aware of this, and in that sense we went quite far in our criticism of the Jews
for the circumstances back then. I have to tell you why I practically joined
this development called RAF – because a plastic bomb, i.e. a “Pattex bomb” was
found in the Jewish parish hall on the 9th of November 1969. It came
from the stocks of the constitution protection service, and a group that I knew
had planted it there in order to protest against Israel. And then I said: “You
can’t do that, that’s absolutely the wrong way to go about it. We cannot do
that, not with our past.” And then I developed my ideas on how to go about it
and then my conversational partner said: “Well, if you know how to do it, then
why don’t you?” That was practically the imperative command for me to do it.
M.F. But you went to
Jordan and were trained by the Palestinians.
H.M. Yes, certainly.
M.F. Militarily trained.
H.M. Of course.
M.F. But that does tend
to speak for a couple of plastic bombs. Well, as far as I know, back then just
as today, if you are trained in such training camps then paramilitary …
H.M. Yes, of course.
Building bombs and so forth is also part of the training. Yes.
M.F. Do you consider
force to be a legitimate instrument in political dispute?
H.M. If need be as cash in
payment transactions between nations [German: Peoples], yes.
M.F. Now I really didn’t
H.M. (laughs) You see.
M.F. Do you consider
force to be a legitimate instrument in political dispute?
H.M. In the sense that – and
I have to say this because otherwise you’ll twist the meaning again …
M.F. I’m not twisting
anything. You’re saying …
H.M. Peoples [English:
nations] have the right and the obligation to war and peace whenever it is a
question of their preservation and development. After all, these antagonisms
exist between the Peoples as well, and at the end of the day, when all other
means fail, these antagonisms are executed through the use of force – and that’s
M.F. Do you consider
force in the Federal Republic of Germany, within the Federal Republic of
Germany, as an instrument to assert your political goals?
H.M. Absolutely not. This I
have realised. No, and once again no. Rather, our weapons are spiritual
[intellectual] weapons, and they hit their target. And that’s why we’re being
persecuted, because we speak the truth.
M.F. You’re smiling.
H.M. Yes, of course.
M.F. That means you also
condemn, shall we say, you also condemn it for example when Nazis beat up this
man (Friedman shows a photo of an invalid who was wounded in
a neo-Nazi attack).
Do you know this man?
H.M. You know, I’m not
familiar with this case or its background. I clearly condemn it when people are
attacked and have their health or life damaged due to reasons that are not
connected to self-defence.
M.F. Just a minute.
Self-defence, when is it self-defence?
H.M. Well, when I am
attacked and I have to save my hide, that’s self-defence.
M.F. Okay. But there’s no
such thing as political self-defence?
H.M. Cases of political
self-defence exist. Peoples [nations] often act in self-defence.
M.F. I’m speaking of
Germans in Germany. I am not speaking of the World War right now. When
right-wing extremists attack a foreigner in Germany …
H.M. Then I clearly condemn
M.F. Right. We were
speaking – because you’re talking about condemning – we were speaking about the
H.M. But let us get back to
self-defence. We are in a situation that demands self-defence, a murder of our
soul is being perpetrated against us.
M.F. A murder of the
H.M. A murder of the soul.
And that also means that the People is being murdered. It lives from within the
M.F. That means you then
have a right to use force?
H.M. No. A right to
self-defence with the weapons that are necessary, that is with weapons that will
overcome this necessity. The use of force [i.e. violence] would downright
strengthen the Jewish position. The Jews need that.
M.F. I see, the Jews need
H.M. That’s what the Jews
M.F. The Jews, what do
the Jews need?
H.M. Force, so that they can
portray themselves as victims again.
M.F. I see, that means
the victims need Nazis?
H.M. Yes, in the sense that
you understand it; so that they can portray themselves as Jews.
M.F. For that we have to
be grateful to them?
H.M. As I said: I am
grateful to the caterpillar because I became a butterfly through the
M.F. Okay. Tell me –
because you said that there was no Holocaust – are these pictures authentic?
(Friedman shows Mahler a photo of liberated
concentration camp inmates. In the background there is a horse-drawn cart. –
H.M. They might be
authentic, but what does a picture tell us? So, there are people here who are
almost starved, who …
M.F. Yes, who were
liberated from a concentration camp, a German concentration camp.
H.M. Yes, that’s what you
say. Back here I see horses, so it’s possibly a trek of refugees. It’s possible
they were taken prisoner to produce such pictures.
M.F. So you’re refuting
that such things happened. Do you also refute that Jews were in German
H.M. No, no. After all, I’m
M.F. That makes for a
splendid debate. (laughs)
H.M. Yeah, there you go.
M.F. You refute that
there were Jews in this [almost starved to death] condition in the concentration
H.M. Yes. It may have been.
You know, if you take Bergen-Belsen for example, there were these mountains of
corpses who had starved to death and that were shoved into a mass grave by a
bulldozer. That picture haunted me my whole life. But you have to ask: Why did
they end up in this condition? We had the typhus epidemic, we had the hunger
after Allied bombers had bombed all the supply routes – systematically.
M.F. It’s just strange
that German Christians never looked like that. Nor Muslims.
H.M. Oh, oh, oh. Take a look
at the German soldiers who then starved to death in captivity.
M.F. But they didn’t look
H.M. They looked like this.
H.M. (…) Not the manner in
which people have thus far concerned themselves with God through the use of the
books Torah, Bible, and New Testament is decisive, but the way in which Hegel
did in German philosophy. (…)
VANITY FAIR And why is
Hegel decisive in Christianity?
H.M. Because he thought God
– the Spirit – in pure thoughts. This is the Logic which he developed, that God
is the contradiction, the Spirit that lives. It is contradiction which
constitutes that which lives. And that which we call Evil belongs to this
contradiction as a moment of its development. We have a thumb [opposing other
fingers], in order to catch, and that is the role of the Jews.
M.F. No, no. Stick to
your own language. I don’t need Hegel. Your language is far more exciting than
Hegel’s. I can read Hegel up myself.
H.M. Look, the conceptual
language of Hegel is a lot clearer, but when dealing with people who have never
occupied themselves with these matters, then the term “Satan” is appropriate and
correct. Philosophically Satan is the negativity, the absolute negativity as
existence of a People.
M.F. Would you wish that
Germany has world domination again?
H.M. Germany never desired
world domination in the sense that you understand it. The German spirit …
M.F. I don’t know, I only
H.M. The German spirit …
M.F. I don’t understand
H.M. … will – this is what
Nahum Goldmann says, and he’s right – dominate in the world, not dominate the
world, for the spirit liberates.
M.F. What is the German
H.M. The German spirit is
the consciousness – that is the philosophically cleansed consciousness – that
God is not the sublime, not the jealous one who desires to destroy the other
Peoples and who chooses one People so that it may kill the others, but rather,
that we are in God and God is in us. That is the German spirit.
M.F. What is the German
Reich, and what are the German values? After all, you don’t mean a theocratical
H.M. Certainly not.
M.F. Or do you suddenly
want to have a theocratical state in Germany? Hello Islamists.
H.M. No, no. No, no. German
values are thoroughness.
M.F. Ah, now I’m
beginning to understand you.
H.M. That one gets to the
bottom of things.
H.M. That one wants to
organise the world in a good manner.
M.F. What is “organising
the world in a good manner”?
H.M. Well, that’s a question
of what you perceive to be good.
M.F. Okay. What is
“organising the world in a good manner” in your sense?
H.M. For example that a
small handful of plutocrats – an expression of Coudenhove-Kalergi – does not
suck the world dry until it collapses, a collapse that we’re possibly
experiencing right now.
M.F. How do you want to
H.M. By taking usury away
from the Jew, from the plutocrat, by no longer permitting credit as private
credit, but as an economic-political measure of state and communal …
M.F. But Herr Ackermann
M.F. You heard me right.
H.M. You mean Ackermann?
M.F. Herr Ackermann isn’t
H.M. No, no. No, no. The
Jews always have gentiles at their side, so that they can always say: But that’s
not the Jews, that’s the … A very clever tactic.
M.F. So the Deutsche Bank
belongs to the Jews?
H.M. No, just a moment. I
didn’t say that.
H.M. You let the banking
establishment be. However, it can be subdued at any time through competition.
M.F. But that is not
compelling. For someone who thinks thoroughly, that is not compelling. You said,
you take away usury by not allowing the Jews to do so. Most states are money
lenders, in other words states raise the credit. Most banks are in their
majority really not Jewish, even if one takes megalomania and paranoia on your
behalf into consideration. Now that I do not understand.
H.M. Look, it’s already in
Moses: There are many Peoples which you – Jewish People – will …
M.F. Don’t quote Moses,
H.M. No. Don’t interrupt me
when I have something to say …
M.F. No, I want to talk
H.M. … to which I reply …
M.F. Look, Herr Mahler,
just so that we understand each other because this will happen each time. I
don’t think much of … I would like to talk with you. You know [if you cite] what
Moses said, then I’m talking to Moses
H.M. No, no. Just a moment,
this is a fundamental point that I am making as Horst Mahler, by saying that
this is a foundation of the Jewish spirit.
H.M. … this is precisely the
principle: And you will lend to many Peoples but will borrow from nobody. And
the Lord shall make you the head and not the tail. And you will always rise and
not sink, because you are obedient to the commands of the Lord your God, which
today I command you to hold and to keep.
H.M. And the Jewish banks
have the power. These are not just banks, these are money collecting points in
general. And they also hold the others in dependence. After all, this is the
Jewish principle: to pull the strings from a second area, and to be the actual
rulers behind the rulers.
V.F. What’s also
practical here is the fact that this is an assertion that can never be proven
since everything that speaks against it could also be a manipulation.
H.M. It is always a question
of what one holds to be true. This isn’t a mathematical proof.
M.F. What do you think of
H.M. You know, we have a
problem with the Turks, and we will solve it.
M.F. What kind of problem
do you have, and how will you solve it?
H.M. For example: the Turks
are probably one of the nations who first fell victim to a certain Jewish
tactic. Kemal Atatürk strengthened the Jewish moment in Turkey by fighting
Islam. With great surprise I took note of the fact that since the 16th
century, the upper class in Turkey has been comprised of Turks, and that they
have everywhere pulled the strings. They were expelled from Spain.
M.F. You mean “Jews”? You
just said “Turks”.
H.M. Yes, I can’t separate
that because the Turks are under foreign rule, just as we are under foreign rule
through Jewish forces.
M.F. Okay. And how do you
solve that? So, you said that the problem of Turkey is that it is ruled by the
Jews? You said …
H.M. Yes, certainly.
M.F. … the Turks have a
problem and I want to solve it.
M.F. My question was:
“What is the problem?” and you then say the problem of Turkey is that it is
ruled by Jews.
M.F. So, how do you solve
H.M. The Turks are currently
solving this problem in Turkey, out of their perspective and point of interest
by rising up against the so-called White Turks. The Black Turks are the Islam
oriented Turks. Against the White Turks who are secular, that is of Jewish
character and who form the upper class.
M.F. What do you think of
the Turks in Germany?
H.M. They don’t belong in
Germany, they belong in Turkey.
H.M. The Jews will … the
Jews will probably also realise this, but the Turks will realise that Turkey is
their home country. And they will return to their home.
M.F. Why? Why can’t a few
thousand, a hundred thousand, or one or two million Turks live in Germany?
H.M. We’re speaking of
M.F. Why not?
H.M. Well, because that’s
M.F. Why not?
H.M. Because this is German
territory and the German People, and it is only possible for one People to live
in a territory and to develop itself and to keep foreign influences outside of
M.F. And what about,
shall we say, the one and a half or two million East Europeans living here?
H.M. Well, my principle is:
All foreigners are to return to where they came from.
M.F. You know that there
are over one and a half million Germans living abroad. Do they have to return to
H.M. Oh, I’d be glad if
they all returned to Germany.
M.F. Do they have to
H.M. You can’t force them
M.F. So why are you then
forcing the foreigners to leave?
H.M. Well, you know if
somebody comes into my house as a guest and then stays even though it is my will
that he leave, then I will see to it that he leaves the house.
M.F. How do you see to it,
if he does not wish to leave?
From left to right: Mahler’s
partner Sylvia Stolz, Horst Mahler, Michel Friedman.
H.M. Well, that will show
M.F. No, no. How do you
see to it?
H.M. I assume that the Turks
clearly realise that Turkey is their country.
M.F. How do you see to it
if they don’t want to? Most foreigners don’t want to leave.
H.M. You know, if the laws
of the Reich are not adhered to, then the Reich has the power to enforce them.
H.M. How? By using all
necessary means. Now you can consider for yourself: what is necessary?
M.F. So that includes
kicking them out?
H.M. Why of course. Of
course. This is the most obvious right of an every People (bangs on the table),
to remove foreigners from its territory. This is the beginning of sovereignty.
V.F. And theoretically
any German can do this?
V.F. According to your
understanding every German can defend the Reich, right?
H.M. No, no, no. Obviously
not every German, but the German Reich. And for this purpose the German Reich’s
ability to act as a power must be restored – amongst other things. Otherwise
things will get out of hand, as in the case here, where individual Germans
believe that they can and must solve this problem in this manner. And that’s
terrible. That must not be, because it will fall back on us.
M.F. Well, then the
police does it, and beats the guy up and kicks him out, as it was in the Third
Reich, or the Gestapo.
H.M. Oh, that … Let me
explain that to you.
V.F. I believe I read in
one of your texts
that each German can feel called upon to defend the Reich and can take the
H.M. Except, if he beats up
a foreigner who is staying on German ground, then he is not looking after the
interests of the German Reich but is acting against the German Reich. The German
Reich is founded upon Right and ethical principles.
M.F. Were the Nuremberg
racial laws Right?
H.M. They were very much
welcomed by the Jews. Leo Baeck for example.
M.F. Were the Nuremberg
racial laws … (loudly) Look, I’m not speaking with Leo Baeck!
H.M. Yeah, yeah.
M.F. Were the Nuremberg
racial laws Right?
H.M. One would have to look
into the individual clauses, what they mean …
M.F. If you feel like it,
you can continue for half an hour. In the end I’ll ask you again: Were the
Nuremberg racial laws Right?
H.M. They were Right because
they were the will of the People.
M.F. So Europe will also
stay in the German Reich? [= Will the Reich remain in the EU?]
H.M. No. Look, all these
Treaties up to Maastricht are not binding for the German Reich, because the
German Reich did not sign them. The German Reich is still unable to act.
M.F. Good, so you want to
H.M. No, not back. Rather,
we shape Europe’s future on the basis of today’s interests, and a part of that
is that the national states will again …
M.F. What will Germany’s
borders then be?
H.M. Germany has the borders
of, say, 1871/1937. Take your pick. What will at the end of the day be
implemented is a question of power. The German Reich certainly has Right on its
side, the territories annexed by Poland belong to it, those from Russia belong
to it …
M.F. You want them back?
H.M. Yes, of course.
M.F. And those from
Russia as well?
H.M. Yes, if it is at all
possible within the framework of a life securing politics.
M.F. But you said: “We no
longer want to reverse this.” Do you have to get it back by means of war? If you
had the power?
H.M. Look, there is a right
to war and peace. And when an injustice has been committed and we have been
robbed, then we have the right to take that back. Whether we will then do so, is
a question of …
M.F. But theoretically,
you’d say that Germany today – as you dream it, when there is a German Reich –
that Germany has the right to start a war in order to take back its territories
from Poland and Russia?
H.M. As far as I’m
concerned: without a doubt.
M.F. Tell me a bit about
your time with Baader and Ensslin again. What happened with you back then?
H.M. You know, those were
people for whom luxuriousness, comfort, having a normal job were not decisive,
but we were somehow seized by the processes that had taken place in Europe and
the world throughout the 20th century. And we wanted to contribute to
this, and I have great respect, great love for these people.
M.F. Even though they
H.M. Yes. You see, it was
war, and it is war. And they were of the conviction …
M.F. Is it war today?
H.M. Yes, of course it’s war
today. The murder of the soul of the German People continues daily and is being
M.F. So, you’re saying it
was war and because of that you feel respect and love for killing, which Ensslin
and Baader did.
H.M. I didn’t say respect
and love for killing, but for these people who did that.
M.F. Do you dissociate
yourself from the things they did?
H.M. No, of course not.
M.F. But if you don’t
dissociate yourself then you’re of the opinion that the instrument of murder was
okay in those days.
M.F. You condemn this?
H.M. This is not a question
of condemning. I know that it was wrong, and this led me to the realisation,
that I consider to be paramount … It’s not a question of morals but of
M.F. I’m not talking of
morals. But dissociation means that this action, irrespective of morals, was
wrong. The killing of Buback
H.M. … achieved the opposite
of that which was intended.
M.F. It’s a question of
what is achieved. Take for example Hanns Martin Schleyer
– let’s assume it had achieved [its goal], that it had worked. Would it then
have been okay?
H.M. It would then have been
M.F. So, if the RAF’s
goal of bringing about a different Germany had been achieved through the killing
of people, then this killing would be justified?
H.M. You know, war is the
killing of people.
M.F. I want to … believe
me, I’m being so precise because I don’t want you to walk into a trap. On the
contrary: I take what you just said very seriously. So, once more: If the goal
is achieved through the killing in war, a war that you see continuing today,
then is the killing of such people justified?
H.M. You’re asking the
question in order to denounce me.
M.F. I’m just going to
get back to this again and say: If the goal is achieved, then the killing of
these people is justified? I’m not at all saying “right” or “wrong”, I’m using
your words: justified, yes or no?
H.M. If the goal – the
liberation of Germany – can be achieved through these means, then that sacrifice
M.F. Okay, period.
M.F. What’s your position
on the NPD?
H.M. It’s a party.
M.F. Even I know that.
H.M. A national-democratic
party, not a national-socialist party. I regret that very much. And I have said
what I think of this party: at the end of the day, it’s a part of this system …
M.F. (…) When the
terrorist attack took place on 11 September – how do class that? Was it in
accordance with Right, was it legitimate violence?
H.M. You know what my
I was sentenced twice for this statement and I’m still paying this fine off.
Meanwhile I know that it was totally different. It was a provocation, those
weren’t some freedom fighters, but rather a second Pearl Harbor was needed, as
it was expressed by a certain circle around Bush, in order to thrust the world
into, well, a war mood, and in order to rebuild the great enemy.
M.F. Does that mean that
Bush organised the attack himself?
H.M. Well, I think Bush is
far too feeble to be able to do so.
M.F. So who did it?
H.M. No, he was president of
an apparatus, who under his presidency contrived these things.
M.F. So the American
administration contrived this attack?
H.M. Parts of the same.
M.F. So they weren’t
H.M. No. It is possible that
Arabs were used as some minor pieces in the puzzle.
M.F. Okay, but it was
American circles that did this themselves?
H.M. Yes, the evidence is
becoming increasingly clear and compact. Just show me the planes that are meant
to have crashed into these buildings.
M.F. (…) Is al-Qaida an
invention of the American administration as well?
H.M. You know, al-Qaida
became big – was probably first created – in the war of the Afghan People
against Soviet occupation, and was supported by the CIA in this role. This fits
into American politics. How much of an effect this is having today is something
I cannot judge. I don’t know the facts, just the genesis of it.
M.F. (…) You ought to be
glad that the State of Israel exists. Already there are an X amount of Jews
parked there – they’re gone, are out of Europe. So you really ought to be a
fighter for the State of Israel, right?
H.M. Do I have to say this
again? I do not differentiate world history according to whether I find it
pleasing or desirable, but rather I see how it is and I try to grasp Reason
within this development. Israel exists, is a foreign body in this region and is
practically a factor that is now leading to a new world war. And as such I say:
this war will come and …
M.F. Or you destroy
H.M. No, no, that will be
the result. First comes war, then the destruction.
M.F. Are you for the
dissolution of the State of Israel?
H.M. Why of course, but that
doesn’t mean that all the Jews have to vanish from there, but the state as State
of Israel will disappear. This is a clearly apparent development. Being a Jewish
functionary you know that full well.
M.F. I’m going to get
back to your time with Baader-Meinhof. Now there’s something you need to explain
to me. Forget the terms left and right. What are the points of intersection of
that phase and the phase you’re currently in, and what are the differences?
H.M. The point of
intersection is when I realised that this method of the struggle results in the
opposite of what we were trying to achieve. And this realisation came about
while I was in gaol. And I critically expressed it. And it has something to do
with the fact that through Hegel, it was possible to detach myself from the
Marxist interpretation of the historical process. Marx didn’t understand Hegel.
Marx was a Jew. Jews have great difficulty understanding Hegel. I have not yet
come across one who has truly understood him. Our thoughts were formed towards a
theory of revolution, one which springs from the tearing asunder of folkish
[national] unity – class war. And we then viewed all this as class war.
M.F. But the RAF didn’t
desire a folkish, German identity either. The RAF – please correct me if I’m
wrong – was created in order to blow up the Nazi parent generation, including
H.M. Not at all. And I have
always clearly stated this. I am not in a position to condemn my father. And I
don’t rebuke him …
M.F. But Baader, Ensslin
and Meinhof did. That’s why I’m asking …
H.M. Did they?
M.F. Yes, of course.
H.M. Let’s hear citations,
let’s hear citations.
M.F. It was always about
blowing up this Germany, this Nazi Germany with its feigned post-federal
republican consciousness. Whether that’s specifically your father is beside the
H.M. Look, those are just
interpretations à la Friedman. Let me tell you in my own words: We were of the
opinion that the Third Reich under Adolf Hitler was indeed guilty in the sense
that the propaganda insistently told us. And we didn’t want to have anything to
do with that, and we said: Whatever our parents said, did or caused, and they
didn’t resist – we certainly will resist, today, here and now. We saw Vietnam,
we had previously seen Algeria and everywhere we recognised the same power at
M.F. But that’s no reason
to blow Buback up. He has about as much to do with Vietnam as does a cow with
the moon landing.
H.M. Look, Buback was a …
M.F. … Schleyer has …
H.M. … part of the apparatus
that was active in suppressing all liberation movements in Germany. An
instrument of foreign rule.
M.F. Are you trying to
H.M. And if the group back
then assessed that Buback is an enemy against whom we mark this resistance, then
that is the decision. But I’ve already said: within the framework of a wrong
V.F. Yeah, but in the
case of Schleyer it was always emphasised – in order to make his guilt more
apparent – that he had been in the SS.
H.M. Yes, yes, and that he
played a specific part in Czechia, the way that was then portrayed.
V.F. But that suggests
that the RAF did not have a positive attitude towards the Third Reich.
M.F. It’s a matter of
dissociating oneself from all these SS biographies of the parents.
H.M. Yes. We wanted to be
different, and in that sense maybe better.
M.F. Right. And that’s
why I say: where were the points of intersection? As my colleague has just
correctly pointed out, the RAF consciously wanted to set an example of what they
thought of the Nazis. The RAF didn’t want a folkish Germany, they wanted to
leave that behind them. Where are the points of intersection between Horst
Mahler, RAF and Horst Mahler … Let me ask you: Do you feel offended if somebody
says you’re a National Socialist?
H.M. No, on the contrary, I
M.F. Do you feel offended
if somebody abbreviates that – as in the 1930s – and says: “Horst Mahler is a
H.M. Well, I know that
Goebbels used this expression, which is why I wouldn’t disapprove. But many
people say that Nazi is inaccurate and wrong because that would then be called
M.F. Very well. But why
don’t you tell me, where – and this seriously interests me – where are the
points of intersection between RAF-Mahler and the National Socialist Horst
H.M. Well, I’ve already told
you the decisive one: the realisation that the use of military force in Germany
leads to the opposite of what …
M.F. No, I mean
concerning the content. What did you fight for back then? I mean that content
H.M. Always for the same,
always for the same.
M.F. (…) When did you
realise, and what was the crucial experience that made you believe that that’s
all propaganda and that you have been burdened with guilt as a German? When did
you switch from path A over to path B? What was it, and when exactly was this?
What was your crucial experience?
H.M. There were two. Firstly
– and this was then expressed in my laudation on the occasion of Rohrmoser’s
70th birthday. I still believed in the so-called Holocaust back then
and I said: And if – as some believe – it did not take place, then we would have
to invent it in order to push the spiritual [intellectual] historical debate to
the height to which it belongs. Then Frank Rennicke
approached me, after I had declared that I would defend the NPD, and asked
whether I would be prepared to defend him against the reproach of Holocaust
denial as well. I then said: “Yes, I’ll do it.” Then I defended him. That is the
first charge that was brought against me, because in this trial I had put
forward motions to hear evidence.
M.F. When was this?
H.M. Around 2002. The motion
is years old. It still hasn’t been decided. And then I had to look into the
facts of the so-called …
M.F. So the turning point
of your situational awareness occurred in the year 2002 when …
H.M. Yes. I then no longer
believed in this, because I studied the data that the so-called Revisionists had
collected. And it then became apparent that this is a gigantic propaganda lie.
And this didn’t let go of me. In the mean time I know that the blueprints for
this practice were executed in Russia in 1903 after the Kishinev pogrom.
Solzhenitsyn recounted this is minute detail.
V.F. Do you think Andreas
Baader would be on your side, and Ulrike Meinhof would be on your side today if
they had survived?
H.M. Well, Ulrike Meinhof
H.M. Because she was a very
contemplative, brooding person, and would certainly have been open for these
thoughts. She had no problem at all following all thoughts and checking – what
can I hold to be true and what not. Concerning Andreas Baader, that’s a very
complex personality, I have difficulties pigeonholing him. There were very
positive aspects to his personality, which I admired in him. But there were also
aspects where I said, that can’t be. And where he would stand today, I don’t
V.F. Were you enemies
before you went to prison? Had you become enemies, you and Baader?
H.M. No, no, no. Not at all.
M.F. What do you think of
with whom you used to stand on the same side?
H.M. You see, concerning
Otto Schily, I believe that his personality has changed in a negative manner.
You can see it in his face. As long as I knew him, I had great respect for him.
A man of integrity. (…)
M.F. Yes, well. But he
signed the motion to ban the NPD, for example.
H.M. Yes, as I said, he has
really broken with his personality.
M.F. In which direction?
H.M. Well, he’s become a
cynic. Fouché, preservation of power, security for power – for the established
power, not for the national comrades [members of the People]. And he has totally
and utterly committed himself to this system.
M.F. Also a vassal of the
H.M. Yes, of course.
M.F. Gerhard Schröder?
After all, in your most difficult time he got you readmitted to the bar.
H.M. Yes, he’s a person who
is controlled from the outside – who is very much dependent on what people think
and say about him. And that covers up the core of his personality, which would
probably have to be judged positively, if he weren’t at the mercy of these
compulsions of being popular with the public, of selling his political role on
TV in a way that he can no longer act freely.
M.F. Is he a vassal of
H.M. Yes, certainly. He was.
I don’t know whether he still is.
M.F. What about Angela
Merkel? I mean she’s from the East, she has a totally different socialisation –
she’s been in the Federal Republic for 17 years. How do you judge her?
H.M. Well, everybody who
holds the position of chancellor is instructed – and I am absolutely convinced
of this – by those who were truly victorious over Germany what that signifies
for the current politics of the Federal Republic: namely the safeguarding and
continued enforcement of the war aims. And they will tell them – obviously not
in these words, but the message will be: It’s your choice, either you enable the
creeping transition of the German People into its dissolution within Europe, and
then everything’s hunky-dory, the people are well off, everything’s pretty, so
what more do you want? Or you decide to walk the path of the revival of the
German Reich, and then it’s war. And then they will decide, and they have
decided. And then they are vassals and aware of it.
V.F. Pardon me, Herr
Mahler, this is now a rather impulsive question, but couldn’t it be that most
people no longer have any interest whatsoever in the German Reich? In other
words neither the people you describe as vassals, nor those that you describe as
H.M. You know, let’s be
blunt: Adolf Hitler, the way he is portrayed today, is rejected by most people.
The way the German Reich is portrayed, it is rejected by most people. But
they’re rejecting due to a deception. We are living in the age of deception, and
that’s the decisive point.
V.F. Perhaps this has
H.M. No, no, not at all. On
the contrary, all our freedom depends on this, at the end of the day our life
depends on this. And that’s easy to bring across. Only, if you say, that’s the
devil, and people believe it, then they’ll say: for God’s sake, get rid of this.
And that is of course the point were we apply leverage and say: No, it was
M.F. How do you take your
leave? The way you entered? Or how do you say goodbye? I mean I witnessed your
greeting. How does a representative of the German Reich say goodbye?
M.F. Ah. In the olden
days one always screamed “Heil Hitler”, right?
H.M. That I don’t know.
M.F. Thank you.
Translated by Markus Haverkamp