[noir]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wir ... id=8300141

August 11, 2009 (AP)

BERLIN — A German federal court on Tuesday upheld the Holocaust® denial conviction of a founding member of a left-wing terrorist group turned neo-Nazi, saying he must serve his six-year sentence.*

The Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe threw out [the 73-year-old defendant's] appeal of the Munich state court ruling made in February. Mahler, a founder of the Red Army Faction in 1970, was convicted of incitement for posting videos denying the Holocaust® on the Internet and distributing CDs promoting anti-Jewish hatred and violence. It was the latest in a string of neo-Nazi-related convictions for Mahler, a lawyer. He was also convicted in the mid-1970s for Red Army Faction-related activities — including several bank robberies and for helping notorious terrorist Andreas Baader, another founding member of the group, to escape from jail. He was sentenced to 14 years in prison but was released in 1980 after he made several public statements condemning terrorism and Red Army Faction methods. Mahler was a member of the far-right National Democratic Party from 2000 to 2003, and acted as its attorney.




[youtube]mNbIfQ9jiHw[/youtube]

Horst Mahler at the Holocaust memorial in Berlin: "Here you can see the foreign domination over our people. These are the foreign blocks of power. This is the humiliation of the German people."

Horst Mahler’s Interview by Michel Friedman

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 your father.
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.


(Translator’s 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.





HORST MAHLER: Heil Hitler, Herr Friedman.
MICHEL FRIEDMAN: How are you?
M.F. What was it like for you in prison?
H.M.I have a desire for the German Reich and …
M.F. Oh, I thought you might desire love and friendship …

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 a desire.
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 against me.
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. 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 foreigners?
H.M. Well, the Jews of course
M.F. You started this conversation with “Heil Hitler!”
H.M. Yes.
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 Jews.
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 gassed?
H.M. No.

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 himself, right?
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 devil. (laughs)
H.M. You know, I know, or believe to know why my father killed himself.
M.F. Why? What do you believe?
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 his struggle?
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. 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 then?
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 man.
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 story.
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?
H.M. Correct.
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 understand that.
H.M. (laughs) You see.
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 force?
H.M. That’s what the Jews need.
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?

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 killed people?
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 intensified.
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.
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 your father.
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 point.
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 work.
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 say …
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 strategy.
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 feel honoured.
M.F. Do you feel offended if somebody abbreviates that – as in the 1930s – and says: “Horst Mahler is a Nazi”?
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 National Zionism.
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 Mahler?
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 wise.
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 certainly.
V.F. Why?
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 know.
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.
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 foreign rulers?
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 become irrelevant.
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 totally different.
(…)
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?
H.M. Farewell.
M.F. Ah. In the olden days one always screamed “Heil Hitler”, right?
H.M. That I don’t know.
M.F. Thank you.
H.M. Yes.

[killim]

I personally think it is a rather old story. Iirc we even talked about it in PoFo in another discussion. He wasn't the only one. The phenomenon is greater than usually known.

[noir]

So the 68-ers were not protesting against their fathers generation?

[Kman]

So 6 years in Jail for having an opinion, I see Germany hasnt given up its authoritarian and oppressive habits.

[noir]

But he supports authoritarian rule - he wants the Reich back sooner rather than later

[Kman]

But he supports authoritarian rule

That still doesnt make it right for the German state to do this.

[killim]

Of course it does! We don't want no second Führer. One was enough for all times.

I know we won't agree on that and i have given up to discuss this topic again and again.

[noir]

I know we won't agree on that and i have given up to discuss this topic again and again.

Herr killim, no offence but German recent history is the most facinating and mesmerizing modern history. Face it

[killim]

To make myself clear, i have given up to discuss the freedoom-of-speech-in-a-militant-democracy issue. That is current politics and has nothing to do with Mahlers change from extreme left to extreme right.

EDIT:
The change was from far right to extreme left to extreme right. My mistake...

[noir]

killim, have you seen the vid? I was astonished to see his psycological complex regarding his identity. Is it common among this generation? he believes that German defeat and occupation murdered his soul. His seeks redemption. He looks so tormented but not out of "guilt" but out of humilation, "but Germany will back". The RAF seemed today as nationalist group who fought firstly to remove the American bases out of German soil. Why did so many, like Heinrich Böll, believe in their sincerity as anti fascist revolutionaries? Coult it be that they themselves believed in this self denial? He says to Vanity Fair :"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 story." Crazy as he may sounds today, at least Mahler could not live with the lie anymore, the problem is in doing so he took the most crazy Nazi spout face value. His wounded ego seeks vindication for all what Germany (and he himself) had to pay for. As a 68-er intellectual of Herbert Marcuse school, he could say Nazism was right idea but extermination and racial policy were not necessary, after all Strasserism (the Nazis left wing of Gregor and Otto Strasser) could took Nazism to different direction. Instead he says the holocaust is a lie and racial policy (rassenpolitisches) was right. Is self destruction play here? He says in Vanity Fair, the Germans "have a tendency to self-reproach". So self-reproach is so thin gloss?


So powerful was the revelation that I feel sympathy with this intellectualized "neo Nazi". I've never thought I'll feel that way toward Nazi. I feel unease about it.

Planned today to go to the used book store and buy "Hitler's children" by Jillian Becker. Remembrer I saw it there the other day. Do you know better book?

[Potemkin]

Living with the historical and moral legacy of German history would give anyone a psychological complex.

[noir]

Potemkin, can you offer some good readings on the subject?

[killim]

In what are you interested in particular Noir?

I haven't seen the video but i have seen some documentations about him and the interview between Friedman and Mahler live. Mahler is typical for radicalized extremists and not for his generation. He makes up his biography to look consistent. Most parts of the RAF, SDS etc. were communists, maoists etc. and only a small proportion of them changed to the extreme right wing out of an anti-authority attitude, the failing of the real-existing communism and the end of the city-guerrllia, the intellectual/legal fight against the administration etc.

The issue is very complex, some parts of them simply wanted to fight, some only had the typical '68 style inter-generational conflict, some were ideologically influenced, some were only hooligans, some were simple opportunists etc. and the biggest part had something from all the motives.

IMHO persons like Schily, Fischer, Daniel Cohn-Bendit and the whole history of the Greens and the march trough the institutions of this generation is far more interesting.

[noir]

In what are you interested in particular Noir?

Mahler says in Vanity Fair :"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 story" and "the Germans have a tendency to self-reproach". Is it correct? Do the reproach and guilt were genuine? Do you know about psychological neurosis and guilt suffering among former Nazis and their kids?

[killim]

Hm, it is not so easy to translate. We have a culture of "not-again" as i would call it. The guilt and shame complex can not be found in Mahlers generation. His generation with the mercy of a more recent birth as we call it (Gnade der späten Geburt) had not this guilt and shame complex but pushed the "not-again" culture to the extreme in the '68-movement/generation.

The primary psychological issue of the war generation is PTSD and only the adults developed a guilt and shame complex.

[noir]

Even if he wish to rely on revisionist history (and deny the holocaust) why does he need to bring to his aid the primitive German occult tradition and call Jews "satan" etc? with his slander against Judaized world and Talmud he sounds like Julius Streicher. You say he doesn't embody his generation but Hans Jurgen Syberberg (the director, of "Hitler - ein Film aus Deutschland" 1977) of his generation also speaks on his terms while at that time many thought he's anti fascist left winger. Do intellectual Germans still beileve in the ancient German terms of "judenzen"? So what has been the change in Germany if any?

In one notorious example Syberberg wrote in Vom Unglück und Glück der Kunst in Deutschland nach dem letzten Kriege (On the Misfortune and Fortune of Art in Germany after the Last War, 1990): "We live in the Jewish epoch of European cultural history. And we can only wait, at the pinnacle of our technological power, for our last judgment at the edge of the apocalypse… Those who want to have good careers go along with Jews and leftists [and] the race of superior men [Rasse der Herrenmenschen] has been seduced, the land of poets and thinkers has become the fat booty of corruption, of business, of lazy comfort."

Was the guilt of this generation just fake window dressing to get pass? Do the Germans still feel they need to de-judaized of our world? why the German so bother with Jews?

[killim]

As i already said guys like Mahler don't even present a slim minority. Plus the ideology is not really logical, therefore i don't really know where this Jew fixation comes from. I think it is primarily a leftover from the typical ideology and conspiracy theories. I don't know Syberberg, but again Mahler does not stand for his generation. Guess why is is seen as an extremist? Guess why his terrorist attempts all failed? Why he wasn't and isn't able to get votes for his party organizations? Of course he wishes otherwise and tries to sound important, but thats simply not the case.

It is laughable to think that his theories have any kind of impact on the intellectual level in Germany. In contrast, thanks to the "not again" culture you will find yourself out of such circles within minutes if you show such attitudes or even say something that could be interpreted in this direction even if everybody knows that it was highly like not the case. Additionally the public/media will tear you apart.

You know who Michael Friedman is. The simple fact that Mahler went into his talkshow illustrates, that he is an attention whore who used this publicity to rant and provocate and thereby looking quite intellectual for his extreme right wing fanbase.

The guilt and shame is by far not only a topic related to the jewish side of the happenings in the WW2 and it was not a simply fake to get back into the international community etc. It was connected to the questions of individual guilt and personal identity. Be aware that the guilt and shame part does relate to the most victims too.

EDIT:
I don't know what "judenzen" means....

[noir]

How do german see today Gunter Grass now when it's known that much of his holy anger was fake and lie? Same with Martin Walser. Do Germans had something of the (Jewish) self hate phenomena?

Be aware that the guilt and shame part does relate to the most victims too.

what do you mean?

[killim]

Günter Grass is a good example for his generation. He was drafted to the SS. If you read his partly autobiographical work you will see that he is motivated in his writing and political standpoint by his past. His anger was never faked. The problem is his moral standpoint against the domestic issue if a soldier cementry with SS members in it can be part of a diplomatic visit by the US president and the simple fact that he hid his SS past, which is against the message of his work. The guilt and the "never again" complex were here dominated by his shame. For the complexity i can really recommend "The tin drum".

Walser (btw. the father of Jakob Augstein), is and has always been a lefty too. His Paulskirchenrede and the following controversy with Bubis is oriented on the culture of "never again", which created many taboos. Walsers point is justified and if your read the Paulskirchenrede you can see what drives him, despite knowing what storm he will break loose. He is against empty ritualized reactions/taboos/attitudes related to this topic and he makes very important points in that speech.
Be aware that he is miles and miles away from a simple statement that demands freedom of the speech or a far worse a revisionistic historical view etc. He tries to break up the crusted culture of "never again" at this highly symbolic place.

The guilt and shame part in its relations to the victims of the WW2 and the happenings afterwards, led to a suppression of their victimhood. It created a cloak of silence around the victims and their "compared minor evil" simply look at the whole refugee issue, the ethnic cleansing, the mass murders, millions of organized rapings, the eugenic victims, the political/social/religious victims etc.
To get the "Entnazifizierung" implemented and the culture of "never again" installed, it was necessary to stop the talking about the own victimhood and instead to concentrate on the own evildoings. However those victims have to be addressed at least now and the culture of "never again", which is now deep-seated is still opposed to that problem. But in the end for a sustainable "never again" it is important to address these issues and not to taboo them, because this is only food for the extreme right positions, who would then occupy those issues.

[noir]

I think you have a point by hinting that the culture of "never again" is part of the problem. I tend to believe that this stiff cultural intellectual clique is what that makes pepole like Mahler tick! He's angry that some facts are supressed and he doesn't want to be part of the conformoist crowd so he take his readings in the BS of revisionist writings. The revisionist historians have their merit too. Only their growing influence led the leading Israeli Shoa historian, Yehuda Bauer to call a press confrence and deny officially the story of human-made soap. Next phase should be serious discussion about the unwanted Jewish influence between the wars. It seems it still a taboo. Mahler with his spout about Satanic Jews who are eternal German people enemy doesn't help.

This taboos is also Israeli problem. Do you know that when Hitler took power not all Zionists saw it as bad outcome? Many saw his point regarding the Bolsheviks, Britain and growing Jewish influence. Since the intellectual clique in Israel suppressed the issue the facts are twisted against Israel by writers like the anti Zionist Jewish "Trotskyite" writer Lenni Brenner which his book "Zionism in the Age of the Dictators" became the bible of the anti Zionists and antisemites. There are many important issue there which he twists for his server (his point is Zionism=Nazism). What is the problem with negotiating with the Nazis? Only recently I've learned that a rightist Zionist negotiated with the moderate Nazis the Gregor and Otto Strasser. What's wrong with that? If the Jews were ready to come to terms with the Nazis they may had been no Holocaust! Instead the Zionist establishment (socialist) tied its toe with the British policy and the result we all know. This talk is utter taboo in Israel though the (rightist) press of the time talked about it freely. At that time it was dismissed by the socialist Zionist establishment as Fascist but what if they maight be right? This establishment is still rule in cultural and intellectual fields.