Germar Rudolf, Resistance Is Obligatory (2012; PDF-Datei

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
I wonder also how this court will assess my defense speech.
Now to the next quote:
“The tribunal roared out a threat to arrest […] the principal defense
lawyer […]” (1/350)
In the meantime that can be found in German trials against dissidents
as well, where defense lawyers, although not yet arrested in the
court room, are nevertheless threatened with criminal proceedings, if
they try to prove the historical views of their clients to be correct. When
it comes to the facts themselves, that is, to the historical views of the
defendants, there basically exists during trials like the present one a
prohibition even for defense lawyers to introduce evidence and to make
statements. Mr. Attorney Bock to my right side, for instance and to my
knowledge, has been sentenced because he had dared to file a motion
during a trial in this very house to have prominent politicians of this
republic testify to the effect that the main reason why the Holocaust
must not be discussed controversially in public are political in nature.
My third defense lawyer Jürgen Rieger, who does not partake in person
during this trial, has been sentenced because in 1996 he had dared to
file a motion during a trial to have me testify as an expert witness about
the question whether there had been homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz.
My defense lawyer to the left side, Mrs. Stolz, had to experience
how the police removed her from the court room by force during the
Zündel trial taking place parallel to this present trial in this court house
and how a criminal investigation has been initiated against her for her
statements during this trial, as it also happened somewhat earlier to the
defense lawyer Horst Mahler, even though the background of these
criminal investigations are more political than historical in nature, so
that these two cases are somewhat outside of the scope of the present
issue.
To the next quote from the same page:
“And right then and there the tribunal actually ordered the imprisonment
of a witness, Professor Yegorov, […]”
That reminds me at an event at the District Court Nuremberg during
the trial against Swiss citizen Arthur Vogt in 1994. Vogt had been indicted
because on invitation of the Thomas Dehler Foundation, which is
closely affiliated to the German Liberal-Democratic Party, he had lectured
about his revisionist views on the Holocaust. On the initiative of
the defense I had been summoned to this trial as an expert witness. After
the defense lawyer had read out aloud his respective motion, accord-
105