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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
own ignorance about the matter with the fact that he merely helps out a
colleague who couldn’t attend but who is otherwise in charge of these
“political cases.” There exist therefore especially delegated prosecutors
among the public prosecution upon whom it is incumbent to prosecute
citizens due to their views for – underhandedly admitted – political reasons
in order to protect the state from these very citizens. And if such
trials end with a prison term, how are those convicted inmates to be
called? I want to postpone addressing this question to a later point in
time.
Now to the next quote:
“For us… the concept of torture inheres in the very fact of holding
political prisoners in prison…” (1/331; this is the statement of a
prosecutor about methods of the previous regime.)
That is also the official view of the Federal Republic of Germany
about political prisoners during the time of National Socialism, and
rightly so. And since we are talking about torture, I may once more
mention my foot shackles, which were used on me again during the
transport to the court, quite in contrast to the utmost majority of other
prisoners who are never transferred with shackles. Are you at all aware
how painful fetters are, how they cut into the ankles with every step? 128
But now to the next quote:
“One important additional broadening […] was its application
[…] ‘via intent.’ In other words, no [crime] had taken place; but the
interrogator envisioned an intention…” (1/61)
This is pretty much exactly along the line of argument of my
Stuttgart trial. At that time a revisionist could only be sentenced for inciting
the masses, if he had committed the so-called “qualified Auschwitz
lie,” that is to say, if he had expressly claimed that Jews had invented
the Holocaust in order to gain political or financial advantageous.
But I had never claimed such a thing. Even the Stuttgart court
had to admit this, which did not prevent them, though, to sentence me
by insinuating that I had had the “intention.” I may quote the according
passages from the verdict: 129
“Although [the text passages] do not expressively accuse the
Jews of having invented the accounts on the Holocaust particularly
to gain political and material advantages, in the eyes of this court
128 Following an order by the Presiding Judge no fetters were used after that day in court.
129 District Court Stuttgart, ref. 17 KLs 83/94, p. 115.
108