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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
The reason given was, among other things, that, with my plans to
publish my defense speech, I was about to once more disseminate those
illegal statements of my book Lectures on the Holocaust for which I
had been indicted during the previous penal case. The accusation was
furthermore that, in the context of aspects of the Holocaust which in
Germany are prescribed as true by penal law, I would be inciting the
masses by using adjectives like “alleged,” “purported,” and
“claimed.” 171
If verbatim protocols existed for trials in Germany, my defense
speech would have been recorded in the protocol. Since my penal proceedings
were public, such a document would automatically have been
a public document, the dissemination of which would have been possible
for everyone.
Yet unfortunately there are no verbatim protocols in Germany. For
this reason I had prepared a protocol of my own of my defense speech,
based on the typescript of my speech, my notes, and my memory.
This private protocol inevitably had to also include those passages of
my statements in which I had responded specifically to the accusations
of the prosecution. This is, after all, the meaning and purpose of a defense.
Since the indictment consist to no small degree of quotations
from my writings, it was also inevitable to address those quotes.
It so happened that, already while writing this protocol, I was dissatisfied
with the sheer endless discussion of quotations ripped out of their
context. Whereas my defense speech consists of a systematically constructed
chain or arguments otherwise, it decays in this subchapter into
disjointed, individual aspects which the reader would find difficult to
follow, as he doesn’t have the book in question in front of him; but even
if he had it at hand, this persistent quoting seems to be superfluous. He
then would be better of to read the book itself.
These considerations already indicate that the prosecution’s claim is
absurd that I intended to spread the theses of my prohibited book anew
under the cover of publishing my defense speech.
The entire matter is absurd also because what I have written down in
my protocol I had propounded orally with almost the same words during
the public(!) trial. The same prosecutor, who had listened attentively
to my words during the trial without objecting, initiated a new penal
171 Cf. the illustration in Appendix 9, pp. 363f.
154