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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
man Penal Code referring back to article 86 III Penal Code (“social adequacy
clause”).
Germar Rudolf
Annex 5
In the arrest warrant of 29 Jan. 2007 the Chamber, represented by
the three professional judges, imputed (?) a “pseudo-scientific style” to
the defendant – among other things with regard to the books authored
by him.
Contrary to the judges’ opinion, the defendant’s books are not
“pseudo-scientific.” They comply with the principles of the nature of
science. As evidence for this it is requested that a report by an expert
witness in the theory of sciences be obtained.
It is moreover requested to advise [the defense], which sentences,
phrases, conclusions, arguments, in brief: which passages of the defendant’s
works deserve the verdict “pseudo-scientific” in the – erroneous
– view of the Chamber.
Ludwig Bock, defense lawyer
Annex 6
1. In the arrest warrant of 29 Jan. 2007 the Chamber speaks about the
“Holocaust, which is known to be historically recognized.” It is requested
to advise [the defense] what the Chamber understands by the
“Holocaust, which is known to be historically recognized.”
2. In the arrest warrant the Chamber also speaks about a “fate of extermination
of the Jews as planned by the NS authorities.” It is requested
to advise [the defense] what the Chamber means by this.
Which NS authority conceived which plan – and when? – according
to the Chamber’s opinion? Does the Chamber know any documents
about this? If yes, which ones? According to the defense’s knowledge,
historians hold different – contradicting – opinions about this.
3. In the arrest warrant the Chamber also assumes the “existence of gas
chambers for mass killings.” Since quite diverse opinions exist on
this as well, it is requested to advise [the defense], on the base of
which knowledge the Chamber is assuming this.
4. Does the Chamber know the essay by Fritjof Meyer in [the journal]
“Osteuropa” about the victim number of Auschwitz? If yes: do they
share its opinion? If no, it is requested to read this essay during the
main proceedings as evidence that the victim number currently men-
232