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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
The article quoted by the Chamber regarding a decision by the German
Federal Constitutional High Court does not contain any principles
to evaluate the science nature of a work. 288
Further Motions of 12 February 2007
Annex 11
In the matter of Germar Rudolf I request that the Court may tell the
defense, how it defines science and which criteria it uses to assess the
scientific nature of a writing, as defined by the law, as well as on which
source it relies for this know-how, as it its contested that the Court itself
has the expert competence to answer this question in a legally binding
way.
Germar Rudolf
Annex 12
In the matter of Germar Rudolf I request to hear the witness Prof.
Dr. Werner Maser, expert for contemporary history with special knowledge
about the history of the Third Reich, to be summoned via his private
address, as evidence for the following allegations:
1. In a longer telephone call with Germar Rudolf the witness stated that
the restrictions of freedom of opinion and freedom of science in the
Federal Republic of Germany have almost reached the conditions of
the former GDR [German Democratic Republic, former communist
East Germany] and that, as a historian in Germany, one can no longer
tell the unvarnished truth, if one doesn’t want to expose oneself to
societal persecution and legal prosecution. (Summer 2005)
2. The witness will confirm that it is the permanent threat of historians
with societal persecution and legal prosecution which keeps them
from taking revisionist publications seriously in public or to even assume
revisionist positions, but not subject-specific reservations.
3. The witness will confirm that the unanimity of established historians
on many issues of the Third Reich exists only, because dissidents are
being persecuted and prosecuted or are threatened with it.
Germar Rudolf
288 The passage of the verdict dealing with the term “science” has been replaced with omission
ellipses in the quoted article, hence the court’s reference to it is vacuous.
238