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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
Dr. Walter Post… 3 July 2006
Herr Dr. Rolf Kosiek…
Dear Dr. Kosiek!
Thank you very much for your letter of 18 June 2006, which I have
mulled over for quite a while.
In my eyes the upcoming trial against Herr Rudolf has a connection
with the ideological and propagandistic preparations of the war against
Iran, and hence even a merely rudimentarily fair trial can even less be
expected than is common in such cases.
I therefore consider it very unlikely that the court will be inclined to
follow the defense’s strategy and to permit an expert report about the
scientific nature of the works by Herr Rudolf. After all, the indictment
is not unscientific working methods, but instead the denial of “selfevident
facts” and hence “incitement of the masses.” The court really
would need to be very naïve in order to follow the defense’s argumentation
that it is dealing with “inner-scientific points at issue.” In view of
the massive political interventions into this topic it is self-evident that
much more is at stake than an inner-scientific debate.
The meanwhile deceased Joachim Hoffman has written an expert report
along the lines sketched out by you several years ago. An expert
report authored by me can be rejected by the court at any time for purely
formal reasons, on the one hand due to my generally known contacts
to right-wing groups and therefore doubtful objectivity, on the other
hand due to lack of scientific qualifications. The preparation of such an
expert report would therefore be hardly more than a waste of time.
A much more effective strategy would be, if the defense would demonstrate
that in the meantime there is no self-evidence anymore. Since
the Soviet Union has collapsed and the Eastern Block has broken up,
innumerable documents have become accessible whose content is at
times in stark contradiction to the hitherto established version of history.
Although the defense or the defendant would have to undertake the
task to demonstrate this by themselves, since an expert witness, as stated,
would be rejected with the highest probability.
With this strategy one could not prevent a conviction either, but one
could show the court quite plainly that it conducts a political, not a legal
trial.
With my best regards, (signed) your Walter Post
252