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

Arbitrary
Selection/Elimination
GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
Objective
Selection/Elimination
No Source Criticism Source Criticism
– ignoring/repressing Quellenkritik
– persecution of critics (revisionists,
lawyers)
– selection of statements confirming
the known. To this Heiner Lichtenstein:
106
“A valuable witness, one of the few
[SS-men], who confirm at least
some of what has to be assumed to
be known anyhow.”
This is running like a red threat
through investigations and trials.
– circumstances of statement: 107
compulsion, threats, torture, suggestive
questions, uncritical rambling,
influence by organizations,
government authorities, media...
– contents of statements:
inner contradictions, contradiction
to other testimonies, documents,
material evidence, logic, technical
& natural possibilities
assessment of witness trustworthiness
assessment of statement credibility
= established historians & judiciary = revisionism
defense attorneys in this trial in one way or another can confirm from
bad experience.
From my study of countless books on the subject as well as thousands
of pages of investigation and interrogation protocols compiled
during German criminal proceedings against alleged National Socialist
perpetrators of violent crimes, it has become clear that only such testimonies
have been selected as relevant which confirm that which had
been assumed to be known anyway already at the beginning of the trial.
The statement by Heiner Lichtenstein, a journalist who has observed
several such trials and has written several articles and books about
them, distinctively expresses this prejudice, as I have quoted in the table.
This attitude runs like a red thread through all penal investigations
and trials. It is not restricted to depictions in the media and in literature,
but also includes investigating officials, prosecutors and judges and
sometimes even defense lawyers.
The object of these trials was therefore clearly not to establish
whether, when and to what extent crimes had been committed. Instead,
the only point was to pin the already determined guilt on the fitting defendant
and to mete out a punishment.
106 Heiner Lichtenstein, Im Name des Volkes?, Bund, Cologne 1984, p. 56.
107 Germar Rudolf, Lectures, op. cit. (note 55) pp. 345-384.
81