Resistance

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORYThe reason given was, among other things, that, with my plans topublish my defense speech, I was about to once more disseminate thoseillegal statements of my book Lectures on the Holocaust for which Ihad been indicted during the previous penal case. The accusation wasfurthermore that, in the context of aspects of the Holocaust which inGermany are prescribed as true by penal law, I would be inciting themasses by using adjectives like “alleged,” “purported,” and“claimed.” 171If verbatim protocols existed for trials in Germany, my defensespeech would have been recorded in the protocol. Since my penal proceedingswere public, such a document would automatically have beena public document, the dissemination of which would have been possiblefor everyone.Yet unfortunately there are no verbatim protocols in Germany. Forthis 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 ofmy statements in which I had responded specifically to the accusationsof the prosecution. This is, after all, the meaning and purpose of a defense.Since the indictment consist to no small degree of quotationsfrom my writings, it was also inevitable to address those quotes.It so happened that, already while writing this protocol, I was dissatisfiedwith the sheer endless discussion of quotations ripped out of theircontext. Whereas my defense speech consists of a systematically constructedchain or arguments otherwise, it decays in this subchapter intodisjointed, individual aspects which the reader would find difficult tofollow, as he doesn’t have the book in question in front of him; but evenif he had it at hand, this persistent quoting seems to be superfluous. Hethen would be better of to read the book itself.These considerations already indicate that the prosecution’s claim isabsurd that I intended to spread the theses of my prohibited book anewunder the cover of publishing my defense speech.The entire matter is absurd also because what I have written down inmy protocol I had propounded orally with almost the same words duringthe public(!) trial. The same prosecutor, who had listened attentivelyto my words during the trial without objecting, initiated a new penal171 Cf. the illustration in Appendix 9, pp. 363f.154