Resistance

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORYDr. Walter Post… 3 July 2006Herr Dr. Rolf Kosiek…Dear Dr. Kosiek!Thank you very much for your letter of 18 June 2006, which I havemulled over for quite a while.In my eyes the upcoming trial against Herr Rudolf has a connectionwith the ideological and propagandistic preparations of the war againstIran, and hence even a merely rudimentarily fair trial can even less beexpected than is common in such cases.I therefore consider it very unlikely that the court will be inclined tofollow the defense’s strategy and to permit an expert report about thescientific nature of the works by Herr Rudolf. After all, the indictmentis not unscientific working methods, but instead the denial of “selfevidentfacts” and hence “incitement of the masses.” The court reallywould need to be very naïve in order to follow the defense’s argumentationthat it is dealing with “inner-scientific points at issue.” In view ofthe massive political interventions into this topic it is self-evident thatmuch more is at stake than an inner-scientific debate.The meanwhile deceased Joachim Hoffman has written an expert reportalong the lines sketched out by you several years ago. An expertreport authored by me can be rejected by the court at any time for purelyformal reasons, on the one hand due to my generally known contactsto right-wing groups and therefore doubtful objectivity, on the otherhand due to lack of scientific qualifications. The preparation of such anexpert report would therefore be hardly more than a waste of time.A much more effective strategy would be, if the defense would demonstratethat in the meantime there is no self-evidence anymore. Sincethe Soviet Union has collapsed and the Eastern Block has broken up,innumerable documents have become accessible whose content is attimes in stark contradiction to the hitherto established version of history.Although the defense or the defendant would have to undertake thetask 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 onecould show the court quite plainly that it conducts a political, not a legaltrial.With my best regards, (signed) your Walter Post252