Resistance

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORYcould no longer introduce the expert report by the historian Dr. Rose, 304which had been prepared specifically for this trial, as well as that byProf. Dr. Ernst Nolte 305 – including my critique of it. 306Even if Zündel’s radical confrontational defense strategy was goodfor nothing else, at least it enabled me to use his lawyers as a deterrentin order to negotiate a much lower punishment for myself.Thank you, Ernst!IV. The PleasThe pleas held of 5 March 2007 were therefore only a formal matterwithout any factual relevance. It was all the more surprising, then, thatPublic Prosecutor Andreas Grossmann, apart from his pseudo-judicialplatitudes of anti-revisionist exorcism, had to admit after all that I amprobably really neither a National Socialist nor an anti-Semite. Hearingthis from the mouth of a government Nazi hunter is probably the maximumof what can be expected. When it was about justifying the relatively“mild” punishment of 2½ years of imprisonment for the revisionisttop devil as demanded by the prosecution, the prosecutor’s elaborationssounded more like a defense lawyer’s plea, so that my defenselawyer Pauls got into an awkward situation while pleading withoutwanting to simply repeat the prosecutor’s words. What Herr Pauls statedwithout preparation had been discussed with me only partly in roughoutlines, which is why I reject any responsibility for it.V. The Oral VerdictIn contrast to the written verdict, the reasons for the verdict givenorally quoted a little less from my book but in turn tried to be more specificabout the reasons, which is why I will now address them in detail.At the beginning of the pronouncement of the verdict on 15 Feb.2007, the Presiding Judge stated succinctly that he could not see whyarticle 130 Penal Code should be unconstitutional. He apparently consideredit unnecessary to address the arguments I had proffered. NextJudge Schwab focused on the definition of science as given by theGerman Federal Constitutional High Court in 1994, which I had criticized.He accused me of having omitted a passage which explained that304 See Appendix 3.1., p. 258.305 See Appendix 3.2., p. 264.306 See Appendix 3.3., p. 293.343