Germar Rudolf
Oberer Fauler Pelz 1 69117 Heidelberg,
den 3. 2.
07
3 Feb
2007
Dear Mr. Deckert,
Yesterday I received from Arthur Butz a copy of your presentation of the events of Day 6 of
my trial.
In response, I must request that you distribute my following counter-
presentation to your readers.
Since the beginning of the
Rudolf trial in
With particular regard to Rudolf’s testimony, Mr. Deckert’s reports sometimes present a cryptic and extremely
condensed version of the proceedings, in a style of speech that is drastically
different from that of Rudolf.
For example, Rudolf’s
manuscript contains around 100 pages, whereas Deckert’s
coverage contains at most10 pages.
In particular, several inaccurate depictions in Deckert’s
coverage of Trial Day 6, which took place on 10 January, should be corrected,
since they are potentially damaging to Rudolf’s character and reputation.
For this reason I am now
writing the following counter- presentation.
Deckert wrote:
“Er (Rudolf) called the District Attorney a
historical zero and described him as malicious, saying that he himself deserved
to be sitting on the defendant’s bench.”
This depiction is false and misleading.
The factual truth is as follows:
On page 16 of the
indictment, quotations from page 200 of my book “Lectures on the Holocaust” are
presented as criminal evidence.
The quotations have to do with National Socialist Jewish policy before the
outbreak of war with the
The quotations, taken from established sources, contain facts that are
noncontroversial, yet not definitively proven.
Following presentation of this content I stated the following:
“Why should depictions be punishable, that do nothing except repeat
generally accepted historical research concerning the Jewish policy of the
Third Reich up until mid 1941?
Can the District Attorney’s office really
be as historically incompetent as this suggests?
If so, they should not presume to indict persons who
are a great deal better informed on the subject.
Or is the District Attorney’s
office simply malicious?
In that case they themselves belong on the defendant’s bench,
answering to charges of illegally prosecuting innocent persons.”
Deckert also wrote the clause “...Since Raul Hilberg does not investigate primary sources” as an
indirect quotation that he attributed to me.
Again, this is false and
misleading.
The truth is that, while discussing Jürgen Graf’s
book “The Giant with Feet of Clay” I stated that according to Graf’s critique
of Prof. Hilberg’s book, the latter does not critique
his sources, nor does he assign the necessary archival primacy.
Mr. Deckert
quoted me as saying that the Prüfstelle (Federal
German bureau to determine political acceptability) is “intellectually
incompetent.”
Again, false and misleading.
The truth is
that I was explaining that the Federal Testing Bureau, which is entrusted with
clarifying the question of whether material is scientific before placing it on
the unlawful index” (that is, censoring it), has no one on their investigative
committee who can be considered a qualified scientist.
For this reason I called the committee “intellectually unqualified”
for their task.
Mr. Deckert wrote:
“At 4:10 in the afternoon, Rudolf very clearly concluded with the
observation ‘The use of violence invokes counterviolence.’”
This depiction is false and
misleading.
The truth is that I ended with my presentation with a discussion of
the question of the reason why I was being prosecuted.
As precursor to this there had been a section in my presentation in
which I explained in detail why I am opposed to the use of force.
I discussed the instances in which it is necessary to resort to civil
disobedience and passive resistance against state injustice:
The
first of the eight reasons I listed was:
“I am opposed to violence on principle, for the reason that
violence leads to counterviolence and is therefore
counterproductive.
Deckert’s version creates the impression that I
advocate violence.
Such an impression would be
absolutely fatal (for me) -- I must oppose it with extreme decisiveness.
On the same trial day I
explained in detail why this point is so important.
It is because the Federal Government and hostile media had spread the vicious
lie that I had called for the assassination of a prosecutor, when the very
opposite was true.
Deckerts depiction is oil on the fire of liars in the
government and media.
That is the reason why / I cannot allow them to continue.
Let us hope that the exact text of my presentation will soon be made
available.
Until then I can only advise everyone against taking hearsay
reports at face value.
Germar Rudolf,