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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
deployed. Hence, if the prosecution claims that the denial of the existence
of gas chambers equals the denial of genocide, then it is the prosecution
which denies all genocides in the history of mankind, as none of
them had any gas chambers.
But Federal German law does exactly not outlaw the denial of homicidal
gas chambers and of systematic mass murder, but the denial of
genocide in general. And this in its legal, binding definition I have never
denied.
Now, one could insinuate that I make such statements as quoted
above only for tactical reasons in order to avoid prosecution. But does
anyone here have the impression that I tell you what you want to hear in
order to gain advantages? In fact, the primary addressee of this passage
is not the German justice system but the reader of the book, which is to
say adherents of revisionism and potential, frequently emotionally
aroused converts.
My personal experience has shown that it is important for the reader
not to lose a sense of proportion. He who discovers that a colossal untruth
has been foisted upon him may react wrathfully. And in order to
preempt a subsequent overreaction it is necessary to bring to the reader’s
mind that the undisputed measures of persecution of National Socialism
against the Jews still fulfill the definition of genocide according
to today’s definition, even if that definition was shaped only after the
war. This passage therefore serves to exhort the reader to remain realistic.
I may illustrate with two examples the fact that my refusal to speak
what others want to hear is indeed a principle of mine:
In the years 1997/98 I was supported with 1,000 deutschmarks by a
gentleman in regular intervals. In 1998 he complained that I had said
something negative about National Socialism in my German journal
Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung. He demanded of me
not to repeat it or else he would stop supporting me. I answered to this
that I would be willing to publish a contribution by him proving with
verifiable evidence where I was wrong. Yet I could be threatened or
censored neither by the German state nor by my readers and supporters.
Said gentleman subsequently ceased his support and terminated all contact.
The second example is about my introduction to the book Grundlagen
zur Zeitgeschichte, which I wrote only after I had received all the
contributions of my co-authors. As already mentioned, this introduction
159