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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
Notes
1 See about this Dirk van Laak, Widerstand gegen die Geschichtsgewalt. Zur Kritik an der “Vergangenheitsbewältigung,”
in: Norbert Frei, Dirk van Laak, Michael Stolleis: Geschichte vor
Gericht. Historiker, Richter und die Suche nach Gerechtigkeit. Munich 2000, pp. 11 ff., here p.
24.
This becomes particularly obvious for the new edition of Hermann Rauschning: Gespräche mit
Hitler. Mit einer Einführung von Marcus Pyka. Zurich 2005 (first edition: 1940). Although the
100 talks with Hitler contained in it have been freely invented, this new edition has been published
with the justification that this is allegedly “a document with indubitable source value inasmuch
as it contains interpretations which grew from immediate insights.” (p. 15)
2 See Rudolf, Vorlesungen, p. 83. Leading scientists of “official” Holocaust historiography are
autodidacts as well, like Prof. Raul Hilberg. It goes without saying that the autodidactic acquirement
of the essential “tools” of a historian requires considerably more efforts for epochs in
the more distant past, like medieval studies or studies of antiquity with their auxiliary sciences.
3 Rudolf addresses this issue in his Vorlesungen as well, p. 195.
4 Der Prozeß gegen die Hauptkriegsverbrecher vor dem Internationalen Militärgerichtshof
262
[IMT] Nürnberg, 14.11.1945 – 1.10.1946, Bd. 1–42. Nuremberg 1947–49.
5
In my eyes merely the contribution by Herbert Tiedemann (Grundlagen, pp. 375–399) goes too
far in a number of questions with its attempt to expose even the minutest contradictions in witness
statements. For example, he cannot imagine the rape of Jewish women by German soldiers
(p. 385), because this was considered “Blutschande” (defilement of blood) and would have violated
racial laws, i.e. it was therefore forbidden; I have at my disposal unequivocal archival evidence
from party proceedings during the war proving such behavior. Furthermore, false spellings
of Russian street names as well as careless usage of terms like for instance “site” for canon
are not an indication for intentions to forge (pp. 385 f, p. 393), but merely petty-minded cavilings
by Tiedemann. By contrast, wrong percentages by Tiedemann (p. 388, paragraph 3, line 1
f.) are of course typos or accidents.
6
In this context compare the so-called Berlin anti-Semitism dispute 1879/80 or the so-called
“Historikerstreit” (historians’ dispute) 1986/87.
7
Each time when it was imperative to write under a pseudonym or to protect third parties, publication
were written in dialog form in the 19th century; see for this: Militärische Briefe eines
Verstorbenen an seine noch lebenden Freunde, historischen, wissenschaftlichen, kritischen und
humoristischen Inhalts, Adorf 1845 (5 vols.).
2. Prof. Dr. Ernst Nolte
Expert Report
on the question of the scientific or unscientific nature of the
[book] Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte
Whoever has to express himself about such an overly sensitive topic
as the writings of so-called Holocaust deniers does well to explain his
use of terms and to denote his own viewpoint, so that his inevitable prejudgments
and prejudices become recognizable and hence tendentially
surmountable.
The term “Holocaust” already includes an interpretation; for it is in a
certain regard older and in a certain regard younger than the events of
the years 1941-1945. 1 For reasons yet to be discussed, “Auschwitz” is,