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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
even arrived at the theses that a hardly misunderstandable prefiguration
of the final solution can be found in the earliest and most important of
all “talks with Hitler,” namely the writing by Hitler’s mentor Dietrich
Eckart Der Bolschewismus von Moses bis Lenin [Bolshevism from Moses
to Lenin], which I had rediscovered. 4 The philosophical sense of this
my first book becomes perhaps especially apparent on p. 512, and right
there the final solution is once more mentioned: within this philosophical
perspective Hitler does no longer appear as a mere epochal figure,
but rather as the end of an eon: “But this qualification denotes nothing
less than a heroization. Instead, it restores the highest of all honors to
the millions of his victims: it highlights that they, who have been exterminated
as vermin, did not die as the unfortunate objects of a repulsive
crime but as representatives during the most desperate attack ever
lead against the human being and the transcendence in it.”
Not just due to its terminology were expressions like this not common
during the early sixties, and an Israeli historian proffered good reasons,
when writing in a study published by the Historische Zeitschrift in
1985 {p. 4}, that I was the first German historian who had emphasized
the central importance of the “final solution” for an appropriate understanding
of National Socialism. 5 Hence the claim could be advocated
that I was a co-founder of the “orthodox” and at once of the “intentionalistic”
interpretation in 1963, that is to say of the interpretation which
considers a decision by Hitler as the principal cause for the final solution.
I want to stress here with emphasis that I never made a volte-face.
Even after having taken note of the doubts expressed by the revisionists
and after I had to admit to myself that I myself had no adequate answers
for some of them, I am still convinced that the statements by Rudolf
Höss and even those by Kurt Gerstein are correct in their core. I still
maintain that something like that can neither be invented nor forced 6 –
maybe one can imagine that Höss and Gerstein were haunted by feverish
dreams in their prison cells, but both statements are independent
from each other, and the one by Gerstein was confirmed in its main features
by his companion, the Marburg Professor Pfannenstiel. Numerous
other testimonies by SS men and victims point in the same direction,
and even strong contradictions in these statements would not touch the
core: it is conceivable that the statements by victims of a severe earthquake
in a remote area diverge in details, and yet they would be correct
on the whole and would prove the factuality of the event. I therefore
264