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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
never had {p. 5} an understanding for the talk of the “Auschwitz Lie” in
its original and revisionist meaning, which is almost completely anti-
Jewish in its tendency; at worst it could be a lie by Höss and other SS
officers like Höttl and Wisliceny.
Hence, if I were required to characterize my current position by using
the common terms, then I would say: I still call myself an orthodox
and an intentionalist. This means in other words: that I have a grave
pre-judgment or an obvious prejudice against the revisionists.
My 1963 book is insufficiently characterized, though, if it is understood
as a mere articulation of a “theory on fascism.” Fascism in its
three main manifestations is right from the start defined as a peculiar
kind of “anti-Marxism,” and this entails that the inner and outer relation
with the most important and active emanation of Marxism during the
20th century, namely Soviet and international Communism, may never
be lost out of sight, although the French Action française, the Italian
Fascism and the German National Socialism are in the foreground of
the interest due to the issue at hand. In so far Fascism and subsequently
also National Socialism had at once been “relativized,” although not in
the sense of challenging moral verdicts, but in the sense of setting historical
relations. A new situation nevertheless arose only in 1986, a
scarce year after the afore-mentioned study of that Israeli historian,
namely in the context of the so-called historians’ dispute {p. 6}, which
found its most emotional intensity due to my thesis expressed in a
newspaper article that there is an inextricable connection between “Gulag”
and “Auschwitz.” 7 In the matter itself this was nothing else but a
brief formulation of my interpretation of the 20th century – certainly in
a catchphrase style: that two totalitarian cleansing ideologies developed
their specific realities of mass extermination each, and that they thus
determined the face of the first half of the century, but indirectly also
the further course [of history] up to the [19]90s. The characteristic difference
between my “historical-genetic” version of the theory on totalitarianism
and the “classic” concept by Hannah Arendt and Carl J. Friedrich
consisted of the fact that the talk was no longer merely about parallels
but about causality and interdependency. That the factuality of the
final solution was not put to doubt by this does not require any proof,
but the same is true for its singularity, because I did not at all undertake
an equalization, but instead distinguished exactly between the “social”
extermination of classes by the Bolsheviks and the “biological, in fact
265