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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
meta-biological extermination” of peoples and races by the National
Socialists.
Nevertheless a storm of polemics and personal denigration broke out
after the publication of my article, which produced more than 1,000
articles and three dozen books within the first years. That my interpretation
had been explained and substantiated much more thoroughly in
1987 in the voluminous book Der europäische Bürgerkrieg 1917–1945
[The European Civil War 1917-1945] in contrast to my brief article of
1986, did not {p. 7} change the negative verdict of those who, without
being aware of it, orient themselves by the apparent unambiguity of the
[book] Faschismus in seiner Epoche. When I pleaded for a scientific
dispute with the revisionists in 1993 in my book Streitpunkte. Heutige
und künftige Kontroversen um den Nationalsozialismus [Points of Contention.
Current and Future Controversies about National Socialism],
almost the entire published opinion considered it to be clear that I did
not only advocate a “relativization of National Socialist Crimes,” but
that I had even gotten alarmingly close to the “Holocaust deniers.” To
me, in turn, it became clear that for the new orthodox it was not primarily
about the factuality and singularity of the final solution, but that
an “absolute” character should be ascribed to it, which tries to ban even
a differentiating comparison. 8 Hence I cannot deny that I also harbor a
grave pre-judgment and insofar a strong prejudice against these “anti-
Revisionists.” For I consider their kind of polemics as unscientific, nay,
even as anti-scientific.
{p. 8} Scientific attitudes and scientific methods in the historical
sciences can only be characterized in a series of steps.
The first step involves “eliciting.” All facts relevant to the corresponding
issue have to be brought to light as completely as possible,
and with a methodical approach which is conscious of the goal. He who
refuses to acknowledge certain matters of fact or even merely pretended
or apparent facts, because they are unsympathetic to him or do not “fit
into the picture,” violates the ethos of this step of science. But here science
can very well be the matter of the individual. When Heinrich
Schliemann searched for the remnants of Troy, he followed his intuitions
and was not integrated into a “school of thought” or a collective.
As every scientist, he merely had to rely on the pre-scientific level of
oral memory and on unmethodical, sometimes even mythological witness
accounts, from which he had to pick his choice.
266