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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
With regard to the final solution, even a research ban could be justified,
albeit only by way of a thought experiment: Assuming that not
Auschwitz but Treblinka were the general symbol of the final solution,
because it really had been a pure extermination camp in which millions
of individuals had perished without that a single eyewitness had been
able to testify about the actual circumstances and without that any traces
had been left behind after intensive destruction. In view of such matters
of fact, science would most likely have agreed to a research ban, which
would have been nothing else but an imperative of elementary reverence.
But precisely this thought experiment cannot be applied to Auschwitz
as a specific camp. Auschwitz-Birkenau was not a pure extermination
camp either, and it was not located in a hidden spot in an uninhabited
area. It was located in the midst of an industrial region, and since it
never reached its [intended] last extension, civil laborers had been employed
there constantly. Numerous inmates survived, and indeed, some
inmates were even released. In one of the earliest accounts about
Auschwitz, for instance, the book by Emil de Martini Vier Millionen
Tote klagen an [Four Million Deads Accuse] (1948), the author expressly
states that he was released in 1943. Up to this date over and over
again comparable witness accounts have appeared which diverge from
one another in no rare cases. 9 For a major part, the buildings of the
camp are still extant {p. 13}, among them to a considerable degree also
the five crematoria. Hence Auschwitz can and must be a subject of science;
a research ban would be unjustifiable. Revisions of scientific results
and elucidation are basically legitimate. The only question is
whether a revisionism is justified, that is to say a systematic effort of an
entire school to draw a divergent overall picture, and whether such revisionism,
if it were acceptable in principle, had to set its own limits or
could be forced to stay within limits.
While constant revisions are the daily bread in all fields of science,
solid “revisionisms” evolve regularly when a particular view about an
emotional topic seems to have gained unrestricted dominance. This situation
is most likely given when big decisions have been made in politics,
especially when a war has ended with the total victory of one side.
After the end of the U.S. Civil War, for example, the concept of slave
liberation predominated undisputedly in historiography as well, but after
a few decades a revisionism came into existence anyway, which demanded
to do justice to the ideas and protagonists of the vanquished
269