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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
southern states and which at times came close to a self-identification
with the vanquished. After Germany’s defeat in World War I it was a
matter of course for the allies that the war guilt had to be attributed to
the authoritarian and militaristic system of “Prussia,” that “civilization”
therefore is the real {p. 14} winner. But already within a few years
voices could be heard especially in the U.S. which drew an entirely different
picture of the situation in 1914 and which attributed at least a
considerable share of the guilt to the Allied powers. It was not difficult
to see that the protagonists of this revisionism mainly originated from
the faction of American pacifism, which had fought the armament lobby
right from the beginning as the culprits of the war. A similar development
occurred in the U.S. after World War II, and even a partial identity
of the persons involved could be determined, as for the case of Harry
Elmer Barnes. But as much as the accusation of “Germanophilia” might
have been close at hand, this did not touch the arguments in the slightest,
and it wasn’t just the revisionists who claimed that Roosevelt and
his surroundings had aimed at intervening on England’s side. Even in
Germany the all too plain theses of the “anti-Fascists” had to provoke
objections: it was not an “assault of Nazi Germany on Poland” that
marked the beginning of World War II, but the division treaty between
Stalin and Hitler at the expense of Poland. In the early 1950s, however,
a different revisionism arose in the U.S. as well, namely the revisionism
regarding the Cold War, which emphatically questioned that it had been
caused by the Soviet Union and which at the end came to conceptions
crudely hostile to the [U.S.] state and system, which in practice came
close to an identification with the Soviet Union or Soviet-style Marxism.
These revisionists had a hard time during the 1950s and during the
time of the Vietnam War, but their books have never been banned, since
they {p. 15} enjoyed the freedom of speech kept in high regard in the
U.S. One could posit the thesis that the existence of revisionisms which
are provocative and inimical to the system are a main characteristic of
liberal societies. But it is not at all a given fact that general statements
like this can also be applied to that revisionism which totally or at least
in part “denies Auschwitz.”
In contrast to this it cannot be questioned whether established science
has revised its Auschwitz image – both regarding the actual camp
as well as the symbol for the “final solution” – and that a need for a revision
has been recognized.
270