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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
account, which he has repeatedly explained since 1977 and which he
has expanded to a total negation. For he gained a very similar impression
during his first visit to Auschwitz as Conan expresses it today: the
impression that “something is wrong” and that the museum administration
is guilty of forgery. This first impression, which initially only led to
doubts, he advanced to a kind of inflexible dogmatism later on. But one
would have to concede that there are indeed quite a number {p. 31} of
unresolved questions with regard to Auschwitz (both as the specific
camp as well as the symbol) and that the attempt has to be made to resolve
them in a scientific way. And hence a rule should be applicable to
him, which could be called, with a grain of salt, a law of the formation
of scientific schools of thought: precisely the pioneers of a new and
much opposed point of view tend to intellectually ossify and to develop
a peculiar kind of dogmatism. They then form a pole or an extreme
within their own school, which itself is a pole or an extreme within the
scientific field at large. But they keep their place within the scientific
spectrum.
In the case of Faurisson, however, the clarity of this allocation is
compromised by the fact that he is obviously motivated by extra-scientific
motives, e.g. by his aversion against the – in his view – existing
and unjustified instrumentalization of the final solution by the Zionists
in favor of the State of Israel and just as much by his intention to come
to the defense of the German people against unjustified accusations and
claims. But one has to merely read the book by Deborah Lipstadt in order
to recognize that at least some representatives of the orthodox point
of view are not primarily guided by the will to determine or defend the
truth about a historical event, but that they predominantly want to defend
the legitimacy of the State of Israel and Germany’s moral obligation
“to admit all who seek refuge in her borders.” 26 But when the question
of the legitimacy of Israel’s existence {p. 32} is raised, then this
has to be decided by other criteria, and the admission or non-admission
of all those seeking refuge in Germany is a question of current German
politics and of general principles which are also independent of the final
solution. The entanglement of scientific and political motives is inevitable
for a topic as sensitive as the final solution, and neither Faurisson
nor Lipstadt or Benz can be blamed for this. I therefore plead to also
grant the contributions by Rudolf and Faurisson in the [book] Grundlagen
zur Zeitgeschichte the attribute “scientific.”
280