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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
inition also belongs to philosophical, although not theological characterizations,
and it is older than most of the others. But it would never have
occurred to me to even consider the thought that those should be punished
who do not accept this characterization or criticize it. It, too, belongs
into the realm of thoughts and concepts which can be discussed
freely and of which there must be several, or else society would be led
back to a religious or pseudo-religious and dogmatic rudiment.
I am therefore even skeptical about the term “denying the Holocaust.”
It in fact disparages those thusly criticized from the outset, because
it imputes to him the complete knowledge of what the critic considers
to be “true” and hence denies him good faith. The term “Holocaust”
already implies an interpretation which must not be imposed by
force and punishment. According to my judgment only the insulting and
denigrating intention can be punishable. A procedure can be harshly
criticized, though, which is common to almost all anti-revisionists and
to many revisionists, namely that they isolate the final solution from the
huge ideological conflict of this era and see it most as a result of an ethnic
or even “racial” struggle between two people, of which the one is all
good and the other all evil.
I summarize and explain my assessment in maximal brevity: After
the terror and blood sacrifices of the Second World War, the news about
the existence {p. 6} of “extermination camps in the east” caused unprecedented
horror particularly in Germany, because nothing even remotely
comparable had so far existed in German history and because
the attestations of an unlimited fanaticism on Hitler’s part lent credence
to these reports. Exactly this horror was the morally appreciable yet scientifically
unacceptable basis for extreme figures and alleged procedures
(such as blowing steam into sealed chambers or mass killings on
gigantic electric plates). “Revisions” were therefore ineluctable and
have also been made by the “established” science as indicated above.
An international revisionism as a concentrate or an instrumentalization
of revisions had to arise with little less necessity than it had arisen after
the First World War in opposition to the Allied thesis of an exclusive
German guilt. However, having arisen from this horror, it could not
necessarily be expected that it would ever dispute the reason for this
horror, and this has to be criticized sharply insofar as extended and specific
anti-Jewish measures of extermination are negated and as long as
this is not merely about resisting certain interpretation of the final solution,
also against the interpretation as a “Holocaust.” Within the realm
290