Resistance

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY“example of lack of seriousness.” However, the reference to secondaryliterature of source criticism actually proves the seriousness ofGraf’s critique, because this corrects a flaw of Hilberg’s work. Onecannot blame the revisionists for the fact that only revisionistsources publish source criticism deserving that name, rendering itimpossible to quote works of established source criticism.The BPjM, by the way, uses the German term “Leugnung” in its decision,meaning denying against better knowledge, which impliesthat the author is a liar. This is a personal attack on the revisionistauthor proving a bias.The BPjM’s claim that “Graf declares as obsolete the major part ofHilberg’s investigations” is simply wrong. Graf does not declare theinvestigations as obsolete, but their critique, as these investigationsare basically undisputed and moreover miss the topic of physical destruction.Just as incorrect is the BPjM’s allegation that Graf tries “to disqualifyHilberg’s insights by simply contesting them and making counterclaims.”Graf’s contesting is not simple, yet based on reasons andarguments. In contrast to this, Hilberg’s claims of a systematic destructionof Jews is based on simple, unproven claims – by allegedwitnesses – which Hilberg completely fails to scrutinize.c) In summary one has to conclude that the authors of this indexingdecision evidently do not have the faintest clue about the methods ofhistoriography, about the body of source material, and about sourcecriticism.4. Quarterly Journal for Free Historical ResearchThe German revisionist periodical Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschungis not even mentioned in the indictment, although twoindexing decisions are included in the investigation files regarding theissues 1 and 2 of 1997. 188 Because two statements in these decisionsshed a revealing light on the BPjM, I may address them here brieflyanyway. Regarding issue no. 1/1997 of my journal, one of the reasonsgiven for indexing it is my accusation leveled against the federal Germangovernment agencies that censorship exists in Germany, which188 Decision no. 5264, 5265, 6 Feb. 1998, BAnz 41, 28 Feb. 1998; cf. www.vho.org/VffG; Engl.similar: The Revisionist (www.vho.org/tr).169