Resistance

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORYNotes1234567See about this Dirk van Laak, Widerstand gegen die Geschichtsgewalt. Zur Kritik an der “Vergangenheitsbewältigung,”in: Norbert Frei, Dirk van Laak, Michael Stolleis: Geschichte vorGericht. Historiker, Richter und die Suche nach Gerechtigkeit. Munich 2000, pp. 11 ff., here p.24.This becomes particularly obvious for the new edition of Hermann Rauschning: Gespräche mitHitler. Mit einer Einführung von Marcus Pyka. Zurich 2005 (first edition: 1940). Although the100 talks with Hitler contained in it have been freely invented, this new edition has been publishedwith the justification that this is allegedly “a document with indubitable source value inasmuchas it contains interpretations which grew from immediate insights.” (p. 15)See Rudolf, Vorlesungen, p. 83. Leading scientists of “official” Holocaust historiography areautodidacts as well, like Prof. Raul Hilberg. It goes without saying that the autodidactic acquirementof the essential “tools” of a historian requires considerably more efforts for epochs inthe more distant past, like medieval studies or studies of antiquity with their auxiliary sciences.Rudolf addresses this issue in his Vorlesungen as well, p. 195.Der Prozeß gegen die Hauptkriegsverbrecher vor dem Internationalen Militärgerichtshof[IMT] Nürnberg, 14.11.1945 – 1.10.1946, Bd. 1–42. Nuremberg 1947–49.In my eyes merely the contribution by Herbert Tiedemann (Grundlagen, pp. 375–399) goes toofar in a number of questions with its attempt to expose even the minutest contradictions in witnessstatements. For example, he cannot imagine the rape of Jewish women by German soldiers(p. 385), because this was considered “Blutschande” (defilement of blood) and would have violatedracial laws, i.e. it was therefore forbidden; I have at my disposal unequivocal archival evidencefrom party proceedings during the war proving such behavior. Furthermore, false spellingsof Russian street names as well as careless usage of terms like for instance “site” for canonare not an indication for intentions to forge (pp. 385 f, p. 393), but merely petty-minded cavilingsby Tiedemann. By contrast, wrong percentages by Tiedemann (p. 388, paragraph 3, line 1f.) are of course typos or accidents.In this context compare the so-called Berlin anti-Semitism dispute 1879/80 or the so-called“Historikerstreit” (historians’ dispute) 1986/87.Each time when it was imperative to write under a pseudonym or to protect third parties, publicationwere written in dialog form in the 19th century; see for this: Militärische Briefe einesVerstorbenen an seine noch lebenden Freunde, historischen, wissenschaftlichen, kritischen undhumoristischen Inhalts, Adorf 1845 (5 vols.).2. Prof. Dr. Ernst Nolte262Expert Reporton the question of the scientific or unscientific nature of the[book] Grundlagen zur ZeitgeschichteWhoever has to express himself about such an overly sensitive topicas the writings of so-called Holocaust deniers does well to explain hisuse of terms and to denote his own viewpoint, so that his inevitable prejudgmentsand prejudices become recognizable and hence tendentiallysurmountable.The term “Holocaust” already includes an interpretation; for it is in acertain regard older and in a certain regard younger than the events ofthe years 1941-1945. 1 For reasons yet to be discussed, “Auschwitz” is,