AUSCHWITZ: PLAIN FACTS - Holocaust Handbooks

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Germar Rudolf, Preface 11bidden to adopt such theories, because the mere proposition that the Holocaust– the purposeful, planned destruction of the Jews by the Third Reich – did nothappen is an implicit claim that Holocaust history was knowingly fabricatedfor the purpose of deception and possibly in order to obtain material or politicaladvantages. This would be an affront to the dignity of anyone who mightbe implicated thereby that cannot be tolerated.In what follows I would like to analyze this matter more thoroughly.3. Unrestricted Research and Revision: Basis of ScienceThe basis of the reasoning just stated is that freedom of science should bethought a lesser good than human dignity. This idea is questionable. Science isnot merely a plaything of unworldly researchers. On the contrary, it is not onlythe highest manifestation of our capacity to perceive and understand, but inthe word’s most general sense it is the basis of every human capacity to perceiveand to understand that exceeds that of animals. It is the basis of everyhuman mode of living and doing that is distinguishable from the modes of livingand doings of animals. One could say that science, in the word’s mostcomprehensive sense, first made man human and gave him that dignity thatlifts him above the animals. The freedom of science is thus inextricably involvedwith human dignity.Scientific understanding serves human decision-making both on the individualand on the political level; the natural drive to seek knowledge was implantedin man by nature. In order to make valid decisions, that is, decisionswhich conform to reality, it is an essential precondition that scientific knowledgebe true. Truth as the only test for scientific validity means: every otherinfluence on the process of discovering scientific truth, whether economic orpolitical, must be excluded. It also must be made certain that all scientificfindings can be published and distributed without hindrance, because it is onlythrough the unhindered confrontation of scientific opinions in open forumsthat it can be insured that the most convincing opinion, being most in conformitywith reality, will prevail. In our case that means that there can be no reasonto suppress an opinion in accord with scientific norms in any way.Increasingly in recent years the freedom of science in the area of contemporaryhistory has been constrained, in that scientists who offend against theruling zeitgeist through expression of their scientific views have their socialreputations destroyed by political or media inquisitions or are threatened withloss of their professional standing. Sometimes the judicial system is brought inin order to add criminal prosecution to professional ruin. The recently intensifiedcriminal prosecution of revisionist opinion in Germany through modificationof Sec. 130 of the German Penal Code, which punishes not only the denialof genocide committed by the Third Reich, but also anything positive ut-
12 Germar Rudolf (ed.), Auschwitz: Plain Factstered about that period of German history, 5 is a striking example of the growinginquisitorial drive in Germany’s society.Prof. Hellmut Diwald has characterized this shielding of discussion on theHolocaust with the penal law as follows: 6“In the history of the Third Reich there is no complex of questions thatis more hopelessly kept from close examination by German historians thanthe horrible fate of the Jews during the war. The Basic Law of Bonn [capitalcity of West Germany] does guarantee the freedom of research and science.But a series of related decisions and verdicts has shown that onewould be well advised neither to expose oneself to the risk of being a testcase for the freedom to invoke this fundamental right by choosing this subjectmatter nor to expose oneself to the lesser risk of even peripherally violatingthe 21st Law modifying the Penal Code of June 15, 1985, and provokingan indictment due to such an offense. This means that the very complexof questions of contemporary historical research has been made taboo,which, together with the continually upheld theme of collective guilt,burdens the German people like no other event.”There is a general understanding that the intensified punishment of revisionistviewpoints primarily serves to combat uneducated, unteachable rightwingextremists. The philologist Dr. Arno Plack thinks otherwise. In his view,the 7“‘actual intended groups’ with respect to the punishment of the‘Auschwitz lie’ [are ...] the office-holding German historians, who, becauseof forced confession (one time!) and threat of punishment impose uponthemselves a judicious form of restraint with respect to certain decisivequestions. […] A judicial system that clamps down on [possibly] erroneousopinions that are not due to any intention to injure is not without effect. Itfortifies the widespread tendency to be silent in the face of burning questions;it demands readiness to give the expected lip service and it stirs updoubt as to [apparently] irrefutable facts even among all those who havelearnt, ‘The truth always prevails.’ […] Finally, such a judicial systemstimulates denunciation. […]By the principles of a liberal community, the best weapon in the battleof opinions is not prohibition or punishment, but argument, the ‘weaponword,’ as Lev Kopelev has said. If we are not to lose our belief that democracyis a viable form of society, we cannot accept that it should defendagainst [presumably] making Hitler inoffensive with the same compulsorymethods which the dictator himself quite naturally used to suppress contraryopinion. […] I believe his [Hitler’s] ghost, his repression of mere567www.bmj.bund.de/enid/Presse/Pressemitteilungen_58.htmlDeutschland einig Vaterland, Ullstein, Berlin 1990, p. 71.Hitlers langer Schatten, Langen Müller, Munich 1993, pp. 308ff.
Page 1 and 2: BARNES REVIEW HOLOCAUST HANDBOOK SE
Page 5: HOLOCAUST HANDBOOKS SERIES—VOLUME
Page 8: Table of Contents 7Auschwitz: The E
Page 11: 10 Germar Rudolf (ed.), Auschwitz:
Page 15 and 16: 14 Germar Rudolf (ed.), Auschwitz:
Page 22 and 23: 21Pressac and the German PublicBy G
Page 24 and 25: Germar Rudolf, Pressac and the Germ
Page 36: Germar Rudolf, Pressac and the Germ
Page 63 and 64:
62 Germar Rudolf (ed.), Auschwitz:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
THE HOLOCAUST HANDBOOK SERIES . . .
Page 201 and 202:
Treblinka. Extermination Camp or Tr
Page 203 and 204:
Auschwitz: Plain Facts—A Response
Page 205 and 206:
Auschwitz: The First Gassing—Rumo
Page 207 and 208:
THE BARNES REVIEW:In the maverick t
Page 210:
TBR ORDERING COUPON TBR SUBSCRIBERS
show all

AUSCHWITZ: PLAIN FACTS - Holocaust Handbooks

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?