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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
ly does not discuss Höss’ account about the coercion of his confession
by torture, which is accessible to anyone in Broszat’s edition (Wolfgang
Benz merely knows to report about the “revisionist objection” that Höss
has made his confession after having been tortured). 21 But already during
the Auschwitz trial the defendant Breitwieser was acquitted after it
had turned out during an inspection of the locations in Auschwitz that
the testimony of the main witness of the prosecution is wrong. 22
Johannes Peter Ney’s study about the Wannsee protocol is in a different
way a counterpoint to the most conspicuous weak point of established
literature, namely the basic, although by no means complete absence
of document criticism. Counterpoints of this kind are desirable in
science, even if the content is entirely wrong. Only experts can have the
final say, and only the unanimous opinion {p. 23} of several and independent
experts could be considered as proof.
Ingrid Weckert’s contribution on the “gas vans” basically consists of
document criticism as well. It furthermore contains an extraordinarily
far-reaching allegation about the statements of a clerk at the Yad
Vashem Institute which should be easily verifiable.
It can probably be understood that an irresistible temptation exists to
graphically demonstrate, by way of image forgeries, such events which
have been kept secret and have hardly ever been photographed. A nonexpert
cannot decide whether Udo Walendy’s observations are correct
or misleading, but it cannot be denied that investigations of this kind are
legitimate. It is a different question, though, what kind of conclusions
may be drawn from individual proofs.
John Clive Ball’s study about “air photo evidence” has a much bigger
import. Once again only experts can decide about the interpretation
of Allied air photos which were only released in the late 1970s, and
Ball’s thesis that the shadows of introduction shafts recognizable on the
roof of crematory II originate from a forgerer is withdrawn from the
judgment of a non-expert at any rate.
The most detailed and most scholarly contribution is the one by Carlo
Mattogno and Franco Deana on the “The Crematoria Ovens of
Auschwitz and Birkenau.” It is at once the one which one is inclined to
certify most emphatically as being “heartless,” {p. 24} because it performs
capacity calculations which must appear most irreverent toward
the victims. But if one claims, like the witness Filip Müller did already
during the Auschwitz trial, that on no rare occasion 25,000 humans
were gassed in Birkenau during one day and that the corpses were sub-
275