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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
“verifiable reference to other […] results” as a “formal criterion” of the
nature of science (p. 20). He conceded that the work at issue meets this
criterion globally (ibid.). The expert witness does not seem to have verified
at least randomly the supporting references for factual allegations
adduced in the book, or at least he doesn’t mention this.
The expert witness, on the other hand, makes factual allegations
about the book at issue or its topic, which he does not substantiate or
which run contrary to the facts:
On p. 4 he writes that the accounts by the SS men Rudolf Höß and
Kurt Gerstein arose “independent from each other” similar to “statements
by victims of a severe earthquake.” However, the statements by
Höß and Gerstein were made under duress (imprisonment, threats,
abuse, torture) in front of authorities who had already coordinated the
propaganda activities during wartime. 301 This coordination even assumed
an official character after the war in the shape of several Allied
commissions in the framework of the preparations for the various postwar
trials. The expert witness’s view that similar accounts could “neither
be invented nor forced” (p. 4) is therefore both totally unfounded
and based upon the evidently wrong premise of the “independence” of
these statements. The alleged parallel, probably meant as a proof, between
accounts made under duress in front of cross-communicating authorities
and such accounts made spontaneously by witnesses of natural
disasters, raises doubts about the seriousness of the expert witness’s
argumentation.
It is conspicuous that precisely when the expert witness leaves his
area of competence, he tends to simply float factual allegations without
verifiable evidence, even though the opposite would be required exactly
in such cases in order to maintain a solid footing. So for example his
claim that the technical primitive could be more efficient than the modern
(p. 24), that the “explanation of the difference” of results of chemical
analyses “is intelligible even to the lay person” (p. 27; this intelligibility
does not result from Rudolf’s contribution!) and that Sanning and
Benz would “proceed from the premise worthy of critique” or would
arrive at “methodically […] questionable results” with their demographic
investigations (p. 28), while the expert witness even omits to explain
which premises are worthy of critique for which reason or which meth-
301 For this see Werner Maser, op. cit. (note 245), pp. 339-343; Edward Rozek, Allied Wartime
Diplomacy, Wiley, New York 1958, pp. 209f.
298