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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
ods are questionable for what reason. Although the book at issue proffers
reasons for a critique of Benz, it does not give reasons for a critique
of Sanning. Hence at least those need to be mentioned and explained.
On pages 33f. the expert witness claims in a sweeping way that the
revisionists are “devaluating the witness accounts to an extreme extent
and [are] criticizing documents excessively.” In its comprehensiveness
this allegation is not substantiated. Among the many source-critical
contributions in the book at issue, the expert witness considers only the
one by Herbert Tiedemann to be a document criticism “brought to an
extreme” (p. 25). Furthermore it would have to be expected that the expert
witness defines first, from which point onward a source criticism is
to be classified as “excessive,” but he fails to do this.
3.4. Discussion and identification of counter-arguments
The expert witness touches this point only tangentially by granting
that the work at issue “by no means refer[s] primarily to works by other
revisionists” (p. 20). The expert witness does not deal with the question
whether counter-arguments are mentioned and discussed, which is a
deplorable deficiency.
3.5. Matter-of-factual language style
The expert witness criticizes certain polemical terms (pp. 20f., 24f.),
which he does not consider to be so far-reaching that as a result of this
“the formal criteria for a scientific nature are not met” (p. 21). As a reason
for this tolerance toward occasional polemics he refers on the one
hand to a “tu quoque” (you also, pp. 21-25) and on the other hand to the
fact that, due to the “entanglement of scientific and political motives,” a
certain amount of polemics and political rhetorics is “inevitable” on all
sides of this controversy and that therefore nobody should “be blamed
for this” (p. 32).
One would have wished for an assessment of existing polemics
based upon objective criteria, though. Just because an opponent rails or
threatens does not justify at all to rail or threaten back. Clear limits exist
here, which the expert witness even touches on p. 9, where he classifies
a fanaticism as unscientific which wants “to destroy an enemy.” The
limits of tolerable polemics which can be generally agreed upon are
there where the civil rights of third persons are violated, be it by insults,
slander, defamation, advocating, or approval of, violent or despotic acts.
299