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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
and thus of the Jewish religion. But that does not permit the reader to
conclude that Neumaier harbors a general racial or racist aversion toward
Jews. Since Neumaier expresses a similar unappreciation of the
basis of the Christian religion (first page of his contribution) by making
fun of the Christians’ belief in resurrection, Neumaier’s polemics more
likely point to an atheistic attitude rather than to anti-Semitism. In any
case, the expert witness’s accusations ought to be better substantiated in
order to avoid the suspicion that they are polemical in nature.
The expert witness’s use of the terms “denier” and “denial” in the
context of Holocaust revisionism can be criticized in a similar way (pp.
1, 15, 25, 27f.). The German word “Leugnen” signifies a denial against
better knowledge, hence is a subcategory of lying. To call a person a
“Leugner” [lying denier] is therefore a moral judgment and hence potentially
libelous, just like calling someone a “liar.” As long as there is
not at least circumstantial evidence proving that a person negates something
against his own knowledge, it is a violation of his civil rights to
call him a “Leugner.” It has to be mentioned as well, though, that the
expert witness clarifies in footnote 23 (p. 41) that the revisionist allegation
of the gas chamber thesis as war propaganda can “by no means be
considered right from the start as proof of a mendacious disposition,”
and in his Addendum of 5 Feb. 2006 he puts things right:
“I am therefore even skeptical about the term ‘denying the Holocaust.’
It in fact disparages those thusly criticized from the outset, because
it imputes to him the complete knowledge of what the critic considers
to be ‘true’ and hence denies him good faith.” (Addendum, p. 5)
3.6. Source criticism
The expert witness praises the source criticism conducted by the various
contributing authors of the book at issue (Köhler, Jordan, Ney,
Weckert, Walendy, Ball, Neumaier, pp. 21-23, 25) which are a “counterpoint
to the most conspicuous weak point of established literature”
(p. 22). Merely the source criticism by H. Tiedemann on the topic of
“Babi Yar” appears to be a critique brought “to an extreme” in the expert
witness’s eye, yet he nonetheless does not deny its legitimacy (“an
approach which should not be spared,” p. 25).
Later on the expert witness explains that he considers the revisionists’
critical approach to sources as “grossly one-sided and insofar inadmissible,”
(p. 33) because by criticizing documents and witness
statements “excessively,” the revisionists “undermine the essential
301