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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
to which they are able to convince others, the scientist must disregard
such enthusiasm – not on a human level, of course, but merely on the
level of evidentiary assessment.
As support for this I would like to quote the French historian and
opponent of revisionism, Jacques Baynac: 105
“For the scientific historian, an assertion by a witness does not
really represent history. It is an object of history. And an assertion
of one witness does not weigh heavily; assertions by many witnesses
do not weigh much more heavily, if they are not shored up with solid
documentation. The postulate of scientific historiography, one could
say without great exaggeration, reads: no paper/s, no facts proven.
[He forgets material evidence, GR…] Either one gives up the priority
of the archives, and in this case one has to disqualify history as a
science, in order to immediately reclassify it as fiction; or one retains
the priority of the archive, and in this case one must concede
that the lack of traces brings with it the incapability of directly proving
the existence of homicidal gas chambers.”
Now I am making a concession to the court: Let us pretend that witness
testimonies are data sets, are verifiable evidence.
As a scientist one is confronted with the question, according to
which criteria one can distinguish between reliable and unreliable data
sets, or in this case witness testimony. If they are unreliable, then one
has to remove them from the data collection, if necessary. In Germany
during the 19th century, the concept of Quellenkritik or sources criticism
was developed. Quellenkritik refers to the critical investigation of
the value, i.e. the reliability of a source of information, which does not
only include testimony but foremost also documents. This concept is of
such central significance that the German term has since entered the
vocabulary of Anglo-Saxon literature.
The following table juxtaposes the two methods of selecting data as
they are being applied in the present case by the opposed groups. We
have on one side an almost complete lack of any source criticism, combined
with an ignoring or even active suppression of existing source
criticism, which extends to the social and even legal persecution of
those who do perform source criticism, which in this case means the
revisionists and most recently even their defense lawyers, as all of my
105 Jacques Baynac, “Faute de documents probants sur les chambres à gaz, les historiens esquivent
le débat,” Nouveau Quotidien, Lausanne, 3 Sept. 1996, p. 14.
80