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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
The problem with this is that there is no supporting evidence for the
redefinition of these terms, that this claim of redefinition is therefore
completely arbitrary. It is hardly comprehensible, however, how one
could have organized an undertaking lasting three years, covering an
entire continent, and affecting millions of people with the help of countless
thousands of assisting people without explaining to the recipients of
the orders, from which point in time and in what instances they were
supposed to interpret which terms in which way. After all, those receiving
the orders were expected to flagrantly violate written orders, which
is to say, instead of a barbaric deportation they were asked to commit
mass murder, a barbarity worse by orders of magnitude. Raul Hilberg
had at least recognized the problem behind such an assumption and
tried to solve it with the above mentioned theory of mind reading,
which, however, exacerbates the problem.
Exemplary for the arbitrary redefinition of terms is the repeatedly
cited book by Kogon, Langbein and Rückerl, who introduce their book
with an entire chapter in which they “enlighten” the reader in such a
way that he ought not to understand German wartime documents as
later on quoted in the book – frequently taken out of their context and
hence distorted – as they were written, but rather as the authors purport.
The authors suggest that in every case in which in German documents
words such as “special treatment,” “special action,” or “special unit”
appear, they are describing murderous actions.
Although there is no doubt that there are instances in which such
words do have a homicidal meaning – as for example in documents
which state that the special treatment shall be punishment carried out by
hanging – it is nevertheless wrong to generalize from these proven cases
to all cases. For if it is certainly wrong to conclude, according to the
motto falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (once wrong, always wrong),
from the revelation of one wrong argumentation that all such argumentations
are wrong, the other extreme is just as mistaken, namely to conclude
from the successful argumentation in some cases to all cases. The
evidentiary situation is simply too complex and multifaceted for this. At
the end of it, in every individual case it needs to be investigated what is
meant by the given ambiguous term. After all, the German prefix
Sonder (special) in and of itself has no sinister connotation.
In order to illustrate that there is indeed a vast number of harmless
applications of the prefix Sonder, allow me to adduce three examples
from the Auschwitz camp complex that Carlo Mattogno has document-
85