Resistance

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORYimage forgeries based on numerous examples in the context of WorldWar II. In John Clive Ball’s article (pp. 235–248) the author investigatesthe probative value of military reconnaissance air photographs,their technology, the technique of interpreting air photos, as well as thepossibilities and limits of air photo archeology. Rudolf summarizes theseworks once more in his Vorlesungen (see pp. 217–227, 309, 319–328, among others). In contrast to the Wehrmacht exhibition, Rudolfreveals a sharpened awareness of the problems regarding the significanceof photographic documents.Another criterion of scientific standards properly applied is the consistentobservation of the hierarchy of types of evidence. On the basis ofE. Schneider’s book Beweis und Beweiswürdigung [evidence and itsevaluation] (Munich 1987 4 ) Rudolf introduces the hierarchy of evidencein the Vorlesungen (pp. 197 ff.) from parties [involved in a case] via[neutral] witnesses, documents, visual examination by the investigatingpersons, up to material evidence [interpreted] by expert witnesses. Hesubjects his own research and results to the same hierarchy. Rudolfmoreover separates clearly discernible factual claims from opinions andvaluations. This is already conspicuous in three of his essays (Grundlagen,pp. 15–39, pp. 141–168 and pp. 249–279), in which he clearly separatesby chapter headings the conclusions from his gathering of evidence.By and large a sober language style oriented at facts prevails in Rudolf’sworks. In the introductory essay of his Grundlagen “The Controversyabout the Extermination of the Jews” (pp. 15–39) Rudolf explainshis motives, intentions and hopes. In my opinion it does not read like aself-serving declaration when he states that it is exactly not his intentionto foment anti-Semitism or racial hatred or to call for the disturbance ofpublic peace with his research, but instead that he intends to relax andnormalize the German-Jewish relationship (pp. 15 f.). Similar insertionscan be found passim in the Vorlesungen, which are written in a dialogstyle; he distinctly emphasizes to respect the dignity of the victims. Inthe writings in front of me Rudolf consistently adheres to a matter-offactual,unemotional language style; I could not find any insults, denigrations,slanders or malicious exposures to contempt, not even if Rudolfparried preceding attacks on his person or his work. This does notpreclude that in a “historians’ dispute” like this one critical remarks aremade about the courts’ admission of evidence or expert witnesses(Grundlagen, pp. 17 ff), about the “relocation” of historical controversiesfrom publications and lecture halls to courtrooms (Grundlagen, pp.260