Resistance

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY“verifiable reference to other […] results” as a “formal criterion” of thenature of science (p. 20). He conceded that the work at issue meets thiscriterion globally (ibid.). The expert witness does not seem to have verifiedat least randomly the supporting references for factual allegationsadduced in the book, or at least he doesn’t mention this.The expert witness, on the other hand, makes factual allegationsabout the book at issue or its topic, which he does not substantiate orwhich run contrary to the facts:On p. 4 he writes that the accounts by the SS men Rudolf Höß andKurt Gerstein arose “independent from each other” similar to “statementsby victims of a severe earthquake.” However, the statements byHöß and Gerstein were made under duress (imprisonment, threats,abuse, torture) in front of authorities who had already coordinated thepropaganda activities during wartime. 301 This coordination even assumedan official character after the war in the shape of several Alliedcommissions in the framework of the preparations for the various postwartrials. The expert witness’s view that similar accounts could “neitherbe invented nor forced” (p. 4) is therefore both totally unfoundedand based upon the evidently wrong premise of the “independence” ofthese statements. The alleged parallel, probably meant as a proof, betweenaccounts made under duress in front of cross-communicating authoritiesand such accounts made spontaneously by witnesses of naturaldisasters, raises doubts about the seriousness of the expert witness’sargumentation.It is conspicuous that precisely when the expert witness leaves hisarea of competence, he tends to simply float factual allegations withoutverifiable evidence, even though the opposite would be required exactlyin such cases in order to maintain a solid footing. So for example hisclaim that the technical primitive could be more efficient than the modern(p. 24), that the “explanation of the difference” of results of chemicalanalyses “is intelligible even to the lay person” (p. 27; this intelligibilitydoes not result from Rudolf’s contribution!) and that Sanning andBenz would “proceed from the premise worthy of critique” or wouldarrive at “methodically […] questionable results” with their demographicinvestigations (p. 28), while the expert witness even omits to explainwhich premises are worthy of critique for which reason or which meth-301 For this see Werner Maser, op. cit. (note 245), pp. 339-343; Edward Rozek, Allied WartimeDiplomacy, Wiley, New York 1958, pp. 209f.298