Resistance

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORYods are questionable for what reason. Although the book at issue proffersreasons for a critique of Benz, it does not give reasons for a critiqueof Sanning. Hence at least those need to be mentioned and explained.On pages 33f. the expert witness claims in a sweeping way that therevisionists are “devaluating the witness accounts to an extreme extentand [are] criticizing documents excessively.” In its comprehensivenessthis allegation is not substantiated. Among the many source-criticalcontributions in the book at issue, the expert witness considers only theone by Herbert Tiedemann to be a document criticism “brought to anextreme” (p. 25). Furthermore it would have to be expected that the expertwitness defines first, from which point onward a source criticism isto be classified as “excessive,” but he fails to do this.3.4. Discussion and identification of counter-argumentsThe expert witness touches this point only tangentially by grantingthat the work at issue “by no means refer[s] primarily to works by otherrevisionists” (p. 20). The expert witness does not deal with the questionwhether counter-arguments are mentioned and discussed, which is adeplorable deficiency.3.5. Matter-of-factual language styleThe expert witness criticizes certain polemical terms (pp. 20f., 24f.),which he does not consider to be so far-reaching that as a result of this“the formal criteria for a scientific nature are not met” (p. 21). As a reasonfor this tolerance toward occasional polemics he refers on the onehand to a “tu quoque” (you also, pp. 21-25) and on the other hand to thefact that, due to the “entanglement of scientific and political motives,” acertain amount of polemics and political rhetorics is “inevitable” on allsides of this controversy and that therefore nobody should “be blamedfor this” (p. 32).One would have wished for an assessment of existing polemicsbased upon objective criteria, though. Just because an opponent rails orthreatens does not justify at all to rail or threaten back. Clear limits existhere, which the expert witness even touches on p. 9, where he classifiesa fanaticism as unscientific which wants “to destroy an enemy.” Thelimits of tolerable polemics which can be generally agreed upon arethere where the civil rights of third persons are violated, be it by insults,slander, defamation, advocating, or approval of, violent or despotic acts.299