Resistance

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORYand thus of the Jewish religion. But that does not permit the reader toconclude that Neumaier harbors a general racial or racist aversion towardJews. Since Neumaier expresses a similar unappreciation of thebasis of the Christian religion (first page of his contribution) by makingfun of the Christians’ belief in resurrection, Neumaier’s polemics morelikely point to an atheistic attitude rather than to anti-Semitism. In anycase, the expert witness’s accusations ought to be better substantiated inorder to avoid the suspicion that they are polemical in nature.The expert witness’s use of the terms “denier” and “denial” in thecontext of Holocaust revisionism can be criticized in a similar way (pp.1, 15, 25, 27f.). The German word “Leugnen” signifies a denial againstbetter knowledge, hence is a subcategory of lying. To call a person a“Leugner” [lying denier] is therefore a moral judgment and hence potentiallylibelous, just like calling someone a “liar.” As long as there isnot at least circumstantial evidence proving that a person negates somethingagainst his own knowledge, it is a violation of his civil rights tocall him a “Leugner.” It has to be mentioned as well, though, that theexpert witness clarifies in footnote 23 (p. 41) that the revisionist allegationof the gas chamber thesis as war propaganda can “by no means beconsidered right from the start as proof of a mendacious disposition,”and in his Addendum of 5 Feb. 2006 he puts things right:“I am therefore even skeptical about the term ‘denying the Holocaust.’It in fact disparages those thusly criticized from the outset, becauseit imputes to him the complete knowledge of what the critic considersto be ‘true’ and hence denies him good faith.” (Addendum, p. 5)3.6. Source criticismThe expert witness praises the source criticism conducted by the variouscontributing authors of the book at issue (Köhler, Jordan, Ney,Weckert, Walendy, Ball, Neumaier, pp. 21-23, 25) which are a “counterpointto the most conspicuous weak point of established literature”(p. 22). Merely the source criticism by H. Tiedemann on the topic of“Babi Yar” appears to be a critique brought “to an extreme” in the expertwitness’s eye, yet he nonetheless does not deny its legitimacy (“anapproach which should not be spared,” p. 25).Later on the expert witness explains that he considers the revisionists’critical approach to sources as “grossly one-sided and insofar inadmissible,”(p. 33) because by criticizing documents and witnessstatements “excessively,” the revisionists “undermine the essential301