Resistance

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORYto which they are able to convince others, the scientist must disregardsuch enthusiasm – not on a human level, of course, but merely on thelevel of evidentiary assessment.As support for this I would like to quote the French historian andopponent of revisionism, Jacques Baynac: 105“For the scientific historian, an assertion by a witness does notreally represent history. It is an object of history. And an assertionof one witness does not weigh heavily; assertions by many witnessesdo not weigh much more heavily, if they are not shored up with soliddocumentation. The postulate of scientific historiography, one couldsay without great exaggeration, reads: no paper/s, no facts proven.[He forgets material evidence, GR…] Either one gives up the priorityof the archives, and in this case one has to disqualify history as ascience, in order to immediately reclassify it as fiction; or one retainsthe priority of the archive, and in this case one must concedethat the lack of traces brings with it the incapability of directly provingthe existence of homicidal gas chambers.”Now I am making a concession to the court: Let us pretend that witnesstestimonies are data sets, are verifiable evidence.As a scientist one is confronted with the question, according towhich criteria one can distinguish between reliable and unreliable datasets, or in this case witness testimony. If they are unreliable, then onehas to remove them from the data collection, if necessary. In Germanyduring the 19th century, the concept of Quellenkritik or sources criticismwas developed. Quellenkritik refers to the critical investigation ofthe value, i.e. the reliability of a source of information, which does notonly include testimony but foremost also documents. This concept is ofsuch central significance that the German term has since entered thevocabulary of Anglo-Saxon literature.The following table juxtaposes the two methods of selecting data asthey are being applied in the present case by the opposed groups. Wehave on one side an almost complete lack of any source criticism, combinedwith an ignoring or even active suppression of existing sourcecriticism, which extends to the social and even legal persecution ofthose who do perform source criticism, which in this case means therevisionists and most recently even their defense lawyers, as all of my105 Jacques Baynac, “Faute de documents probants sur les chambres à gaz, les historiens esquiventle débat,” Nouveau Quotidien, Lausanne, 3 Sept. 1996, p. 14.80