Resistance

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORYThe problem with this is that there is no supporting evidence for theredefinition of these terms, that this claim of redefinition is thereforecompletely arbitrary. It is hardly comprehensible, however, how onecould have organized an undertaking lasting three years, covering anentire continent, and affecting millions of people with the help of countlessthousands of assisting people without explaining to the recipients ofthe orders, from which point in time and in what instances they weresupposed to interpret which terms in which way. After all, those receivingthe orders were expected to flagrantly violate written orders, whichis to say, instead of a barbaric deportation they were asked to commitmass murder, a barbarity worse by orders of magnitude. Raul Hilberghad at least recognized the problem behind such an assumption andtried to solve it with the above mentioned theory of mind reading,which, however, exacerbates the problem.Exemplary for the arbitrary redefinition of terms is the repeatedlycited book by Kogon, Langbein and Rückerl, who introduce their bookwith an entire chapter in which they “enlighten” the reader in such away that he ought not to understand German wartime documents aslater on quoted in the book – frequently taken out of their context andhence distorted – as they were written, but rather as the authors purport.The authors suggest that in every case in which in German documentswords such as “special treatment,” “special action,” or “special unit”appear, they are describing murderous actions.Although there is no doubt that there are instances in which suchwords do have a homicidal meaning – as for example in documentswhich state that the special treatment shall be punishment carried out byhanging – it is nevertheless wrong to generalize from these proven casesto all cases. For if it is certainly wrong to conclude, according to themotto falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (once wrong, always wrong),from the revelation of one wrong argumentation that all such argumentationsare wrong, the other extreme is just as mistaken, namely to concludefrom the successful argumentation in some cases to all cases. Theevidentiary situation is simply too complex and multifaceted for this. Atthe end of it, in every individual case it needs to be investigated what ismeant by the given ambiguous term. After all, the German prefixSonder (special) in and of itself has no sinister connotation.In order to illustrate that there is indeed a vast number of harmlessapplications of the prefix Sonder, allow me to adduce three examplesfrom the Auschwitz camp complex that Carlo Mattogno has document-85