Origin and Content of DOK 239

This is the place for your questions, propositions, formal debate topics, etc. but they do have to be approved by the Moderator before they will be published visibly, and must not address opponents disrespectfully, if at all. The subjects have to be simple or straightforward and kept on topic.

Moderators: been-there, Budu Svanidze

Roberto
Posts: 3734
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Origin and Content of DOK 239

Post by Roberto » Fri Jun 09, 2017 12:06 pm

Aryan Scholar wrote:
Fri Jun 09, 2017 3:29 am
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 08, 2017 7:21 pm
Again, the answer has already been provided. If DOK 239 were the only evidence available about the Jewish mass graves mentioned therein (meaning that there would be no footnotes referring to other evidence), the statement that the letter refers to "mass graves of Jews shot" would be neither true nor false. It could be true, an indication in this sense being the remote location of the mass graves, which suggests violent deaths that the killers wanted to conceal from onlookers. It could be false, an indication in this sense being that there would be no other evidence from which mass shootings in the areas in question becomes apparent. In other words, the hypothetical lack of evidence corroborating the contents of DOK 239 would not be sufficient to classify the statement in question as either true or false.
Your refusal to give a direct answer is noted as I gave you several opportunities to answer.
Sorry, but I cannot provide an answer that I consider to be incorrect.
Aryan Scholar wrote:Hoppe and Glass statement would be neither true or false only if the statement could not be assumed to be either true or false. Tough luck as I will now prove the Hoppe and Glass statement is false by proof of contradiction only in accordance with the origin and content of DOK 239, in other words, I will assume the statement...
Hoppe and Glass wrote:The District Medical Officer of Trakai (Troki) informs the Regional Commissioner Vilna Land on 8 July 1942 about size and location of mass graves of Jews shot in his rural district
...is true.

Thus, only in accordance with the origin and content of DOK 239, if true Dr. Paskevicius sent a letter to inform Horst Wulff about size and location of mass graves of Jews shot in his rural district, then it must be must evident from DOK 239 Dr. Paskevicius did know the mass graves had corpses of Jews who were shot in his rural district, otherwise Dr. Paskevicius would not be able to inform Horst Wulff about it.
That's correct, but the fact that DOK 239 doesn't state that the mass graves contain shooting victims doesn't make the statement false as the shooting follows from other evidence. If that were not so (i.e. if there were no other evidence about the origin of the mass graves) the statement would not be false, as the placement of the graves suggests that the people lying in them were victims of violence. It would merely be speculative.
Aryan Scholar wrote:This statement...
Dr. Paskevicius did know the mass graves had corpses of Jews who were shot dead.
...is in contradiction with your own statements where you clear say Dr. Paskevicius had no interest in the cause of death of the corpses:
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jun 03, 2017 7:24 pm
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:12 pm
If the mass graves described in the content of the letter contains the corpses of Jews who were shot as stated by Gruyter, then the carcasses must come from another origin as it cannot come from people who were shot.
Why, because cause of death is not stated? That was not of interest to either the sender or the receiver, whose concerns were of a hygienic nature.
Roberto wrote:
Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:48 am
First of all, it mattered neither to the DMO nor to Regional Commissar Wulff how the people whose graves the DMO mentioned had died.
Roberto wrote:
Tue Jun 06, 2017 2:58 pm
The indifference of the cause of death to there being a health concern due to the presence of corpses is precisely the reason why the cause of death need not have been of interest to either Paskevicius or Wulff, and was not addressed in the former's letter.
Roberto wrote:
Wed Jun 07, 2017 8:00 pm
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Wed Jun 07, 2017 9:52 am
Dr. Paskevicius and Horst Wulff could be discussing DOK 239 mass graves and graves with corpses and carcasses without to know anything about the cause of death of such corpses and carcasses.

Do you agree?
Yes, what killed the people whose graves/corpses were mentioned by Paskevicius need not have interested either him of Wulff.
Correct but irrelevant.
Aryan Scholar wrote:Therefore the statement...
Hoppe and Glass wrote:The District Medical Officer of Trakai (Troki) informs the Regional Commissioner Vilna Land on 8 July 1942 about size and location of mass graves of Jews shot in his rural district
..., only in accordance with the origin and content of DOK 239, is false as Dr. Paskevicius sent a letter to inform Horst Wulff about burial of corpses and carcasses (as evident by the subject of the letter) in mass graves or graves (as evident by the content of the letter), not about size and location of mass graves of Jews shot in his rural district (not evident neither in the subject or in the content of the letter).
That is not quite correct, as the DMO also provided information about where exactly the graves were located and about their length. What he didn't provide information about was why and how the people lying in the Jewish mass graves had died. But as I said, that doesn't make the statement by Hoppe and Glass false, as the cause of death follows from other evidence. And even if there were not such other evidence, the statement would not be necessarily false. It might be true as the placement of the mass graves in a remote area suggests mass killings that the killers wanted to hide from onlookers, and shooting was the likeliest method of killing under such circumstance. But one cannot tell this for sure, so the statement would be speculative. But speculative does not mean false.
Aryan Scholar wrote:My original statements remains:
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Sun Jun 04, 2017 3:30 pm
It shows [Hoppe and Glass] made a statement about DOK 239 which is inconsistent with the subject of the letter and the absence of any mention of cause of death in the content of the letter. Gruyet is inducing the reader to assume DOK 239 is about mass graves and graves of people who were just shot dead when this is not evident in DOK 239.
If these were no evidence supporting the statement by Hoppe and Glass (which is a hypothetical consideration, as there is such evidence), then Hoppe and Glass would be inducing the reader into assuming something that is not certain based on the contents of DOK 239 alone. Which would be misleading, but their statement would still not be false as the possibility of mass killings would result from the DOK 239 independently of other evidence. In order to avoid misleading the reader, Hoppe and Glass should in this hypothetical case have worded their statement as follows:

"Der Kreisarzt von Trakai (Troki) informiert den Gebietskommissar Wilna Land am 8. Juli 1942 über die Gröβe und Lage von Massengräbern möglicherweise erschossener Juden in seinem Landkreis." ("The District Medical Officer of Trakai (Troki) informs the Regional Commissioner Vilna Land on 8 July 1942 about size and location of mass graves of Jews possibly shot in his rural district.")

But as I said, these considerations are hypothetical, as what killed the Jews lying in these mass graves follows from other evidence.
Aryan Scholar wrote:[Hoppe and Glass] also state this letter was produced to inform Horst Wulff about size and location of mass graves of Jews shot in the Trakai district. This is statement is inconsistent with the subject of the letter and the absence of any mention of cause of death in the content of the letter.

Hoppe and Glass are inducing the readers to assume Horst Wulff was informed of the size and location of mass graves with only the corpses of Jews who were shot dead in Dr. Paskevicius rural district with a false statement.
The statement would not be false as the information it contains would not be necessarily false. It might be false or correct. But it would be misleading insofar as readers might gain the impression of a certainty where there is only a speculation.
Aryan Scholar wrote:You are, of course, more than welcome to show your skills in logic and prove Hoppe and Glass statement is true only in accordance with the origin and content of DOK 239, in other words, to show Horst Wulff was really informed by Dr. Paskevicius in 1942 about the size of mass graves of Jews who were shot in Dr. Paskevicius rural district, which would imply Horst Wulff had more than just health concerns when supposedly inquired Dr. Paskevicius about corpses and carcasses.
Again, I'm not saying that the truthfulness of Hoppe & Glass's statement follows from DOK 239 alone. But neither does its falsity. It DOK 239 were the only evidence there is about the Jewish mass graves described therein, Hoppe & Glass's statement would be speculative, and it would be misleading as it could induce the reader into assuming that there is a certainty where the is only a possibility. But again, these are hypothetical considerations, as DOK 239 is not the evidence regarding the Jewish mass graves described therein.
Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past.
~ A German jurist by the name of Baumann in the German juridical magazine NJW, quoted in: Bailer-Galanda/Benz/Neugebauer (ed.), Die Auschwitzleugner, Berlin 1996, page 261 (my translation).

Aryan Scholar
Posts: 4649
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2016 4:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Origin and Content of DOK 239

Post by Aryan Scholar » Fri Jun 09, 2017 3:10 pm

Roberto wrote:
Fri Jun 09, 2017 12:06 pm
(...)
:roll:

You are just repeating yourself. None of what you presented is proof but just sheer speculation which can be safely ignored.
Do you have proof the statement...
Hoppe and Glass wrote:The District Medical Officer of Trakai (Troki) informs the Regional Commissioner Vilna Land on 8 July 1942 about size and location of mass graves of Jews shot in his rural district.
...is true only in accordance with the origin and content of DOK 239?
Was Horst Wulff really informed by Dr. Paskevicius in 1942 about size and location of mass graves of Jews shot in his rural district? Otherwise Hoppe and Glass statement is false as I have shown above. If you will answer, please, short and direct answers. Avalanche of words do not prove statements are true or false.

Roberto
Posts: 3734
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Origin and Content of DOK 239

Post by Roberto » Fri Jun 09, 2017 5:35 pm

Aryan Scholar wrote:
Fri Jun 09, 2017 3:38 am
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 08, 2017 3:35 pm
Just what "exhaustive research" have you done? Have you been to any Lithuanian archive? Have you obtained information from the competent authorities of Trakai district in Lithuania about who the District Medical Officer was in 1941/42? I don't think you have done either. If you had consulted Lithuanian archives and been informed by them that there is no information about a Dr. Paskevicius, District Medical Officer of Trakai in 1941/42, that would be a reason to suspect his non-existence. If you had written to the competent authorities of Trakai district and obtained from them the information that there was never a District Medical Officer named Paskevicius, that would confirm his nonexistence. Otherwise your research is inconclusive.
Dr. Paskevicius, the author of DOK 239, still do not exist outside DOK 239, regardless of my research being inconclusive or not in accordance with your personal opinion. You are, of course, more than welcome to prove the existence of Dr. Paskevicius outside DOK 239 as I did with Horst Wulff.
You are the one claiming Dr. Paskevicius' nonexistence, so it's for you to substantiate your claim. And you don't even have to go to Lithuania for that purpose. All you have to do is fill in one or more of the application forms available under http://www.archyvai.lt/en/application-forms.html, print out, sign and scan the signed documents and send them together with a scan of your passport to the e-mail address istorijos.archyvas@lvia.lt, att. Mrs. Virginija Čijunskienė (see under http://www.archyvai.lt/en/archives/hist ... hives.html). You will get either a positive or a negative answer. A negative answer would substantiate your claim.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 08, 2017 3:35 pm
Aryan Scholar wrote:Your example implies the letter do not exist as it was destroyed, which is in agreement with my statement: the "letter of 16 June 1942" Dr. Paskevicius received from Horst Wulff, do not exist outside DOK 239.
It may not exist at present, but that doesn't necessarily mean it never existed. Only the latter would be a reason to suspect that DOK 239 is not authentic. It is also possible that the letter in question exists in a place where it has not yet been found, e.g. in a private collection that no historian has yet had access to.
Possible but unproven. The "letter of 16 June 1942" Dr. Paskevicius received from Horst Wulff, still do not exist outside DOK 239, regardless of any speculation you can make about its possible existence.
Again, I'm not the one claiming that DOK 239 is or might be false. You are. In order to support your claim, you have to provide evidence that the letter of 16 June 1942 never existed, ruling out the hypotheses I considered.

In case you want to argue that I'm the one claiming the authenticity of DOK 239 and that I thus have to prove the existence of the letter of 16 June 1942, that would be wrong. Proving the existence of the letter of 16 June 1942 is no condition sine qua non for establishing that there are no reasons to doubt the authenticity of DOK 239. That can also be done on hand of the indicators I mentioned in the post you are replying to.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 08, 2017 3:35 pm
Aryan Scholar wrote:Your example implies the ministerial decree do not exist as it was destroyed, which is in agreement with my statement: "Ministerial Decree of 30.4.42 – II.c.3186", the reference for the subject discussed in DOK 239, do not exist outside DOK 239.
The ministerial decree in question may not exist at present, but that doesn't mean it never existed. Only the latter would be a reason to suspect that DOK 239 is not authentic. It is also possible that the decree in question exists in a place where it has not yet been found, e.g. in a private collection that no historian has yet had access to.
Possible but unproven. The "Ministerial Decree of 30.4.42 – II.c.3186", the reference for the subject discussed in DOK 239, do not exist outside DOK 239, regardless of any speculation you can make about its possible existence.
Again, I'm not the one claiming that DOK 239 is or might be false. You are. In order to support your claim, you have to provide evidence that the ministerial decree in question never existed, ruling out the hypotheses I considered.

In case you want to argue that I'm the one claiming the authenticity of DOK 239 and that I thus have to prove the existence of the ministerial decree in question, that would be wrong. Proving the existence of the ministerial decree in question is no condition sine qua non for establishing that there are no reasons to doubt the authenticity of DOK 239. That can also be done on hand of the indicators I mentioned in the post you are replying to.
Aryan Scholar wrote:Your new example is now in contradiction with your initial assumption about what and why Dr. Paskevicius would have done with the letter he supposedly received from Horst Wulff:
Roberto wrote:Another is that the DMO might have had an interest to get rid of documents in his possession that pointed to his having collaborated with occupation authorities. (...) I wasn't referring to Wulff but to Paskevicius, in whose possession the letters referred from the Regional Commissioner would have been. Paskevicius, as I said, would have had an interest in destroying these documents as they were evidence of his having collaborated with the German occupiers. (...) My argument is that Paskevicius had no reason to keep the Regional Commissioner's letter(s) either in his possession or in the files of the entity he worked for. They were evidence to his having collaborated with the German occupiers. (...) Except that the Paskevicius' collaboration concerned a delicate matter because, as can be established on hand of other evidence, it was related to mass crimes committed in areas for which Paskevicius was responsible. Someone familiar with these mass crimes might have wanted to know how Paskevicius had responded to the Regional Commissioner's letters.
No, it is not in contradiction with the possibility of the document's destruction considered earlier. I'm just considering an additional possibility, which is that of the document in question existing not in an archive but in a private collection that historians have not yet had access to.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 08, 2017 3:35 pm
I don't think so. It makes sense that a document issued by a different entity mentioning mass graves at the same places further supports the authenticity and accuracy of DOK 239. Below I explain why I consider the head of Trakai's letter to refer to the same mass graves as DOK 239 in two areas mentioned in the former letter. (...) The details provided are sufficient. The order, which is kept in the Lithuanian State Archive and has the archival reference LCVA 500/1/4, Vol. 2, fl. 794, was issued on 8.11.1941 by the head of Trakai district, Mačinskas. It was addressed to the mayors and sub-district heads of Žiežmariai, Semeliškes and Eišiškés. The order was that mass graves in areas under the responsibility of these mayors and sub-district heads were to be fenced in and covered with chlorinated lime until 13.11.1941. At least two of the sub-districts in question, Žiežmariai (Germanized Zesmaren) and Semeliškes (Germanized Semelischken) are areas in which DOK 239 mentions the existence of Jewish mass graves, two in the area of Žiežmariai community ("Gem. Zesmaren") and one in the area of Semeliškes community ("Gem. Semelischken"). DOK 239 mentions no further mass graves in these areas, only "Individual Graves" ("Einzelne Gräber") containing small numbers of corpses, which the DMO obviously didn't consider to be mass graves. Additionally DOK 239 mentions that the Jewish mass graves identified in this letter were sprinkled with chlorinated lime and covered with soil in 1941 ("mit Kalk bestreut und mit Erde bedeckt"), and that in the spring of 1942 the graves were uncovered, sprinkled with chlorinated lime, covered with a layer of soil up to 1 meter high and fenced in ("Im Frühjahr 1942 wurden die Gräber aufgedeckt, mit Chlorkalk bestreut und mit einer bis 1 m hohen Erdschicht bedeckt und umzäunt"). Sprinkling the mass graves with chlorinated lime was one of the things that the head of Trakai district ordered the mayors and sub-district heads of Žiežmariai and Semeliškes to do, and judging by the DMO's mention that this was done in 1941 this order was complied with in time. Fencing in the graves was the other, which those charged with it took a little longer to comply with, judging by the DMO's statement last quoted whereby this was only done in the spring of 1942. So it reasonable to conclude (actually quite obvious) that, as concerns Žiežmariai and Semeliškes, the mass graves mentioned in the Trakai district head's order of 8.11.1941 were the very Jewish mass graves in the area of these communities mentioned in the DMO's letter. Thus the Trakai district head's letter is further independent corroboration of the authenticity and accuracy of DOK 239.
Letter from the head of Trakai district, signed Mačinskas, to the mayors and sub-district heads of Žiežmariai, Semeliškes and Eišiškés.
Dr. Paskevicius do not mention any mass graves in Eišiškés "were strewn with chlorinated lime and covered with earth in 1941". This contradict your assumption Dr. Paskevicius and Mačinskas are describing the exactly same mass graves "were strewn with chlorinated lime and covered with earth in 1941" in two different documents.
The fact that DOK 239 doesn't mention any mass graves in Eišiškés is the reason why I limited my argument that the district head's letter refers to the same mass graves as DOK 239 to Žiežmariai and Semeliškes.
Aryan Scholar wrote:Moreover, your conclusion is entirely based on Hoppe and Glass statement about the letter from the head of Trakai district and not based on the primary source.
That may be so, but it is also irrelevant, as I have no reason to assume that Hoppe and Glass, who give the document's archival reference, provided wrong information about the contents of the document. Anyway, I'll try to obtain a copy of the document and of at least one other document bearing Mačinskas' signature from the Lithuanian State Archives. I will also try to obtain a copy of DOK 239 and of at least one other document bearing Paskevicius' signature from the Lithuanian State Archives.
Aryan Scholar wrote:This leave you with just a footnote "to conclude (actually quite obvious) that, as concerns Žiežmariai and Semeliškes, the mass graves mentioned in the Trakai district head's order of 8.11.1941 were the very Jewish mass graves in the area of these communities mentioned in the DMO's letter", which is the source of the implied premise of your conclusion, thus begging the question.
The source of my "implied premise" is the Trakai district head's order of 8.11.1941, whose existence and contents as rendered by Hoppe and Glass I have no reason to doubt. Why is that supposed to be "begging the question"?
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 08, 2017 3:35 pm
I'm not the one arguing that the name "Main Health Administration" is inconsistent with "The Health Department at the Ministry of Internal Affairs". You are.
Correct.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 08, 2017 3:35 pm
So it is not for me to provide evidence for the hypotheses I considered, it is for you to rule out these hypotheses.
Multiple hypothesis about an inconsistency do not prove the inconsistency false or true.
That may be so, but first of all there is not necessarily any "inconsistency", and doubts about whether the "inconsistency" is true or false means that the argument of who is claiming the forgery of the document is inconclusive.
Aryan Scholar wrote:My statement:
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Wed Jun 07, 2017 9:52 am
Main Health Administration is inconsistent with The Health Department at the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
My burden of proof:

viewtopic.php?f=28&t=2916#p106820

Your statements:
Roberto wrote:
Wed Jun 07, 2017 8:00 pm
Not exactly as the Health Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs fulfilled the functions of main health administration, and besides the term seems to have been used by the historians publishing the document and not by its author. What is more, the term "Main Health Administration" could be referring to the Main Health Administration of the Trakai District, an entity subordinated to the Health Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. What is also possible is that the "Main Health Administration" (of Lithuania) was a section of the Health Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
Your burden of proof:
Proving Non-Existence

Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place of providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

[source]
Before I have to prove anything, you have to prove that there is indeed an "inconsistency". That would be so if DOK 239 did not identify the administrative entity as being the Health Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs or an administrative entity subordinate to the Health Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. But you don’t know whether that is so or not, because you haven’t seen the document. All you have is the designation "Main Health Administration" by Hoppe and Glas, which for all we know may have been just their choice of expression. Anyway, we’ll know more when I have obtained a copy of the original document from the Lithuanian State Archives, which I hope I will.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 08, 2017 3:35 pm
On the other hand, there are the following reasons to assume that the document is both authentic and accurate:

1. The person to whom it was sent (Regional Commissar Wulff) is known to have existed and to have acted in the capacity in which he is addressed in the letter.
Agreed.
OK.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 08, 2017 3:35 pm
2. The letter bears an incoming correspondence mark by Wulff or Wulff's office (probably a stamp indicating the receipt date of incoming correspondence, initialed by the person who stamped the document as incoming correspondence) dated 12.7.1942. The hypothetical forger would have had to forge not only the document proper, but also the incoming correspondence mark and initial.
3. The person sending the letter is identified in the same, as is the entity on whose behalf the letter was sent.
4. There is no evidence that the person identified in the letter as its sender did not exist or was not the District Medical Officer of Trakai at the time in question. There is also no evidence ruling out the existence of the entity on whose behalf the letter was sent (whose name "Main Health Administration" may have been a designation chosen by the letter's publishers instead of the designation of the issuing entity stated in the letter).
As there is also no evidence that the person identified in the letter as its sender did exist or it was the District Medical Officer of Trakai.[/quote]

Wrong, there is DOK 239. Your claim is that there is no reference to the sender in any other source and there is evidence showing or suggesting that no Paskevicius was the District Medical Officer of Trakai in 1941/42. You could substantiate that claim with a statement from the Lithuanian State Archives that there’s no other document bearing Paskevicius’ signature and Paskevicius was not the District Medical Officer of Trakai at the time in question. Anyway, we’ll know more if and when I should get a positive answer from the Lithuanian State Archives.
Aryan Scholar wrote: Please, substantiate your above statements in items number 2 and 4 with authoritative evidence as I did for item number 1. Item number 3 is just nonsense.
Actually number 3 is completely correct, judging by the information provided by Hoppe and Glass. Whose document collection is at least as authoritative a source as, say, the book you quoted from in your post under viewtopic.php?f=28&t=2916:
Aryan Scholar wrote:Another authoritative evidence claims Horst Wulff was shot dead in 1944 by the SS for provide the AK army (who assisted the Soviet army against the Germans) with arms.
Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces and Genocide in the Second Republic, 1918-1947, Tadeusz Piotrowski, pag. 89:[...]
The document collection put together by Hoppe and Glass also contains the information on which my indication 2 is based, as it states that Wulff received the document on 12.7.1942. For how would Hoppe & Glass know that, other than because the letter bears an incoming correspondence stamp and/or handwritten remark stating that the document was received on 12.7.1942?

Anyway, we’ll hopefully get to see what the stamp or remark from Wulff’s office on the document looks like.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 08, 2017 3:35 pm
5. The contents of the letter are consistent and logical. The District Medical Officer of Trakai was providing requested information in a sober and matter-of-fact manner about mass graves in his area to the Regional Commissar of "Wilna-Land", which was of reasonable interest to the recipient in his capacity. As you may read under
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskom ... 8Latvia.29, "Wilna-Land" was one of the six Kreisgebiete into which Lithuania was divided under German occupation. The Kreisgebiet "Wilna-Land", as you may read under
http://www.territorial.de/ostl/litauen/wilnald.htm , was originally formed by the Lithuanian districts Alytus/Olita, Trakai/Traken und Vilnius/Wilna. A map available under
http://yahadmap.org/#map/q_pays.6/ shows the proximity of Semeliškės, Trakai and Kaišiadorys to Vilnius. Žiežmariai is not on the map unless I missed something, but the page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%BDie%C5%BEmariai informs that it is 6 km south of Kaišiadorys. So all three communities mentioned in the DMO's letter as having mass graves in their areas (Trakai, Semeliškės and Žiežmariai, under their respective German names) can be reasonably assumed to have been part of the Kreisgebiet "Wilna-Land", for which Wulff was responsible.
6. The document is innocuous if seen in isolation, or at least is not proof that a crime was committed all by itself.
Agreed.
OK.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 08, 2017 3:35 pm
7. There is no motive that a hypothetical forger (who would have had to be familiar with the administrative subdivisions of Lithuania under Nazi rule) could have had to forge a document and then make no use of it, so that it ended up in a Lithuanian archive where it might never have been discovered and would probably never have been discovered if the Soviet Union had not dissolved.
Here is a motive that a hypothetical forger could have and, assuming it is forged, you are try to making use of it:
Roberto wrote:So the conclusion that the Jewish mass graves contain the corpses of people killed according to this other evidence is warranted.
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 08, 2017 3:35 pm
8. The document mentions mass graves in areas in which mass killings occurred according to the Jäger Report:
The argument is that the hypothetical forger made no use of the document, instead allowing it to be filed in a Lithuanian archive where it might well not be found and would probably never have been found if the Soviet Union had not dissolved. If the hypothetical forger had meant the document to back up the Jäger Report, he would have put it into circulation together with the Jäger Report or shortly thereafter. But no such thing happened. The document, judging by the date of the publication in which it was first shown, was discovered decades after the Jäger Report was made available to German criminal justice authorities, who only published that report almost ten years later.
Aryan Scholar wrote: But the Jäger Report do not mention where exactly people were killed and what was done with the supposedly resulting corpses. The Jäger Report do not share any detail about the authenticity or accuracy of the origin and content of DOK 239.
That is not correct. As I mentioned before, the placement of the Jewish mass graves described by the DMO suggests that the Jewish corpses in these graves were of people who had met a violent death that the killers wanted to conceal from onlookers, hence the remote location. The DMO also mentioned that the graves had been covered with quicklime in 1941, which means that the graves already existed in 1941. Now, there was no evidenced mass killing of Jews in the areas of the mentioned communities in 1941 other than the mass killings mentioned in the Jäger Report, and there is no reason to assume that the Jews lying in those mass graves died other than by violent means. If Jews had died in masses from starvation or deadly epidemics in the respective areas’ population centers (for which there is no evidence), the corpses would have been buried in or close to those population centers, not carted to remote forest or other rural areas.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 08, 2017 3:35 pm
9. The document mentions a mass grave in the area of Semeliškės ("Semelischken"), where mass killing of Jews occurred according to a 1944 Soviet report and a post-Soviet witness interview, both quoted under http://yahadmap.org/#village/semeli-k-s ... huania.784.
10. The document mentions a mass grave 2 km away from the road leading from Kaišiadorys (Germanized Kaischedoren) to Žiežmariai (Germanized Zesmaren). The "Holocaust Atlas of Lithuania"
(http://holocaustatlas.lt/EN/, hereinafter "HAL), under "Mass Murder of the Jews (Women, Children and Elderly) of Kaišiadorys and Surrounding Area", mentions that
On November 3, 1952, a Soviet special commission studying the mass murder state determined the ditch had been 55 meters long, 3 meters wide and 2 meters deep. The ditch was filled with corpses up to one meter.
11. The HAL, under "Mass Murder of the Jews at Trakai", mentions that "According to testimony from some members of the Special Squad, Martin Weiss also went to Trakai." It also mentions details about the killing not mentioned in the Jäger Report, which suggest further eyewitness testimony. Under "Mass Murder of the Jews from Semeliškės, Vievis and Žasliai", the HAL also mentions details about the killing that are not mentioned in the Jäger Report, suggesting eyewitness testimony. The same goes for "Mass Murder of the Jews of Kaišiadorys and Surrounding Areas" and "Mass Murder of the Jews (Women, Children and Elderly) of Kaišiadorys and Surrounding Area".
12. According to the HAL, the mentioned killing sites have monuments or commemorative markers, the coordinates of which are provided.
13. The document mentions mass graves in two areas (Žiežmariai and Semeliškes) that are obviously the same areas regarding which the head of Trakai district, in his above-mentioned letter of 8.11.1941, ordered the mayors and sub-district heads responsible for these area to fence in the mass graves and cover them with chlorinated lime until 13.11.1941.
I will address what other evidence DOK 239 corroborates when a conclusion about the authenticity and accuracy of the origin and content of DOK 239 is achieved. Meanwhile focus on provide authoritative evidence for the statements you made above.
That’s hardly an appropriate approach, as one of the means of establishing the authenticity and accuracy of a document is to contextualize it with evidence independent of the document stating the facts mentioned therein. Anyway, as request for information about Paškevičius and Mačinskas will be on its way today.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 08, 2017 3:35 pm
So far none of the reasons adduced to doubt the authenticity and accuracy of DOK 239 is conclusive. Considering the above indications of the document's authenticity, I see no reason to call the authenticity of DOK 239 into question.
But I do and it remains in question.
That you do I know. Whether this means that the authenticity of the document remains in question depends on whether there is good reason to doubt it’s authenticity, which I don’t think is the case.
Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past.
~ A German jurist by the name of Baumann in the German juridical magazine NJW, quoted in: Bailer-Galanda/Benz/Neugebauer (ed.), Die Auschwitzleugner, Berlin 1996, page 261 (my translation).

Roberto
Posts: 3734
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Origin and Content of DOK 239

Post by Roberto » Fri Jun 09, 2017 5:51 pm

Aryan Scholar wrote:
Fri Jun 09, 2017 3:10 pm
Roberto wrote:
Fri Jun 09, 2017 12:06 pm
(...)
:roll:

You are just repeating yourself. None of what you presented is proof but just sheer speculation which can be safely ignored.
No, you have presented no proof of anything but hypothetical speculation on the part of Hoppe and Glass, so what you call "proof" can be safely ignored.
Aryan Scholar wrote:Do you have proof the statement...
Hoppe and Glass wrote:The District Medical Officer of Trakai (Troki) informs the Regional Commissioner Vilna Land on 8 July 1942 about size and location of mass graves of Jews shot in his rural district.
...is true only in accordance with the origin and content of DOK 239?
Was Horst Wulff really informed by Dr. Paskevicius in 1942 about size and location of mass graves of Jews shot in his rural district? Otherwise Hoppe and Glass statement is false as I have shown above.
No, "only in accordance with the origin and content of DOK 239" the statement is neither true nor false.

Taking the other evidence mentioned in the footnotes into account, the statement is not that the DMO informed Wulff that the Jews in the mass graves had been shot. The statement is that the DMO informed Wulff about the presence of Jewish mass graves, whose occupants are known (from other evidence) to have been shot.

If, on the other hand, DOK 239 were the only evidence, the statement would be that the DMO informed Wulff about the presence of Jewish mass graves, whose occupants must have been shot.

There is the possibility that it is true, and there is the possibility that it is false, but there is no certainty that it is either true or false. You might call the statement speculative, you might call it misleading, but you would have no basis for calling it false. And again, we're discussing a merely hypothetical case here.
Aryan Scholar wrote:If you will answer, please, short and direct answers. Avalanche of words do not prove statements are true or false.
That rather applies to your elaborate but unsuccessful attempt to prove the falsity of the hypothetical statement in question.
Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past.
~ A German jurist by the name of Baumann in the German juridical magazine NJW, quoted in: Bailer-Galanda/Benz/Neugebauer (ed.), Die Auschwitzleugner, Berlin 1996, page 261 (my translation).

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 8557
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Origin and Content of DOK 239

Post by been-there » Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:13 pm

This argument seems to be getting stuck in repetition.
Can I suggest you both summarise your arguments as succintly and as concisely as possible, as if explaining it to someone who knows nothing of what has been said between you. I suggest that instead of you concentrating upon or repeating the perceived errors of the other, you just summarise what you each think is the importance and relevance of this document to the holocaust narrative.

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 8557
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Origin and Content of DOK 239

Post by been-there » Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:29 am

viewtopic.php?p=107247#p107247
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Fri Jun 09, 2017 9:59 pm
It is very simple: was Horst Wulff informed by Dr. Paskevicius in 1942 about the size of mass graves of Jews who were shot in Dr. Paskevicius’ rural district?

If Horst Wulff was not informed by Dr. Paskevicius... then neither Horst Wulff nor Dr. Paskevicius were discussing anything which was part of a systematic plan to exterminate Jews by shooting.

Proof is here that Horst Wulff was not informed by Dr. Paskevicius in 1942 about the size of mass graves of Jews who were shot in Dr. Paskevicius’ rural district: viewtopic.php?f=28&t=2916&start=10#p107195
Thanks.
Roberto, will you now give a similarly concise summary of your argument?

Roberto
Posts: 3734
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Origin and Content of DOK 239

Post by Roberto » Sat Jun 10, 2017 1:46 pm

Of secondary relevance in this discussion, my last reply to Aryan Scholar’s assessment of the publishing historians’ statement "The District Medical Officer of Trakai (Troki) informs the Regional Commissioner Vilna Land on 8 July 1942 about size and location of mass graves of Jews shot in his rural district." is under viewtopic.php?f=28&t=2916&start=20#p107229 .

Of primary relevance in this discussion, the reasons why I consider DOK 239 to be authentic (and its contents to be reliable) are listed in the last part of my post under viewtopic.php?f=28&t=2916&start=10#p107163 (13 points).

I have written to the Lithuanian Central State Archives requesting the following:
1. Confirmation that a physician with the surname "Paškevičius" was the District Medical Officer (Kreisarzt) of Trakai district in the years 1941/42 as an official of the Health Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs or an administrative entity subordinated to that ministry.
2. A copy of DOK 239 (archival reference LCVA R 613/1/10 Bl. 69+RS), and a copy of at least one other document bearing Paškevičius’ signature.
3. Confirmation that a man with the surname "Mačinskas" was the district head of Trakai (Kreischef von Trakai) in 1941/42.
4. A copy of Mačinskas' letter to the mayors and sub-district heads of Žiežmariai, Semeliškes and Eišiškés, dated 8.11.1941, instructing them to fence in and cover with chlorinated lime the mass graves in their areas ((archival reference LCVA 500/1/4, Vol. 2, fl. 794), and a copy of at least one other document bearing Mačinskas’ signature.

I don’t think it makes much sense to continue the discussion until I have received the requested information/copies.
Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past.
~ A German jurist by the name of Baumann in the German juridical magazine NJW, quoted in: Bailer-Galanda/Benz/Neugebauer (ed.), Die Auschwitzleugner, Berlin 1996, page 261 (my translation).

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 8557
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Origin and Content of DOK 239

Post by been-there » Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:19 pm

As Roberto has declined to give a concise summary of his argument, here is my understanding of the debate.

As I understand it, Roberto has been arguing that there exist two documents which he believes were issued by different authorities and in different contexts that confirm mass graves of Jews in the Vilnius area, and that these are therefore a part of the proof that there really was a genocidal plan to exterminate all Jews in Axis-controlled Europe by the NSDAP: the so called 'final solution of the Jewish question' otherwise known as 'THE Holocaust'.

These two documents are a report attributed to Karl Jäger, and a letter, filed as DOK 239.

1. The Jäger report. In 1963 Soviet authorities released a documents purporting to be an NSDAP report detailing the movement and mass murder of Jews. According to this document, 133,346 'Jews' were killed by Germans and Lithuanians under Jäger's orders.

2. DOK 239. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, a letter to Horst Wullf from a District Medical Officer of Trakai named Dr. Paskevicius is claimed to have been discovered in the LCVA (the Lithuanian State Archive) detailing the location of mass graves of some of these massacred Jews. The letter is signed by Dr. Paskevicius, is dated 8th July 1942, and claims to have been sent to the Regional Commissioner of Vilnius-Country, Horst Wulff, who received it on 12th July 1942.

Aryan Scholar and Wurm regard both these documents as possibly soviet forgeries and argue that the alleged mass-graves described in the letter have never been confirmed.

Aryan Scholar questions the authenticity and accuracy of DOK 239 based on the absence of two important related documents and the inconsistent description of The Health Department at the Ministry of Internal Affairs. He challenged anyone to prove the authenticity and accuracy of the document. He considers this letter does not confirm a systematic plan to exterminate Jews by shooting. Roberto accepted the challenge. AS has pointed out that both sender and recipient of the letter DOK 239 make no mention of the cause of death of the bodies in the mass graves.

He has replied in another thread (for some reason) to Roberto's summary as follows:
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:27 pm
You still did not understand Horst Wulff was not informed in 1942 by Dr. Paškevičius about size and location of mass graves of corpses of Jews who were shot, even if assuming the mass graves had corpses of Jews who were shot. The statement by Hoppe and Glass is proven false... So even if you show DOK 239 is authentic with the authoritative evidence you requested, you still have to prove the mass graves described in DOK 239 had corpses of Jews who were shot.
I never followed nor understood why mention of carcases is relevant.

Have I missed anything or got anything wrong?

. . . . .

Horst Wulff (born October 28th 1907, died April or May 1945) was a German National Socialist who was employed as a regional commissioner in Vilnius during the Second World War in German-occupied Lithuania.

He joined the NSDAP and SA in September 1926. From 1932 to 1934 he worked in the Paris hotel industry and was active in an organisational capacity for the NSDAP group in Paris.

After the war began with the Soviet Union he became regional commissioner in Vilnius in August 1941. In November 1941 he moved from the SA to the SS. In February 1943 he is alleged to have ordered the shooting of forty Lithuanian peasants in Kaunas. He is also alleged to have participated in anti-Jewish measures in his area of ​​control. E.g. in March 1943 he is accused of ordering 3,000 Jews to be sent to the Vilnius ghetto from East Lithuanian cities. Wulff died during the Battle of Berlin in April 1945.
. . .

Karl Jäger (20th September 1888 – 22nd June 1959) was a Swiss-born mid-ranking official in the SS of the NSDAP and Einsatzkommando leader.
During World War I he joined the German army and he received the Iron Cross 1st Class and other awards for bravery and meritorious acts. He joined the NSDAP in 1923 and founded his local party chapter in Walkirch, Switzerland. He joined the SS in 1932.
From July 1941 until September 1943 Jäger served as commander of the SD Einsatzkommando 3a, a sub-unit of Einsatzgruppe A under Franz Walter Stahlecker, in Kaunas. Under Jäger's command, the Einsatzkommando, together with the help of Lithuanians, are accused of executing Jewish men, women and children by firing squad. His unit is accused of perpetrating a war atrocity called the Ninth Fort massacres of November 1941. Near the end of 1943, Jäger was appointed commander of the SD in Reichenberg in the Sudetenland, back in Germany.
At the end of the war Karl Jäger assumed a false identity, and worked as a farm hand until March 1959 when he was arrested and charged with war crimes. He is yet another one who it is is alleged committed suicide by hanging himself in prison in Hohenasperg in June 1959 while awaiting trial.
. . .
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

Wurm
Posts: 153
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 3:43 pm
Contact:

Re: Origin and Content of DOK 239

Post by Wurm » Sat Jun 10, 2017 7:01 pm

been-there wrote:
Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:19 pm
Aryan Scholar and Wurm regard both these documents as possibly soviet forgeries and argue that the alleged mass-graves described in the letter have never been confirmed.. .
To clarify, I do not necessarily consider DOK 239 to be a forgery and there may well be Jewish mass graves at these locations. However, they are not necessarily from "extermination" killings organized by Germans. They may be from causes such as pogroms by Lithuanians without German involvement, killings of Jewish Communists according to order given to Einsatzgruppen, killings of Jewish partisans, retaliations against Jews for claimed support of partisans, etc

The Jaeger Report is a forgery but it may have been based on a real document. Changing a real document to something more sinister seems to have been a common tactic by WWII forgers..This has many advantages for the forger such as the document's existence then often being supported by other documents and records. Thus, the Jaeger Report may originally have been a report on real Lithuanian pogroms against Jews, modified by the forger in order to associate these pogroms with Lithuanian nationalism and the German Einsatzgruppen, to increase the number and types of victims, etc. Such Lithuanian real pogroms could be the cause of certain mass graves, such as some or all of those mentioned in DOK 239.

Roberto
Posts: 3734
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Origin and Content of DOK 239

Post by Roberto » Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:44 pm

Wurm wrote:
Sat Jun 10, 2017 7:01 pm
been-there wrote:
Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:19 pm
Aryan Scholar and Wurm regard both these documents as possibly soviet forgeries and argue that the alleged mass-graves described in the letter have never been confirmed.. .
To clarify, I do not necessarily consider DOK 239 to be a forgery and there may well be Jewish mass graves at these locations. However, they are not necessarily from "extermination" killings organized by Germans. They may be from causes such as pogroms by Lithuanians without German involvement, killings of Jewish Communists according to order given to Einsatzgruppen, killings of Jewish partisans, retaliations against Jews for claimed support of partisans, etc.
And what's the evidence that the mass graves mentioned in DOK 239 (which happened to be in areas regarding which the Jäger Report mentions mass killing of Jews) resulted of may have resulted from "causes such as pogroms by Lithuanians without German involvement, killings of Jewish Communists according to order given to Einsatzgruppen, killings of Jewish partisans, retaliations against Jews for claimed support of partisans, etc."?
Wurm wrote:The Jaeger Report is a forgery but it may have been based on a real document. Changing a real document to something more sinister seems to have been a common tactic by WWII forgers..This has many advantages for the forger such as the document's existence then often being supported by other documents and records. Thus, the Jaeger Report may originally have been a report on real Lithuanian pogroms against Jews, modified by the forger in order to associate these pogroms with Lithuanian nationalism and the German Einsatzgruppen, to increase the number and types of victims, etc. Such Lithuanian real pogroms could be the cause of certain mass graves, such as some or all of those mentioned in DOK 239.
Lots of speculation, nothing to show for it. See also the failed attempts to make the Jäger Report into a forgery on the thread viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2910 .
Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past.
~ A German jurist by the name of Baumann in the German juridical magazine NJW, quoted in: Bailer-Galanda/Benz/Neugebauer (ed.), Die Auschwitzleugner, Berlin 1996, page 261 (my translation).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest