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 » Sat Jun 10, 2017 10:16 pm

been-there wrote:
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.
. . .
A fairly correct rendering of the arguments made by AS and me, except that the indications I listed in support of DOK 239's authenticity and accuracy under viewtopic.php?f=28&t=2916&start=10#p107163 are not mentioned.

As to the "inconsistent description of The Health Department at the Ministry of Internal Affairs" (the designation seems to be from 1939 and is therefore not necessarily relevant, as the designation under German occupation in 1941 may have been another), I did some googling and under https://portal.ehri-project.eu/institut ... vas&page=4 found a reference to the following items held by the Lietuvos Centrinis Valstybės Archyvas:
Vyriausioji sveikatos valdyba
Hauptgesundheitsverwaltung |
Central Health Administration
Lietuvos Centrinis Valstybės Archyvas
F. R-627
English
1941-1944
3 subfonds and 2481 fi...
Updated 2 years ago
Documents of administration, lists of staff members (doctors and nurses), list of Jewish property and equipment, information about infectious diseases, documents about healthcare, correspondence. There are various administrative documents about personnel and staff, lists of personnel and doctors, lists of Jewish doctors, statistics about diseases, documents concerning the County doctor’s observation of mass killing site in Švenčionys where 5000 Jews were murdered on 14 September 1942.
"Vyriausioji sveikatos valdyba", the Lithuanian term for "Hauptgesundheitsverwaltung", is translated by http://www.etranslator.ro/lithuanian-en ... slator.php as "The Central Board of Health".

So one of Aryan Scholar's arguments for suspecting forgery seems to have been refuted.

Anyway, I'll wait for what the LCVA will tell tell me about the "Vyriausioji sveikatos valdyba" and Dr. Paškevičius. The "County doctor's observation" mentioned in the above quote, by the way, shows that Paškevičius wasn't the only one physician concerned with public health problems that might result from Jewish mass graves.

Paškevičius is also mentioned under https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varnik%C5 ... usto_vieta:
1941 m. lapkričio 8 d. Trakų apskrities viršininkas davė raštišką nurodymą Trakų miesto burmistrui iki lapkričio 13 d. masines kapavietes aptverti 120 cm tvora, „kad gyvuliai ir žmonės neprieitų ir tų vietų neklampotų, neardytų bei nežalotų” bei užpilti chloro kalkėmis. 1942 m. liepos 8 d. Trakų apskrities gydytojas V. Paškevičius pranešė apie kapaviečių būklę Vilniaus apygardos komisarui apie kapų būklę. Pranešime nurodytos Trakų apskrities masinės kapavietės, esančios Trakų, Semeliškių ir Žiežmarių valsčiuose. 1941 m. bei 1942 m. pavasarį masinės kapavietės užpiltos chloro kalkėmis ir aptvertos.[1][3]
Translation by http://www.etranslator.ro/lithuanian-en ... slator.php:
1941. 8 November. Trakai county governor has given a written instruction to Trakai burgomaster until 13 November. mass graves fence 120 cm fence, the animals and the people failed to come to these places and neklampotų, do not disrupt and causing damage to "pour chlorine and lime. 1942. 8 July. Trakai district physician V. Paškevičius reported graves in the state of the Vilnius Regional Commissioner about the state of the graves. The report referred to in Trakai district mass graves located in Trakai, Semeliškių and Žiežmarių districts. 1941. and 1942. Spring mass graves brewed chlorine lime, enclosed. [1] [3]
Another Lithuanian source available online that mentions Paškevičius is http://www.voruta.lt/holokaustas-lietuv ... pskrityje/:
Išžudžius žydus, okupacinė valdžia susirūpino masinių kapaviečių sanitarine būkle ir apsauga. Trakų apskrities viršininkas 1941 m. lapkričio 8 d. raštu davė nurodymus Trakų miesto burmistrui bei Žiežmarių, Semeliškių ir Eišiškių valsčių viršaičiams iki 1941 m. lapkričio 13 d. masinių žudynių vietas aptverti tvora, “kad gyvuliai ir žmonės neprieitų ir tų vietų neklampotų, neardytų bei nežalotų”. Kapavietės turėjo būti užpiltos chloro kalkėmis, o tvorų aukštis 120 cm. Susirašinėjimas dėl žydų kapaviečių vyko ir 1942 m. 1942 m. liepos 8 d. Trakų apskrities gydytojas V. Paškevičius informavo Vilniaus apygardos komisarą apie kapų būklę. Jis nurodė, kad Trakų apskrityje masinės kapavietės yra Trakų, Semeliškių ir Žiežmarių valsčiuose. 1941 m. šie kapai buvo apibarstyti chloro kalkėmis ir užpilti žemėmis. 1942 m. pavasarį masinės kapavietės vėl buvo atkastos, užpiltos chlorkalkėmis ir aptvertos,
Translation by http://www.etranslator.ro/lithuanian-en ... slator.php:
Which killed Jews, the occupying power concerned about mass graves sanitary condition and protection. Trakai county governor in 1941. 8 November. writing gave instructions Trakai burgomaster and Žiežmarių, Semeliškių Eišiškių and district heads to 1941. 13 November. massacre in the fence, the animals and the people and failed to come to these places neklampotų, and do not disrupt from causing damage. Tomb had to be brewed with lime chlorine and fence height of 120 cm. Correspondence on Jewish graves took place in 1942. 1942. 8 July. Trakai district physician V. Paškevičius informed the Vilnius Regional Commissioner about the state of the graves. He pointed out that the county Trakai Trakai is a mass grave, and Semeliškių Žiežmarių districts. 1941. These graves were sprinkled chlorine with lime and covered with soil. 1942. spring mass grave was excavated again, brewed chlorkalkėmis and fenced,
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 » Sun Jun 11, 2017 1:06 pm

Roberto wrote:
Sat Jun 10, 2017 10:16 pm
As to the "inconsistent description of The Health Department at the Ministry of Internal Affairs" (the designation seems to be from 1939 and is therefore not necessarily relevant, as the designation under German occupation in 1941 may have been another), I did some googling and under https://portal.ehri-project.eu/institut ... vas&page=4 found a reference to the following items held by the Lietuvos Centrinis Valstybės Archyvas:
Vyriausioji sveikatos valdyba
Hauptgesundheitsverwaltung |
Central Health Administration
Lietuvos Centrinis Valstybės Archyvas
F. R-627
English
1941-1944
3 subfonds and 2481 fi...
Updated 2 years ago
Documents of administration, lists of staff members (doctors and nurses), list of Jewish property and equipment, information about infectious diseases, documents about healthcare, correspondence. There are various administrative documents about personnel and staff, lists of personnel and doctors, lists of Jewish doctors, statistics about diseases, documents concerning the County doctor’s observation of mass killing site in Švenčionys where 5000 Jews were murdered on 14 September 1942.
"Vyriausioji sveikatos valdyba", the Lithuanian term for "Hauptgesundheitsverwaltung", is translated by http://www.etranslator.ro/lithuanian-en ... slator.php as "The Central Board of Health".

So one of Aryan Scholar's arguments for suspecting forgery seems to have been refuted.

Anyway, I'll wait for what the LCVA will tell tell me about the "Vyriausioji sveikatos valdyba" and Dr. Paškevičius. The "County doctor's observation" mentioned in the above quote, by the way, shows that Paškevičius wasn't the only one physician concerned with public health problems that might result from Jewish mass graves.
Words used for DOK 239: "Main Health Administration"
Words used for R-627: "Central Health Administration"

I agree with this match, thus refuting the 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.
Moreover, from the above source:
Documents of administration, lists of staff members (doctors and nurses), list of Jewish property and equipment, information about infectious diseases, documents about healthcare, correspondence. There are various administrative documents about personnel and staff, lists of personnel and doctors, lists of Jewish doctors, statistics about diseases, documents concerning the County doctor’s observation of mass killing site in Švenčionys where 5000 Jews were murdered on 14 September 1942.
So it can be assumed one of the main concerns of the Main Health Administration was about "infectious diseases" and "statistics about diseases", which is one of the possibilities for the cause of death of the supposed corpses in the Jewish mass graves mentioned by Dr. Paškevičius, mainly due the fact those Jewish mass graves were strewn with chlorinated lime twice.
Paškevičius is also mentioned under https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varnik%C5 ... usto_vieta:


Another Lithuanian source available online that mentions Paškevičius is http://www.voruta.lt/holokaustas-lietuv ... pskrityje/:
Two secondary sources describing the same primary source, DOK 239. You have to show a primary source rather than DOK 239 making a reference to Dr. Paškevičius to prove he exist outside DOK 239.

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 8334
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Origin and Content of DOK 239

Post by been-there » Sun Jun 11, 2017 7:08 pm

Someone sent me the following amended argument of Roberto's demanding A.S. should prove the non-existence of something in this discussion, only with one difference: with the exact same logic but as an argument for confirming the non-existence of Santa Claus. See what you think:
Roberto wrote:
Fri Jun 09, 2017 5:35 pm
You are the one claiming [Santa Claus does not exist], so it's for you to substantiate your claim. And you don't even have to go to [to the North Pole] for that purpose. All you have to do is fill in one or more of the application forms available under https://www.netmums.com/xmas/santas-visit-application, print out, sign and scan the signed documents and send them together with a scan of your passport to the e-mail address info@santaclauslive.com, at. Mr. Santa Claus (see under http://santaclausoffice.com/en/letter-santa/). You will get either a positive or a negative answer. A negative answer would substantiate your claim. (...)
Again, I'm not the one claiming that [Santa Claus leave gifts under a tree] is or might be false. You are. In order to support your claim, you have to provide evidence that [Santa Claus] never existed, ruling out the hypotheses I considered. In case you want to argue that I'm the one claiming the authenticity of [Santa Claus leaving gifts under a tree] and that I thus have to prove the existence of [Santa Claus], that would be wrong. Proving the existence of [Santa Claus] is no condition sine qua non for establishing that there are no reasons to doubt the authenticity of [Santa Claus leave gifts under a tree]. That can also be done on hand of the indicators I mentioned in the post you are replying to.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

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

Re: Origin and Content of DOK 239

Post by Aryan Scholar » Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:33 am

been-there wrote:
Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:19 pm
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.
Roberto wrote:
Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:57 pm
The explanation is that

a) the subject matter in the DMO's letter is likely to have been a reference to the subject matter of Wulff's letter(s) requesting information,
b) it would make no sense to use two different terms ("Leichen" and "Kadaver") to describe the same thing (dead bodies of human beings),
c) it makes sense that Wulff should have been interested in information about both "Leichen" (human corpses), and "Kadaver" (animal carcasses), because the underground presence of dead bodies could pose a health risk regardless of whether these were bodies of humans or animals, and
d) the usual meaning of the term "Kadaver" in German in connection with dead bodies is the dead body of an animal.
Roberto wrote:
Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:48 am
Aryan Scholar wrote:Moreover:
In 1942 I sent a letter to the district head in Traken, informing him that he was to instruct the community leaders of the Traken district to have all those corpses and carcasses yet to be placed in a grave to be buried in the spring.
Where "all those corpses and carcasses yet to be placed in a grave" in 1942 comes from and what would be their cause of death?
There is no way of establishing this. Carcasses, i.e. mortal remains of animals, might be those of animals who died of disease in the field and were not removed. Human corpses, on the other hand, are likely to be those of individuals who met a violent death somewhere in the rural areas for which the DMO is responsible, as people don't usually just drop dead in a field or forest. The human corpses could be those of Jewish escapees hunted down and killed, whose corpses the killers did not bother to bury.
Please, could you explain why "there is no way of establishing" where "all those corpses and carcasses yet to be placed in a grave" in 1942 comes from and what would be their cause of death, but, in accordance with you, there is a way to establish where the supposed corpses (or carcasses?) in the Jewish mass graves covered in 1941 comes from and what would be their cause of death?

Also, please, could you explain why Dr. Paskevicius instructed the community leaders of the Trakai district to place corpses and carcasses in the same grave?

Also, please, have you ruled out the hypothesis those community leaders of the Trakai district could be Jews (who perhaps provided Dr. Paskevicius with the detail about the Jewish mass graves and individual graves)?

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Holocaust Encyclopedia:
During World War II, the Germans established Jewish councils, usually called Judenraete (sg., Judenrat). These Jewish municipal administrations were required to ensure that Nazi orders and regulations were implemented. Jewish council members also sought to provide basic community services for ghettoized Jewish populations.

[source]

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

Re: Origin and Content of DOK 239

Post by Roberto » Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:50 am

been-there wrote:
Sun Jun 11, 2017 7:08 pm
Someone sent me the following amended argument of Roberto's demanding A.S. should prove the non-existence of something in this discussion, only with one difference: with the exact same logic but as an argument for confirming the non-existence of Santa Claus. See what you think:
Roberto wrote:
Fri Jun 09, 2017 5:35 pm
You are the one claiming [Santa Claus does not exist], so it's for you to substantiate your claim. And you don't even have to go to [to the North Pole] for that purpose. All you have to do is fill in one or more of the application forms available under https://www.netmums.com/xmas/santas-visit-application, print out, sign and scan the signed documents and send them together with a scan of your passport to the e-mail address info@santaclauslive.com, at. Mr. Santa Claus (see under http://santaclausoffice.com/en/letter-santa/). You will get either a positive or a negative answer. A negative answer would substantiate your claim. (...)
Again, I'm not the one claiming that [Santa Claus leave gifts under a tree] is or might be false. You are. In order to support your claim, you have to provide evidence that [Santa Claus] never existed, ruling out the hypotheses I considered. In case you want to argue that I'm the one claiming the authenticity of [Santa Claus leaving gifts under a tree] and that I thus have to prove the existence of [Santa Claus], that would be wrong. Proving the existence of [Santa Claus] is no condition sine qua non for establishing that there are no reasons to doubt the authenticity of [Santa Claus leave gifts under a tree]. That can also be done on hand of the indicators I mentioned in the post you are replying to.
I think the "amended argument" is inappropriate, to put it politely. We're not talking about fantasy figures and non-existing archives here. We're talking about down-to-earth stuff like mass graves and related correspondence, and the archives that can provide related information are just a form and an e-mail message away.

First paragraph, quoted from viewtopic.php?f=28&t=2916&start=20#p107228:
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.
Anyway, I have already written to Mrs. Čijunskienė at the LCVA requesting information about Dr. Paskevicius, so AS need no longer bother.

The second paragraph seems to refer to the following:
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.
The indicators in question are the following, listed in my post under viewtopic.php?f=28&t=2916&start=10#p107163 :

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.
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).
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.
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.
8. The document mentions mass graves in areas in which mass killings occurred according to the Jäger Report:
Mass killings by the EK in Trakai on 30 September 1941 are mentioned on the report's page 6 (http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-hist ... tm.en.html). DOK 239 refers to this area as follows:
In easterly direction 2 km from Traken, 1 km from the village of Wornicken, 1 km from the forest, 1 km from the lake, in a sandy depression, there is a Jewish mass grave 80 meters long, 4 meters wide and 4 meters deep.
962 Jews were killed in "Semiliski" (Semeliškės) on 6 October 1941. DOK 239 refers to this area as follows:
In northerly direction 1 km from Semelischken by the forest, 50 m from the road, 2 km from the river Strawa on a sandy height, there is a Jewish mass grave about 30 m long. Drainage in the direction of Semelischken.
784 Jews were killed in "Rumsiskis u. Ziezmariai" (Rumšiškės and Žiežmariai) on 29 August 1941. DOK 239 refers to this area as follows:
In northerly direction 3 km from Zesmaren, on land belonging to the village Trilischken, 1 km from the road Zaslen-Zesmaren, on a sandy height there is a Jewish mass grave 33 meters long.
1,911 Jews were shot on 26 August 1941 in "Kaisiadorys" (Kaišiadorys). DOK 239 report refers to this area as follows:
In northerly direction 5 km from Zesmaren, 2 km from the road Kaischedoren-Zesmaren, by the Bladukischer Forest there is a Jewish mass grave 30 meters long.
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.

So there's no room for any Santa Claus "amended argument" here. As to indicator nr. 4, mind what I wrote in my previous post on this thread:
As to the "inconsistent description of The Health Department at the Ministry of Internal Affairs" (the designation seems to be from 1939 and is therefore not necessarily relevant, as the designation under German occupation in 1941 may have been another), I did some googling and under https://portal.ehri-project.eu/institut ... vas&page=4 found a reference to the following items held by the Lietuvos Centrinis Valstybės Archyvas:
Vyriausioji sveikatos valdyba
Hauptgesundheitsverwaltung |
Central Health Administration
Lietuvos Centrinis Valstybės Archyvas
F. R-627
English
1941-1944
3 subfonds and 2481 fi...
Updated 2 years ago
Documents of administration, lists of staff members (doctors and nurses), list of Jewish property and equipment, information about infectious diseases, documents about healthcare, correspondence. There are various administrative documents about personnel and staff, lists of personnel and doctors, lists of Jewish doctors, statistics about diseases, documents concerning the County doctor’s observation of mass killing site in Švenčionys where 5000 Jews were murdered on 14 September 1942.
"Vyriausioji sveikatos valdyba", the Lithuanian term for "Hauptgesundheitsverwaltung", is translated by http://www.etranslator.ro/lithuanian-en ... slator.php as "The Central Board of Health".

So one of Aryan Scholar's arguments for suspecting forgery seems to have been refuted.
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 » Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:57 am

Aryan Scholar wrote:
Sun Jun 11, 2017 1:06 pm
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jun 10, 2017 10:16 pm
As to the "inconsistent description of The Health Department at the Ministry of Internal Affairs" (the designation seems to be from 1939 and is therefore not necessarily relevant, as the designation under German occupation in 1941 may have been another), I did some googling and under https://portal.ehri-project.eu/institut ... vas&page=4 found a reference to the following items held by the Lietuvos Centrinis Valstybės Archyvas:
Vyriausioji sveikatos valdyba
Hauptgesundheitsverwaltung |
Central Health Administration
Lietuvos Centrinis Valstybės Archyvas
F. R-627
English
1941-1944
3 subfonds and 2481 fi...
Updated 2 years ago
Documents of administration, lists of staff members (doctors and nurses), list of Jewish property and equipment, information about infectious diseases, documents about healthcare, correspondence. There are various administrative documents about personnel and staff, lists of personnel and doctors, lists of Jewish doctors, statistics about diseases, documents concerning the County doctor’s observation of mass killing site in Švenčionys where 5000 Jews were murdered on 14 September 1942.
"Vyriausioji sveikatos valdyba", the Lithuanian term for "Hauptgesundheitsverwaltung", is translated by http://www.etranslator.ro/lithuanian-en ... slator.php as "The Central Board of Health".

So one of Aryan Scholar's arguments for suspecting forgery seems to have been refuted.

Anyway, I'll wait for what the LCVA will tell tell me about the "Vyriausioji sveikatos valdyba" and Dr. Paškevičius. The "County doctor's observation" mentioned in the above quote, by the way, shows that Paškevičius wasn't the only one physician concerned with public health problems that might result from Jewish mass graves.
Words used for DOK 239: "Main Health Administration"
Words used for R-627: "Central Health Administration"

I agree with this match, thus refuting the 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.
Aryan Scholar wrote:Moreover, from the above source:
Documents of administration, lists of staff members (doctors and nurses), list of Jewish property and equipment, information about infectious diseases, documents about healthcare, correspondence. There are various administrative documents about personnel and staff, lists of personnel and doctors, lists of Jewish doctors, statistics about diseases, documents concerning the County doctor’s observation of mass killing site in Švenčionys where 5000 Jews were murdered on 14 September 1942.
So it can be assumed one of the main concerns of the Main Health Administration was about "infectious diseases" and "statistics about diseases", which is one of the possibilities for the cause of death of the supposed corpses in the Jewish mass graves mentioned by Dr. Paškevičius, mainly due the fact those Jewish mass graves were strewn with chlorinated lime twice.
Actually infectious diseases are a very unlikely origin for the mass graves mentioned by Paškevičius, as their placement in remote forest or other rural areas suggests a violent death that the killers wanted to conceal from onlookers, rather than mass mortality from disease in a population center (whose victims would have been buried in or near that center, not carted into the forest). Besides, while the other evidence I mentioned points to mass killings in the areas mentioned by Paškevičius, there's no evidence to mass dying of Jews from epidemics in any of these areas at the times in question.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Paškevičius is also mentioned under https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varnik%C5 ... usto_vieta:

Another Lithuanian source available online that mentions Paškevičius is http://www.voruta.lt/holokaustas-lietuv ... pskrityje/:
Two secondary sources describing the same primary source, DOK 239.
Did I say anything different? I don't think so.

Anyway, isn’t at least the latter of the two sources "authoritative" like the books you quoted from?
Aryan Scholar wrote:You have to show a primary source rather than DOK 239 making a reference to Dr. Paškevičius to prove he exist outside DOK 239.
I have written to the LCVA requesting confirmation that Dr. Paškevičius was the DMO of Trakai district in 1941/42, plus a copy of DOK 239 and at least one other document bearing Paškevičius' signature. The request is supposed to be processed within 10 working days starting tomorrow and the copies are supposed to be color copies, as I chose these items from the LCVA's price list.
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 » Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:34 pm

Aryan Scholar wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:33 am
been-there wrote:
Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:19 pm
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.
Roberto wrote:
Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:57 pm
The explanation is that

a) the subject matter in the DMO's letter is likely to have been a reference to the subject matter of Wulff's letter(s) requesting information,
b) it would make no sense to use two different terms ("Leichen" and "Kadaver") to describe the same thing (dead bodies of human beings),
c) it makes sense that Wulff should have been interested in information about both "Leichen" (human corpses), and "Kadaver" (animal carcasses), because the underground presence of dead bodies could pose a health risk regardless of whether these were bodies of humans or animals, and
d) the usual meaning of the term "Kadaver" in German in connection with dead bodies is the dead body of an animal.
Roberto wrote:
Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:48 am
Aryan Scholar wrote:Moreover:
In 1942 I sent a letter to the district head in Traken, informing him that he was to instruct the community leaders of the Traken district to have all those corpses and carcasses yet to be placed in a grave to be buried in the spring.
Where "all those corpses and carcasses yet to be placed in a grave" in 1942 comes from and what would be their cause of death?
There is no way of establishing this. Carcasses, i.e. mortal remains of animals, might be those of animals who died of disease in the field and were not removed. Human corpses, on the other hand, are likely to be those of individuals who met a violent death somewhere in the rural areas for which the DMO is responsible, as people don't usually just drop dead in a field or forest. The human corpses could be those of Jewish escapees hunted down and killed, whose corpses the killers did not bother to bury.
Please, could you explain why "there is no way of establishing" where "all those corpses and carcasses yet to be placed in a grave" in 1942 comes from and what would be their cause of death, but, in accordance with you, there is a way to establish where the supposed corpses (or carcasses?) in the Jewish mass graves covered in 1941 comes from and what would be their cause of death?
The origin of the Jewish mass graves can be established on hand of the Jäger Report, Soviet investigation reports and eyewitness testimonies, which I have mentioned. Regarding the human corpses yet to be buried, there's no evidence to how they died, though a violent death is likely as people usually don't just drop dead in a field or forest.
Aryan Scholar wrote:Also, please, could you explain why Dr. Paskevicius instructed the community leaders of the Trakai district to place corpses and carcasses in the same grave?
Paskevicius instructed the community leaders of the Trakai district to bury in the spring such corpses and carcasses that were lying around in the open and "yet to be placed in a grave". This does not necessarily mean that they were to be placed in the same grave. And if it did, such wouldn't hurt the feelings of anyone that mattered at the time and place if the corpses were of individual Jews hunted down and killed.
Aryan Scholar wrote:Also, please, have you ruled out the hypothesis those community leaders of the Trakai district could be Jews (who perhaps provided Dr. Paskevicius with the detail about the Jewish mass graves and individual graves)?

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Holocaust Encyclopedia:
During World War II, the Germans established Jewish councils, usually called Judenraete (sg., Judenrat). These Jewish municipal administrations were required to ensure that Nazi orders and regulations were implemented. Jewish council members also sought to provide basic community services for ghettoized Jewish populations.
[source]

A rather far-fetched hypothesis, as it's unlikely that Jewish councils would be referred to as "community provosts of the Traken district", especially without pointing out that those "community provosts" were despised Jews in order to avoid any confusion with good "Aryan" community provosts of the Trakai district. The hypothesis would also not fit into the context of district chief Mačinskas' letter dated 8.11.1941 to the mayors and sub-district heads of Žiežmariai, Semeliškes and Eišiškés, ordering the mass graves in their areas to be fenced in and covered with chlorinated lime until 13.11.1941 (the latter the mayors and sub-district heads seem to have complied with in time whereas the fencing-in was only done in 1942 according to the DMO's letter, a delay that Jewish councils would hardly have dared to incur in). Tending mass graves in remote rural areas would also not be part of "basic community services for ghettoized Jewish populations". And would a Lithuanian official have dared to instruct Jews to do anything without first informing Nazi authorities whose "orders and regulations" the Jewish councils were meant to implement and obtaining permission from such authorities to issue such instructions? Also an unlikely proposition.

As to the DMO having relied on information from third parties, that is also an unlikely hypothesis considering the importance of the information and the standing of the person who had requested the information (the German Regional Commissar of "Wilna Land"). If I had been in the DMO's place I would have visited the sites myself or at least have them visited and reported about by trusted administrative subordinates. Wouldn't you have done the same?
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 » Mon Jun 12, 2017 5:43 pm

Roberto wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:57 am
Actually infectious diseases are a very unlikely origin for the mass graves mentioned by Paškevičius, as their placement in remote forest or other rural areas suggests a violent death that the killers wanted to conceal from onlookers, rather than mass mortality from disease in a population center (whose victims would have been buried in or near that center, not carted into the forest). Besides, while the other evidence I mentioned points to mass killings in the areas mentioned by Paškevičius, there's no evidence to mass dying of Jews from epidemics in any of these areas at the times in question.
Dr. Paškevičius was able to obtain the details about the location of those Jewish mass graves and the individual graves, which implies none were chosen to conceal the execution from onlookers, thus ruling out your above hypothesis.
Roberto wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:57 am
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Paškevičius is also mentioned under https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varnik%C5 ... usto_vieta:

Another Lithuanian source available online that mentions Paškevičius is http://www.voruta.lt/holokaustas-lietuv ... pskrityje/:
Two secondary sources describing the same primary source, DOK 239.
Did I say anything different? I don't think so.

Anyway, isn’t at least the latter of the two sources "authoritative" like the books you quoted from?
Yes, they are authoritative evidence, but secondary source.
Roberto wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:57 am
Aryan Scholar wrote:You have to show a primary source rather than DOK 239 making a reference to Dr. Paškevičius to prove he exist outside DOK 239.
I have written to the LCVA requesting confirmation that Dr. Paškevičius was the DMO of Trakai district in 1941/42, plus a copy of DOK 239 and at least one other document bearing Paškevičius' signature. The request is supposed to be processed within 10 working days starting tomorrow and the copies are supposed to be color copies, as I chose these items from the LCVA's price list.
All right.
Roberto wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:34 pm
The origin of the Jewish mass graves can be established on hand of the Jäger Report, Soviet investigation reports and eyewitness testimonies, which I have mentioned. Regarding the human corpses yet to be buried, there's no evidence to how they died, though a violent death is likely as people usually don't just drop dead in a field or forest.
There is also not evidence (at least until now) of how the supposed corpses (or carcasses?) in the Jewish mass graves and the corpses in the individuals graves died.
Roberto wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:34 pm
Paskevicius instructed the community leaders of the Trakai district to bury in the spring such corpses and carcasses that were lying around in the open and "yet to be placed in a grave". This does not necessarily mean that they were to be placed in the same grave. And if it did, such wouldn't hurt the feelings of anyone that mattered at the time and place if the corpses were of individual Jews hunted down and killed.
So it is possible the Jewish mass graves also had corpses or carcasses - or a combination of both - as Dr. Paskeviciu did not mention it have either corpses or carcasses - or a combination of both.

Do you agree?
Roberto wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:34 pm
A rather far-fetched hypothesis, as it's unlikely that Jewish councils would be referred to as "community provosts of the Traken district", especially without pointing out that those "community provosts" were despised Jews in order to avoid any confusion with good "Aryan" community provosts of the Trakai district. The hypothesis would also not fit into the context of district chief Mačinskas' letter dated 8.11.1941 to the mayors and sub-district heads of Žiežmariai, Semeliškes and Eišiškés, ordering the mass graves in their areas to be fenced in and covered with chlorinated lime until 13.11.1941 (the latter the mayors and sub-district heads seem to have complied with in time whereas the fencing-in was only done in 1942 according to the DMO's letter, a delay that Jewish councils would hardly have dared to incur in). Tending mass graves in remote rural areas would also not be part of "basic community services for ghettoized Jewish populations". And would a Lithuanian official have dared to instruct Jews to do anything without first informing Nazi authorities whose "orders and regulations" the Jewish councils were meant to implement and obtaining permission from such authorities to issue such instructions? Also an unlikely proposition.
Could you substantiate your above statements with authoritative evidence (or testimonial evidence)? I did not know there was an "Aryan" community provosts of the Trakai district.
Roberto wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:34 pm
As to the DMO having relied on information from third parties, that is also an unlikely hypothesis considering the importance of the information and the standing of the person who had requested the information (the German Regional Commissar of "Wilna Land"). If I had been in the DMO's place I would have visited the sites myself or at least have them visited and reported about by trusted administrative subordinates. Wouldn't you have done the same?
That is one hypothesis among many.

No anecdotal evidence, please.

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

Re: Origin and Content of DOK 239

Post by Roberto » Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:54 pm

Aryan Scholar wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 5:43 pm
Roberto wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:57 am
Actually infectious diseases are a very unlikely origin for the mass graves mentioned by Paškevičius, as their placement in remote forest or other rural areas suggests a violent death that the killers wanted to conceal from onlookers, rather than mass mortality from disease in a population center (whose victims would have been buried in or near that center, not carted into the forest). Besides, while the other evidence I mentioned points to mass killings in the areas mentioned by Paškevičius, there's no evidence to mass dying of Jews from epidemics in any of these areas at the times in question.
Dr. Paškevičius was able to obtain the details about the location of those Jewish mass graves and the individual graves, which implies none were chosen to conceal the execution from onlookers, thus ruling out your above hypothesis.
Wrong conclusion. The mass graves were in remote forest or other rural areas, not in or near population centers, which means that the killers endeavored to avoid onlookers or keep them at a minimum. This doesn't mean that the killings could be wholly concealed - after all people saw the Jews being taken away, and there might be local peasants watching the killing or coming upon the mass graves later on. The point is that an effort at discretion was made, not that discretion was wholly achieved. And that the placement of the graves does not suggest that they contained corpses resulting from catastrophic disease mortality. Such corpses would rather have been buried in cemeteries inside the Jewish quarter or ghetto, as was the case in the Warsaw and Lodz ghettos. Besides, there is no evidence suggesting catastrophic disease mortality among Jews in any population center of the Trakai district in 1941. Such disease mortality would also be unlikely as the German occupation had not yet lasted all that long.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:57 am
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Paškevičius is also mentioned under https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varnik%C5 ... usto_vieta:

Another Lithuanian source available online that mentions Paškevičius is http://www.voruta.lt/holokaustas-lietuv ... pskrityje/:
Two secondary sources describing the same primary source, DOK 239.
Did I say anything different? I don't think so.

Anyway, isn’t at least the latter of the two sources "authoritative" like the books you quoted from?
Yes, they are authoritative evidence, but secondary source.
Sure. Primary sources have been requested from the LCVA.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:57 am
Aryan Scholar wrote:You have to show a primary source rather than DOK 239 making a reference to Dr. Paškevičius to prove he exist outside DOK 239.
I have written to the LCVA requesting confirmation that Dr. Paškevičius was the DMO of Trakai district in 1941/42, plus a copy of DOK 239 and at least one other document bearing Paškevičius' signature. The request is supposed to be processed within 10 working days starting tomorrow and the copies are supposed to be color copies, as I chose these items from the LCVA's price list.
All right.
Roberto wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:34 pm
The origin of the Jewish mass graves can be established on hand of the Jäger Report, Soviet investigation reports and eyewitness testimonies, which I have mentioned. Regarding the human corpses yet to be buried, there's no evidence to how they died, though a violent death is likely as people usually don't just drop dead in a field or forest.
There is also not evidence (at least until now) of how the supposed corpses (or carcasses?) in the Jewish mass graves and the corpses in the individuals graves died.
There is evidence, actually. The Jäger Report, Soviet investigation reports and eyewitness testimonies. We can argue about the conclusiveness and reliability of that evidence, but to say that there is none is not correct.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:34 pm
Paskevicius instructed the community leaders of the Trakai district to bury in the spring such corpses and carcasses that were lying around in the open and "yet to be placed in a grave". This does not necessarily mean that they were to be placed in the same grave. And if it did, such wouldn't hurt the feelings of anyone that mattered at the time and place if the corpses were of individual Jews hunted down and killed.
So it is possible the Jewish mass graves also had corpses or carcasses - or a combination of both - as Dr. Paskeviciu did not mention it have either corpses or carcasses - or a combination of both.

Do you agree?
It's theoretically possible but unlikely in practice that the mass graves also contained one or the other carcass, as Paskevicius expressly referred to "Jewish mass graves" and the related evidence points to the occupants of these graves having been Jews.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:34 pm
A rather far-fetched hypothesis, as it's unlikely that Jewish councils would be referred to as "community provosts of the Traken district", especially without pointing out that those "community provosts" were despised Jews in order to avoid any confusion with good "Aryan" community provosts of the Trakai district. The hypothesis would also not fit into the context of district chief Mačinskas' letter dated 8.11.1941 to the mayors and sub-district heads of Žiežmariai, Semeliškes and Eišiškés, ordering the mass graves in their areas to be fenced in and covered with chlorinated lime until 13.11.1941 (the latter the mayors and sub-district heads seem to have complied with in time whereas the fencing-in was only done in 1942 according to the DMO's letter, a delay that Jewish councils would hardly have dared to incur in). Tending mass graves in remote rural areas would also not be part of "basic community services for ghettoized Jewish populations". And would a Lithuanian official have dared to instruct Jews to do anything without first informing Nazi authorities whose "orders and regulations" the Jewish councils were meant to implement and obtaining permission from such authorities to issue such instructions? Also an unlikely proposition.
Could you substantiate your above statements with authoritative evidence (or testimonial evidence)? I did not know there was an "Aryan" community provosts of the Trakai district.
First of all, the Jewish council hypothesis is your claim, so it's for you to provide evidence in support of it, not for me to provide evidence in support of reasonable arguments against it. That there were Jewish councils is widely known, what you have to show is that Jewish councils are likely to have received instructions from a Lithuanian DMO and that such instructions are likely to have been issued without first informing the competent German authorities and obtaining their permission. Under https://books.google.de/books?id=fiBpCg ... to&f=false you find the information, in connection with the Šiauliai ghetto, that the Lithuanian administration was completely subordinated to the Germans, quoting a statement of Gewecke dated 14 August 1941 whereby "Die litauischen Behörden erhalten [...] die notwendigen Weisungen künftig nur noch von der Zivilverwaltung" ("The Lithuanian authorities shall henceforth receive [...] the necessary instructions only from the [German] civilian administration."). Lithuanian plans to create a ghetto far away from the city were overruled after the Jewish council convinced the German military that it would be of advantage to have the ghetto close to the places of work. The Šiauliai ghetto was divided into two sections, one called "Kaukasus" and the other called "Trakai" because a street named Trakai Street went through it. The latter section was created by the Lithuanians at the order of the Wehrmacht commandant, again upon the Jewish council's request. This suggests that Lithuanian authorities didn't do much on their own as concerns Jewish ghettos, but limited themselves to carrying out German instructions.

Second, the communities in the Trakai district, like Žiežmariai and Semeliškes, must have had a mayor, sub-district chief, provost or other official at the head of their administration, like every community in every country. And it's rather unlikely (to say the least) that these officials should have been Jews instead of non-Jewish Lithuanians. The authority of Jewish councils did not extend beyond the local Jewish ghettos.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:34 pm
As to the DMO having relied on information from third parties, that is also an unlikely hypothesis considering the importance of the information and the standing of the person who had requested the information (the German Regional Commissar of "Wilna Land"). If I had been in the DMO's place I would have visited the sites myself or at least have them visited and reported about by trusted administrative subordinates. Wouldn't you have done the same?
That is one hypothesis among many.
Actually there are not all that many hypotheses, the one I considered is the likeliest one, and you didn't answer my question. If you had been the DMO and been asked by the Regional Commissioner to provide information about corpses and carcasses buried in your area, would you have blindly relied on third party information for your response, instead of looking up the areas yourself or at least having them looked up by trusted subordinates? Would that have been the been the behavior of a diligent, conscious and efficient DMO? Wouldn't it have been a sloppy and careless thing to do?
Aryan Scholar wrote:No anecdotal evidence, please.
No avoiding reasonable questions by calling them "anecdotal evidence", please. Kindly answer my 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: 8334
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Origin and Content of DOK 239

Post by been-there » Tue Jun 13, 2017 6:00 am

Roberto wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:54 pm
...The mass graves were in remote forest or other rural areas, not in or near population centres, which means that the killers endeavoured to avoid onlookers or keep them at a minimum. This doesn't mean that the killings could be wholly concealed - after all people saw the Jews being taken away, and there might be local peasants watching the killing or coming upon the mass graves later on. The point is that an effort at discretion was made, not that discretion was wholly achieved. And that the placement of the graves does not suggest that they contained corpses resulting from catastrophic disease mortality. Such corpses would rather have been buried in cemeteries inside the Jewish quarter or ghetto, as was the case in the Warsaw and Lodz ghettos...
Roberto wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:34 pm
The origin of the Jewish mass graves can be established on hand of the Jäger Report, Soviet investigation reports and eyewitness testimonies, which I have mentioned. Regarding the human corpses yet to be buried, there's no evidence to how they died, though a violent death is likely as people usually don't just drop dead in a field or forest.
Aryan Scholar wrote:There is also not evidence (at least until now) of how the supposed corpses (or carcasses?) in the Jewish mass graves and the corpses in the individuals graves died.
There is evidence, actually. The Jäger Report, Soviet investigation reports and eyewitness testimonies. We can argue about the conclusiveness and reliability of that evidence, but to say that there is none is not correct.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:34 pm
Paskevicius instructed the community leaders of the Trakai district to bury in the spring such corpses and carcasses that were lying around in the open and "yet to be placed in a grave". This does not necessarily mean that they were to be placed in the same grave. And if it did, such wouldn't hurt the feelings of anyone that mattered at the time and place if the corpses were of individual Jews hunted down and killed.
So it is possible the Jewish mass graves also had corpses or carcasses - or a combination of both - as Dr. Paskeviciu did not mention it have either corpses or carcasses - or a combination of both.
Do you agree?
It's theoretically possible but unlikely in practice that the mass graves also contained one or the other carcass, as Paskevicius expressly referred to "Jewish mass graves" and the related evidence points to the occupants of these graves having been Jews.
Hmmmm?
Am I missing something here? I understood that the mass graves under discussion were reported to have been containing corpses of animals ('cadavers') also.

Q1.If so are we expected to assume that animals were also trucked out to “remote forests or other rural areas, not in or near population centres” to be massacred?

Q2. Should we also conclude that in the case of these unspecified animals, their being reported buried in mass-graves, also “means that the killers endeavoured to avoid onlookers or keep them at a minimum”?

Q3. Should we also conclude that “people saw the [animals] being taken away, and there might be local peasants watching the killing or coming upon the mass graves later on”?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest