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 » Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:27 pm

been-there wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2017 4:58 am
Roberto wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:58 pm
been-there wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 4:47 pm
Roberto wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:37 am


The letter's subject heading reads "Subject: Burial of corpses and carcasses", obviously because that was the subject heading of the request(s) for information by Regional Commissar Wulff, who was interested in knowing about both... [snip]...
... The human corpses are likely to be of human beings who met a violent death (e.g. individual Jewish escapees hunted down, killed and not buried by the killers), as people don't usually just drop dead in a field or forest.
Isn't the natural corollary of your argument that unspecified numbers of unspecified animals must also have “usually just dropped dead in a field or forest”?
Diseased animals may drop dead in a field or forest. Human beings don't usually drop dead in a field or forest.
During war time, occupying administrations don't “usually” allocate manpower and resources to scouring “fields and forests” to collect unspecified numbers of unspecified animal carcasses which have died from unspecified diseases and then bury them in unspecified “mass graves” and then write and send reports about them.
Why not? Corpses or carcasses lying around are a public health issue, and occupying administrations would be concerned with the health of at least their own people and those among the occupied people in regard to whom they harbored no hostility. Besides, in the case in question the occupying German administration didn't have to move a finger, as the burial of corpses and carcasses was meant to be taken care of by the local Lithuanian administrations.
been-there wrote:This reply from you on the animal carcass aspect of this document I think fits the the definition of a logical fallacy known as Reductio ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity).
I.e. your reply demonstrates a confirmational bias that is filtering and interpreting 'evidence' to make it fit a pre-conceived belief-system.
I don't think so, but I'm open to you providing a further explanation of your assessment.
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: 8526
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Origin and Content of DOK 239

Post by been-there » Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:43 pm

Roberto wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:27 pm
been-there wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2017 4:58 am
Roberto wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:58 pm
been-there wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 4:47 pm

Isn't the natural corollary of your argument that unspecified numbers of unspecified animals must also have “usually just dropped dead in a field or forest”?
Diseased animals may drop dead in a field or forest. Human beings don't usually drop dead in a field or forest.
During war time, occupying administrations don't “usually” allocate manpower and resources to scouring “fields and forests” to collect unspecified numbers of unspecified animal carcasses which have died from unspecified diseases and then bury them in unspecified “mass graves” and then write and send reports about them.
Why not? Corpses or carcasses lying around are a public health issue, and occupying administrations would be concerned with the health of at least their own people and those among the occupied people in regard to whom they harbored no hostility. Besides, in the case in question the occupying German administration didn't have to move a finger, as the burial of corpses and carcasses was meant to be taken care of by the local Lithuanian administrations.
been-there wrote:This reply from you on the animal carcass aspect of this document I think fits the the definition of a logical fallacy known as Reductio ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity).
I.e. your reply demonstrates a confirmational bias that is filtering and interpreting 'evidence' to make it fit a pre-conceived belief-system.
I don't think so, but I'm open to you providing a further explanation of your assessment.
When these alleged but unspecified, unconfirmed graves contain human corpses you say this is proof they were taken to remote places to be shot and buried.
But when these alleged but unspecified, unconfirmed mass-graves concerns corpses of animals you say this is just natural and usual? :?

My reply comes from the understanding that farm animals, domesticated pets, wild animals, and beasts of burden such as horses, etc., do not just drop dead in remote places in enough quantities to pose any kind of a health risk.
"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 » Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:12 pm

Roberto wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:27 pm
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:50 pm
Here are additional reasons to doubt the authenticity and accuracy of DOK 239 based on the context where DOK 239 comes from:
Additional to what?

In addition to this:
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Wed Jun 07, 2017 9:52 am
Here are reasons why there is doubt about the authenticity and accuracy of the DOK 239:
- Dr. Paskevicius, the author of DOK 239, do not exist outside DOK 239.
- The "letter of 16 June 1942" Dr. Paskevicius received from Horst Wulff, do not exist outside DOK 239.
- "Ministerial Decree of 30.4.42 – II.c.3186", the reference for the subject discussed in DOK 239, do not exist outside DOK 239.
Roberto wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:27 pm
19th century documents, and the issue is apparently the "Lithuanization" of Polish names. Not exactly our cup of tea.
"The irony of this procedure lies in the fact that it is prescribed by Lithuanian law."

Dr. Paskevicius did not follow the law when he produced DOK 239 with names in German instead of Lithuanian.
Roberto wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:27 pm
Forgery claims regarding incriminating documents made by those incriminated by such documents. I would also claim forgery if I were in their place. Irrelevant.
Not irrelevant as it shows documents coming from the Lithuania archive are not accepted for criminal prosecution in Lithuania without an investigation of its authenticity and accuracy. An independent commission had to investigate the signature of the documents supposed signed by Lileikis to confirm its authenticity and accuracy.
Roberto wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:27 pm
Documents related to Soviet activities in Lithuania. Also not our cup of tea.
Roberto wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:27 pm
The Lithuanian guerrilla war (1944-1953) is also not the subject of our discussion.
Yes, indeed, but both examples shows the willingness and motivation of the Soviets to falsify the history of Lithuania and manipulate archives, which included “the use of archival documents to compromise the ex-members of the resistance”. DOK 239 could be as well a document either fabricated or changed by the Soviets to compromise the Lithuanian provisional government during German occupation.
Roberto wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:27 pm
So these quotes provide no reason to suspect that DOK 239 is not authentic. It is not a 19th century document in which Polish names are "Lithuanized", it does not relate to Soviet activities in Lithuania or to the Lithuanian guerrilla war of 1944-1953, and it doesn't incriminate anybody.
All authoritative evidence I presented shows reasons and examples to doubt the authenticity and accuracy of DOK 239..

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

Re: Origin and Content of DOK 239

Post by Roberto » Thu Jun 15, 2017 1:25 pm

been-there wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:43 pm
Roberto wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:27 pm
been-there wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2017 4:58 am
Roberto wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:58 pm


Diseased animals may drop dead in a field or forest. Human beings don't usually drop dead in a field or forest.
During war time, occupying administrations don't “usually” allocate manpower and resources to scouring “fields and forests” to collect unspecified numbers of unspecified animal carcasses which have died from unspecified diseases and then bury them in unspecified “mass graves” and then write and send reports about them.
Why not? Corpses or carcasses lying around are a public health issue, and occupying administrations would be concerned with the health of at least their own people and those among the occupied people in regard to whom they harbored no hostility. Besides, in the case in question the occupying German administration didn't have to move a finger, as the burial of corpses and carcasses was meant to be taken care of by the local Lithuanian administrations.
been-there wrote:This reply from you on the animal carcass aspect of this document I think fits the the definition of a logical fallacy known as Reductio ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity).
I.e. your reply demonstrates a confirmational bias that is filtering and interpreting 'evidence' to make it fit a pre-conceived belief-system.
I don't think so, but I'm open to you providing a further explanation of your assessment.
When these alleged but unspecified, unconfirmed graves contain human corpses you say this is proof they were taken to remote places to be shot and buried.
First of all, graves mentioned in document as being in an area where mass killing took place according to other evidence, and whose precise location and length are mentioned in that document, can hardly be called "unspecified" or "unconfirmed".

Second, I didn't say that the placement of the graves is proof of mass killing. My argument is that it strongly suggests a violent death that the killers endeavored to conceal from onlookers (to the extent compatible with expediency), for the reasons explained (victims of mass starvation or catastrophic disease mortality in a population center wouldn't have been dragged into a relatively far-off field or forest but buried at or near the place where they had died).
been-there wrote:But when these alleged but unspecified, unconfirmed mass-graves concerns corpses of animals you say this is just natural and usual?


Where did I say that the Jewish mass graves mentioned in the documents contained or may have contained corpses of animals? I was referring to corpses/carcasses lying around in the open.
been-there wrote:My reply comes from the understanding that farm animals, domesticated pets, wild animals, and beasts of burden such as horses, etc., do not just drop dead in remote places in enough quantities to pose any kind of a health risk.
Your understanding need not have been the DMO's, who apparently considered even individual corpses and carcasses lying around to be undesirable.

And as to carcasses, he may have just mentioned them because Wulff's question to which he responded was also about carcasses.
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 » Thu Jun 15, 2017 1:58 pm

Aryan Scholar wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:12 pm
Roberto wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:27 pm
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:50 pm
Here are additional reasons to doubt the authenticity and accuracy of DOK 239 based on the context where DOK 239 comes from:
Additional to what?

In addition to this:
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Wed Jun 07, 2017 9:52 am
Here are reasons why there is doubt about the authenticity and accuracy of the DOK 239:
- Dr. Paskevicius, the author of DOK 239, do not exist outside DOK 239.
- The "letter of 16 June 1942" Dr. Paskevicius received from Horst Wulff, do not exist outside DOK 239.
- "Ministerial Decree of 30.4.42 – II.c.3186", the reference for the subject discussed in DOK 239, do not exist outside DOK 239.


Equally inconclusive for the reasons explained, and as to Paskevicius we'll see what the LCVA tells me.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:27 pm
19th century documents, and the issue is apparently the "Lithuanization" of Polish names. Not exactly our cup of tea.
"The irony of this procedure lies in the fact that it is prescribed by Lithuanian law."
Dr. Paskevicius did not follow the law when he produced DOK 239 with names in German instead of Lithuanian.
Why, because the "Lithuanization" of names was "prescribed by Lithuanian law" decades after the end of German occupation? That's hardly an argument in this context.

Besides, who said that Paskevicius was necessarily following any law? He may have just meant to please Wulff by using the German names of the mentioned locations.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:27 pm
Forgery claims regarding incriminating documents made by those incriminated by such documents. I would also claim forgery if I were in their place. Irrelevant.


Not irrelevant as it shows documents coming from the Lithuania archive are not accepted for criminal prosecution in Lithuania without an investigation of its authenticity and accuracy. An independent commission had to investigate the signature of the documents supposed signed by Lileikis to confirm its authenticity and accuracy.
Lileikis was accused of mass murder and invoked forgery (of his signature on certain documents, if I understood correctly) in his defence. The standards of evidence are unsurprisingly higher in such case.

Now, who is supposed to have been incriminated in what manner by DOK 239?

Did Paskevicius commit any crime by reporting to Wulff about graves in his area?

Did Wulff commit any crime by receiving such information?

I don't think so.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:27 pm
Documents related to Soviet activities in Lithuania. Also not our cup of tea.
Roberto wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:27 pm
The Lithuanian guerrilla war (1944-1953) is also not the subject of our discussion.
Yes, indeed, but both examples shows the willingness and motivation of the Soviets to falsify the history of Lithuania and manipulate archives, which included “the use of archival documents to compromise the ex-members of the resistance”.
In matters that were of their interest. What interest would the Soviets have had to fabricate a DMO's report that is innocuous (or at least not proof of any crime) by itself?
Aryan Scholar wrote:DOK 239 could be as well a document either fabricated or changed by the Soviets to compromise the Lithuanian provisional government during German occupation.
If so, they could have done a better job and added the information that the "Jewish mass graves" were of Jews who had been shot. A DMO's report related to public health concerns regarding mass graves is hardly compromising. What did the "Lithuanian provisional government during German occupation" have to do with the Lithuanian partisans between 1944-1953, anyway? And were are the Soviets known to have accused the anti-Soviet partisans of being linked to the "Lithuanian provisional government during German occupation"? Only in the context of such accusation would the fabrication of a document mentioning collaboration activities (or which the Soviets could have found more egregious examples than a DMO's report on public health matters) have made any sense.

Besides, it would hardly have been in the Soviets' interest to point out the fact that the mass graves in question were "Jewish" mass graves, as this would have put an emphasis on Jewish suffering under the Nazis, which was supposed to have been no different than that of other Soviet nationalities.

Also, if the Soviets had intended to compromise anyone through the DMO's report, why didn't they make it available to German along with a document mentioning mass killings in areas mentioned by the DMO, the Jäger Report (which moreover was not published but handed over to German criminal justice authorities in a criminal investigation context)? Why did they hand over the Jäger Report but not this supporting document?
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:27 pm
So these quotes provide no reason to suspect that DOK 239 is not authentic. It is not a 19th century document in which Polish names are "Lithuanized", it does not relate to Soviet activities in Lithuania or to the Lithuanian guerrilla war of 1944-1953, and it doesn't incriminate anybody.


All authoritative evidence I presented shows reasons and examples to doubt the authenticity and accuracy of DOK 239..
Nope, and besides, the fact that forgeries were committed here and there in given contexts is no reason to doubt the authenticity or a document issued in a wholly different context.
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 16, 2017 3:58 am

Roberto wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:19 pm
The cause of death can be proven on hand of the Jäger Report and other evidence, but even without such other evidence the arguments quoted (that violent death is suggested by the placement of the graves in remote rural areas and that there's no evidence of catastrophic disease mortality among Jews in any population center of the Trakai district in 1941) would be pertinent. (...) Actually all mentioned evidence points to mass killings of Jews in the areas mentioned in DOK 239, which is the only possibility to be reasonably considered as concerns the origin of the mass graves described. (...) Mass graves made by Jews is a rather unlikely possibility. First of all because the related evidence points to mass graves used to bury Jews, not to mass graves made by Jews.
Please, quote the parts of the related evidence of DOK 239 which explicit describe "mass graves used to bury Jews". Let's see it.
Roberto wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:19 pm
And why "carcasses" in "Jewish mass graves", all of a sudden? Are you considering the possibility that the mass graves contained the remains of cows or horses that had converted to Judaism?
Roberto wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:19 pm
Second (as concerns the "carcasses" hypothesis), because Jews are not exactly known to have been cattle farmers (rather than tradesmen or artisans), especially not owners of large herds whose burial would require mass graves.
Several authoritative evidence shows Jews in Lithuania were involved with the commerce of large quantity of cattle for a long period of time, whatever they were tradesmen, farmers, etc.

Panevezys (Ponevezh), Lithuania, by Joseph Rosin:
Ponevezh (Panevezys in Lithuanian) lies on both banks of the Nevezhis (Nevezys) River in central northern Lithuania. (...) In 1841 there were 18 shoemakers and 16 tailors among other skilled workers in Ponevezh. At the end of the nineteenth century there were local Jews who leased cattle from Christian farms and produced milk and cheese. There were also different "Religious Officers", Jewish doctors, lawyers, dentists, pharmacists and teachers. Most of them leaned towards assimilation and were adopting the Russian culture.

[source]
An African Trading Empire: The Story of the Susman Brothers and Wulfsohn, 1901-2005, by Hugh Macmilla, pag. 14:
Lithuanian Jewish Communities, by Nancy and Stuart Schoenberg, Jason Arons, 1996:
Rakishok (Rokiskis) - District Capital (...) Most Jews were small-scale traders and peddlers. On market day, they would buy flax, cattle, hides, egg and other farm products from the local peasants and sell them grocery items, fabrics, machines, etc. Among the larger tradesmen were Rosen and Rabinovitz in produce, Chanoch Hemelnik in flax, Dovar Kramer with large animals. Prior to World War I, merchants received products from Dvinsk. During Independent Lithuania, products were brought in from Ponevezh, Shavli, and Kovno.

[source]
There was even a Yiddish word for chopped straw used to feed cattle:

Everyday Life of Jews in Mariampole, Lithuania, (1894–1911):
Mariampole was a relatively young town by the standards of Lithuanian history. (...) In the second half of the seventeenth century, farmers began settling along the left bank of the Sheshupe River. In 1766, they established the first synagogue in the area. According to statistics in Joseph Rosin‘s Mariampole Yiskor Book, by 1840 seventy-six percent of the almost three thousand inhabitants were Jewish. The Jewish population continued to grow in the 1850s and 1860s, reaching 81 percent of the town‘s total population. (...) Shetske [chopped straw] used to feed cattle was prepared with a machine and knives worked by a large pulley wheel and was a commonly sold staple in the marketplace.

[source]
The Encyclopedia of Jewish Life Before and During the Holocaust: A-J edited by Shmuel Spector, Geoffrey Wigoder, pag. 196:
Etc.
Roberto wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:19 pm
Third (again, as concerns the "carcasses" hypothesis), because there is no evidence suggesting catastrophic mortality from disease among any cattle at the time in question, which alone would have justified the mass burial of carcasses.
There is logical "evidence suggesting catastrophic mortality from disease among any cattle at the time in question" which can be inferred from DOK 239:
Subject: Burial of corpses and carcasses (...) 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. Furthermore, the already existing graves were to be checked and improved. It was also noted that the community leaders were to be instructed on how to proceed in the future with regard to the above mentioned cases.
Dr. Paskevicius explicit says the community leaders were to be instructed on how to proceed in the future regarding the mass graves and individuals graves he mentioned in DOK 239. What kind of mass graves and graves needs being sprinkled with chlorinated lime and covered with soil three times (or even more) if not mass graves and graves with corpses and carcasses from people and animals who died from contagious diseases?
Roberto wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:19 pm
Fourth, because the term "mass graves" suggests burial sites of human beings rather than carcass disposal sites.
Carcasses can also be buried in mass graves, and, as you already said, "underground presence of dead bodies could pose a health risk regardless of whether these were bodies of humans or animals".
Roberto wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:19 pm
Fifth, because there is no evidence suggesting catastrophic disease mortality among Jews in the Trakai district at the time in question.
So? People still died from diseases and natural causes at the time in question. There was (as still there is) a hospital in Trakai village.
Šaltiniuose randame, kad Trakų ligoninė buvo įkurta 1905 metais. Daugiau duomenų apie jos veiklą tuo metu, neišliko. Vėliau duomenis apie ją randame nuo 1941 metų, kur jivadinosi Trakų apskrities ligonine.

Sources we find that Trakai's Hospital was founded in 1905. More information about its activities at the time, survived. Later we find the data on it from 1941, where jivadinosi Trakai district hospital.

[source]
Roberto wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:19 pm
And last but not least, because it is unlikely, from a common sense perspective and considering practices elsewhere (I mentioned Warsaw and Lodz), that large numbers of disease dead in population centers would have been dragged into a forest or other rural area, rather than buried in or near the population centers where they had died.
Every mass grave and individual grave described in DOK 239 is near a "population center".
Roberto wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:19 pm
That's not what his name suggests (you pointed our yourself that it's a common Lithuanian name, IIRC), and besides, a Jewish doctor would hardly have a) been nominated the District Medical Officer of Trakai, and b) directly corresponded with the Regional Commissioner, as opposed to reporting to a more immediate German or Lithuanian local authority. (...) What is actually absurd is considering the possibility that, under an occupation as hostile to Jews as the German occupation of Lithuania, and among a population that was hostile to Jews as well, Jews could have been mayors or provosts of Lithuanian cities or towns. (...) Yep, hence the square brackets around the word "German", to signal that this is a clarification I introduced. (...) It doesn't make much sense to request "authoritative evidence" for something that can be safely assumed to have been the rule at the time in question. As you pointed out yourself on hand of a source quoted under viewtopic.php?f=28&t=2916#p107055, there were only 660 German civil servants in Lithuania in 1944 versus 20,000 Lithuanian civil servants. So it stands to reason that the administration at local and community levels was in the hands of Lithuanian civil servants acting as district heads, sub-district heads, mayors or community provosts. What would require more authoritative evidence is the proposition of something that would have been quite unusual at the time and place in question, namely that despised Jews should have been entrusted with the administration of Lithuanian towns or cities (which would have implied non-Jewish Lithuanians subordinated to and taking orders from Jews and/or non-Jewish Lithuanian populations ruled and administered by Jews). (...) Actually everything does. What you are proposing, on the other hand, is rather far-fetched considering all that is known about the German occupation of Lithuania and how Jews were handled under that occupation. A Jewish mayor or provost of Trakai giving orders to non-Jewish Lithuanian subordinates doesn't fit the historical context. A non-Jewish Lithuanian mayor or provost of Trakai does. The authority of Jewish councils was limited to strictly Jewish matters, namely providing basic community services for ghettoized Jewish populations and to ensure that that Nazi orders and regulations (regarding Jews) were implemented. This is stated in a source that you provided, https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.ph ... d=10005265, which further contains the following information:
Authoritative evidence shows there was Jewish doctors working for the Main Health Administration, thus the hypothesis Jews could be civil servants remains:
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.

[source]
Moreover:

Holocaust Memorial Center:
Pruchno, Samuel

Survivor/Camps

Pruchno describes a very comfortable life in Shavel, Lithuania, where he was born. He lived in a wealthy community where his father was a vice president of a bank. (...) Once the Germans occupied Shavel, Pruchno remembers how their non-Jewish neighbors and friends acted as though his family never existed. (...) His family was forced to give up their home and move to the Kafkasa ghetto in Shavel. A Judenrat was established and Pruchno remembers that by September 1, 1941, you could only leave the ghetto if you had a work permit. (...) Pruchno recalls that the Lithuanian partisans demanded that the Judenrat turn over 70 strong young men for hard labor. (...) They unloaded railroad ties and laid track. He remembers that when the Germans needed men to work on an airfield, they were brought back to the ghetto. (...) He recalls that the winter of 1942 was particularly hard on the ghetto inhabitants. Food rations were low and they had to risk their lives to trade valuables with the Lithuanians for extra food. (...) Pruchno's entire family was relocated to an army camp that was approximately one hour from the ghetto. He worked in the laundry. His father was not accustomed to extreme physical work and took ill in 1942. He was taken to the Trakai hospital, where he died in April 1944. (...) The Pruchno family was eventually returned to the Kafkasa ghetto and Pruchno remembers how he had to slip through a brick wall to trade table cloths and linens for food. When the Germans caught a man bringing two loaves of bread into the ghetto, he had to witness the hanging. He also remembers when the German soldiers surrounded the Trakai ghetto and took all the children away. (...) Deportations began and Pruchno recalls that each person was allowed to take one suitcase. They were marched to the railroad where approximately 80 people were loaded onto each car. He describes their arrival in the Stutthof concentration camp, how the men and women were separated (this was the last time he saw his mother and sister), and the procedures the men were put through as they were beaten by German kapos. The next day he was taken by truck to a railroad station and again transported by box car to a labor camp near Dachau. At the camp he unloaded cement and he describes the poor sanitary conditions in the camp and an incident when he was beaten by a Jewish kapo. (...) He escaped to a home in a town near Munich and tells how he was treated by the woman who answered the door and her husband. He then describes how he was rejoined with his brother, brother-in-law, and the other prisoners and how they were liberated by the Americans on May 1, 1945.

[source]
Pruchno father, obvious a Jew, was sent to Trakai hospital in 1942 when fell ill because the heavy work in the Kafkasa ghetto, where he died in 1944. This testimonial evidence shows, at least, there was not any hostility against Jews from Lithuanian civil servants in Trakai (so you will have to explain how Pruchno father was not exterminated by your fellow evil Germans or the Lithuanians while staying at the very village where a massacre of thousands of Jews supposedly happened), as there was Jews being sent to a hospital in Trakai village which died from natural causes, including include diseases, accidents, etc.
Roberto wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:19 pm
Forced to implement Nazi policy, the Jewish councils remain a controversial and delicate subject. Jewish council chairmen had to decide whether to comply or refuse to comply with German demands to, for example, list names of Jews for deportation. In Lvov, Joseph Parnes refused to hand over Jews for deportation to the Janowska forced-labor camp and was killed by the Nazis for his refusal. In Warsaw, rather than aid in the roundup of Jews, Jewish council chairman Adam Czerniakow committed suicide on July 22, 1942, the day deportations began.

Other Jewish council officials advocated compliance, believing that cooperation would ensure the survival of at least a portion of the population. In Lodz, Mordechai Chaim Rumkowski, who tried in vain to persuade the Nazis to reduce the number of Jewish deportees, urged ghetto residents to report for deportation as ordered. Rumkowski also adopted a policy of "rescue through labor," believing that if the Germans could exploit Jewish labor, deportation might be averted.
That doesn't sound like Jews had any power or authority over non-Jews, does it?
Neither sound like Jews could not be civil servants in Lithuania during German occupation.
Roberto wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:19 pm
It rather suggests that, if the DMO had addressed Jewish councils regarding those mass graves, he would at least have pointed this out expressly in his letter, to avoid confusion with the local non-Jewish Lithuanian administration.
The above authoritative evidence you presented do not suggest anything about how Dr. Paskevicius, a civil servant of the Lithuania provisional government, would address Jewish councils in Lithuania.
Roberto wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:19 pm
And what is more, even if the DMO had meant to address Jewish councils, he wouldn't have found any in his district because, as follows from sources I provided, all Jewish ghettos in the Trakai district disappeared in 1941. No ghettos, no Jewish councils.
If assuming the sources are correct and their statements has been proven true beyond doubt, then who would tell Dr. Paskevicius about the mass graves where all Jews were supposedly buried?
Roberto wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:19 pm
So what is your answer?
:roll:

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 16, 2017 3:34 pm

:idea:

Meet an actual doctor of Trakai district which exist outside DOK 239 (translation by Google Translate):
Image

Žilinskas Petras

Petras Žilinskas. 1939. LCSA

Peter Žilinsko grave Miežonių times. ( Palomenės sen. ) Cemetery. 2007. R. Gustaičio files.

Žilinskas Petras (1878. February 27. Skeirių k., Jūžintų hairline., Rokiškio district. - 1944 m. 13 July. Kaišiadoryse buried Miežonių rural cemetery) - Trakai district doctor. Son - Gerardas Žilinskas . 1908. Yuri graduated from Imperial (Tartu) University Medical Faculty. 1908. 27 July. called up for military service. He worked in the war office of Suwalki Calvary and later worked in Trakai, Vilnius. 1914. appointed military field hospital chief physician portable wideband later in Vitebsk, Pskov. 1915. He was awarded the St. Anne's Grade III and St. Stanislaus, second class. 1917. Mr. Žilinsko led the hospital was surrounded by the Germans, but the chief doctor fortunate the hospital to withdraw during the Pinsk marshes and return to his own. For this heroic work he was awarded the St. George Cross. 1918. released from military service, he returned to Lithuania. After returning to Lithuania, Žilinskas family settled in Trakai district Žiežmarių town. 1924. P. Žilinskas was appointed Trakai district doctor. The family moved to the young days , because there was then located in the Trakai district administration. Vytautas settled in the street. He knew Russian and Polish. For special merits to Lithuania in 1929. He awarded the Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas the 4th Class Order of the Lithuanian Independence Medal. Sagging Kaišiadoryse the end of the war from a random bullet.

Sources
Lithuanian Central State Archive. F. 561. AP. 15. B. 789. No. 1. Šaulio Petro Žilinsko service sheet. 1939. May 5 .; No. 2. Personal statement. 1931. May 2 .;
Lithuanian Central State Archive. F. R-613. Ap. 1. B. 9. No. 278. Kaišiadoriai doctor Peter Žilinsko certificate. 1942. 14 January.

literature

Who is who in Lithuania. Fellow. Kaišiadorys. - Kaunas: UAB "Neolithic", 2009. - 132 p.

Image

[source]
NOTE: F. R-613 correspond to the same department DOK 239 is archived:
1 LCVA, R 613/1/10, Bl. 69+RS.
R-613 Vilniaus apygardos komisaras (Der Gebietskommissar Wilna-Land)

[source]
Vilniaus apygardos komisaras
Der Gebietskommissar Wilna-Land Commissar of Vilnius County
Identifier F. R-613
Language of Description English
Dates 1941-1944
Level of Description Fonds
Languages German, Lithuanian
Scripts Latin
Source EHRI
Extent and Medium One subfonds and 94 files in total. The files are microfilmed.

Creator(s)
Vilniaus apygardos komisaras

Scope and Content
Different kinds of documents from the Ostland Reich Commissar; reports for the occupied country; documents about administrative fines for residents; correspondence about sanitary inspections and about forced labour and workers; lists of Jews working in the factories in Vilnius and information concerning their food allowances; other documents.

Existence and Location of Copies
USHMM RG-26.017M

Archivist Note
Entry added by VV on 29 July 2013, based on Žirikova Galina, Lietuvos centrinio valstybės archyvo fondai: holokausto Lietuvoje tyrimo šaltinis (The Collections of the State Archive of Lithuania: a Source of Research on the Holocaust in Lithuania), Vilnius: Valstybinis Vilniaus Gaono Žydų Muziejus, 2011.

Languages materials added from USHMM finding aid.

Additional information written by Neringa based on survey and information provided by LCVA.

Entry updated by Neringa on 19 March 2015.

Subjects
Worker register
Forced labour

Places
Lithuania--Vilnius

[source]

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

Re: Origin and Content of DOK 239

Post by Roberto » Fri Jun 16, 2017 5:33 pm

Aryan Scholar wrote:
Fri Jun 16, 2017 3:58 am
Roberto wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:19 pm
The cause of death can be proven on hand of the Jäger Report and other evidence, but even without such other evidence the arguments quoted (that violent death is suggested by the placement of the graves in remote rural areas and that there's no evidence of catastrophic disease mortality among Jews in any population center of the Trakai district in 1941) would be pertinent. (...) Actually all mentioned evidence points to mass killings of Jews in the areas mentioned in DOK 239, which is the only possibility to be reasonably considered as concerns the origin of the mass graves described. (...) Mass graves made by Jews is a rather unlikely possibility. First of all because the related evidence points to mass graves used to bury Jews, not to mass graves made by Jews.
Please, quote the parts of the related evidence of DOK 239 which explicit describe "mass graves used to bury Jews". Let's see it.
The related evidence aside, it is hardly logical to assume that the DMO could have used the term "Jewish mass grave" for a grave made by Jews containing something other than dead Jews. Using such a designation for a mass grave made by Jews but not containing dead Jews would have been misleading and induced the letter's recipient in error. Besides, if the contents of the mass graves in question were not dead Jews, why didn't the DMO specify what the contents of the mass graves were? That would be more interesting to the letter's recipient than information about who had made the mass graves.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:19 pm
And why "carcasses" in "Jewish mass graves", all of a sudden? Are you considering the possibility that the mass graves contained the remains of cows or horses that had converted to Judaism?
Roberto wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:19 pm
Second (as concerns the "carcasses" hypothesis), because Jews are not exactly known to have been cattle farmers (rather than tradesmen or artisans), especially not owners of large herds whose burial would require mass graves.
Several authoritative evidence shows Jews in Lithuania were involved with the commerce of large quantity of cattle for a long period of time, whatever they were tradesmen, farmers, etc.

Panevezys (Ponevezh), Lithuania, by Joseph Rosin:
Ponevezh (Panevezys in Lithuanian) lies on both banks of the Nevezhis (Nevezys) River in central northern Lithuania. (...) In 1841 there were 18 shoemakers and 16 tailors among other skilled workers in Ponevezh. At the end of the nineteenth century there were local Jews who leased cattle from Christian farms and produced milk and cheese. There were also different "Religious Officers", Jewish doctors, lawyers, dentists, pharmacists and teachers. Most of them leaned towards assimilation and were adopting the Russian culture.

[source]
An African Trading Empire: The Story of the Susman Brothers and Wulfsohn, 1901-2005, by Hugh Macmilla, pag. 14:
Lithuanian Jewish Communities, by Nancy and Stuart Schoenberg, Jason Arons, 1996:
Rakishok (Rokiskis) - District Capital (...) Most Jews were small-scale traders and peddlers. On market day, they would buy flax, cattle, hides, egg and other farm products from the local peasants and sell them grocery items, fabrics, machines, etc. Among the larger tradesmen were Rosen and Rabinovitz in produce, Chanoch Hemelnik in flax, Dovar Kramer with large animals. Prior to World War I, merchants received products from Dvinsk. During Independent Lithuania, products were brought in from Ponevezh, Shavli, and Kovno.

[source]
There was even a Yiddish word for chopped straw used to feed cattle:

Everyday Life of Jews in Mariampole, Lithuania, (1894–1911):
Mariampole was a relatively young town by the standards of Lithuanian history. (...) In the second half of the seventeenth century, farmers began settling along the left bank of the Sheshupe River. In 1766, they established the first synagogue in the area. According to statistics in Joseph Rosin‘s Mariampole Yiskor Book, by 1840 seventy-six percent of the almost three thousand inhabitants were Jewish. The Jewish population continued to grow in the 1850s and 1860s, reaching 81 percent of the town‘s total population. (...) Shetske [chopped straw] used to feed cattle was prepared with a machine and knives worked by a large pulley wheel and was a commonly sold staple in the marketplace.

[source]
The Encyclopedia of Jewish Life Before and During the Holocaust: A-J edited by Shmuel Spector, Geoffrey Wigoder, pag. 196:
Etc.
So Jews had something to do with cattle. But that doesn't change the fact that using the term "Jewish mass grave" for a mass grave made by Jews containing something other than dead Jews would have been unusual and misleading. Neither, of course, does it change the fact that the only related documentary and eyewitness evidence known points to mass graves containing dead Jews.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:19 pm
Third (again, as concerns the "carcasses" hypothesis), because there is no evidence suggesting catastrophic mortality from disease among any cattle at the time in question, which alone would have justified the mass burial of carcasses.
There is logical "evidence suggesting catastrophic mortality from disease among any cattle at the time in question" which can be inferred from DOK 239:
Subject: Burial of corpses and carcasses (...) 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. Furthermore, the already existing graves were to be checked and improved. It was also noted that the community leaders were to be instructed on how to proceed in the future with regard to the above mentioned cases.
Dr. Paskevicius explicit says the community leaders were to be instructed on how to proceed in the future regarding the mass graves and individuals graves he mentioned in DOK 239. What kind of mass graves and graves needs being sprinkled with chlorinated lime and covered with soil three times (or even more) if not mass graves and graves with corpses and carcasses from people and animals who died from contagious diseases?
Any mass grave containing decomposing dead bodies might pose a health risk if leachate seeps into the soil or if the mass grave is opened by robbery diggers or animals and decomposing corpses are left lying around in the open. Adding more lime may have been considered to hasten the reduction of the corpses to skeletons, while a thicker layer of soil may have been meant to render an opening of the graves less probable. Besides, the DMO didn't mention why the mass graves were uncovered in the spring of 1942.

As to carcasses lying around in the open suggesting catastrophic mortality, the same would apply to human corpses lying around in the open, according to your logic. So what is supposed to have produced a catastrophic number of corpses lying around in the open?
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:19 pm
Fourth, because the term "mass graves" suggests burial sites of human beings rather than carcass disposal sites.
Carcasses can also be buried in mass graves, and, as you already said, "underground presence of dead bodies could pose a health risk regardless of whether these were bodies of humans or animals".
The issue is not in what context the term can also be used but in what context it is usually used and what it suggests to the reader. When I read the term "mass grave" my first association is human beings, not animals. Are animals your first association? If so, why?
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:19 pm
Fifth, because there is no evidence suggesting catastrophic disease mortality among Jews in the Trakai district at the time in question.
So? People still died from diseases and natural causes at the time in question. There was (as still there is) a hospital in Trakai village.
Šaltiniuose randame, kad Trakų ligoninė buvo įkurta 1905 metais. Daugiau duomenų apie jos veiklą tuo metu, neišliko. Vėliau duomenis apie ją randame nuo 1941 metų, kur jivadinosi Trakų apskrities ligonine.

Sources we find that Trakai's Hospital was founded in 1905. More information about its activities at the time, survived. Later we find the data on it from 1941, where jivadinosi Trakai district hospital.

[source]
I was referring to catastrophic mortality, requiring burial in mass graves rather than in individual graves. Is there any evidence to catastrophic disease mortality among Jews in the Trakai district at the time in question? And why would Jews have been dying in masses from disease only a few months after the start of German occupation?
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:19 pm
And last but not least, because it is unlikely, from a common sense perspective and considering practices elsewhere (I mentioned Warsaw and Lodz), that large numbers of disease dead in population centers would have been dragged into a forest or other rural area, rather than buried in or near the population centers where they had died.
Every mass grave and individual grave described in DOK 239 is near a "population center".
Let's check that for the mass graves:
1. Community of Traken

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.[5]

2. Community of Semelischken

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.[6]

3. Community of Zesmaren

1) 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.[7]

2) 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.[8]
1 km may still be considered close, 2 or 3 km is not exactly close anymore, and 5 km is rather far away, especially if one considers that bodies had to be somehow taken there from the respective population center. Do you know of any Jewish ghettos whose cemetery was at such distances from the ghetto?
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:19 pm
That's not what his name suggests (you pointed our yourself that it's a common Lithuanian name, IIRC), and besides, a Jewish doctor would hardly have a) been nominated the District Medical Officer of Trakai, and b) directly corresponded with the Regional Commissioner, as opposed to reporting to a more immediate German or Lithuanian local authority. (...) What is actually absurd is considering the possibility that, under an occupation as hostile to Jews as the German occupation of Lithuania, and among a population that was hostile to Jews as well, Jews could have been mayors or provosts of Lithuanian cities or towns. (...) Yep, hence the square brackets around the word "German", to signal that this is a clarification I introduced. (...) It doesn't make much sense to request "authoritative evidence" for something that can be safely assumed to have been the rule at the time in question. As you pointed out yourself on hand of a source quoted under viewtopic.php?f=28&t=2916#p107055, there were only 660 German civil servants in Lithuania in 1944 versus 20,000 Lithuanian civil servants. So it stands to reason that the administration at local and community levels was in the hands of Lithuanian civil servants acting as district heads, sub-district heads, mayors or community provosts. What would require more authoritative evidence is the proposition of something that would have been quite unusual at the time and place in question, namely that despised Jews should have been entrusted with the administration of Lithuanian towns or cities (which would have implied non-Jewish Lithuanians subordinated to and taking orders from Jews and/or non-Jewish Lithuanian populations ruled and administered by Jews). (...) Actually everything does. What you are proposing, on the other hand, is rather far-fetched considering all that is known about the German occupation of Lithuania and how Jews were handled under that occupation. A Jewish mayor or provost of Trakai giving orders to non-Jewish Lithuanian subordinates doesn't fit the historical context. A non-Jewish Lithuanian mayor or provost of Trakai does. The authority of Jewish councils was limited to strictly Jewish matters, namely providing basic community services for ghettoized Jewish populations and to ensure that that Nazi orders and regulations (regarding Jews) were implemented. This is stated in a source that you provided, https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.ph ... d=10005265, which further contains the following information:
Authoritative evidence shows there was Jewish doctors working for the Main Health Administration, thus the hypothesis Jews could be civil servants remains:
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.

[source]
It doesn't follow from the existence of documentation about Jewish doctors in Main Health Administration files that such doctors were civil servants of that administration, and the quoted text rather suggests that they were not, for Jewish doctors are mentioned separately from "personnel and staff" and "personnel and doctors".
Aryan Scholar wrote:Moreover:

Holocaust Memorial Center:
Pruchno, Samuel

Survivor/Camps

Pruchno describes a very comfortable life in Shavel, Lithuania, where he was born. He lived in a wealthy community where his father was a vice president of a bank. (...) Once the Germans occupied Shavel, Pruchno remembers how their non-Jewish neighbors and friends acted as though his family never existed. (...) His family was forced to give up their home and move to the Kafkasa ghetto in Shavel. A Judenrat was established and Pruchno remembers that by September 1, 1941, you could only leave the ghetto if you had a work permit. (...) Pruchno recalls that the Lithuanian partisans demanded that the Judenrat turn over 70 strong young men for hard labor. (...) They unloaded railroad ties and laid track. He remembers that when the Germans needed men to work on an airfield, they were brought back to the ghetto. (...) He recalls that the winter of 1942 was particularly hard on the ghetto inhabitants. Food rations were low and they had to risk their lives to trade valuables with the Lithuanians for extra food. (...) Pruchno's entire family was relocated to an army camp that was approximately one hour from the ghetto. He worked in the laundry. His father was not accustomed to extreme physical work and took ill in 1942. He was taken to the Trakai hospital, where he died in April 1944. (...) The Pruchno family was eventually returned to the Kafkasa ghetto and Pruchno remembers how he had to slip through a brick wall to trade table cloths and linens for food. When the Germans caught a man bringing two loaves of bread into the ghetto, he had to witness the hanging. He also remembers when the German soldiers surrounded the Trakai ghetto and took all the children away. (...) Deportations began and Pruchno recalls that each person was allowed to take one suitcase. They were marched to the railroad where approximately 80 people were loaded onto each car. He describes their arrival in the Stutthof concentration camp, how the men and women were separated (this was the last time he saw his mother and sister), and the procedures the men were put through as they were beaten by German kapos. The next day he was taken by truck to a railroad station and again transported by box car to a labor camp near Dachau. At the camp he unloaded cement and he describes the poor sanitary conditions in the camp and an incident when he was beaten by a Jewish kapo. (...) He escaped to a home in a town near Munich and tells how he was treated by the woman who answered the door and her husband. He then describes how he was rejoined with his brother, brother-in-law, and the other prisoners and how they were liberated by the Americans on May 1, 1945.

[source]
Pruchno father, obvious a Jew, was sent to Trakai hospital in 1942 when fell ill because the heavy work in the Kafkasa ghetto, where he died in 1944. This testimonial evidence shows, at least, there was not any hostility against Jews from Lithuanian civil servants in Trakai (so you will have to explain how Pruchno father was not exterminated by your fellow evil Germans or the Lithuanians while staying at the very village where a massacre of thousands of Jews supposedly happened), as there was Jews being sent to a hospital in Trakai village which died from natural causes, including include diseases, accidents, etc.
While the quote may suggest that Lithuanian officials treated Jews fairly well on occasion, it does not suggest that this was the rule. Moreover Pruchno's father was a worker, and workers were needed, so an attempt to make him recover from disease was needed. Rudolf Höss mentioned such attempts regarding Jewish inmates of Auschwitz Birkenau in the notes he wrote after his pretrial interrogations by the Poles (Commandant of Auschwitz, page 192, emphases added):
Because of the increasing insistence of the Reichsführer SS on the employment of prisoners in the armaments industry, Obergruppenführer Pohl found himself compelled to resort to Jews who had become unfit for work. The order was given that if the latter could be made fit and employable within six weeks, they were to be given special care and feeding. Up to then all Jews who had become incapable of working were gassed with the next transports, or killed by injection if they happened to be lying ill in the sick block. As far as Auschwitz-Birkenau was concerned, this order was sheer mockery. Everything was lacking. There were practically no medical supplies. The accommodation was such that there was scarcely even room for those who were most seriously ill. The food was completely insufficient, and every month the Food Ministry cut down the supplies still further. But all protests were unavailing and an attempt to carry out the order had to be made. The resultant overcrowding of the healthy prisoners could no longer be avoided. The general standard of health was thereby lowered, and diseases spread like wildfire. As a result of this order the death rate was sent up with a jerk and a tremendous deterioration in the general conditions developed. I do not believe that a single Jew was ever made fit again for work in the armaments industry.[…]
The "Kafkasa ghetto" in "Shavel" seems to have been the (sub)ghetto in the Kaukazas suburb of Siauliai, see the page on the Šiauliai Ghetto under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%A0iauliai_Ghetto . Siauliai, the German name of which is Schaulen, was one of the places where the civil administration kept Jäger from killing the working Jews and their families, as stated on page 7 of the Jäger Report (http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-hist ... tm.en.html):
I can state today that the goal of solving the Jewish problem for Lithuania has been achieved by Einsatzkommando 3. In Lithuania, there are no more Jews, other than the Work Jews, including their families. They are:
In Schaulen around 4,500
In Kauen “ 15,000
In Wilna “ 15,000

I also wanted to kill these Work Jews, including their families, which however brought upon me acrimonious challenges from the civil administration (the Reichskommisar) and the army and caused the prohibition: the Work Jews and their families are not to be shot!
It is not surprising that a civil administration that prohibited the killing of its working Jews and their families should also have treated such Jews and their families comparatively well and instructed Lithuanian officials to do the same, especially during the "quiet period" that followed the initial massacres (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%A0iau ... the_ghetto).
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:19 pm
Forced to implement Nazi policy, the Jewish councils remain a controversial and delicate subject. Jewish council chairmen had to decide whether to comply or refuse to comply with German demands to, for example, list names of Jews for deportation. In Lvov, Joseph Parnes refused to hand over Jews for deportation to the Janowska forced-labor camp and was killed by the Nazis for his refusal. In Warsaw, rather than aid in the roundup of Jews, Jewish council chairman Adam Czerniakow committed suicide on July 22, 1942, the day deportations began.

Other Jewish council officials advocated compliance, believing that cooperation would ensure the survival of at least a portion of the population. In Lodz, Mordechai Chaim Rumkowski, who tried in vain to persuade the Nazis to reduce the number of Jewish deportees, urged ghetto residents to report for deportation as ordered. Rumkowski also adopted a policy of "rescue through labor," believing that if the Germans could exploit Jewish labor, deportation might be averted.
That doesn't sound like Jews had any power or authority over non-Jews, does it?
Neither sound like Jews could not be civil servants in Lithuania during German occupation.
Actually it does, as being a civil servant implies having authority over a subordinate civil servant (who might be an ethnic Lithuanian) and the general citizenship (who were predominantly ethnic Lithuanians). Besides, it's hard to understand how Jews could have been civil servants of a non-Jewish administration if they were confined to ghettos. What is more, Lithuanian anti-Semites had caused Jews to be removed from civil service (Marianna Butenschön, Litauen, page 63, viewable online under https://books.google.pt/books?id=DmUnZS ... te&f=false:
Die antisemitische Agitation verschärfte sich nach dem Staatsstreich vom Dezember 1926, obwohl das Regime des Präsidenten Antanas Smetona offiziell nicht antisemitisch war. Aber nun drängten auch Litauer in die von Juden besetzten Berufe Handel, Gewerbe, Industrie und Bankenwesen. In den 30er Jahren gab es keine jüdischen Beamten mehr.
Translation:
Anti-Semitic agitation intensified after the coup d'état of December 1926, although the regime of president Antanas Smetona was not anti-Semitic officially, But now also Lithuanian pushed into the Jewish-held professions trade, craft, industry and banks. In the 1930s there were no longer any Jewish public servants.
(Emphases added.)

The Nazis, who had excluded German Jews from civil service as far back as 1933 (https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.ph ... d=10007901), would hardly have reinstated Jews as civil servants in Lithuania.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:19 pm
It rather suggests that, if the DMO had addressed Jewish councils regarding those mass graves, he would at least have pointed this out expressly in his letter, to avoid confusion with the local non-Jewish Lithuanian administration.
The above authoritative evidence you presented do not suggest anything about how Dr. Paskevicius, a civil servant of the Lithuania provisional government, would address Jewish councils in Lithuania.
The argument is not about who the DMO would have addressed Jewish councils in his area if he had wanted to do that (assuming there were any left, which was not the case at the time of his writing), but about how he would have reported about having addressed Jewish councils to the Regional Commissioner. He would hardly have called them "community provosts", first because no Lithuanian community at the time had a Jewish provost and second because using that term would have misled the letter's recipient, who would have reasonably assumed that ethnic Lithuanians holding public positions were being referred to.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:19 pm
And what is more, even if the DMO had meant to address Jewish councils, he wouldn't have found any in his district because, as follows from sources I provided, all Jewish ghettos in the Trakai district disappeared in 1941. No ghettos, no Jewish councils.
If assuming the sources are correct and their statements has been proven true beyond doubt, then who would tell Dr. Paskevicius about the mass graves where all Jews were supposedly buried?
Any peasant who had come upon the graves, any town dweller who had endeavored to find out what had become of the Jews taken away from his town by the Germans and their Lithuanian auxiliaries. That the Jews were killed and buried in mass graves was hardly a secret among the local Lithuanian population, whose lower elements might even have dug up the graves in search of valuables they hoped to have been buried with the Jews. It was also known to Lithuanian authorities, who - as becomes apparent from district chief Mačinskas' letter of 8.11.1941, LCVA 500/1/4, Vol. 2, fl. 794, regarding the communities mentioned therein - were put in charge of fencing in the graves and covering them with chlorinated lime.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:19 pm
So what is your answer?
:roll:
I don't consider that an answer. So here are the questions, once again:
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?
There's something called a standard of care (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_care). There's also something called due diligence in public service (http://www.thecitizen.co.tz/News/Dilige ... index.html). Would the DMO have complied with such standards/requirements, in his capacity as physician and as a civil servant, if he had blindly relied on third party information instead of looking up the areas in question himself or at least having them looked up by trusted subordinates?
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 16, 2017 7:07 pm

Aryan Scholar wrote:
Fri Jun 16, 2017 3:34 pm
:idea:

Meet an actual doctor of Trakai district which exist outside DOK 239 (translation by Google Translate):
Outside maybe but not in the document, and what is your argument?

Žilinskas was awarded the "Lithuanian Grand Duke Gediminas the 4th Class Order of the Lithuanian Independence Medal" for "special merits to Lithuania" in 1929, which obviously granted him a place in the Lithuanian "who is who" and on the internet. Paškevičius was probably not that meritorious and thus less well-known.
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 16, 2017 7:55 pm

Roberto wrote:
Fri Jun 16, 2017 5:33 pm
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Fri Jun 16, 2017 3:58 am
Roberto wrote:
Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:19 pm
The cause of death can be proven on hand of the Jäger Report and other evidence, but even without such other evidence the arguments quoted (that violent death is suggested by the placement of the graves in remote rural areas and that there's no evidence of catastrophic disease mortality among Jews in any population center of the Trakai district in 1941) would be pertinent. (...) Actually all mentioned evidence points to mass killings of Jews in the areas mentioned in DOK 239, which is the only possibility to be reasonably considered as concerns the origin of the mass graves described. (...) Mass graves made by Jews is a rather unlikely possibility. First of all because the related evidence points to mass graves used to bury Jews, not to mass graves made by Jews.
Please, quote the parts of the related evidence of DOK 239 which explicit describe "mass graves used to bury Jews". Let's see it.
The related evidence aside, it is hardly logical to assume that the DMO could have used the term "Jewish mass grave" for a grave made by Jews containing something other than dead Jews. Using such a designation for a mass grave made by Jews but not containing dead Jews would have been misleading and induced the letter's recipient in error. Besides, if the contents of the mass graves in question were not dead Jews, why didn't the DMO specify what the contents of the mass graves were? That would be more interesting to the letter's recipient than information about who had made the mass graves.
It is perfect logical Dr. Paskevicius could be describing mass graves with carcasses from animals (or a combination of corpses from people and carcasses from animals) made by Jews (or in land owned or leased by Jews). This is completely consistent with DOK 239 origin and content.

Please, quote the parts of the related evidence of DOK 239 which explicitly describe "mass graves used to bury Jews". Let's see it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest