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: Budu Svanidze, been-there

Aryan Scholar
Posts: 4652
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2016 4:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Origin and Content of DOK 239

Post by Aryan Scholar »

Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:15 pm
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Wed Jun 28, 2017 10:17 pm
There is not any record of any mass grave - but just a place of an alleged massacre of Jews - included in the Dargonių forest cemetery Lithuanian land register.
The land register states no such thing.
Correct, the Dargonių forest cemetery Lithuanian land register do not have any record about any mass grave, even less Jewish mass grave.
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:15 pm
The existence of a mass grave is implicit in the site's description as "the place of massacre of the Jews and graves".
This is what you believe to be.
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:15 pm
The fencing-in of an area much larger than would correspond to the handful of individual graves also indicates as mass grave site, and corresponds to the mention of a fence in DOK 239. (...) The photographs showing that the ground declines towards the place of the monument from both longitudinal viewpoints suggest the possibility of a depression in a height or knoll. (...) How would such depression have come into being?
The 708 m2 Dargonių forest cemetery terrain is not the 30m long Semeliškių Jewish mass grave described in DOK 239. Before you speculate what a 30m long Jewish mass grave would cause in the terrain you have first to locate it and prove it exist. So far no show.

Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:15 pm
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Wed Jun 28, 2017 10:17 pm
Moreover, the possibility the Soviets conducted excavations and exhumations in a cemetery in Semeliškių is being rule out because it did not happened, it is a mere fabrication you made up to give credibility to a report you already admit was manipulated to be used against the Germans.
That is an unsubstantiated assertion, and furthermore I didn't "admit" that the report "was manipulated to be used against the Germans".
Roberto wrote:
Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:52 pm
I'm not asking you to prove non-existence of a Soviet excavation.
You want me to substantiate the non-existence of a Soviet excavation?
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:15 pm
What I wrote was that the Soviets omitted the Jewish ethnicity of the victims and the presence of Lithuanian collaborators acting under German orders, neither of which constitutes a manipulation for the document "to be used against the Germans" (if it so was). For the Germans were responsible for the killing regardless of the victims' ethnicity and the participation of Lithuanian collaborators, even assuming that the latter did most of the killing. After all it was the Germans who had given the orders.
Let's see the primary sources for the above statement regarding Semeliškių while Lithuanian was under German occupation. Who gave the order and who carried the order to exterminate the Soviet Lithuanian citizens in Semeliškių? How did the Soviets know it was an order given by the Germans when they produced the Soviet CHGK reports about Semeliškių?
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:15 pm
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:52 pm
The Jews in question were citizens of the Soviet Union, more precisely of the Lithuanian SSR. And the Soviets don't seem to have been keen to erect monuments to Jewish victims of Nazi mass killings in the postwar period. Even later, monuments to murdered Jews or mentioning murdered Jews apparently had to be fought for by surviving Jewish communities. And the memorial may have been erected pursuant to an initiative of the surviving local Jewish community.
Surviving Jewish community? So the Jewish community (alleged put in a ghetto) of Semeliškių was not completely exterminated by the Germans?
I was not referring to the Jews of Semeliškių. By "local" I meant Lithuania as a whole, where the Germans and their auxiliaries almost but not totally wiped out the Jewish population (see the figures mentioned under
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holoc ... of_victims).
Was he Jewish community (alleged put in a ghetto) of Semeliškių completely exterminated by the Germans or not? Who erected the 1965 monument in the Dargonių forest cemetery?
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:15 pm
Aryan Scholar wrote:Neither the Jäger Report (no mention of "civilians" or "innocent citizens" as victims, no mention of the specific place of execution of the victims, different number of victims, different date of execution) or DOK 239 (no mention of the content of the "Jewish mass grave" in a forest in Semeliškių, no mention of a "cemetery") corroborates the Soviet CHGK reports about Semeliškių.
Corroboration does not require a 100 % match between sources regarding all information. I don't think such 100 % match occurs very often.
Yes, it does, otherwise is not corroboration but contradiction.

Aryan Scholar wrote:Who is the "corroborating post-Soviet witness" for allegations of mass murder of Soviet Lithuanian civilians in Semeliškių? If this testimonial evidence is the hearsay from witness N°6 interviewed in Semeliškės on 19 September 2013 it was already addressed here.
I may have missed something, but I see no mention there of the witness who recalled that "All the Jews were shot within the first year." Even if that witness didn't see the killing herself, her knowledge thereof would still be relevant.
Yes, relevant as hearsay.

I will address more witness about Semeliškių later.
Theoretically yes, the designation "Jewish mass graves" being justified as long as dead Jews made up the overwhelming majority of dead bodies inside these graves. In practice no, as there is no evidence that these graves contained anything other than dead Jews. Besides, as I mentioned before, the Semeliškių may have contained Jewish corpses alone at the time when DOK 239 was written, further corpses being added only later. Or the DMO may have been simply unaware of such additional corpses.
Yes, indeed.

What about the DOK 239 related authoritative evidence you requested from the archives in Lithuania?


Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH, kindly contact Scott Smith. All contributions are welcome!


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

Re: Origin and Content of DOK 239

Post by Roberto »

Aryan Scholar wrote:
Fri Jun 30, 2017 12:44 pm
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:15 pm
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Wed Jun 28, 2017 10:17 pm
There is not any record of any mass grave - but just a place of an alleged massacre of Jews - included in the Dargonių forest cemetery Lithuanian land register.
The land register states no such thing.
Correct, the Dargonių forest cemetery Lithuanian land register do not have any record about any mass grave, even less Jewish mass grave.
Truncated paragraph reads as follows:
The land register states no such thing. The existence of a mass grave is implicit in the site's description as "the place of massacre of the Jews and graves".
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:15 pm
The existence of a mass grave is implicit in the site's description as "the place of massacre of the Jews and graves".
This is what you believe to be.
No, that's what common sense suggests.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:15 pm
The fencing-in of an area much larger than would correspond to the handful of individual graves also indicates as mass grave site, and corresponds to the mention of a fence in DOK 239. (...) The photographs showing that the ground declines towards the place of the monument from both longitudinal viewpoints suggest the possibility of a depression in a height or knoll. (...) How would such depression have come into being?
The 708 m2 Dargonių forest cemetery terrain is not the 30m long Semeliškių Jewish mass grave described in DOK 239.
How do know it is not?
Aryan Scholar wrote:Before you speculate what a 30m long Jewish mass grave would cause in the terrain you have first to locate it and prove it exist. So far no show.
Actually it goes the other way round. The depression suggests that the mass grave described in DOK 239, which can only have resulted from a mass killing mentioned in the Jäger Report and other evidence, is around the monument to the Jewish victims of that mass killing. So does the placement of the monument itself. So does the fencing, considering that DOK 39 mentions fencing-in of the graves. This means there are no reasons (bar a thorough excavation in this area revealing no human remains) to assume that the mass grave is not in this place, let alone that it doesn't exist. So proof has been reasonably provided, and it is hardly reasonable to request more. What am I supposed to do, go to the monument site with a spade, dig in the depression around the memorial and risk getting into trouble with Lithuanian authorities for disturbing a monument area? We can do that together if you want. You do the digging while I film you digging. If any memorial guard should show up, I'll say I don't know you and have nothing to do with your digging. Shall we do that?
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:15 pm
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Wed Jun 28, 2017 10:17 pm
Moreover, the possibility the Soviets conducted excavations and exhumations in a cemetery in Semeliškių is being rule out because it did not happened, it is a mere fabrication you made up to give credibility to a report you already admit was manipulated to be used against the Germans.
That is an unsubstantiated assertion, and furthermore I didn't "admit" that the report "was manipulated to be used against the Germans".
Roberto wrote:
Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:52 pm
I'm not asking you to prove non-existence of a Soviet excavation.
You want me to substantiate the non-existence of a Soviet excavation?
No, I want you to explain why, despite the indications I provided, a Soviet excavation should be considered completely out of the question.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:15 pm
What I wrote was that the Soviets omitted the Jewish ethnicity of the victims and the presence of Lithuanian collaborators acting under German orders, neither of which constitutes a manipulation for the document "to be used against the Germans" (if it so was). For the Germans were responsible for the killing regardless of the victims' ethnicity and the participation of Lithuanian collaborators, even assuming that the latter did most of the killing. After all it was the Germans who had given the orders.
Let's see the primary sources for the above statement regarding Semeliškių while Lithuanian was under German occupation.
The primary source is the Jäger Report. Starting on page 5 (http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-hist ... tm.en.html) it lists killings performed by "Component of Ein. 3 in Wilna" ("Teilkommando des EK.3 in Wilna"). The killing of 962 Jews in "Semiliski" is mentioned on the following page, as are further killings in the city of Wilna. Semeliškės, as you may see on the map under http://yahadmap.org/#map/q_pays.6/, is not far away from Vilnius. So it was obviously this "Teilkommando" (and not the "raiding commando under the leadership of SS First Lieutenant Hamann and 8 to 10 reliable men from Einsatzkommando 3", which operated "in collaboration with Lithuanian partisans", as mentioned on the first page, (http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-hist ... m.en.html ) that carried out the mass killing in the area of "Semiliski". This leads to the conclusion that the men of this "Teilkommando" either shot the Jews themselves or, if they did the killing with the assistance of Lithuanian auxiliaries, gave the orders to these auxiliaries to do the killing.
Aryan Scholar wrote:Who gave the order and who carried the order to exterminate the Soviet Lithuanian citizens in Semeliškių?
The men of the aforementioned "Teilkommando" either carried out the killing of Soviet Lithuanian citizens of Jewish ethnicity themselves or gave orders to Lithuanian auxiliaries to carry out the killing (without the latter ruling out the possibility that they also did some killing themselves).
Aryan Scholar wrote:How did the Soviets know it was an order given by the Germans when they produced the Soviet CHGK reports about Semeliškių?
In all probability from testimonies of local eyewitnesses. Maybe they also took the Jäger Report into consideration.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:15 pm
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:52 pm
The Jews in question were citizens of the Soviet Union, more precisely of the Lithuanian SSR. And the Soviets don't seem to have been keen to erect monuments to Jewish victims of Nazi mass killings in the postwar period. Even later, monuments to murdered Jews or mentioning murdered Jews apparently had to be fought for by surviving Jewish communities. And the memorial may have been erected pursuant to an initiative of the surviving local Jewish community.
Surviving Jewish community? So the Jewish community (alleged put in a ghetto) of Semeliškių was not completely exterminated by the Germans?
I was not referring to the Jews of Semeliškių. By "local" I meant Lithuania as a whole, where the Germans and their auxiliaries almost but not totally wiped out the Jewish population (see the figures mentioned under
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holoc ... of_victims).
Was he Jewish community (alleged put in a ghetto) of Semeliškių completely exterminated by the Germans or not?
The former is suggested by the information under http://yahadmap.org/#village/semeli-k-s ... huania.784, quoted hereafter.
Semeliškės was occupied by German forces in June 1941. The next month, following the order of German authorities, the Jewish community of Semeliškės elected a Jewish Council (Judenrat), but a ghetto was created in the town only in the beginning of September. Several Jews were killed during the summer, and their property was looted. On September 22, 1941, several hundred Jews from Vievis and Žasliai were brought to the Semeliškės ghetto, which included the synagogue, school and several other large buildings. Both local Jews and new arrivals were exterminated on October 6, 1941, the first day of Sukkot. Members of the Special Squad arrived from Vilnius to carry out the execution, while local policemen were escorting the victims from the ghetto to the mass grave. According to Karl Jäger’s report, 962 Jewish men, women and children were shot that day.
Aryan Scholar wrote:Who erected the 1965 monument in the Dargonių forest cemetery?
I don't know. Could be the local authorities, either on their own initiative or at the request of a Lithuanian Jewish organization, e.g. the Lithuanian Jewish Community mentioned under http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/a ... unities/LT. The postwar presence of surviving Jews in Lithuania is suggested by the following statement on that page, following the mention that about 95 % of Lithuania's Jews were killed by the Nazis and their local auxiliaries:
Jews in Soviet Lithuania benefited from a slightly more relaxed atmosphere than in Soviet Russia or Ukraine, and in Vilnius certain limited expressions of Jewish culture were tolerated.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:15 pm
Aryan Scholar wrote:Neither the Jäger Report (no mention of "civilians" or "innocent citizens" as victims, no mention of the specific place of execution of the victims, different number of victims, different date of execution) or DOK 239 (no mention of the content of the "Jewish mass grave" in a forest in Semeliškių, no mention of a "cemetery") corroborates the Soviet CHGK reports about Semeliškių.
Corroboration does not require a 100 % match between sources regarding all information. I don't think such 100 % match occurs very often.
Yes, it does, otherwise is not corroboration but contradiction.
That is not logical. What is logical is that an essential match means corroboration and only an essential mismatch means contradiction. Are there any cases of 100 % corroboration of one source of evidence by another source of evidence, for instance regarding Soviet crimes, that you know about?
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Aryan Scholar wrote:Who is the "corroborating post-Soviet witness" for allegations of mass murder of Soviet Lithuanian civilians in Semeliškių? If this testimonial evidence is the hearsay from witness N°6 interviewed in Semeliškės on 19 September 2013 it was already addressed here.
I may have missed something, but I see no mention there of the witness who recalled that "All the Jews were shot within the first year." Even if that witness didn't see the killing herself, her knowledge thereof would still be relevant.
Yes, relevant as hearsay.
Which doesn't mean that it is irrelevant. Even in court hearsay is admitted as evidence in certain cases, see under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Theoretically yes, the designation "Jewish mass graves" being justified as long as dead Jews made up the overwhelming majority of dead bodies inside these graves. In practice no, as there is no evidence that these graves contained anything other than dead Jews. Besides, as I mentioned before, the Semeliškių may have contained Jewish corpses alone at the time when DOK 239 was written, further corpses being added only later. Or the DMO may have been simply unaware of such additional corpses.
Yes, indeed.

What about the DOK 239 related authoritative evidence you requested from the archives in Lithuania?
I'm awaiting an invoice that Mr. Vaidas of the LCVA said he would send me. After payment of that invoice I'll receive the official answer to my request.
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: 4652
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2016 4:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Origin and Content of DOK 239

Post by Aryan Scholar »

Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:22 pm
Aryan Scholar wrote:The 708 m2 Dargonių forest cemetery terrain is not the 30m long Semeliškių Jewish mass grave described in DOK 239.
How do know it is not?
Because the 708 m2 Dargonių forest cemetery terrain is marked as cemetery with individuals graves in the Lithuania land register, not as the 30m long Semeliškių Jewish mass grave described in DOK 239.
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:22 pm
So proof has been reasonably provided, and it is hardly reasonable to request more. What am I supposed to do, go to the monument site with a spade, dig in the depression around the memorial and risk getting into trouble with Lithuanian authorities for disturbing a monument area? We can do that together if you want. You do the digging while I film you digging. If any memorial guard should show up, I'll say I don't know you and have nothing to do with your digging. Shall we do that?
What you provided is not proof but mere conjecture based on your belief. You are supposed to concede you have no proof at all the 30m long Semeliškių Jewish mass grave described in DOK 239 is located in the 708 m2 Dargonių forest cemetery terrain, even less under the 1965 monument which you do not even know who erected.
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:22 pm
No, I want you to explain why, despite the indications I provided, a Soviet excavation should be considered completely out of the question.
Because there is not any evidence it happened in Semeliškių.
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:22 pm
The primary source is the Jäger Report. (...) This leads to the conclusion that the men of this "Teilkommando" either shot the Jews themselves or, if they did the killing with the assistance of Lithuanian auxiliaries, gave the orders to these auxiliaries to do the killing.
I ask you the primary sources for the Germans who gave the supposed order to kill the Jews in Semeliškių ghetto, not who supposed carried the killing. Show the chain of command used by the Germans to systematic kill the Jews in Semeliškių during WWII with names and reliable primary sources.
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:22 pm
Aryan Scholar wrote:How did the Soviets know it was an order given by the Germans when they produced the Soviet CHGK reports about Semeliškių?
In all probability from testimonies of local eyewitnesses. Maybe they also took the Jäger Report into consideration.
I am glad you agree the Soviet CHGK reports comes from anecdotal, hearsay and testimonial evidence. How did the Soviets already know about the Jäger Report in 1944?
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:22 pm
Aryan Scholar wrote:Was he Jewish community (alleged put in a ghetto) of Semeliškių completely exterminated by the Germans or not?
The former is suggested by the information under http://yahadmap.org/#village/semeli-k-s ... huania.784, quoted hereafter.
What is your answer? Yes or no? Based on what primary sources?
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:22 pm
I don't know. Could be the local authorities, either on their own initiative or at the request of a Lithuanian Jewish organization, e.g. the Lithuanian Jewish Community mentioned under http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/a ... unities/LT. The postwar presence of surviving Jews in Lithuania is suggested by the following statement on that page, following the mention that about 95 % of Lithuania's Jews were killed by the Nazis and their local auxiliaries:
Jews in Soviet Lithuania benefited from a slightly more relaxed atmosphere than in Soviet Russia or Ukraine, and in Vilnius certain limited expressions of Jewish culture were tolerated.
What "Nazis" killed the "95 % of Lithuania's Jews". Names and primary sources, please.
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:22 pm
That is not logical. What is logical is that an essential match means corroboration and only an essential mismatch means contradiction. Are there any cases of 100 % corroboration of one source of evidence by another source of evidence, for instance regarding Soviet crimes, that you know about?
Never read any legal cases or scientific studies where corroboration and/or contradiction arising from evidence was described with percentages (which implies a statistical probability).

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

Re: Origin and Content of DOK 239

Post by Roberto »

Aryan Scholar wrote:
Mon Jul 10, 2017 4:45 pm
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:22 pm
Aryan Scholar wrote:The 708 m2 Dargonių forest cemetery terrain is not the 30m long Semeliškių Jewish mass grave described in DOK 239.
How do know it is not?
Because the 708 m2 Dargonių forest cemetery terrain is marked as cemetery with individuals graves in the Lithuania land register, not as the 30m long Semeliškių Jewish mass grave described in DOK 239.
A 708m2 forest "cemetery" with just a couple of individual graves is hardly a cemetery, and besides, if I understood correctly, the place is registered as "the place of massacre of the Jews and graves". The term "graves", in the context of "the place of massacre of the Jews", hardly means the few individual graves in the fenced-in area visible on photographs, or those graves alone. It obviously refers to or includes the mass grave pertaining to the "massacre of the Jews". Besides, on the pictures provided one sees a large area with only a few individual graves and the monument fenced in (which brings to mind the information in DOK 239 that the mass graves had been "fenced in"). Why do you think there is fencing around this large area, of which the individual graves occupy but a small fraction?
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:22 pm
So proof has been reasonably provided, and it is hardly reasonable to request more. What am I supposed to do, go to the monument site with a spade, dig in the depression around the memorial and risk getting into trouble with Lithuanian authorities for disturbing a monument area? We can do that together if you want. You do the digging while I film you digging. If any memorial guard should show up, I'll say I don't know you and have nothing to do with your digging. Shall we do that?


What you provided is not proof but mere conjecture based on your belief.
No, it's a conjecture based on evidence and logical thinking.
Aryan Scholar wrote:You are supposed to concede you have no proof at all the 30m long Semeliškių Jewish mass grave described in DOK 239 is located in the 708 m2 Dargonių forest cemetery terrain, even less under the 1965 monument which you do not even know who erected.
I see no reason to do that. The Jäger Report, DOK 239, the Soviet report(s), and the available eyewitness evidence (procured by Father Desbois or by the authors of the "Holocaust Atlas of Lithuania" and/or by Lithuanian historian Arūnas Bubnys, see below), together with the aspect of the area around the monument (a depression between higher ground on both sides, suggesting a "sinking" of the soil such as is known to happen in places of burial), all suggest that the Semeliškių Jewish mass grave is right where I think it is. And it is completely irrelevant to my argument who erected the memorial.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:22 pm
No, I want you to explain why, despite the indications I provided, a Soviet excavation should be considered completely out of the question.
Because there is not any evidence it happened in Semeliškių.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, unless one should expect evidence to be available. In this case what is in the public domain are just fractions of two Soviet reports. How can you tell that neither of these reports also contains mention of an excavation on site?
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:22 pm
The primary source is the Jäger Report. (...) This leads to the conclusion that the men of this "Teilkommando" either shot the Jews themselves or, if they did the killing with the assistance of Lithuanian auxiliaries, gave the orders to these auxiliaries to do the killing.
I ask you the primary sources for the Germans who gave the supposed order to kill the Jews in Semeliškių ghetto, not who supposed carried the killing. Show the chain of command used by the Germans to systematic kill the Jews in Semeliškių during WWII with names and reliable primary sources.
Primary sources with the information you demand I cannot offer, at least not right away. It would require a trip to Germany and a visit to the Bundesarchiv Ludwigsburg (BAL), for which I don't have the time. Or a written request for information to the BAL. That I can do, following your explanation why the information you demand is supposed to be relevant to this discussion.

The chain of command was obviously Jäger » leader(s) of "Teilkommando" » German and/or Lithuanian subordinates of "Teilkommando" leader(s). The name of Jäger's subordinate in charge of the Lithuanian countryside I know from a secondary source in the public domain (German historian Wolfram Wette's book about Jäger), which is based on primary sources. It was SS-Obersturmführer Joachim Hamann, commander of the "Rollkommando Hamann" of Einsatzkommando 3, see my blog article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... ort-3.html. The Teilkommando des EK.3 in Wilna, which mostly killed Jews of "Wilna-Stadt" but also carried out the massacre at Semeliškių mentioned on page 6 of the Jäger Report (http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-hist ... img006.gif), was commanded by SS-officers Peter Eisenbarth and Erich Wolff according to Wette's book, which also provides the following information regarding these gentlemen (see my blog article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... ort-4.html):
Eisenbarth and Wolff were part of a six man group of young SS leaders from the Security Service’s school in Berlin-Charlottenburg. They carried out their extermination tasks with great organizational talent and efficiency. In Vilna and at the Paneriai (Ponary) killing site they operated more or less independently within the framework of Jäger’s general guidelines. It is not known whether and how often Jäger was present at Paneriai. Two witnesses, Hans Greule and Fritz Hamann, claimed in 1959 that they had recognized Karl Jäger on a photo while he was giving an elder Jew the finishing shot at the Paneriai killing site (Wette, Jäger, page 107).
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:22 pm
Aryan Scholar wrote:How did the Soviets know it was an order given by the Germans when they produced the Soviet CHGK reports about Semeliškių?
In all probability from testimonies of local eyewitnesses. Maybe they also took the Jäger Report into consideration.

I am glad you agree the Soviet CHGK reports comes from anecdotal, hearsay and testimonial evidence.
I didn't say that the Soviet CHGK report in question is based solely on "anecdotal, hearsay and testimonial evidence", let alone that this applies to all Soviet CHGK reports (I remember having shown examples of such reports that were also based on excavations and at least partial exhumations). I was referring only to Soviet knowledge about the perpetrators of the crime.
Aryan Scholar wrote:How did the Soviets already know about the Jäger Report in 1944?
Because that was when they found it according to Wette, see my blog article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... eport.html:
What's interesting is the adventurous provenance history of the Jäger Report. It wasn't yet available to the Nuremberg Military Tribunals that judged German war criminals in the years 1945 to 1949. A copy of the report, namely the fourth of a total of five copies, had already during the war, when the Red Army re-conquered Lithuania in 1944, fallen into the hands of the Soviet Union, who at first kept quiet about it. Only in 1963 the Soviet foreign ministry made this unique document available to authorities of the German Federal Republic, namely the Central Bureau of the Federal States’ Judicial Administrations for the Investigation of NS Crimes (Zentrale Stelle der Landesjustizverwaltungen für die Aufklärung von NS-Verbrechen) in Ludwigsburg. There the source was thoroughly examined and declared authentic.
(Emphasis added.)
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:22 pm
Aryan Scholar wrote:Was he Jewish community (alleged put in a ghetto) of Semeliškių completely exterminated by the Germans or not?
The former is suggested by the information under http://yahadmap.org/#village/semeli-k-s ... huania.784, quoted hereafter.
What is your answer? Yes or no? Based on what primary sources?
My immediate access to primary sources is at least as limited as yours, but in this case I can answer your question based on a primary source. On page 7 of the Jäger Report (facsimile under http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-hist ... img007.gif, translation under http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-hist ... tm.en.html), Jäger wrote the following:
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!

(Emphasis added.)

This means that, except for the working Jews and their families in the mentioned places, which do not include Semeliškių, Jäger's Einsaztkommando 3 killed each and every Jew at the places mentioned in the report.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:22 pm
I don't know. Could be the local authorities, either on their own initiative or at the request of a Lithuanian Jewish organization, e.g. the Lithuanian Jewish Community mentioned under http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/a ... unities/LT. The postwar presence of surviving Jews in Lithuania is suggested by the following statement on that page, following the mention that about 95 % of Lithuania's Jews were killed by the Nazis and their local auxiliaries:
Jews in Soviet Lithuania benefited from a slightly more relaxed atmosphere than in Soviet Russia or Ukraine, and in Vilnius certain limited expressions of Jewish culture were tolerated.
What "Nazis" killed the "95 % of Lithuania's Jews". Names and primary sources, please.
See what I wrote above regarding primary sources. I can point out at least one secondary source about the Holocaust in Lithuania, but what you are demanding is that I scour archives for contemporary documents and/or recorded eyewitness testimonies regarding each and every German perpetrator involved in the almost (but not quite) complete annihilation of Lithuania's Jewish population. I don’t think this is a realistic demand, moreover in a discussion about the origin and content of a particular document. The standard scholarly work on what happened to Lithuania's Jews during the German occupation seems to be The Holocaust in Lithuania between 1941 and 1944, by Arūnas Bubnys, D. Kuodytė, Genocide and Resistance Research Centre of Lithuania, 2005. Bubnys also wrote an essay about "Holocaust in Lithuanian Province in 1941", which is available under http://www.docscopic.info/flashoflight/ ... ce_ENG.pdf. Semeliškių (Semeliškés) is mentioned on pp. 52-53.

However, the primary source Jäger Report already gets us very far in this respect. According to my calculations based on the report, see again my article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... eport.html, Jäger's Einsatzkommando 3, together with (to a comparatively small extent) the Lithuanian "partisans" acting on their own initiative, killed 135,391 Jews. According to the page http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/a ... unities/LT there were 220,000 Jews in Lithuania including the Vilnius area prior to the German occupation. Of these EK 3 killed about 62 %, which would leave alive about 84,600 in Schaulen, Kauen and Wilna (the 34,500 Work Jews and their families saved by the Reichskommissar). The names of EK3 perpetrators established so far, besides Jäger himself, are those mentioned above. Further names are August Hering and Martin Weiss. Both were given life sentences by the Landgericht Wurzburg, Germany (see under http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/Tatlandengfr.htm, Case Nr. 192)

However, Jäger's EK 3 was not the only unit that killed Jews in Lithuania in 1941. Look up the summaries of further German trials regarding crimes in Lithuania under the aforementioned link.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:22 pm
That is not logical. What is logical is that an essential match means corroboration and only an essential mismatch means contradiction. Are there any cases of 100 % corroboration of one source of evidence by another source of evidence, for instance regarding Soviet crimes, that you know about?


Never read any legal cases or scientific studies where corroboration and/or contradiction arising from evidence was described with percentages (which implies a statistical probability).
The reference to a percentage was metaphorical rather than literal, but I'll rephrase the question: Are there any cases you know about in which two sources of evidence match completely, regarding each and every detail mentioned in one and the other?
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: 4652
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2016 4:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Origin and Content of DOK 239

Post by Aryan Scholar »

Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 15, 2017 11:26 pm
The term "graves", in the context of "the place of massacre of the Jews", hardly means the few individual graves in the fenced-in area visible on photographs, or those graves alone. It obviously refers to or includes the mass grave pertaining to the "massacre of the Jews".
That is exactly what the term "graves" means in accordance with the Lithuanian land register as already explained before:
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Sun Jun 25, 2017 2:32 pm
Notice the land register 19/08/2009 document only mention a monument built in 1965 (above images FF13 and FF14) and 2 Jewish gravestones (of four individual graves as seen in the above images FF08, FF10, FF12) in one of 6 burial areas, not any mass grave. The land register 29/05/2017 document (see here) then exclude the 6 burial areas and 2 gravestones of the draw plan (see here). So the Dargonių forest cemetery terrain (UK 11285) is not registered as having any Jewish mass grave, but registered as "the place of massacre of the Jews and graves".
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 15, 2017 11:26 pm
Why do you think there is fencing around this large area, of which the individual graves occupy but a small fraction?
To mark the boundaries of the 708 m2 Dargonių forest cemetery terrain (see here).
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 15, 2017 11:26 pm
The Jäger Report, DOK 239, the Soviet report(s), and the available eyewitness evidence (procured by Father Desbois or by the authors of the "Holocaust Atlas of Lithuania" and/or by Lithuanian historian Arūnas Bubnys, see below), together with the aspect of the area around the monument (a depression between higher ground on both sides, suggesting a "sinking" of the soil such as is known to happen in places of burial), all suggest that the Semeliškių Jewish mass grave is right where I think it is. And it is completely irrelevant to my argument who erected the memorial.
Begging the question. You still need to prove the 30m long Semeliškių Jewish mass grave described in DOK 239 is right where you think - or rather believe - it is before you argue its is the cause of the depression in the Dargonių forest cemetery terrain.

Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 15, 2017 11:26 pm
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, unless one should expect evidence to be available. In this case what is in the public domain are just fractions of two Soviet reports. How can you tell that neither of these reports also contains mention of an excavation on site?
Absence of evidence [of a Soviet excavation in Semeliškių] is also not evidence of presence [of a Soviet excavation in Semeliškių].
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 15, 2017 11:26 pm
Primary sources with the information you demand I cannot offer, at least not right away. It would require a trip to Germany and a visit to the Bundesarchiv Ludwigsburg (BAL), for which I don't have the time. Or a written request for information to the BAL. That I can do, following your explanation why the information you demand is supposed to be relevant to this discussion.
Because you stated the Soviet CHGK reports about Semeliškių are accurate about the Germans be entirely responsible for the systematic killing of "innocent citizens" (or "civilians") in Semeliškių:
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:15 pm
What I wrote was that the Soviets omitted the Jewish ethnicity of the victims and the presence of Lithuanian collaborators acting under German orders, neither of which constitutes a manipulation for the document "to be used against the Germans" (if it so was). For the Germans were responsible for the killing regardless of the victims' ethnicity and the participation of Lithuanian collaborators, even assuming that the latter did most of the killing. After all it was the Germans who had given the orders.
Let's see if there is any primary source which supports your statements above, mainly concerning the allegation the Germans gave the orders to kill the "innocent citizens" (or "civilians") in Semeliškių.
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:15 pm
I didn't say that the Soviet CHGK report in question is based solely on "anecdotal, hearsay and testimonial evidence", let alone that this applies to all Soviet CHGK reports (I remember having shown examples of such reports that were also based on excavations and at least partial exhumations). I was referring only to Soviet knowledge about the perpetrators of the crime.
The Soviet CHGK reports about Semeliškių are based on "anecdotal, hearsay and testimonial evidence" as explained before
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Sun Jun 25, 2017 2:32 pm
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jun 24, 2017 2:44 pm
If, as the precision of the figure suggests, the Soviets excavated and counted the corpses, then either Jäger undercounted or another 58 corpses were buried in the grave after Jäger's operation.
But the Soviets did not "excavated and counted the corpses" in Semeliškių, instead, the details in the two above Soviet CHGK reports about Semeliškių were obtained from hearsay, anecdotal and testimonial evidence (anonymous sources), which was then compiled in Moscow to be used against the Germans:
The State Extraordinary Commission for Investigation of Nazi War Crimes (ChGK) was established in the Soviet Union in 1942. (...) The task of the Commission was to gather documents and prepare files from the documentation received from the subcommittees that had been set up in conjunction with the regional, district, and village councils. (...) The members of the committees interviewed the residents of every town and village and received information on what had happened in these places during the war years. The documentation collected helped in the preparation of the war crimes trials of Nazis held in various places in the Soviet Union during the 1940s. The ChGK ceased its activities in 1946. [source]
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:15 pm
Because that was when they found it according to Wette, see my blog article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... eport.html:
A copy of the report, namely the fourth of a total of five copies, had already during the war, when the Red Army re-conquered Lithuania in 1944, fallen into the hands of the Soviet Union, who at first kept quiet about it.
(Emphasis added.)
And where is the proof the above statement from Wolfram Wette is true? What is the primary source for the above statement from Wolfram Wette? Where and who found the fourth copy of the Jäger Report in Lithuania in 1944?
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:15 pm
This means that, except for the working Jews and their families in the mentioned places, which do not include Semeliškių, Jäger's Einsaztkommando 3 killed each and every Jew at the places mentioned in the report.
Then who are the additional 58 "innocent citizens" (or "civilians") from the Soviet CHGK reports about Semeliškių if there was no more Jews in Semeliškių to be killed in accordance with the Jäger Report?
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:15 pm
The standard scholarly work on what happened to Lithuania's Jews during the German occupation seems to be The Holocaust in Lithuania between 1941 and 1944, by Arūnas Bubnys, D. Kuodytė, Genocide and Resistance Research Centre of Lithuania, 2005. Bubnys also wrote an essay about "Holocaust in Lithuanian Province in 1941", which is available under http://www.docscopic.info/flashoflight/ ... ce_ENG.pdf. Semeliškių (Semeliškés) is mentioned on pp. 52-53.
Semeliškes Ghetto existed for about two weeks. During the first days of October, about 20-30 Security Police and SD special force policemen came by lorry from Vilnius to Semeliškes. One German came with them by car. Together with the chief of Semeliškes Rural District and the chief of the Police Station, he went to examine the future place of killings. A trench was dug up about 2 km from Semeliškes in the direction of Trakai, near the lake. The German did not like the selected place, however, and he ordered to dig a trench in another place on the edge of the forest. While another trench was dug, the killers of the special force stayed in Semeliškes. The extermination of Semeliškes Ghetto was carried out on 6 October 1941.
What is the primary source for the above statements from Arūnas Bubnys? Who is the German above in the underlined sentences Arūnas Bubnys is talking about?

Aryan Scholar
Posts: 4652
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2016 4:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Origin and Content of DOK 239

Post by Aryan Scholar »

Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 15, 2017 11:26 pm
On page 7 of the Jäger Report (facsimile under http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-hist ... img007.gif, translation under http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-hist ... tm.en.html), Jäger wrote the following:
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!

(Emphasis added.)

This means that, except for the working Jews and their families in the mentioned places, which do not include Semeliškių, Jäger's Einsaztkommando 3 killed each and every Jew at the places mentioned in the report.
What criteria was used by Jäger to determine who was a "Work" Jew and who was not?
However, the primary source Jäger Report already gets us very far in this respect. According to my calculations based on the report, see again my article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... eport.html, Jäger's Einsatzkommando 3, together with (to a comparatively small extent) the Lithuanian "partisans" acting on their own initiative, killed 135,391 Jews. According to the page http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/a ... unities/LT there were 220,000 Jews in Lithuania including the Vilnius area prior to the German occupation. Of these EK 3 killed about 62 %, which would leave alive about 84,600 in Schaulen, Kauen and Wilna (the 34,500 Work Jews and their families saved by the Reichskommissar).
What is the primary source for the 220000 (100%) figure of Jews living in Lithuanian from the World Jewish Congress? How many bodies were found, recovered and identified from the alleged 209000 (95%) of Jews killed in Lithuania?

From the above Jäger Report:
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.
Jäger explicit say the goal to solve the Jewish problem of all Lithuania has been achieved, all Jews in Lithuanian were killed ("threre are no more Jews") by the Einsatzkommando 3, except the work Jews and their families. So in accordance with the Jäger Report in 1941 there was just 34500 Jews left in Lithuanian (Schaulen 4500, Kauen 15000 and Wilna 15000) and those were protected by the "civil administration (the Reichskommisar) and the army". Where the additional (84600 - 34500) = 50100 Jews from the World Jewish Congress comes from? How those 50100 Jews survived the supposed systematic mass killing of Jews in 1941 by the Einsatzkommando 3?
The names of EK3 perpetrators established so far, besides Jäger himself, are those mentioned above. Further names are August Hering and Martin Weiss. Both were given life sentences by the Landgericht Wurzburg, Germany (see under http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/Tatlandengfr.htm, Case Nr. 192). However, Jäger's EK 3 was not the only unit that killed Jews in Lithuania in 1941. Look up the summaries of further German trials regarding crimes in Lithuania under the aforementioned link.

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

Re: Origin and Content of DOK 239

Post by Roberto »

Aryan Scholar wrote:
Sun Jul 16, 2017 5:48 pm
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 15, 2017 11:26 pm
The term "graves", in the context of "the place of massacre of the Jews", hardly means the few individual graves in the fenced-in area visible on photographs, or those graves alone. It obviously refers to or includes the mass grave pertaining to the "massacre of the Jews".
That is exactly what the term "graves" means in accordance with the Lithuanian land register as already explained before:
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Sun Jun 25, 2017 2:32 pm
Notice the land register 19/08/2009 document only mention a monument built in 1965 (above images FF13 and FF14) and 2 Jewish gravestones (of four individual graves as seen in the above images FF08, FF10, FF12) in one of 6 burial areas, not any mass grave. The land register 29/05/2017 document (see here) then exclude the 6 burial areas and 2 gravestones of the draw plan (see here). So the Dargonių forest cemetery terrain (UK 11285) is not registered as having any Jewish mass grave, but registered as "the place of massacre of the Jews and graves".
None of the above changes the fact that "the place of massacre of the Jews" implies a mass grave at that place, meaning that "graves" means both individual graves and a mass grave (or only the latter, as the individual graves are mentioned elsewhere), and that the fenced-in area is much bigger than would correspond to the individual graves alone, which occupy only small fraction of the area.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:Why do you think there is fencing around this large area, of which the individual graves occupy but a small fraction?
To mark the boundaries of the 708 m2 Dargonių forest cemetery terrain (see here).
And how do you explain the size of the fenced-in area including the monument, of which the individual graves occupy only a small fraction?
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 15, 2017 11:26 pm
The Jäger Report, DOK 239, the Soviet report(s), and the available eyewitness evidence (procured by Father Desbois or by the authors of the "Holocaust Atlas of Lithuania" and/or by Lithuanian historian Arūnas Bubnys, see below), together with the aspect of the area around the monument (a depression between higher ground on both sides, suggesting a "sinking" of the soil such as is known to happen in places of burial), all suggest that the Semeliškių Jewish mass grave is right where I think it is. And it is completely irrelevant to my argument who erected the memorial.
Begging the question.
No, reaching a conclusion based on several indicators, none of which is the conclusion itself.
Aryan Scholar wrote:You still need to prove the 30m long Semeliškių Jewish mass grave described in DOK 239 is right where you think - or rather believe - it is before you argue its is the cause of the depression in the Dargonių forest cemetery terrain.
The other way round. You need to explain why you think that the above indications (including without limitation the depression) don't support my assumption.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 15, 2017 11:26 pm
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, unless one should expect evidence to be available. In this case what is in the public domain are just fractions of two Soviet reports. How can you tell that neither of these reports also contains mention of an excavation on site?
Absence of evidence [of a Soviet excavation in Semeliškių] is also not evidence of presence [of a Soviet excavation in Semeliškių].
That's right. So it can neither be assumed not ruled out that there was a Soviet excavation at the place in question. The question remains open.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 15, 2017 11:26 pm
Primary sources with the information you demand I cannot offer, at least not right away. It would require a trip to Germany and a visit to the Bundesarchiv Ludwigsburg (BAL), for which I don't have the time. Or a written request for information to the BAL. That I can do, following your explanation why the information you demand is supposed to be relevant to this discussion.
Because you stated the Soviet CHGK reports about Semeliškių are accurate about the Germans be entirely responsible for the systematic killing of "innocent citizens" (or "civilians") in Semeliškių:
I didn't say "entirely responsible". The executors, whether they were Germans or Lithuanians or both, also bear responsibility. I said that Germans gave the orders and were thus primarily responsible for the killing of civilians, which as we known from other evidence were Jews, in the Semeliškių. The primary source Jäger Report shows that Germans carried out or at least ordered the Semeliškių mass killing mentioned in that report, unless the members and commanders of the Teilkommando were Lithuanians (which can be safely ruled out; moreover the identity of the German Teilkommando's commanders is known from sources used by Wette for his book. So my assumption (that Germans were primarily responsible for the massacre) is duly substantiated, and there's no need to procure primary sources about specific individual perpetrators.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:15 pm
What I wrote was that the Soviets omitted the Jewish ethnicity of the victims and the presence of Lithuanian collaborators acting under German orders, neither of which constitutes a manipulation for the document "to be used against the Germans" (if it so was). For the Germans were responsible for the killing regardless of the victims' ethnicity and the participation of Lithuanian collaborators, even assuming that the latter did most of the killing. After all it was the Germans who had given the orders.
Let's see if there is any primary source which supports your statements above, mainly concerning the allegation the Germans gave the orders to kill the "innocent citizens" (or "civilians") in Semeliškių.
There is such a primary source, namely the Jäger Report. The only massacre of "innocent citizens" (or "civilians") known from available evidence to have taken place in the Semeliškių area is that of Jewish "innocent citizens" (or "civilians") by a Teilkommando subordinated to Jäger.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:15 pm
I didn't say that the Soviet CHGK report in question is based solely on "anecdotal, hearsay and testimonial evidence", let alone that this applies to all Soviet CHGK reports (I remember having shown examples of such reports that were also based on excavations and at least partial exhumations). I was referring only to Soviet knowledge about the perpetrators of the crime.
The Soviet CHGK reports about Semeliškių are based on "anecdotal, hearsay and testimonial evidence" as explained before.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Sun Jun 25, 2017 2:32 pm
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jun 24, 2017 2:44 pm
If, as the precision of the figure suggests, the Soviets excavated and counted the corpses, then either Jäger undercounted or another 58 corpses were buried in the grave after Jäger's operation.
But the Soviets did not "excavated and counted the corpses" in Semeliškių, instead, the details in the two above Soviet CHGK reports about Semeliškių were obtained from hearsay, anecdotal and testimonial evidence (anonymous sources), which was then compiled in Moscow to be used against the Germans:
The State Extraordinary Commission for Investigation of Nazi War Crimes (ChGK) was established in the Soviet Union in 1942. (...) The task of the Commission was to gather documents and prepare files from the documentation received from the subcommittees that had been set up in conjunction with the regional, district, and village councils. (...) The members of the committees interviewed the residents of every town and village and received information on what had happened in these places during the war years. The documentation collected helped in the preparation of the war crimes trials of Nazis held in various places in the Soviet Union during the 1940s. The ChGK ceased its activities in 1946. [source]
The source you quote cannot be taken as proof that the Soviet ChGK based its conclusions only on "anecdotal, hearsay and testimonial evidence", as there are publicly available examples of cases in which excavations and exhumations were carried out by Soviet investigators (and what is publicly available is probably just a fraction of what exists in this respect).
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:15 pm
Because that was when they found it according to Wette, see my blog article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... eport.html:
A copy of the report, namely the fourth of a total of five copies, had already during the war, when the Red Army re-conquered Lithuania in 1944, fallen into the hands of the Soviet Union, who at first kept quiet about it.
(Emphasis added.)
And where is the proof the above statement from Wolfram Wette is true?
The other way round. Where is the proof that Wette, who is a noted historian, invented the statement in question?
Aryan Scholar wrote:What is the primary source for the above statement from Wolfram Wette?
The source reference is the following (Wette, Jäger, p. 206):
Schreiben der Zentralen Stelle der Landesjustizverwaltungen vom 5.12.1989 an den Verf.; Anlage: Vermerk der Zentralen Stelle vom 2.5.1963 über die Überlassung einer Reihe von Originaldokumenten durch das Aussenministerium der UdSSR,
Translation:
Letter from the Central Bureau of the Federal States’ Judicial Administrations to the author dated 5.12.1989; attachment: note of the Central Bureau dated 2.5.1963 about the handing over of a number of original documents by the Foreign Ministry of the USSR.
Aryan Scholar wrote:Where and who found the fourth copy of the Jäger Report in Lithuania in 1944?
What Soviet entity exactly and where in Lithuania exactly? I don't know. Maybe that is stated in the Central Bureau's note dated 2.5.1963 mentioned by Wette, see quote above. What is the relevance of this question?
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:15 pm
This means that, except for the working Jews and their families in the mentioned places, which do not include Semeliškių, Jäger's Einsaztkommando 3 killed each and every Jew at the places mentioned in the report.
Then who are the additional 58 "innocent citizens" (or "civilians") from the Soviet CHGK reports about Semeliškių if there was no more Jews in Semeliškių to be killed in accordance with the Jäger Report?
I don't know. They may have been prisoners of war or civilians executed for having helped pro-Soviet partisans. What is the relevance of this question?
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:15 pm
The standard scholarly work on what happened to Lithuania's Jews during the German occupation seems to be The Holocaust in Lithuania between 1941 and 1944, by Arūnas Bubnys, D. Kuodytė, Genocide and Resistance Research Centre of Lithuania, 2005. Bubnys also wrote an essay about "Holocaust in Lithuanian Province in 1941", which is available under http://www.docscopic.info/flashoflight/ ... ce_ENG.pdf. Semeliškių (Semeliškés) is mentioned on pp. 52-53.
Semeliškes Ghetto existed for about two weeks. During the first days of October, about 20-30 Security Police and SD special force policemen came by lorry from Vilnius to Semeliškes. One German came with them by car. Together with the chief of Semeliškes Rural District and the chief of the Police Station, he went to examine the future place of killings. A trench was dug up about 2 km from Semeliškes in the direction of Trakai, near the lake. The German did not like the selected place, however, and he ordered to dig a trench in another place on the edge of the forest. While another trench was dug, the killers of the special force stayed in Semeliškes. The extermination of Semeliškes Ghetto was carried out on 6 October 1941.
What is the primary source for the above statements from Arūnas Bubnys? Who is the German above in the underlined sentences Arūnas Bubnys is talking about?
"Interrogation minutes of J. Ragavičius of 17 August 1970, LSA, doc.col. K-1, inv.sched. 45, file 1851, p.p. 155-157;
interrogation minutes of B. Kapačiūnas of 11 September 1970, ibid., file 1847, p.p. 236-236 a.p.".


The German mentioned is not identified, presumably because the interrogated persons didn't know his name. It may have been Peter Eisenbarth, Erich Wolff, August Hering or Martin Weiss (see my post under viewtopic.php?f=28&t=2916&start=80#p109880). Weiss is mentioned in connection with the Trakai massacre on p. 52 of Bubnys' article.
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 »

Aryan Scholar wrote:
Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:10 am
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 15, 2017 11:26 pm
On page 7 of the Jäger Report (facsimile under http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-hist ... img007.gif, translation under http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-hist ... tm.en.html), Jäger wrote the following:
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!

(Emphasis added.)

This means that, except for the working Jews and their families in the mentioned places, which do not include Semeliškių, Jäger's Einsaztkommando 3 killed each and every Jew at the places mentioned in the report.
What criteria was used by Jäger to determine who was a "Work" Jew and who was not?
I don't think Jäger determined that, he wanted to kill them all according to what he wrote. The information about what Jews were to be spared must have come from "the civil administration (the Reichskommisar)".
Aryan Scholar wrote:
However, the primary source Jäger Report already gets us very far in this respect. According to my calculations based on the report, see again my article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... eport.html, Jäger's Einsatzkommando 3, together with (to a comparatively small extent) the Lithuanian "partisans" acting on their own initiative, killed 135,391 Jews. According to the page http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/a ... unities/LT there were 220,000 Jews in Lithuania including the Vilnius area prior to the German occupation. Of these EK 3 killed about 62 %, which would leave alive about 84,600 in Schaulen, Kauen and Wilna (the 34,500 Work Jews and their families saved by the Reichskommissar).
What is the primary source for the 220000 (100%) figure of Jews living in Lithuanian from the World Jewish Congress?
I don't know. It may have been an estimate based on a population survey. There are both lower and higher estimates mentioned under https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust ... ite_note-1
Aryan Scholar wrote:How many bodies were found, recovered and identified from the alleged 209000 (95%) of Jews killed in Lithuania?
I don't know either. And I also don't think the question is relevant. There are other means of establishing a population's losses due to mass murder than counting bodies. And it's not realistic to expect that every single victims, whether exhumed or not, was identified. The Yad Vashem names database has 41,040 entries for "Place of Death = Lithuania" (https://yvng.yadvashem.org/index.html?l ... e=synonyms).
Aryan Scholar wrote:From the above Jäger Report:
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.
Jäger explicit say the goal to solve the Jewish problem of all Lithuania has been achieved, all Jews in Lithuanian were killed ("threre are no more Jews") by the Einsatzkommando 3, except the work Jews and their families. So in accordance with the Jäger Report in 1941 there was just 34500 Jews left in Lithuanian (Schaulen 4500, Kauen 15000 and Wilna 15000) and those were protected by the "civil administration (the Reichskommisar) and the army". Where the additional (84600 - 34500) = 50100 Jews from the World Jewish Congress comes from? How those 50100 Jews survived the supposed systematic mass killing of Jews in 1941 by the Einsatzkommando 3?
Jäger's figures may not have included the working Jews' family members. Jäger mentioned 15,000 Jews in the Wilna ghetto, but actually the population seems to have been twice as high at the end of Jäger's operations, according to an article under https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318312/. On the other hand, and despite the fact that (as I mentioned in a previous post, see quote below) Jäger's unit was not the only one massacring Jews in Lithuania, it is possible that the estimates of Lithuania's Jewish population exceeding 200,000 are too high. This would mean that Jäger's contribution to the annihilation of Lithuanian Jewry was proportionately even higher.
The names of EK3 perpetrators established so far, besides Jäger himself, are those mentioned above. Further names are August Hering and Martin Weiss. Both were given life sentences by the Landgericht Wurzburg, Germany (see under http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/Tatlandengfr.htm, Case Nr. 192). However, Jäger's EK 3 was not the only unit that killed Jews in Lithuania in 1941. Look up the summaries of further German trials regarding crimes in Lithuania under the aforementioned link.
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: 4652
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2016 4:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Origin and Content of DOK 239

Post by Aryan Scholar »

Aryan Scholar wrote:
Sun Jun 18, 2017 9:00 pm
Roberto wrote:
Sun Jun 18, 2017 3:25 pm
I didn't say that the document explicitly refers to "mass graves used to bury Jews". The argument is that "Jewish mass grave" would not have been a term used for a mass grave containing something other than dead Jews, for the reasons explained. And that, besides, the possibility of the mass graves in question containing something other than dead Jews is not borne out by other evidence, whereas all related evidence points to mass graves containing the bodies of Jews who had met a violent death.
Please, substantiate the "argument is that "Jewish mass grave" would not have been a term used for a mass grave containing something other than dead Jews" with authoritative (or even testimonial) evidence related to DOK 239. Please, quote the parts of the related evidence of DOK 239 which explicitly "points to mass graves containing the bodies of Jews who had met a violent death". Let's see it.
It is not known who exactly ordered the systematic killing of Jews in Semeliškių. It is not known who exactly carried the order, dug the mass grave and systematic killed the Jews in Semeliškių in 1941. It is not known where exactly the mass grave in Semeliškių was dug and how many bodies were really buried there. It is not known if all Jews of Semeliškių were really killed. It is not known if the mass grave in Semeliškių have just have the corpses of Jews, gentiles, animals or a combination of all. It is not known who erected the symbolic 1965 monument in the Dargonių forest cemetery. Finally, you fail to accept the Lithuanian land register has no record of any Jewish mass grave in the Dargonių forest cemetery. It seems no related evidence of DOK 239 can be shown which explicitly "points to mass graves containing the bodies of Jews who had met a violent death" in Semeliškių, but instead assumptions are being made based mostly on belief and leaps of faith.


Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 5:49 pm
None of the above changes the fact that "the place of massacre of the Jews" implies a mass grave at that place, meaning that "graves" means both individual graves and a mass grave (or only the latter, as the individual graves are mentioned elsewhere), and that the fenced-in area is much bigger than would correspond to the individual graves alone, which occupy only small fraction of the area.
That would be true if there was a record of a Jewish mass grave in the Lithuanian land register of the Dargonių forest cemetery terrain. There is none.
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 5:49 pm
And how do you explain the size of the fenced-in area including the monument, of which the individual graves occupy only a small fraction?
The Dargonių forest cemetery terrain includes 6 marked areas for individuals graves (see here and here).
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 5:49 pm
No, reaching a conclusion based on several indicators, none of which is the conclusion itself. The other way round. You need to explain why you think that the above indications (including without limitation the depression) don't support my assumption.
For your assumption to be true you have to first prove the exactly location, dimension and content of the 30m long Semeliškių Jewish mass grave described in DOK 239.
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 5:49 pm
That's right. So it can neither be assumed nor ruled out that there was a Soviet excavation at the place in question. The question remains open.
As it remains the absence of any evidence of a Soviet excavation occurring in Semeliškių.
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 5:49 pm
The source you quote cannot be taken as proof that the Soviet ChGK based its conclusions only on "anecdotal, hearsay and testimonial evidence", as there are publicly available examples of cases in which excavations and exhumations were carried out by Soviet investigators (and what is publicly available is probably just a fraction of what exists in this respect).
In the absence of any evidence of a Soviet excavation occurring in Semeliškių, the Soviet CHGK reports about Semeliškių can only come from "anecdotal, hearsay and testimonial evidence".
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 5:49 pm
I said that Germans gave the orders and were thus primarily responsible for the killing of civilians, which as we known from other evidence were Jews, in the Semeliškių. (...) So my assumption (that Germans were primarily responsible for the massacre) is duly substantiated, and there's no need to procure primary sources about specific individual perpetrators.
How do you know it was a German who gave the original order to kill civilians in Semeliškių if you do not even know the identity of the person who gave the original order?
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 5:49 pm
The other way round. Where is the proof that Wette, who is a noted historian, invented the statement in question? The source reference is the following (Wette, Jäger, p. 206):
Schreiben der Zentralen Stelle der Landesjustizverwaltungen vom 5.12.1989 an den Verf.; Anlage: Vermerk der Zentralen Stelle vom 2.5.1963 über die Überlassung einer Reihe von Originaldokumenten durch das Aussenministerium der UdSSR,
Translation:
Letter from the Central Bureau of the Federal States’ Judicial Administrations to the author dated 5.12.1989; attachment: note of the Central Bureau dated 2.5.1963 about the handing over of a number of original documents by the Foreign Ministry of the USSR.
What Soviet entity exactly and where in Lithuania exactly? I don't know. Maybe that is stated in the Central Bureau's note dated 2.5.1963 mentioned by Wette, see quote above. What is the relevance of this question?
The primary source for Wette statement is not authoritative evidence produced by the Soviets in 1944, but instead a "note of the Central Bureau dated 2.5.1963 about the handing over of a number of original documents by the Foreign Ministry of the USSR". It appears Wette made a conjecture based on an undisclosed statement in the note. So not really proof the Soviets know about the Jäger Report in 1944, even less the figure in the Soviet CHGK reports about Semeliškių comes from the Jäger Report.
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 5:49 pm
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:15 pm
This means that, except for the working Jews and their families in the mentioned places, which do not include Semeliškių, Jäger's Einsaztkommando 3 killed each and every Jew at the places mentioned in the report.
Then who are the additional 58 "innocent citizens" (or "civilians") from the Soviet CHGK reports about Semeliškių if there was no more Jews in Semeliškių to be killed in accordance with the Jäger Report?
I don't know. They may have been prisoners of war or civilians executed for having helped pro-Soviet partisans. What is the relevance of this question?
You are offering authoritative evidence which you do not know what exactly it proves.
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 5:49 pm
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 8:15 pm
The standard scholarly work on what happened to Lithuania's Jews during the German occupation seems to be The Holocaust in Lithuania between 1941 and 1944, by Arūnas Bubnys, D. Kuodytė, Genocide and Resistance Research Centre of Lithuania, 2005. Bubnys also wrote an essay about "Holocaust in Lithuanian Province in 1941", which is available under http://www.docscopic.info/flashoflight/ ... ce_ENG.pdf. Semeliškių (Semeliškés) is mentioned on pp. 52-53.
Semeliškes Ghetto existed for about two weeks. During the first days of October, about 20-30 Security Police and SD special force policemen came by lorry from Vilnius to Semeliškes. One German came with them by car. Together with the chief of Semeliškes Rural District and the chief of the Police Station, he went to examine the future place of killings. A trench was dug up about 2 km from Semeliškes in the direction of Trakai, near the lake. The German did not like the selected place, however, and he ordered to dig a trench in another place on the edge of the forest. While another trench was dug, the killers of the special force stayed in Semeliškes. The extermination of Semeliškes Ghetto was carried out on 6 October 1941.
What is the primary source for the above statements from Arūnas Bubnys? Who is the German above in the underlined sentences Arūnas Bubnys is talking about?
"Interrogation minutes of J. Ragavičius of 17 August 1970, LSA, doc.col. K-1, inv.sched. 45, file 1851, p.p. 155-157; interrogation minutes of B. Kapačiūnas of 11 September 1970, ibid., file 1847, p.p. 236-236 a.p.". The German mentioned is not identified, presumably because the interrogated persons didn't know his name. It may have been Peter Eisenbarth, Erich Wolff, August Hering or Martin Weiss (see my post under viewtopic.php?f=28&t=2916&start=80#p109880). Weiss is mentioned in connection with the Trakai massacre on p. 52 of Bubnys' article.
Another incognito perpetrator whose identity neither you nor Bubnys really knows, but believe it was really a German without proof because Ragavičius and Kapačiūnas said so in interrogations done in 1970.

aemathisphd
Posts: 913
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Origin and Content of DOK 239

Post by aemathisphd »

My apology for jumping into this thread at this point, but wouldn't this German be Joachim Hamann?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests