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 » Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:37 am

been-there wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 6:00 am
Roberto wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:54 pm
...The mass graves were in remote forest or other rural areas, not in or near population centres, which means that the killers endeavoured to avoid onlookers or keep them at a minimum. This doesn't mean that the killings could be wholly concealed - after all people saw the Jews being taken away, and there might be local peasants watching the killing or coming upon the mass graves later on. The point is that an effort at discretion was made, not that discretion was wholly achieved. And that the placement of the graves does not suggest that they contained corpses resulting from catastrophic disease mortality. Such corpses would rather have been buried in cemeteries inside the Jewish quarter or ghetto, as was the case in the Warsaw and Lodz ghettos...
Roberto wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:34 pm
The origin of the Jewish mass graves can be established on hand of the Jäger Report, Soviet investigation reports and eyewitness testimonies, which I have mentioned. Regarding the human corpses yet to be buried, there's no evidence to how they died, though a violent death is likely as people usually don't just drop dead in a field or forest.
Aryan Scholar wrote:There is also not evidence (at least until now) of how the supposed corpses (or carcasses?) in the Jewish mass graves and the corpses in the individuals graves died.
There is evidence, actually. The Jäger Report, Soviet investigation reports and eyewitness testimonies. We can argue about the conclusiveness and reliability of that evidence, but to say that there is none is not correct.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:34 pm
Paskevicius instructed the community leaders of the Trakai district to bury in the spring such corpses and carcasses that were lying around in the open and "yet to be placed in a grave". This does not necessarily mean that they were to be placed in the same grave. And if it did, such wouldn't hurt the feelings of anyone that mattered at the time and place if the corpses were of individual Jews hunted down and killed.
So it is possible the Jewish mass graves also had corpses or carcasses - or a combination of both - as Dr. Paskeviciu did not mention it have either corpses or carcasses - or a combination of both.
Do you agree?
It's theoretically possible but unlikely in practice that the mass graves also contained one or the other carcass, as Paskevicius expressly referred to "Jewish mass graves" and the related evidence points to the occupants of these graves having been Jews.
Hmmmm?
Am I missing something here? I understood that the mass graves under discussion were reported to have been containing corpses of animals ('cadavers') also.

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

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

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

However, there is no mention of carcasses buried in either mass graves or "individual graves" in the letter, whose original text and translation you can read under http://holocaustcontroversies.yuku.com/ ... -Lithuania.

The mass graves are referred to as "Jewish mass graves", suggesting that their occupants are corpses of Jewish human beings. That's also what becomes apparent from the related evidence I referred to (parts of the Jäger Report mentioning mass killings in those areas, Soviet investigation reports, eyewitness testimonies). The "individual graves" are expressly stated to contain only human corpses.

The only part of the letter in which carcasses are mentioned is in regard to "corpses and carcasses not yet buried" at the end of the letter, i.e. corpses and carcasses lying around in the open at the time of writing. The carcasses in this context may be of animals who had died of disease. 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.
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 » Tue Jun 13, 2017 10:13 am

Regarding the hypothesis that the "community provosts" mentioned in DOK 239 were members of one or more Jewish councils (implausibly without this being expressly pointed out as would have been necessary to avoid confusion with non-Jewish heads of local Lithuanian administration of the mentioned communities, i.e. Trakai, Semeliškes and Žiežmariai regarding the mass graves), what Jewish ghettos or quarters were there in these communities at the time of the DMO's writing?

As concerns the Trakai ghetto, the page https://www.iajgsjewishcemeteryproject. ... rakai.html contains the following information:
On August 1, the governor of Trakai District instructed town and rural districts police chiefs to treat people of all nationalities equally except for Jews. Weekly food rations for the Jews were less than half those of non-Jews. The Jews were forbidden to have radios. In July, Governor of Trakai District established a ghetto and a Jewish council with a manager and deputy. On August 16, Vilnius, Švenčionys, Trakai and Alytus district officials moved half the Jews into the ghettos including persons with one Jewish parent, but the Jews of Trakai continued to live in their houses and apartments. In early September, the police transported about 400 Jews by boats to a ghetto set up in summerhouses. Jews from Aukštadvaris, Onuškis and Lentvaris were taken there a bit later. Policemen guarded Trakai Ghetto until its liquidation a week or so later when the Governor of Trakai District ordered the murders. K. Čaplikas and his subordinates refused to carry out this order. A week later, 20-30 policemen from Vilnius special force came to Trakai by bus with an SS non-commissioned officer to shoot the Jews in Varnikai forest near the lake, about 3 km from Trakai. Local policemen and white-bands guarded the massacre site. The massacre began in the morning and ended in the afternoon as 1,446 Jews (366 men, 483 women and 597 children) were taken in groups to the pit and shot. After shooting, the special force had a drunken vodka feast in the local Trakai canteen. The killers left for Vilnius - singing. Worried about the sanitary status and protection of mass graves, te Trakai District governor instructed the burgomaster of Trakai and chiefs of Žiežmariai, Semeliškes and Eišiškes Rural Districts to fence the mass grave area with 120 cm high fencing to keep people and animals out and to distribute lime chloride on the mass graves. On July 8, 1942, a doctor in Trakai District informed the Commander of Vilnius District that the mass graves of Trakai District in Trakai, Semeliškes and Žiežmariai Rural Districts had been strewn with bleach and refilled with soil in 1941 and that in Spring 1942, the mass graves were disentombed, strewn with bleach, and fenced.
According to the above the Trakai ghetto was liquidated in September 1941 and thus did no longer exist at the time of the DMO's writing, which means that there was no Jewish council in Trakai that the DMO (or the district head of Trakai, to whom the DMO's letter was directed) could have turned to. The figures in this source are from the Jäger Report, page 6 (http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-hist ... tm.en.html):
Sep. 30, 41 Trakai 366 [Jews] 483 [Jewesses] 597 [Jewish children] 1,446
The "Holocaust Atlas of Lithuania" (http://www.holocaustatlas.lt/EN/), see the quote under viewtopic.php?f=28&t=2916, also mentions the killing of Trakai's Jews.

As concerns Semeliškes, the atlas mentions that "The ghetto existed for about two weeks." and that "The Jews of Semeliškės were killed on October 6, 1941." (the date is obviously from the Jäger Report, page 6). So there was also no ghetto in Semeliškes at the time of the DMO's writing, hence no Jewish council that the DMO or the district head of Trakai could have turned to.

As concerns Žiežmariai, the atlas contains the following information:
According to the Jäger Report, Jews from the Kaišiadorys ghetto and temporary isolation site, 1,911 people, were shot on August 26, 1941. It is believed that not all Jews in the Kaišiadorys ghetto and temporary isolation site could have been shot in one day. Thus it is thought that only the last day of the mass murders is indicated in the report. The main organizers of the mass murder of the Jews were SS-Obersturmführer Joachim Hamann’s Rollkommando and locals with white armbands, local police and local volunteers.”
Address: Kaišiadorys district, Žiežmariai administrative district, Strošiūnai forest (9th quadrant)
Victim number: 1911
Perpetrators
Rollkommando Hamann/1st Battalion, 3rd Unit;
Kaišiadorys white armbanders, police and local volunteers
On August 29, 1941, the surviving Jewish women, children and elderly – in total 784 people – of Kaišiadorys and surrounding areas (Žasliai, Žiežmariai, Rumšiskės) were shot. Lithuanian self-defense unit, Rollkomando Hamann, local police and white armbanders took part in the mass murder.
So according to the atlas, there were no more Jews in either Žiežmariai or Kaišiadorys after 29 August 1941, thus no Jewish ghettos, thus no Jewish council that the DMO or the district head of Trakai could have turned to in either of these locations.

The Trakai district head's letter of 8.11.1941, LCVA 500/1/4, Bd. 2, Bl. 794, was addressed to the majors (Bürgermeister) and sub-district heads (Amtsbezirkschefs of Žiežmariai, Semeliškes und Eišiškés. Regarding Žiežmariai, Semeliškes see above. The killing of the Eišiškés Jews is mentioned on page 6 of the Jäger Report:
Sep. 27, 41 Eysisky 989 [Jews] 1636 [Jewesses] 821 [Jewish children] 3,446
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 » Tue Jun 13, 2017 10:33 am

P.S.
The Holocaust Atlas of Lithuania mentions the following regarding Eišiškés:
“The exact date of the mass murder of the eldery Jews of Eišiškės is not known. Probably on the third day of the mass murder of the Jews of Eišiškės, elderly Jews were shot. They were shot close to the Catholic cemetery. The Jäger Report indicates on September 27, 1941, 3,446 Jews were murdered, including 989 men, 1,636 women and 821 children.

“It’s not entirely clear who perpetrated the mass murder of the Jews of Eišiškės. According to the stories of convicts and local residents, police from the Trakai district (Kaišiadorys, Žasliai), white armbanders and drunken local young men took part in the massacres. Allegedly Astrauskas, police chief of the Eišiškės district, directed the mass murder. There were also Germans at the mass murder site, but it’s unknown whether Germans actually fired or just issued orders. According to statements given by some of the Special Squad members who were convicted, the Special Squad also took part in perpetrating the mass murder of the Jews of Eišiškės.”
“According to the memories of residents of Eišiškės, a group dressed in civilian clothes but armed arrived from the direction of Vilnius on the evening of September 21, 1941. The next day machine-gun fire woke the residents of the town. Armed Lithuanian white armbanders and police drove all Jews from their homes into three Eišiškės synagogues. When the synagogues were full, they held Jews in the fenced-in market square and set up a guard. At about 10 A.M. armed guards took about 400 to 500 Jewish men (aged 18–40) out of one of the synagogues. About 80 Lithuanian white armbanders guarded the column to the old Jewish cemetery. Jews were ordered to undress to their underwear at the mass murder site. Then Jews were driven into the ditch and told to lie closely together at the bottom of the ditch. The murderers then shot them from the edge of the ditch. About 7 or 8 large groups of people had been shot by evening.
“The killings lasted at least two days. On the second day Jewish women and children were shot. They were shot at the other end of town. Besides the Jewish residents of Eišiškės, Jews from Valkininkai (about 300 people) and Kalesninkai (about 100 people) were also shot in Eišiškės. Germans filmed and photographed the shooting. According to the testimony of local residents, several weeks later adult Polish residents were forced into a movie theater and were shown footage of the mass murder of the Jews of Eišiškės.
“The exact date of the mass murder of the eldery Jews of Eišiškės is not known. Contrary to the statements of witnesses, the Jäger Report says the mass murder took place on September 27, 1941, rather than September 22 and 23, 1941. It is possible Jäger only indicated the last day of the mass murder.
“On the third day of the mass murder of the Jews of Eišiškės, elderly Jews were shot. They were shot close to the Catholic cemetery. The Jäger Report indicates 3,446 Jews were murdered, including 989 men, 1,636 women and 821 children.
“It’s not entirely clear who perpetrated the mass murder of the Jews of Eišiškės. According to the stories of convicts and local residents, police from the Trakai district (Kaišiadorys, Žasliai), white armbanders and drunken local young men took part in the massacres. Allegedly Astrauskas, police chief of the Eišiškės district, directed the mass murder. There were also Germans at the mass murder site, but it’s unknown whether Germans actually fired or just issued orders. According to statements given by some of the Special Squad members who were convicted, the Special Squad also took part in perpetrating the mass murder of the Jews of Eišiškės.”
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 » Tue Jun 13, 2017 11:30 am

Roberto wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:54 pm
Wrong conclusion. The mass graves were in remote forest or other rural areas, not in or near population centers, which means that the killers endeavored to avoid onlookers or keep them at a minimum. This doesn't mean that the killings could be wholly concealed - after all people saw the Jews being taken away, and there might be local peasants watching the killing or coming upon the mass graves later on. The point is that an effort at discretion was made, not that discretion was wholly achieved. And that the placement of the graves does not suggest that they contained corpses resulting from catastrophic disease mortality. Such corpses would rather have been buried in cemeteries inside the Jewish quarter or ghetto, as was the case in the Warsaw and Lodz ghettos. Besides, there is no evidence suggesting catastrophic disease mortality among Jews in any population center of the Trakai district in 1941. Such disease mortality would also be unlikely as the German occupation had not yet lasted all that long.
For your hypothesis to be valid you will have first to prove what is the cause of death of the supposed corpses (or carcasses?) in the Jewish mass graves in DOK 239.
There is evidence, actually. The Jäger Report, Soviet investigation reports and eyewitness testimonies. We can argue about the conclusiveness and reliability of that evidence, but to say that there is none is not correct.
I did not see any mentioning how the supposed corpses (or carcasses?) in the Jewish mass graves of DOK 239 died.
It's theoretically possible but unlikely in practice that the mass graves also contained one or the other carcass, as Paskevicius expressly referred to "Jewish mass graves" and the related evidence points to the occupants of these graves having been Jews.
Jewish mass graves can just mean mass graves made by Jews, in another words, mass graves Jews made to bury corpses or carcasses - or a combination of both.
First of all, the Jewish council hypothesis is your claim, so it's for you to provide evidence in support of it, not for me to provide evidence in support of reasonable arguments against it. That there were Jewish councils is widely known, what you have to show is that Jewish councils are likely to have received instructions from a Lithuanian DMO and that such instructions are likely to have been issued without first informing the competent German authorities and obtaining their permission.
You already provided circumstantial authoritative evidence the Main Health Administration had Jewish doctors:
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]
Dr. Paškevičius could be himself a Jewish doctor.

Your argument against the hypothesis the community leaders could be Jews is just absurd as it is based on the assumption Lithuanian community leaders could not be Jews.
Under https://books.google.de/books?id=fiBpCg ... to&f=false you find the information, in connection with the Šiauliai ghetto, that the Lithuanian administration was completely subordinated to the Germans, quoting a statement of Gewecke dated 14 August 1941 whereby "Die litauischen Behörden erhalten [...] die notwendigen Weisungen künftig nur noch von der Zivilverwaltung" ("The Lithuanian authorities shall henceforth receive [...] the necessary instructions only from the [German] civilian administration."). Lithuanian plans to create a ghetto far away from the city were overruled after the Jewish council convinced the German military that it would be of advantage to have the ghetto close to the places of work. The Šiauliai ghetto was divided into two sections, one called "Kaukasus" and the other called "Trakai" because a street named Trakai Street went through it. The latter section was created by the Lithuanians at the order of the Wehrmacht commandant, again upon the Jewish council's request. This suggests that Lithuanian authorities didn't do much on their own as concerns Jewish ghettos, but limited themselves to carrying out German instructions.
The original sentence in German just say "civil administration", not "[German] civil administration".
Second, the communities in the Trakai district, like Žiežmariai and Semeliškes, must have had a mayor, sub-district chief, provost or other official at the head of their administration, like every community in every country. And it's rather unlikely (to say the least) that these officials should have been Jews instead of non-Jewish Lithuanians. The authority of Jewish councils did not extend beyond the local Jewish ghettos.
Must have? Because you say so? More authoritative evidence, less speculation. None of what you stated above rule out the hypothesis Dr. Paskevicius could had obtained the details about the Jewish mass graves from Jews who were community leaders.
Actually there are not all that many hypotheses, the one I considered is the likeliest one, and you didn't answer my question. (...) If you had been the DMO and been asked by the Regional Commissioner to provide information about corpses and carcasses buried in your area, would you have blindly relied on third party information for your response, instead of looking up the areas yourself or at least having them looked up by trusted subordinates? Would that have been the been the behavior of a diligent, conscious and efficient DMO? Wouldn't it have been a sloppy and careless thing to do? No avoiding reasonable questions by calling them "anecdotal evidence", please. Kindly answer my question.

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

Re: Origin and Content of DOK 239

Post by Aryan Scholar » Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:50 pm

Aryan Scholar wrote:
Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:41 am
Because one explanation for the absence of two important explicit references in the letter to corroborate its origin and content is DOK 239 was fabricated.
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jun 03, 2017 7:24 pm
What is more, since when are forged documents kept in archives, where there's a good chance that they will never catch anyone's attention?
Here are additional reasons to doubt the authenticity and accuracy of DOK 239 based on the context where DOK 239 comes from:

Avotaynu Online:
State Historical Archives in Vilnius: Lithuania Roulette

Following is excerpted from a larger article in Rodziny, The Journal of the Polish Genealogical Society of America, Winter 2010. (...) The collections of the Lithuanian State Historical Archives clearly reflect the geopolitical history of Poland and Lithuania, countries connected by a union lasting centuries. The parts of Lithuania with the largest number of Poles were the areas of Vilnius, Kaunas, Hrodna (now in Belarus), Trakai, Marijampolė, and Merkinė (Polish names Wilno, Kowno, Grodno, Troki, Mariampol, and Merecz, respectively). That accounts for the presence of popular Polish surnames on the pages of metrical registers. (...) Curiously, the Lithuanian Archives does not provide the original names in official transcripts. In documents from the 19th century, I read Iwan Petrulenis, Ekaterina Samujlewicz, Matwiej Kukowski, but in the Lithuanian transcripts, they appear as Jonas Petrulionis, Kotryna Samuilavičiūtė, and Motiejus Kukauskas. Such documents have only the hallmark of transcription and are, speaking frankly, forgeries. The irony of this procedure lies in the fact that it is prescribed by Lithuanian law. Formally imposed spelling of surnames has even become a bone of contention in the political relations of Lithuania and Poland. To this day, government negotiations and complaints before international justice and human rights tribunals have not helped.

[source]
The Former Communist Party Archives in Eastern Europe and Russia A Provisional Assessment, Leo van Rossum:
The fall of communism dramatically affected archival institutions in Eastern Europe and Russia. Access improved considerably, and obstacles to publication of the documents found diminished. (...) J. Skowronek’s final report on the conference lists three options for the definitive status
attributed to the party archives after their transfer to the state archival system: merge of the party archives with the KGB and MVD archives into a single archive (Lithuania) or steps in that direction (Estonia). (...) In his final report Skowronek concluded that “nearly all” the party archives remained intact, except for the ones from Poland, Lithuania, and to a lesser extent the Ukraine and Slovakia, which had been “purged”. (...) In Lithuania, the process was sensational. For a year and a half, MVD troops loyal to Moscow surrounded the central party archive building in Vilnius. Inside, Lithuanian archival employees sympathetic to the new state continued the operations. This Soviet action was part of a broader – albeit abortive – half-hearted military intervention following the Lithuanian “Declaration of Independence” on 11 March 1990. Only after the failed coup of August 1991 did the MVD gradually retreat, thereby granting the Lithuanian state archival service freedom to manoeuvre. (...) By general agreement, the former party archives were an important source and sometimes even the basic source for studying all aspects of development in Eastern Europe since 1917 and 1945, respectively; the conference’s concluding resolution mentioned “archives consisting mainly of important and largely unique collections of primary sources on the socialist experiment that reveal the mechanisms of the power structure in totalitarian states. (...) Without intending to belittle this assessment, the Polish historian Feliks Tych shared some important heuristic observations. He mentioned that every party archive comprised two source corpora: documents from before and after the seizure of power, respectively. The sources from the first period (called the apostolic period by Georges Haupt) are ideological-programmatic by nature and historically relevant provided they undergo standard source criticism. Conversely, at least three factors complicate the interpretation of the documents from the second period: the changing semantic significance of standard terms (different meaning of “class enemy” for striking Polish workers), tabooing (circumventing events that conflict with the ideology, such as the cruel expulsion of the Germans from Eastern Europe in 1944-45), and deliberate forgeries (attributing brisk changes in power among the party’s top officials to “the will of the working class”). An additional problem was that some documents had been destroyed.

[source]
IPS:
LITHUANIA: Slow Pace Of War Crime Investigation Drawing U.S. Fire
Edvinas Butkus

VILNIUS, Apr 10 1996 (IPS) - Faced with an increasingly angry outcry in the United States, Lithuanian president Algirdas Brazauskas has taken a ‘personal interest’ in a ‘just settlement’ of the case of suspected 1940s war criminal Aleksandras Lileikis. (...) They are accusing Lithuania of unwillingness to face up to its citizens’ role in the genocide of Jews during World War II, which claimed the lives of 94 percent of Lithuania’s pre-war Jewish population of around 220,000.(...) Now 88, he was chief of security in German- occupied Vilnius during World War II and, say the U.S. Justice Department, signed orders sending thousands of the city’s Lithuanian Jews to their death at Nazi behest. (...) Lileikis does not deny being head of the Vilnius security forces during the war, but does deny signing the orders. He says the papers are a forgery. He has also refused to give evidence to U.S. judges, claiming his constitutional ‘fifth amendment’ right not to give evidence on the grounds that it may incriminate him. (...) In January 1995, the Lithuanian prosecutor general’s special investigations centre declined to press charges against Lileikis citing lack of evidence. But under pressure from the U.S. and Jewish organisations worldwide, the case was reviewed again. (...) The prosecutor still has to evaluate archive materials in Germany. The Germans have agreed to release the papers but will not allow them out of the country. The prosecutors must travel to Germany to inspect the documents. (...) The case rests on Lileikis’ alleged signature on the signed orders to transfer Jews arrested in Vilnius to German security services, which organised their murder or transfer to death camps. (...) The Lithuanians want to have the signatures investigated by an independent commission, a process that may take months. The issue of forgery has been raised by other accused war criminals, who claim the former Soviet rulers of Lithuania released forged documents implicating Lithuanians in the West of war crimes.

[source]
SOVIET MANIPULATION OF THE MEMORY OF THE LITHUANIAN GUERRILLA WAR, Mingailė Jurkutė:
The paper analyses the transformation of the collective memory of the Lithuanian guerrilla war (1944–1953) during the Soviet occupation. (...) In May 12, 1958, the bureau of the Lithuanian Communist Party Central Committee (LCP CC) adopted a  decision on “The use of archival documents to compromise the ex-members of the resistance” (Bogušauškas and Streikus 2005, 264-266). This decision aimed at wide and combined actions. (...) The school was the most important area of forming the mindset of Soviet citizens, thus it was probably the most important area of enforcing the forged narrative of the Lithuanian guerrilla war.

[source]

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 8523
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Origin and Content of DOK 239

Post by been-there » Tue Jun 13, 2017 4:47 pm

Roberto wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:37 am
been-there wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 6:00 am
Roberto wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:54 pm
...The mass graves were in remote forest or other rural areas, not in or near population centres, which means that the killers endeavoured to avoid onlookers or keep them at a minimum. This doesn't mean that the killings could be wholly concealed - after all people saw the Jews being taken away, and there might be local peasants watching the killing or coming upon the mass graves later on. The point is that an effort at discretion was made, not that discretion was wholly achieved. And that the placement of the graves does not suggest that they contained corpses resulting from catastrophic disease mortality. Such corpses would rather have been buried in cemeteries inside the Jewish quarter or ghetto, as was the case in the Warsaw and Lodz ghettos...
Hmmmm?
Am I missing something here? I understood that the mass graves under discussion were reported to have been containing corpses of animals ('cadavers') also.

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

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

Q3. Should we also conclude that “people saw the [animals] being taken away, and there might be local peasants watching the killing or coming upon the mass graves later on”?
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”?
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

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

Re: Origin and Content of DOK 239

Post by Roberto » 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
been-there wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 6:00 am
Roberto wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:54 pm
...The mass graves were in remote forest or other rural areas, not in or near population centres, which means that the killers endeavoured to avoid onlookers or keep them at a minimum. This doesn't mean that the killings could be wholly concealed - after all people saw the Jews being taken away, and there might be local peasants watching the killing or coming upon the mass graves later on. The point is that an effort at discretion was made, not that discretion was wholly achieved. And that the placement of the graves does not suggest that they contained corpses resulting from catastrophic disease mortality. Such corpses would rather have been buried in cemeteries inside the Jewish quarter or ghetto, as was the case in the Warsaw and Lodz ghettos...
Hmmmm?
Am I missing something here? I understood that the mass graves under discussion were reported to have been containing corpses of animals ('cadavers') also.

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

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

Q3. Should we also conclude that “people saw the [animals] being taken away, and there might be local peasants watching the killing or coming upon the mass graves later on”?
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.
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 » Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:27 pm

Aryan Scholar wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:50 pm
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:41 am
Because one explanation for the absence of two important explicit references in the letter to corroborate its origin and content is DOK 239 was fabricated.
Roberto wrote:
Sat Jun 03, 2017 7:24 pm
What is more, since when are forged documents kept in archives, where there's a good chance that they will never catch anyone's attention?
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?
Aryan Scholar wrote:Avotaynu Online:
State Historical Archives in Vilnius: Lithuania Roulette

Following is excerpted from a larger article in Rodziny, The Journal of the Polish Genealogical Society of America, Winter 2010. (...) The collections of the Lithuanian State Historical Archives clearly reflect the geopolitical history of Poland and Lithuania, countries connected by a union lasting centuries. The parts of Lithuania with the largest number of Poles were the areas of Vilnius, Kaunas, Hrodna (now in Belarus), Trakai, Marijampolė, and Merkinė (Polish names Wilno, Kowno, Grodno, Troki, Mariampol, and Merecz, respectively). That accounts for the presence of popular Polish surnames on the pages of metrical registers. (...) Curiously, the Lithuanian Archives does not provide the original names in official transcripts. In documents from the 19th century, I read Iwan Petrulenis, Ekaterina Samujlewicz, Matwiej Kukowski, but in the Lithuanian transcripts, they appear as Jonas Petrulionis, Kotryna Samuilavičiūtė, and Motiejus Kukauskas. Such documents have only the hallmark of transcription and are, speaking frankly, forgeries. The irony of this procedure lies in the fact that it is prescribed by Lithuanian law. Formally imposed spelling of surnames has even become a bone of contention in the political relations of Lithuania and Poland. To this day, government negotiations and complaints before international justice and human rights tribunals have not helped.

[source]
19th century documents, and the issue is apparently the "Lithuanization" of Polish names. Not exactly our cup of tea.
Aryan Scholar wrote:The Former Communist Party Archives in Eastern Europe and Russia A Provisional Assessment, Leo van Rossum:
The fall of communism dramatically affected archival institutions in Eastern Europe and Russia. Access improved considerably, and obstacles to publication of the documents found diminished. (...) J. Skowronek’s final report on the conference lists three options for the definitive status
attributed to the party archives after their transfer to the state archival system: merge of the party archives with the KGB and MVD archives into a single archive (Lithuania) or steps in that direction (Estonia). (...) In his final report Skowronek concluded that “nearly all” the party archives remained intact, except for the ones from Poland, Lithuania, and to a lesser extent the Ukraine and Slovakia, which had been “purged”. (...) In Lithuania, the process was sensational. For a year and a half, MVD troops loyal to Moscow surrounded the central party archive building in Vilnius. Inside, Lithuanian archival employees sympathetic to the new state continued the operations. This Soviet action was part of a broader – albeit abortive – half-hearted military intervention following the Lithuanian “Declaration of Independence” on 11 March 1990. Only after the failed coup of August 1991 did the MVD gradually retreat, thereby granting the Lithuanian state archival service freedom to manoeuvre. (...) By general agreement, the former party archives were an important source and sometimes even the basic source for studying all aspects of development in Eastern Europe since 1917 and 1945, respectively; the conference’s concluding resolution mentioned “archives consisting mainly of important and largely unique collections of primary sources on the socialist experiment that reveal the mechanisms of the power structure in totalitarian states. (...) Without intending to belittle this assessment, the Polish historian Feliks Tych shared some important heuristic observations. He mentioned that every party archive comprised two source corpora: documents from before and after the seizure of power, respectively. The sources from the first period (called the apostolic period by Georges Haupt) are ideological-programmatic by nature and historically relevant provided they undergo standard source criticism. Conversely, at least three factors complicate the interpretation of the documents from the second period: the changing semantic significance of standard terms (different meaning of “class enemy” for striking Polish workers), tabooing (circumventing events that conflict with the ideology, such as the cruel expulsion of the Germans from Eastern Europe in 1944-45), and deliberate forgeries (attributing brisk changes in power among the party’s top officials to “the will of the working class”). An additional problem was that some documents had been destroyed.

[source]
Documents related to Soviet activities in Lithuania. Also not our cup of tea.
Aryan Scholar wrote:IPS:
LITHUANIA: Slow Pace Of War Crime Investigation Drawing U.S. Fire
Edvinas Butkus

VILNIUS, Apr 10 1996 (IPS) - Faced with an increasingly angry outcry in the United States, Lithuanian president Algirdas Brazauskas has taken a ‘personal interest’ in a ‘just settlement’ of the case of suspected 1940s war criminal Aleksandras Lileikis. (...) They are accusing Lithuania of unwillingness to face up to its citizens’ role in the genocide of Jews during World War II, which claimed the lives of 94 percent of Lithuania’s pre-war Jewish population of around 220,000.(...) Now 88, he was chief of security in German- occupied Vilnius during World War II and, say the U.S. Justice Department, signed orders sending thousands of the city’s Lithuanian Jews to their death at Nazi behest. (...) Lileikis does not deny being head of the Vilnius security forces during the war, but does deny signing the orders. He says the papers are a forgery. He has also refused to give evidence to U.S. judges, claiming his constitutional ‘fifth amendment’ right not to give evidence on the grounds that it may incriminate him. (...) In January 1995, the Lithuanian prosecutor general’s special investigations centre declined to press charges against Lileikis citing lack of evidence. But under pressure from the U.S. and Jewish organisations worldwide, the case was reviewed again. (...) The prosecutor still has to evaluate archive materials in Germany. The Germans have agreed to release the papers but will not allow them out of the country. The prosecutors must travel to Germany to inspect the documents. (...) The case rests on Lileikis’ alleged signature on the signed orders to transfer Jews arrested in Vilnius to German security services, which organised their murder or transfer to death camps. (...) The Lithuanians want to have the signatures investigated by an independent commission, a process that may take months. The issue of forgery has been raised by other accused war criminals, who claim the former Soviet rulers of Lithuania released forged documents implicating Lithuanians in the West of war crimes.

[source]
Forgery claims regarding incriminating documents made by those incriminated by such documents. I would also claim forgery if I were in their place. Irrelevant.
Aryan Scholar wrote:SOVIET MANIPULATION OF THE MEMORY OF THE LITHUANIAN GUERRILLA WAR, Mingailė Jurkutė:
The paper analyses the transformation of the collective memory of the Lithuanian guerrilla war (1944–1953) during the Soviet occupation. (...) In May 12, 1958, the bureau of the Lithuanian Communist Party Central Committee (LCP CC) adopted a  decision on “The use of archival documents to compromise the ex-members of the resistance” (Bogušauškas and Streikus 2005, 264-266). This decision aimed at wide and combined actions. (...) The school was the most important area of forming the mindset of Soviet citizens, thus it was probably the most important area of enforcing the forged narrative of the Lithuanian guerrilla war.

[source]
The Lithuanian guerrilla war (1944-1953) is also not the subject of our discussion.

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.

Now, regarding Aryan Scholar's hypothesis that the "community provosts" mentioned in DOK 239 were members of one or more Jewish councils (implausibly without this being expressly pointed out as would have been necessary to avoid confusion with non-Jewish heads of the local Lithuanian administration of the mentioned communities, i.e. Trakai, Semeliškes and Žiežmariai regarding the mass graves), what Jewish ghettos or quarters were there in these communities at the time of the DMO's writing?

As concerns the Trakai ghetto, the page https://www.iajgsjewishcemeteryproject. ... rakai.html contains the following information:
On August 1, the governor of Trakai District instructed town and rural districts police chiefs to treat people of all nationalities equally except for Jews. Weekly food rations for the Jews were less than half those of non-Jews. The Jews were forbidden to have radios. In July, Governor of Trakai District established a ghetto and a Jewish council with a manager and deputy. On August 16, Vilnius, Švenčionys, Trakai and Alytus district officials moved half the Jews into the ghettos including persons with one Jewish parent, but the Jews of Trakai continued to live in their houses and apartments. In early September, the police transported about 400 Jews by boats to a ghetto set up in summerhouses. Jews from Aukštadvaris, Onuškis and Lentvaris were taken there a bit later. Policemen guarded Trakai Ghetto until its liquidation a week or so later when the Governor of Trakai District ordered the murders. K. Čaplikas and his subordinates refused to carry out this order. A week later, 20-30 policemen from Vilnius special force came to Trakai by bus with an SS non-commissioned officer to shoot the Jews in Varnikai forest near the lake, about 3 km from Trakai. Local policemen and white-bands guarded the massacre site. The massacre began in the morning and ended in the afternoon as 1,446 Jews (366 men, 483 women and 597 children) were taken in groups to the pit and shot. After shooting, the special force had a drunken vodka feast in the local Trakai canteen. The killers left for Vilnius - singing. Worried about the sanitary status and protection of mass graves, te Trakai District governor instructed the burgomaster of Trakai and chiefs of Žiežmariai, Semeliškes and Eišiškes Rural Districts to fence the mass grave area with 120 cm high fencing to keep people and animals out and to distribute lime chloride on the mass graves. On July 8, 1942, a doctor in Trakai District informed the Commander of Vilnius District that the mass graves of Trakai District in Trakai, Semeliškes and Žiežmariai Rural Districts had been strewn with bleach and refilled with soil in 1941 and that in Spring 1942, the mass graves were disentombed, strewn with bleach, and fenced.
According to the above the Trakai ghetto was liquidated in September 1941 and thus did no longer exist at the time of the DMO's writing, which means that there was no Jewish council in Trakai that the DMO (or the district head of Trakai, to whom the DMO's letter was directed) could have turned to. The figures in this source are from the Jäger Report, page 6 (http://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-hist ... tm.en.html):
Sep. 30, 41 Trakai 366 [Jews] 483 [Jewesses] 597 [Jewish children] 1,446
The "Holocaust Atlas of Lithuania" (http://www.holocaustatlas.lt/EN/), see the quote under viewtopic.php?f=28&t=2916, also mentions the killing of Trakai's Jews.

As concerns Semeliškes, the atlas mentions that "The ghetto existed for about two weeks." and that "The Jews of Semeliškės were killed on October 6, 1941." (the date is obviously from the Jäger Report, page 6). So there was also no ghetto in Semeliškes at the time of the DMO's writing, hence no Jewish council that the DMO or the district head of Trakai could have turned to.

As concerns Žiežmariai, the atlas contains the following information:
According to the Jäger Report, Jews from the Kaišiadorys ghetto and temporary isolation site, 1,911 people, were shot on August 26, 1941. It is believed that not all Jews in the Kaišiadorys ghetto and temporary isolation site could have been shot in one day. Thus it is thought that only the last day of the mass murders is indicated in the report. The main organizers of the mass murder of the Jews were SS-Obersturmführer Joachim Hamann’s Rollkommando and locals with white armbands, local police and local volunteers.”
Address: Kaišiadorys district, Žiežmariai administrative district, Strošiūnai forest (9th quadrant)
Victim number: 1911
Perpetrators
Rollkommando Hamann/1st Battalion, 3rd Unit;
Kaišiadorys white armbanders, police and local volunteers
On August 29, 1941, the surviving Jewish women, children and elderly – in total 784 people – of Kaišiadorys and surrounding areas (Žasliai, Žiežmariai, Rumšiskės) were shot. Lithuanian self-defense unit, Rollkomando Hamann, local police and white armbanders took part in the mass murder.
So according to the atlas, there were no more Jews in either Žiežmariai or Kaišiadorys after 29 August 1941, thus no Jewish ghettos, thus no Jewish council that the DMO or the district head of Trakai could have turned to in either of these locations.

The Trakai district head's letter of 8.11.1941 (LCVA 500/1/4, Bd. 2, Bl. 794), one of the sources I mentioned as supporting the authenticity of DOK 239, was addressed to the majors (Bürgermeister) and sub-district heads (Amtsbezirkschefs) of Žiežmariai, Semeliškes und Eišiškés. Regarding Žiežmariai and Semeliškes, see above. The killing of the Eišiškés Jews is mentioned on page 6 of the Jäger Report:
Sep. 27, 41 Eysisky 989 [Jews] 1636 [Jewesses] 821 [Jewish children] 3,446
The Holocaust Atlas of Lithuania mentions the following regarding Eišiškés:
“The exact date of the mass murder of the eldery Jews of Eišiškės is not known. Probably on the third day of the mass murder of the Jews of Eišiškės, elderly Jews were shot. They were shot close to the Catholic cemetery. The Jäger Report indicates on September 27, 1941, 3,446 Jews were murdered, including 989 men, 1,636 women and 821 children.

“It’s not entirely clear who perpetrated the mass murder of the Jews of Eišiškės. According to the stories of convicts and local residents, police from the Trakai district (Kaišiadorys, Žasliai), white armbanders and drunken local young men took part in the massacres. Allegedly Astrauskas, police chief of the Eišiškės district, directed the mass murder. There were also Germans at the mass murder site, but it’s unknown whether Germans actually fired or just issued orders. According to statements given by some of the Special Squad members who were convicted, the Special Squad also took part in perpetrating the mass murder of the Jews of Eišiškės.”
“According to the memories of residents of Eišiškės, a group dressed in civilian clothes but armed arrived from the direction of Vilnius on the evening of September 21, 1941. The next day machine-gun fire woke the residents of the town. Armed Lithuanian white armbanders and police drove all Jews from their homes into three Eišiškės synagogues. When the synagogues were full, they held Jews in the fenced-in market square and set up a guard. At about 10 A.M. armed guards took about 400 to 500 Jewish men (aged 18–40) out of one of the synagogues. About 80 Lithuanian white armbanders guarded the column to the old Jewish cemetery. Jews were ordered to undress to their underwear at the mass murder site. Then Jews were driven into the ditch and told to lie closely together at the bottom of the ditch. The murderers then shot them from the edge of the ditch. About 7 or 8 large groups of people had been shot by evening.
“The killings lasted at least two days. On the second day Jewish women and children were shot. They were shot at the other end of town. Besides the Jewish residents of Eišiškės, Jews from Valkininkai (about 300 people) and Kalesninkai (about 100 people) were also shot in Eišiškės. Germans filmed and photographed the shooting. According to the testimony of local residents, several weeks later adult Polish residents were forced into a movie theater and were shown footage of the mass murder of the Jews of Eišiškės.
“The exact date of the mass murder of the eldery Jews of Eišiškės is not known. Contrary to the statements of witnesses, the Jäger Report says the mass murder took place on September 27, 1941, rather than September 22 and 23, 1941. It is possible Jäger only indicated the last day of the mass murder.
“On the third day of the mass murder of the Jews of Eišiškės, elderly Jews were shot. They were shot close to the Catholic cemetery. The Jäger Report indicates 3,446 Jews were murdered, including 989 men, 1,636 women and 821 children.
“It’s not entirely clear who perpetrated the mass murder of the Jews of Eišiškės. According to the stories of convicts and local residents, police from the Trakai district (Kaišiadorys, Žasliai), white armbanders and drunken local young men took part in the massacres. Allegedly Astrauskas, police chief of the Eišiškės district, directed the mass murder. There were also Germans at the mass murder site, but it’s unknown whether Germans actually fired or just issued orders. According to statements given by some of the Special Squad members who were convicted, the Special Squad also took part in perpetrating the mass murder of the Jews of Eišiškės.”
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: 8523
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Origin and Content of DOK 239

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

Hmmmm?
Am I missing something here? I understood that the mass graves under discussion were reported to have been containing corpses of animals ('cadavers') also.

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

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

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

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.
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

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 3:19 pm

Aryan Scholar wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 11:30 am
Roberto wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:54 pm
Wrong conclusion. The mass graves were in remote forest or other rural areas, not in or near population centers, which means that the killers endeavored to avoid onlookers or keep them at a minimum. This doesn't mean that the killings could be wholly concealed - after all people saw the Jews being taken away, and there might be local peasants watching the killing or coming upon the mass graves later on. The point is that an effort at discretion was made, not that discretion was wholly achieved. And that the placement of the graves does not suggest that they contained corpses resulting from catastrophic disease mortality. Such corpses would rather have been buried in cemeteries inside the Jewish quarter or ghetto, as was the case in the Warsaw and Lodz ghettos. Besides, there is no evidence suggesting catastrophic disease mortality among Jews in any population center of the Trakai district in 1941. Such disease mortality would also be unlikely as the German occupation had not yet lasted all that long.
For your hypothesis to be valid you will have first to prove what is the cause of death of the supposed corpses (or carcasses?) in the Jewish mass graves in DOK 239.
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.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
There is evidence, actually. The Jäger Report, Soviet investigation reports and eyewitness testimonies. We can argue about the conclusiveness and reliability of that evidence, but to say that there is none is not correct.
I did not see any mentioning how the supposed corpses (or carcasses?) in the Jewish mass graves of DOK 239 died.
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. 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?
Aryan Scholar wrote:
It's theoretically possible but unlikely in practice that the mass graves also contained one or the other carcass, as Paskevicius expressly referred to "Jewish mass graves" and the related evidence points to the occupants of these graves having been Jews.
Jewish mass graves can just mean mass graves made by Jews, in another words, mass graves Jews made to bury corpses or carcasses - or a combination of both.
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. 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. 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. Fourth, because the term "mass graves" suggests burial sites of human beings rather than carcass disposal sites. Fifth, because there is no evidence suggesting catastrophic disease mortality among Jews in the Trakai district at the time in question. 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.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
First of all, the Jewish council hypothesis is your claim, so it's for you to provide evidence in support of it, not for me to provide evidence in support of reasonable arguments against it. That there were Jewish councils is widely known, what you have to show is that Jewish councils are likely to have received instructions from a Lithuanian DMO and that such instructions are likely to have been issued without first informing the competent German authorities and obtaining their permission.
You already provided circumstantial authoritative evidence the Main Health Administration had Jewish doctors:
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]
Dr. Paškevičius could be himself a Jewish doctor.
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.
Aryan Scholar wrote:Your argument against the hypothesis the community leaders could be Jews is just absurd as it is based on the assumption Lithuanian community leaders could not be Jews.
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.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Under https://books.google.de/books?id=fiBpCg ... to&f=false you find the information, in connection with the Šiauliai ghetto, that the Lithuanian administration was completely subordinated to the Germans, quoting a statement of Gewecke dated 14 August 1941 whereby "Die litauischen Behörden erhalten [...] die notwendigen Weisungen künftig nur noch von der Zivilverwaltung" ("The Lithuanian authorities shall henceforth receive [...] the necessary instructions only from the [German] civilian administration."). Lithuanian plans to create a ghetto far away from the city were overruled after the Jewish council convinced the German military that it would be of advantage to have the ghetto close to the places of work. The Šiauliai ghetto was divided into two sections, one called "Kaukasus" and the other called "Trakai" because a street named Trakai Street went through it. The latter section was created by the Lithuanians at the order of the Wehrmacht commandant, again upon the Jewish council's request. This suggests that Lithuanian authorities didn't do much on their own as concerns Jewish ghettos, but limited themselves to carrying out German instructions.
The original sentence in German just say "civil administration", not "[German] civil administration".
Yep, hence the square brackets around the word "German", to signal that this is a clarification I introduced.
Second, the communities in the Trakai district, like Žiežmariai and Semeliškes, must have had a mayor, sub-district chief, provost or other official at the head of their administration, like every community in every country. And it's rather unlikely (to say the least) that these officials should have been Jews instead of non-Jewish Lithuanians. The authority of Jewish councils did not extend beyond the local Jewish ghettos.
Aryan Scholar wrote:Must have? Because you say so? More authoritative evidence, less speculation.
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).
Aryan Scholar wrote:None of what you stated above rule out the hypothesis Dr. Paskevicius could had obtained the details about the Jewish mass graves from Jews who were community leaders.
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:
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?

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.

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.
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Actually there are not all that many hypotheses, the one I considered is the likeliest one, and you didn't answer my question. (...) If you had been the DMO and been asked by the Regional Commissioner to provide information about corpses and carcasses buried in your area, would you have blindly relied on third party information for your response, instead of looking up the areas yourself or at least having them looked up by trusted subordinates? Would that have been the been the behavior of a diligent, conscious and efficient DMO? Wouldn't it have been a sloppy and careless thing to do? No avoiding reasonable questions by calling them "anecdotal evidence", please. Kindly answer my question.
So what is your answer?
Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past.
~ A German jurist by the name of Baumann in the German juridical magazine NJW, quoted in: Bailer-Galanda/Benz/Neugebauer (ed.), Die Auschwitzleugner, Berlin 1996, page 261 (my translation).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests