Marijampol, Latvia - another alleged mass grave debunked

[offlineroberto]

roberto: Can you honestly think that I would belive that?

I mean these nice captions given to things just doesn't make sense most of the time, and i would not be the least suprised if this is just another of those.

Most people by now know that the evil Nazis are getting blamed for everything and anything, that's no news. The horrible deeds done by the Bolsheviks will surely be shoved on the backs of the evil nazis and ofcourse it will say jewish victims.

They sure know how to put captions on things which isn't what it is

You are free to believe what you like, but can you show us evidence supporting any of what you would like to believe?

I don’t think so.

As to Marijampole Municipality, their website clearly shows that that there is a grave site for the victims of Communist terror and another for the victims of Nazi terror, with no mixing up of one and the other.

The figure of victims of the Nazi killings mentioned on the municipality’s site comes from the sadly famous "Jaeger Report". Written by SS-colonel Karl Jaeger, head of one of the “Einsatzkommandos” (special detachments), this report proudly documents, in great detail, the murder of 137,346 persons by the "Einsatzgruppen" in the occupied territories of the Soviet Union, especially in the Baltic States. Digitalized and translated into English on the site of The Holocaust History Project, from the link

http://www.holocaust-history.org/works/ ... img001.htm

onward, this chronological report contains, on page 3 transcribed under the link

http://www.holocaust-history.org/works/ ... ng_from=es

the following information:

1.9.41 Mariampole 1763 Juden, 1812 Jüdinnen,
1404 Judenkinder, 109 Geistes-
kranke, 1 deutsche Staatsangehörige,
die mit einem Juden verheiratet war,
1 Russin
5090

The THHP translation under

http://www.holocaust-history.org/works/ ... img003.htm

reads as follows:

1.9.41 Mariampole
1763 Jews, 1812 Jewesses, 1404 Jewish children, 109 mentally ill, 1 female German national who was married to a Jew, 1 female Russian [total]5090

Of course you are free to believe that the Jaeger Report, about the authenticity of which neither historians nor West German and US criminal justice authorities ever had any doubt, is a fabrication by some sinister conspiratorial entity intending to denigrate the Nazi regime or the German people.

But again, can you show us any evidence supporting such belief?

[Moderator3]

Roberto,
One of your posts, which went into seemingly a million different directions, was not approved yet. Some of it though was on topic, I suggest you retrieve that part and re-post it. We're talking about the lack of a mass grave at Marijampole. Let's keep to that topic.

Just because someone mentions in passing examples of other place does not mean we should attempt to go into an in depth discussion on those brief asides. You could mention that you simply disagree and then start a separate thread on each. I should also remind you that there are already threads here on those off topic points you posted, but you're free to start a new thread if you like.
The point of this is that each thread should stay focused on one topic, the various readers here appreciate that approach.
M3

[offline Sailor]

As to Marijampole Municipality, their website clearly shows that that there is a grave site for the victims of Communist terror and another for the victims of Nazi terror, with no mixing up of one and the other.

Well, it is a monument. Dr. Merkevicius did not check the size of the grave nor the number of victims.

The figure of victims of the Nazi killings mentioned on the municipality’s site comes from the sadly famous "Jaeger Report". Written by SS-colonel Karl Jaeger, head of one of the “Einsatzkommandos” (special detachments), this report proudly documents, in great detail, the murder of 137,346 persons by the "Einsatzgruppen" in the occupied territories of the Soviet Union, especially in the Baltic States. Digitalized and translated into English on the site of The Holocaust History Project, from the link

http://www.holocaust-history.org/works/ ... img001.htm

The question I have here is: Was the Jäger-report ever authenticated?

The report was discovered by the Soviets 15 years after the event in some archive in Vilnius.

The Soviets "discovered" many things, for example the evidence that the Germans were responsible for Katyn and publicly hanged a couple of German army officers on a marketplace in Leningrad for this.

They also "discovered" the identification of Demjanjuk proving to be "Ivan the Terrible".

I have zero confidence in those Soviet "discoveries". Sorry.

Some German "Gutmensch" told the THHP people that the report was authenticated by the Germans. But sofar nobody knows exactly how and when the authenticity was checked.

That the number of 5090 victims is from the Jäger-report is generally agreed upon.

But why did Dr. Merkevicius not determine the size of the grave and estimate the number of the dead?
He said that he found a "couple of dead bodies". That does not sound like 5000 to me.

fge

[offlineroberto]

As to Marijampole Municipality, their website clearly shows that that there is a grave site for the victims of Communist terror and another for the victims of Nazi terror, with no mixing up of one and the other.

Well, it is a monument. Dr. Merkevicius did not check the size of the grave nor the number of victims.

No, that was not the job he had been hired for by Marijampole Municipality. His job was only to find the correct place for the monument, i.e. the site of the mass grave.

The figure of victims of the Nazi killings mentioned on the municipality’s site comes from the sadly famous "Jaeger Report". Written by SS-colonel Karl Jaeger, head of one of the “Einsatzkommandos” (special detachments), this report proudly documents, in great detail, the murder of 137,346 persons by the "Einsatzgruppen" in the occupied territories of the Soviet Union, especially in the Baltic States. Digitalized and translated into English on the site of The Holocaust History Project, from the link

http://www.holocaust-history.org/works/ ... img001.htm

The question I have here is: Was the Jäger-report ever authenticated?

What do you mean by "authenticated"?

Does a document have to be authenticated to be authentic?

The report was discovered by the Soviets 15 years after the event in some archive in Vilnius.

The Soviets "discovered" many things, for example the evidence that the Germans were responsible for Katyn and publicly hanged a couple of German army officers on a marketplace in Leningrad for this.

They also "discovered" the identification of Demjanjuk proving to be "Ivan the Terrible".

The "Soviets" were not some homogeneous and monolithic body. The reliability of the findings of Soviet investigators and investigating commissions varied greatly, and the coincidence of many of their findings with the evidence assessed independently of them by historians or by US or West German courts shows that Soviet investigations could have a rather acceptable quality, and that tarring all of Soviet criminal justice with the Katyn brush is like throwing out the baby with the bathing water.

I have zero confidence in those Soviet "discoveries". Sorry.

You are free to distrust who you like. Whether your distrust has any substance is another matter.

The Jaeger Report seems to be a document regarding which the findings of Soviet investigators are confirmed by those of non-Soviet investigators and researchers. The author of the report, furthermore, seems to have never denied his participation in the crimes he recorded in this report.

[…]After his arrest by the German Police, the former SS-Standartenfuehrer Karl Jaeger defended himself by stating:

"I was always a person with a heightened sense of duty"

('"The Good Old Days'" , E. Klee, W. Dressen, V. Riess, The Free Press, NY, 1988, p. 57. See p. 46-58 for the complete report in English.)
[…]
In response to his commander's request, Jaeger composed his report which tersely details the murders that were committed by his troops. There were only five copies of this report of which only the fourth survives. It was located in the Central Lithuanian Archives in Vilnius [5]. Although it was discovered too late to be used in either the Nuremberg Trial before the IMT or the trial of the commanders of the Einsatzgruppen in the subsequent trials [6], the Jaeger Report has been used at several other legal proceedings in several countries including Germany, Canada, and the United States. The most recent use of the Jaeger Report was in "U.S. v. Stelmokas" 100 F.3rd 302 (3rd Cir.; 1996). During the trial before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania [7], the Jaeger Report was accepted as authentic and reliable over the objections of the defendant.[my emphasis] Its impact can be gauged by the statement of one of the appeals court judges who reviewed the document. "Colonel Jaeger reports the executions of thousands of Jews and hundreds of others in such an impersonal, matter-of-fact-manner and with such pride that his account leaves one in a horror-driven state of shock." (100 F.3rd 302, 325). As the courts in that case noted, there is no doubt that the report is both authentic and reliable.[my emphasis][…]

Source of quote:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/works/ ... tro000.htm

http://www.holocaust-history.org/works/ ... tro001.htm

The authenticity of the report was also not questioned by David Irving at his libel trial against Deborah Lipstadt. From the transcript of the judgment:

[…]6.42 Irving devoted a considerable amount of time in his cross-examination of Longerich to the details of the killings by Einsatzgruppen A, B, C and D which he derived for the most part from the reports submitted by them. Irving suggested, for example, that some of those reports were compiled by those who, like General Bach-Zelewski, were mass murderers and whose reporting is on that account unreliable. Irving did not accept that the reports of the Einsatzgruppen should be taken at face value. He argued that the leaders of the Einsatzkommandos, which made up the Einsatzgruppen, would have been anxious to impress their superiors with the numbers killed and so would have exaggerated the figures.[my emphasis] Browning and Longerich both accepted that some kommandos may have been anxious to avoid appearing to lack zeal and so may have exaggerated their achievements. But Browning considered the figures to be accurate as "ballpark figures". He added (and Irving agreed) that the numbers, even if not precisely accurate, are on any view huge. Longerich concurred. He added that the numbers do not derive solely from the reports of the Einsatzgruppen: there are other sources.[my emphasis]

6.43 Irving expressed doubts about the logistical feasibility of the Einsatzgruppen having been able to carry out executions on the reported scale, given their limited numbers and equipment and the other tasks which they were charged with carrying out. The Einsatzgruppen consisted of only 3,000 men. But Browning pointed out that the army was called on to provide support. Longerich calculated that, if allowance is made for the auxiliary manpower available, the total number of those involved in the shootings would have been around 30,000.

6.44 Another argument canvassed by Irving is that the reports may have been inaccurate in their statements of the numbers of Jews shot because the SS auxiliaries would not always have known whether or not those they were executing were Jews. He suggested that this must have been the reaction of British intelligence when they intercepted reports of the numbers killed. Browning responded that the Jager report is illustrative of the care taken to classify Jewish men, women and children. He explained the passive British response to the intercepts probably reflected an inability on their part to comprehend the notion that the Nazis would devote resources sorely required for their war effort to killing vast numbers of Jewish men, women and children whilst there was a war on.[my emphasis][…]

Source of quote:

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/ieindex.html

Some German "Gutmensch"

Discussions might be more interesting if we could do without these meaningless rhetorical labels.

told the THHP people that the report was authenticated by the Germans.

I repeat the above question regarding "authentication".

But sofar nobody knows exactly how and when the authenticity was checked.

The above quotes from the THHP site and the judgment at the Irving-Lipstadt Trial suggest otherwise.

That the number of 5090 victims is from the Jäger-report is generally agreed upon.

As there’s no reason to doubt the accuracy of Jaeger’s counting, understandably so.

But why did Dr. Merkevicius not determine the size of the grave and estimate the number of the dead?

He explained it in one of the mails he sent me: because that was not the job he had been hired for by the Marijampole Municipality:

[…] The purpose was to finde exact place of the graves.[…] But after finding the exact place, my work was over.[…]

He said that he found a "couple of dead bodies". That does not sound like 5000 to me.

Dr. Merkevicius’ English is not the best, but he said none of that:

[…]The supposed burrial place was emty and I found the mass graves[my emphasis] about 100 m outside of this supposed territory. People were kiled and burried in a big dich.[my emphasis][…]

"Mass grave(s)" and "big ditch" sounds like quite a lot of dead people to me. And as my question was about the burial site of about 5,000 people commemorated by the Marijampole Municipality’s memorial, Dr. Merkevicius’ statement that he found "the" mass grave(s), albeit somewhat removed from the previously assumed place of burial, can reasonably be understood as nothing other than a confirmation that the aspect of the "big ditch" and its contents coincided with what was known from other evidence, including but not limited to the Jaeger Report.

What this discussion boils down to, like so many others, is the principle of Occam's Razor, which can be summarized as follows: the simplest explanation (that is, the one that requires the fewest additional assumptions) that takes all of the evidence into account must be taken as correct.

The simplest explanation in this case is that the Marijampole massacre on 1 September 1941 happened exactly as recorded in the Jaeger Report. This explanation requires no additional assumptions, but merely calls for following the evidence where it leads.

The alternative Revisionist explanation, on the other hand, requires quite a few unsubstantiated assumptions to hold true, namely

- that all witnesses to the Marijampole massacre lied or were out of their minds;

- that the Jaeger Report is an elaborate forgery;

- that Jaeger himself was coerced into making self-incriminating statements against his better knowledge;

- that there is another plausible, evidence-supported explanation for the disappearance of the Jewish community of Marijampole, Lithuania, like emigration or deportation; and

- that the Marijampole Municipality dishonestly ignored conclusions contradicting their assumptions, and consciously erected a somewhat less than honest monument notwithstanding these conclusions.

So unless some conclusive evidence to

i) a migration or deportation of Marijampole’s prewar Jewish community and

ii) a sinister conspiracy fabricating or manipulating the evidence to the killing and the Marijampole Municipality

is provided, the Revisionist theory is without substance.

[offlineroberto]

Roberto,
One of your posts, which went into seemingly a million different directions, was not approved yet. Some of it though was on topic, I suggest you retrieve that part and re-post it. We're talking about the lack of a mass grave at Marijampole. Let's keep to that topic.

Just because someone mentions in passing examples of other place does not mean we should attempt to go into an in depth discussion on those brief asides. You could mention that you simply disagree and then start a separate thread on each. I should also remind you that there are already threads here on those off topic points you posted, but you're free to start a new thread if you like.
The point of this is that each thread should stay focused on one topic, the various readers here appreciate that approach.
M3

I understand the moderator’s request, and his acknowledgement that my post went "into seemingly a million different directions" because Hannover’s did so first is appreciated.

The passages of the post in question directly related to the Marjampole mass grave were included in my response to Sailor’s last post on this thread, so re-posting my previous message is not necessary.

As to Hannover’s remarks regarding signs and mass graves at Auschwitz, Treblinka, etc., I suggest that he open another thread, where I will then point out the evidence showing how wrong his considerations are.

[offline Hannover]

Roberto said:

What this discussion boils down to, like so many others, is the principle of Occam's Razor, which can be summarized as follows: the simplest explanation (that is, the one that requires the fewest additional assumptions) that takes all of the evidence into account must be taken as correct.

The simplest and obvious explanation is that no mass graves have been shown to support the mentioned Jaeger Report or the Marijampole story. These graves would exist and would be easily found & displayed if the stories were true.

Citing Irving, who knows little about the so called 'holocaust' and has written no books on it, does little to enhance the position of those who assert there were these mass graves but curiously cannot show them.

Roberto's so called evidence is equivalent to all the so called evidence for UFO/alien abductions. People lie for a variety of reasons, it would appear that these claims of mass graves, when none are shown, are just another example that confirms that fact.

No mass graves as alleged shoots down the 'Jaeger Report' and the Marijampole story, plus a number of other obvious concocted, beneficial stories of alleged mass shootings etc.

- Hannover

[offlineroberto]

Roberto said:

What this discussion boils down to, like so many others, is the principle of Occam's Razor, which can be summarized as follows: the simplest explanation (that is, the one that requires the fewest additional assumptions) that takes all of the evidence into account must be taken as correct.

The simplest and obvious explanation is that no mass graves have been shown to support the mentioned Jaeger Report or the Marijampole story. These graves would exist and would be easily found & displayed if the stories were true.

No, that's not the simplest and obvious explanation, for it hinges on unsubstantiated conspiracy theories (that witnesses lied, documents were forged, people were not killed but went elsewhere, the municipality ignored conclusions to be drawn from physical evidence or the absence/insufficiency thereof), as I explained.

Citing Irving, who knows little about the so called 'holocaust' and has written no books on it, does little to enhance the position of those who assert there were these mass graves but curiously cannot show them.

Citing Irving is relevant insofar as he is a researcher of history and it would have been in his interest to claim that the Jaeger Report was not authentic, which suggests that he did not do so because he had no arguments to support such a claim. As to my being unable to show a mass grave in Lithuania (where I have never been) on a discussion forum (where showing a mass grave is difficult by the nature of the medium already), Hannover's assertion is rather unconvincing. He would be more convincing if he could explain what reasons there are to assume that, contrary to my interpretation of his words, Dr. Merkevicius did not confirm that his findings matched what was known about the graveyard from other evidence. Or what reasons there are to mistrust this renowned archaeologist, or the witnesses who described the killing, or the document (Jaeger Report) where it was recorded.

Roberto's so called evidence is equivalent to all the so called evidence for UFO/alien abductions.

I don't see any similarity whatsoever, let alone equivalence. Could Hannover please explain himself?

People lie for a variety of reasons, it would appear that these claims of mass graves, when none are shown, are just another example that confirms that fact.

The "none are shown" claim is wrong, as explained above. And neither is there a reason to assume that, just because there is no interest in or it is not considered necessary to carry out a detailed investigation of a given killing site, the witnesses who described the killing lied or the document where it is recorded is a forgery. Further strong indications would be required to substantiate either assumption.

No mass graves as alleged

It seems to me that Hannover is ignoring the statements of Dr. Merkevicius, which in no way support his above assertion. On the contrary.

shoots down the 'Jaeger Report' and the Marijampole story,

If no physical traces of mass killings could be found despite intensive search and their presence being expectable according to the laws of nature and the other sources of evidence, there would be a reason to suspect that these latter sources were fabricated. But this is not the situation we have here.

plus a number of other obvious concocted, beneficial stories of alleged mass shootings etc.

This reasoning is also difficult to follow, to say the least. Even if it could be demonstrated that the account of the Marijampole massacre was wholly fabricated, this would tell us nothing whatsoever about the veracity or falsity of any other massacre report. The accuracy of any single such account depends on the various sources of evidence supporting that particular account, on whether they converge or contradict each other.

As in the case of Marijampole we have a convergence of various sources of evidence towards the conclusion that the massacre did take place as described by witnesses and recorded in the Jaeger Report, the considerations in the first sentence of the previous paragraph are, of course, purely hypothetical.

[offline Sailor]

No, that was not the job he had been hired for by Marijampole Municipality. His job was only to find the correct place for the monument, i.e. the site of the mass grave.

This is what Dr. Merkevicius said in the e-mail. Was it true?

What do you mean by "authenticated"?

Does a document have to be authenticated to be authentic?

The document has to be conforming to fact and therefore worthy of belief and not counterfeit or copied.

Does it?

The "Soviets" were not some homogeneous and monolithic body. The reliability of the findings of Soviet investigators and investigating commissions varied greatly, and the coincidence of many of their findings with the evidence assessed independently of them by historians or by US or West German courts shows that Soviet investigations could have a rather acceptable quality, and that tarring all of Soviet criminal justice with the Katyn brush is like throwing out the baby with the bathing water.

Well, I have a problem with the Soviet propaganda: 4 million gassed in Auschwitz, 1.5 million in Treblinka, 3 million in Treblinka etc.

I couldn't care less what of the Soviet propaganda you believe in.

I find it impertinent to accuse the generation of my parents and grant parents with a horrendous crime, and then turn around and establish laws which forbid any research or correction with police brutality and up to 5 years in jail.

You are free to distrust who you like. Whether your distrust has any substance is another matter.

The substance I have already indicated: Katyn, Demjanjuk, the exaggerated victim numbers. You may also want to familiarize yourself with the Soviet IMT submittels like USSR-8 etc.

The Jaeger Report seems to be a document regarding which the findings of Soviet investigators are confirmed by those of non-Soviet investigators and researchers. The author of the report, furthermore, seems to have never denied his participation in the crimes he recorded in this report.

Apparently the man took his own life while in prison. He probably could not have denied anything.

Then you quote some sections from the THHP where some courts don't doubt the authenticity of the Jäger-report. On what facts are these court opinions based? Did they have some mass graves excavated in Lithuania? Or were they brainwashed by the continuously ongoing Holocaust propaganda in the media, on TV and did not dare to say otherwise?

And I would not place too much importance on what Irving said about the Holocaust.

About the "Gutmensch" (do-gooder), I have problems with certain pseudo-Germans. A weakness of mine. It is probably the result from participating too much in the German User group de.soc.politik.misc.

"Mass grave(s)" and "big ditch" sounds like quite a lot of dead people to me

Well, if you have more than one body in a single grave, if you have say two bodies you would have a mass grave, or not? Or how would you call it?
I think that if they really found a mass grave site of 5000 people, there would be a big to-do in the world media, you better believe it.

- that all witnesses to the Marijampole massacre lied or were out of their minds;

How many witnesses were there?

- that the Jaeger Report is an elaborate forgery;

Could be done easily with the right typewriter, ink and paper.

- that Jaeger himself was coerced into making self-incriminating statements against his better knowledge;

Did he? What did he say?

- that there is another plausible, evidence-supported explanation for the disappearance of the Jewish community of Marijampole, Lithuania, like emigration or deportation; and

See my post about:
"The Jewish newspaper Hagalil in Germany seems to have a different opinion about the Jewish killings in Lithuania: 96% of the 220,000 Jews in Lithuania were for example killed during the Second World War – actually by Lithuanians, “who even today drive unmolested to the supermarket to by milk”
http://www.hagalil.com/archiv/99/08/zuroff.htm "

- that the Marijampole Municipality dishonestly ignored conclusions contradicting their assumptions, and consciously erected a somewhat less than honest monument notwithstanding these conclusions.

I understand that the Lithuanian government had to establish laws to make Holocaust-denial illegal, in order to join the EU. True?

So what say you?

fge

[offlineroberto]

No, that was not the job he had been hired for by Marijampole Municipality. His job was only to find the correct place for the monument, i.e. the site of the mass grave.

This is what Dr. Merkevicius said in the e-mail. Was it true?

Is there any reason to suspect that it was not? I don’t think so.

What do you mean by "authenticated"?

Does a document have to be authenticated to be authentic?

The document has to be conforming to fact and therefore worthy of belief and not counterfeit or copied.

I don’t think that requires authentication. But I’m open to being shown a rule of evidence according to which it does.

Does it?

Yes, bar evidence or at least strong indications that it does not. Is there any such evidence? Are there any such indications?

The "Soviets" were not some homogeneous and monolithic body. The reliability of the findings of Soviet investigators and investigating commissions varied greatly, and the coincidence of many of their findings with the evidence assessed independently of them by historians or by US or West German courts shows that Soviet investigations could have a rather acceptable quality, and that tarring all of Soviet criminal justice with the Katyn brush is like throwing out the baby with the bathing water.

Well, I have a problem with the Soviet propaganda: 4 million gassed in Auschwitz, 1.5 million in Treblinka, 3 million in Treblinka etc.

3 million in Treblinka were never an official Soviet claim, but the private estimate of a Soviet writer by the name of Vassili Grossmann. If you look at the indictment at the Nuremberg trial, you will find there the 4 million at Auschwitz and the 1.5 million at Majdanek (neither of which figures was accepted by either the IMT, West German criminal justice or western historiography, the Majdanek figure not being accepted by Polish criminal justice either), but nothing about the death toll of Treblinka. The first official assessment of the Treblinka death toll is contained in the report by the Central Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland. Based on an assessment of the documentary evidence, they concluded that

[...]the number of victims murdered at Treblinka amounts to at least 731,600.[...]

A figure that posterior historical research and investigation by West German criminal justice authorities has shown to be rather conservative. The English version of the Central Commission's report can be read under

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/gcpoltreb1.htm

As to the Soviet conclusions regarding the death toll of Auschwitz and Majdanek, posterior research and criminal investigation have shown them to be exaggerated by a factor of four in regard to Auschwitz and by a factor of six in regard to Majdanek. But this doesn’t mean that they were propaganda claims taken out of thin air. The exaggerations resulted from the fact that the Soviets took the wrong approach in calculating the death toll, considering only the theoretical throughput of the crematoria and the testimonies of eyewitnesses (as any criminal investigator and historian knows, eyewitnesses are not necessarily good at estimating figures). The correct approach later taken was to calculate the death toll on the basis of documentary evidence to the number of people deported to these camps on the one hand and of registered survivors later transferred to other places or liberated on the other.

But even if Soviet authorities had acted in bad faith regarding Auschwitz-Birkenau and Majdanek, would this necessarily mean they did so on every occasion? I don’t think so. I can show you several examples where Soviet findings coincide with those of non-Soviet investigation and research, also in what concerns the order of magnitude of a given massacre. Doing so in this post would make the same far too long, however.

I couldn't care less what of the Soviet propaganda you believe in.

Actually I don’t believe in any propaganda, Soviet or other. I do accept the results of objective historical research and criminal investigation, however.

I find it impertinent to accuse the generation of my parents and grant parents with a horrendous crime,

No one ever accused the generation of our parents and grandparents (which I’m as proud of as you are) with anything. Accusations were made against individuals who had acted on behalf of a dictatorial and criminal regime. These accusations resulted in hundreds of final verdicts at trials conducted according to proper defendant-friendly procedural rules, the findings of which coincide with those of thorough and objective historical research. Guilt is by definition never collective and always individual.

and then turn around and establish laws which forbid any research or correction with police brutality and up to 5 years in jail.

There are no laws forbidding research or correction (historiography is subject to constant revision as previously unknown evidence is discovered, as a matter of fact). Some countries, however (including but not limited to Germany) enforce laws which punish the approval, belittling or negation against evidence (a.k.a. denial) of proven crimes of the Nazi regime, if voiced in public in such a way as to threaten the public order by inciting the defamation of and/or violence against minorities. I don’t approve of such laws, but we shouldn’t make them into more than what they are.

You are free to distrust who you like. Whether your distrust has any substance is another matter.

The substance I have already indicated: Katyn, Demjanjuk, the exaggerated victim numbers. You may also want to familiarize yourself with the Soviet IMT submittels like USSR-8 etc.

As I said, certain demonstrated fallacies in Soviet criminal investigation are a reason to accept the results of such investigation only insofar as corroborated by those of other investigation and research, namely by Western historians and criminal justice authorities. But they don't warrant dismissing Soviet investigation altogether. Tarring all Soviet criminal justice with the Katyn brush, as I explained, is tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bathing water.

The Jaeger Report seems to be a document regarding which the findings of Soviet investigators are confirmed by those of non-Soviet investigators and researchers. The author of the report, furthermore, seems to have never denied his participation in the crimes he recorded in this report.

Apparently the man took his own life while in prison.

It’s likely that he couldn’t bear the recollection of what he had done, isn’t it?

He probably could not have denied anything.

His only defense when arrested and interrogated, as the THHP site tells us, was that he "was always a person with a heightened sense of duty" (who did what he was ordered to do, however horrible his task).

Then you quote some sections from the THHP where some courts don't doubt the authenticity of the Jäger-report. On what facts are these court opinions based?

On their own assessment of the document and other evidence regarding its author and the events mentioned therein, most likely.

Did they have some mass graves excavated in Lithuania?

That might have been difficult at a time when Lithiuania was still a Soviet republic and there was a Cold War going on. But then, what forensic rules or principles of evidence can you show me that require a corroboration of documentary and/or eyewitness proof to mass murder by an excavation of the killing site(s)?

Or were they brainwashed by the continuously ongoing Holocaust propaganda in the media, on TV and did not dare to say otherwise?

A wholly unsubstantiated assumption, made all the more improbable by the fact that criminal justice authorities have the legal duty to establish the true facts of a case and would be neglecting that duty if they relied on "continuously ongoing Holocaust propaganda in the media" rather than their own investigation.

And I would not place too much importance on what Irving said about the Holocaust.

Why not? As I explained, it would have been to his advantage to be able to question the Jaeger Report’s authenticity, meaning that he would have done so had he considered this to be potentially successful approach.

About the "Gutmensch" (do-gooder), I have problems with certain pseudo-Germans. A weakness of mine. It is probably the result from participating too much in the German User group de.soc.politik.misc.

This has nothing to do with the topic, right?

"Mass grave(s)" and "big ditch" sounds like quite a lot of dead people to me

Well, if you have more than one body in a single grave, if you have say two bodies you would have a mass grave, or not?

Of course not. A mass I would consider a huge number of units the quantity of which takes some effort to establish. As I said, the context of Dr. Merkevicius’ statement warrants no other reasonable interpretation than his having referred to a mass grave containing thousands of bodies.

Or how would you call it?

Two bodies in a grave, or a grave with two bodies in it. :wink

I think that if they really found a mass grave site of 5000 people, there would be a big to-do in the world media,

What makes you think so?

you better believe it.

I don’t. This was a Lithuanian municipality’s local initiative which, as Germar Rudolf correctly pointed out, took place outside the scope of world media publicity. Nobody other than the Marijampole Municipality was interested in the outcome, and their interest was only to find the correct place to set up a monument, i.e. the place where the victims were buried.

that all witnesses to the Marijampole massacre lied or were out of their minds;

How many witnesses were there?

I don’t know, but it's an interesting subject for further research. Germar Rudolf’ article suggests that there were several.

- that the Jaeger Report is an elaborate forgery;

Could be done easily with the right typewriter, ink and paper.

By that reasoning, just about any document ever produced could be a forgery. Without at least an indication of manipulation, this is but another unsubstantiated assumption.

- that Jaeger himself was coerced into making self-incriminating statements against his better knowledge;

Did he? What did he say?

What I know for now is this:

[…]After his arrest by the German Police, the former SS-Standartenfuehrer Karl Jaeger defended himself by stating:

"I was always a person with a heightened sense of duty"

('"The Good Old Days'" , E. Klee, W. Dressen, V. Riess, The Free Press, NY, 1988, p. 57. See p. 46-58 for the complete report in English.)
[…]

Source of quote:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/works/ ... tro000.htm

But I’m sure he said a lot more. Another interesting subject for further research, don’t you think so?

- that there is another plausible, evidence-supported explanation for the disappearance of the Jewish community of Marijampole, Lithuania, like emigration or deportation; and

See my post about:
"The Jewish newspaper Hagalil in Germany seems to have a different opinion about the Jewish killings in Lithuania: 96% of the 220,000 Jews in Lithuania were for example killed during the Second World War – actually by Lithuanians, “who even today drive unmolested to the supermarket to by milk”
http://www.hagalil.com/archiv/99/08/zuroff.htm "

They don’t say that the Jews went somewhere else and survived the war, and I’m also surprised that you accept the Jewish newspaper Hagalil in Germany as evidence. Their statement is one that I would strongly resent if I were a Lithuanian national, for while it is a fact that many Lithuanians participated in the massacres as members of auxiliary formations assisting the Einsatzgruppen or on their own initiative, the instigators and organizers of the killing were Nazi officials and the commanders of Nazi formations, like the mentioned Einsatzgruppen. They bear the brunt of responsibility.

- that the Marijampole Municipality dishonestly ignored conclusions contradicting their assumptions, and consciously erected a somewhat less than honest monument notwithstanding these conclusions.

I understand that the Lithuanian government had to establish laws to make Holocaust-denial illegal, in order to join the EU. True?

That’s new to me.

Where did you read it?

And why would this be a reason to suspect that a Lithuanian municipality in 1996 may have been somewhat-less-than-honest in its procedure regarding a monument to its former Jewish citizens murdered by Nazi forces?

So what say you?

I have nothing more to add. Nice talking to you.

[offline Dieter Manstein]

... Roberto's so called evidence is equivalent to all the so called evidence for UFO/alien abductions. People lie for a variety of reasons, it would appear that these claims of mass graves, when none are shown, are just another example that confirms that fact.

I think there is a basic difference about the claims made by alien abductions victims and mass graves claims. In most of the cases, alien abductions victims survive their ordeal. What you just said is almost the same that state Roberto is a simpleton or gullible.

[offline Hannover]

But there is no evidence that these alleged 'mass graves victims' did not survive. No mass graves as alleged, then no victims as alleged.
Show us the forensic excavations to support the claims of alleged mass graves. Can you?

I'll let Roberto's opinions speak for themselves.

Welcome to The Revisionist Forum.

- Hannover

[offline Dieter Manstein]

But there is no evidence that these alleged 'mass graves victims' did not survive. No mass graves as alleged, then no victims as alleged.

I think you have summarized masterly the problem. But I still have some doubts if the perpetrators didn't have the ability to erase completely the traces of their actions. As one poster once wrote: "The absence of evidence don't necessary means evidence of absence."

Show us the forensic excavations to support the claims of alleged mass graves. Can you?

No. I can't, and thank you for the welcome.

[offline Sailor]

These posts are getting a little too long for my taste. Maybe we could break it up a little?

No, that was not the job he had been hired for by Marijampole Municipality. His job was only to find the correct place for the monument, i.e. the site of the mass grave.

This is what Dr. Merkevicius said in the e-mail. Was it true?

Is there any reason to suspect that it was not? I don’t think so.

This is what Dr. Merkevicius wrote to you:

"[…]People were kiled and burried in a big dich. But after finding the exact place, my work was over. I don't know how much people were kiled and how big the mass grave territory.
Best regards,sincerely yours
Algimantas Merkevicius"

I find this rather strange, to say the least. Why on earth did he not check or was told not to check, the size of the mass grave, which is relatively easy to do by testing the compactness of the soil with a metal probe? The depth of the mass grave could be estimated from the initial excavation, which then in turn would allows us to get some idea of how many were burried there?

Was this maybe a political decision? The Lithuanians were apparently involved in pronoms, was there fear of opening a can of worms?


fge

[offlineroberto]

But there is no evidence that these alleged 'mass graves victims' did not survive.

Well, if there were evidence that they did survive, you would have a point. The absence of evidence to survival is one of your problems. The other is the convergence of eyewitness, documentary and physical evidence to the inescapable conclusion that they were killed.

No mass graves as alleged, then no victims as alleged.

I take that the above is a general statement which does not apply to the Marijampole case, where there obviously is a mass grave.

This general statement is not necessarily correct, because mass graves and their contents can be destroyed or rearranged beyond recognition, or at least in such a way as to considerably difficult their detection and recognition.

Show us the forensic excavations to support the claims of alleged mass graves. Can you?

In this particular case not, because there was no detailed forensic investigation, just enough excavation to establish the exact location of the mass grave as the place to set up a monument.

But does the absence of forensic excavations mean there were no mass graves and no mass killings?

Of course not.

The notion that only physical evidence counts, and this only if it has been thoroughly investigated by the means of forensic archaeology and anthropology, flies in the face of the rules and principles of criminal investigation and historical research.

Both disciplines rely chiefly on proof other than the investigation of physical evidence, namely on eyewitness depositions and documentary evidence, which by themselves are considered enough to prove the occurrence and features of a crime or a historical event, except where and to the extent that they are contradicted by the results of an assessment of the physical evidence.

The flaws of the dismissal of sources of evidence other than forensic archaeology/anthropology can be easily illustrated on hand of several examples related to events other than the crimes of the Nazi regime, for instance crimes of the Nazi regime's opponents in regard to which Revisionists do not manifest any skepticism.

There are two examples related to crimes of the Soviet armed and security forces during the Second World War, which just came to my mind.

But before I present these examples, I will give Hannover the opportunity to consider the implications of his postulations for himself, and to retract from them.

I'll let Roberto's opinions speak for themselves.

Thanks. I’m confident of the merit of my arguments.

[Moderator3]

Roberto:
One of your posts didn't make it, your personal shots are really silly and getting old.
M3