Mattogno on the Einsatzgruppen - Part 1 Chapter 1

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
EtienneSC
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 647
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Mattogno on the Einsatzgruppen - Part 1 Chapter 1

Postby EtienneSC » 1 month 3 weeks ago (Sun Jun 13, 2021 6:26 am)

It was suggested more than a couple of years ago that we discuss Carlo Mattogno's The Einsatzgruppen in the Occupied Eastern Territories: Genesis, Missions and Actions (Castle Hill, 2018) chapter by chapter:
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12163
but we never carried through. The book is available here:
https://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=39
It has a lot of valuable material and is very readable. However, it is demanding in the amount of ground covered and makes for distressing reading in places, so I'm not surprised if the task of reading was too daunting at first stretch. In this thread, I will discuss the Preface, Introduction and first Chapter. To recap, here are the contents:

PART ONE: THE EINSATZGRUPPEN
Introduction
Chapters
One The Einsatzgruppen: Structure, Mission and Reports
Two The Einsatzgruppen and the Order to Exterminate the European Jews
Three Jews in Incident Reports and Reports from the Occupied Eastern Territories
Four The Jäger Report and the Executions at Kaunas and Riga
Five The Death Toll
Six The Gas Vans

PART TWO: AKTION 1005
.....
Conclusion
Appendices (including a bibliography)

FOREWORD
This is by Germar Rudolf and analyses Russian and German history and the evolution of attitudes to the role of the Jews in those societies. This role may indeed have been distinctive. Rudolf also discusses Jewish self-perceptions. Rudolf has an apologetic tone at times. As the points made derive their significance from the rest of the book, I will not dwell on this section.

INTRODUCTION
This essay by Mattogno dates back to 2016. Mattogno points out that writing on the Holocaust has moved further East in recent years, possibly because of the influence of revisionism. For the Einsatzgruppen, "there is at least abundant and specific documentation". He says that there is "a large and certainly authentic documentation that attests to mass executions of Jews". In this regard, he says:
"Questioning the authenticity of the documents does not make sense, but the fact that they are authentic does not necessarily mean that their contents are true." (page 25)
This is despite "the well-founded suspicion that certain mass executions mentioned in them may have been completely invented." (Ibid.) Claims of the scale of shootings range from 900,000 (Hilberg) to 2,600,000 (Arad). On this point, he claims that no internal documentary criterion exists to establish the truth of what happened, so material evidence must be sought.

Mattogno wishes to address principally whether there was a government extermination order and whether Jews were shot merely because they were Jews. He will also discuss "Aktion 1005", which reputedly destroyed evidence.

CHAPTER ONE
THE EINSATZGRUPPEN: STRUCTURE, MISSION AND REPORTS

EtienneSC
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 647
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Mattogno on the Einsatzgruppen - Part 1 Chapter 1

Postby EtienneSC » 1 month 3 weeks ago (Sun Jun 13, 2021 8:24 am)

CHAPTER ONE
THE EINSATZGRUPPEN: STRUCTURE, MISSION AND REPORTS

This chapter covers the Polish campaign, the structure and missions of the Einsatzgruppen, the reliability of their reports (a key point, to my mind), their "justifications" for killing Jews and the post-war Einsatzgruppen trial.

The Polish Campaign
Mattogno cites received scholarship (Matthäus at al, 2014) as saying that 26,000 non-combatants were killed in September-October 1939. However, they only cite 20 German documents, of which 5 are contemporaneous and only two from Einsatzgruppen units. These shed no light on killings of Jews. Orders given to the Einsatzgruppen for the Polish campaign were to give an overview of the number of Jews in an area with a view to their deportation. Mattogno says:
"In conclusion, no German document attributes executions of Jews to the Einsatzgruppen in Poland." (page 32)
Walter Stahlecker (commander of Einsatzgruppe A) later said that the Polish Jews did not create "serious political trouble" - unlike what happened later in the Soviet Union.

Structure of the Einsatzgruppen
This chapter has all the interest of the Book of Numbers in the Bible. Mattogno lists troop commanders and strengths. It reminds me of Faurisson's ciritcism of Mattogno's style as long-winded. I will focus on Einsatzgruppe D, led by Otto Ohlendorf, the troop strength of which varied from around 400-600 men. There were other SS units in their area of operation.

Missions of the Einsatzgruppen

EtienneSC
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 647
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Mattogno on the Einsatzgruppen - Part 1 Chapter 1

Postby EtienneSC » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Mon Jun 14, 2021 4:54 am)

Missions of the Einsatzgruppen
A "fact sheet" for Einsatzgruppen leaders was drawn up in March 1941 that instructed them to secure the records of organisations hostile to German interests, to conduct investigations and make arrests. Two duplicate carbon copies of arrest documents and an arrest book were to be kept. High standards of behaviour are to be made mandatory. A war diary was to be kept, with care taken for its safe storage. There was no procedure for mass executions.

In addition, the positive tasks included the restoration of administrative, social and economic arrangements. In the early months, this included starting a labour exchange and making manpower available for harvesting. Mattogno cites sources to indicate that this work was indeed carried out. Documents illustrative of their work were to be forwarded to Berlin.

Mattogno cites Ohlendorf's post-war testimony, which includes descriptions of these tasks alongside statements that executions were an "additional assignment". These read strangely together, as if it has been sub-edited.

Two wartime documents ("The Stahlecker reports") describe the activities and findings of Einsatzgruppe A until January 1942. These are extracted in Angrick (2013). They contain brief sections on Jews. It is clear that they were busy with economic, cultural and even religious matters, e.g. price surveys, schools and registration of farm animals. These tasks in a foreign country required a good deal of preparatory training. Judge Musmanno later said:
"Since the 24 defendants were charged with one million murders, one would expect to see in the dock a band of course, untutored barbarians. Instead, one beheld a group of men with a formidable educational background." (page 45)
Many were lawyers or had had advanced degrees, for example.

However, in March 1942, orders were issued that included taking pre-emptive steps against "ethnic and political enemies" (page 46). These orders came from Canaris and Heydrich and are confirmed in later documents. For example, an internal Einsatzkommando order of March 1943 says:
"Besides the destruction of active adversaries, all those elements which, due to their basic convictions or past history, may become active as enemies under favourable circumstances are to be eradicated as a precautionary measure." (page 46)
The authority for this is said in the document quoted above to come from the "Barbarossa order". Other documents cited by Mattogno refer to executions and pogroms.

EtienneSC
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 647
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Mattogno on the Einsatzgruppen - Part 1 Chapter 1

Postby EtienneSC » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Mon Jun 14, 2021 2:30 pm)

Drafting and Reliability of the Einsatzgruppen Reports
This is a central section of the chapter - perhaps the entire book - as it raises doubts about the documentary basis of allegations against the Einsatzgruppen.

We have seen above the orders given to the Einsatzgruppen, both as regards activities and reporting back to the RSHA. This section deals with actual surviving reports, both internal reports from the heads of Einsatzgruppen A to D to the RSHA and consolidated reports prepared at the RSHA in Berlin.

The Consolidated Reports
The consolidated reports were the main evidence at the Einsatzgruppen post-war trial in 1947-48. The published trial proceedings can be found here:
https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/NT_war-criminals_Vol-IV.pdf
Mattogno cites the defence view of the consolidated reports given at the trial (Trials IV, 96):
"The defence alleged that the consolidated reports contained many inaccuracies and even wilful exaggerations concerning the number of exterminated people. The defence also claimed that the author of the reports had no first-hand knowledge of the observations contained in them, that his identity was unknown, and therefore the documents constituted inadmissible hearsay evidence." (page 47)
The authenticity of the reports was a specific subject of discussion at the trial.

Mattogno also notes that there are different and conflicting accounts of the discovery of the consolidated documents used by prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz. He says that the originals are claimed to exist in Moscow (where he saw them at the end of the 1990s) and Germany, where they were returned from the USA after copying. They are said to have been found in the Gestapo office, but also at the Foreign office. There were supposedly many copies though. Mattogno writes in a key underlined passage:
"The immense majority of the German documents confiscated by the Allies constitute a dense fabric of reciprocal connections. The 261 Einsatzgruppen reports by contrast form a body unto itself, with no direct or indirect relationship to other documents, and this too should be explained." (page 51)
He also notes the absence of the war diaries that were supposed to have been kept and preserved. Those of the SS and Police survive, but apparently not those of the Einsatzgruppen.

The Incident Reports
For the reports on which the consolidated reports in Berlin were based, he states that:
"All the defendants declared under oath that the reports were "highly unreliable, inaccurate and faulty, and that not only with regard to figures, but also with regard to the contents and actual wording."" (page 55)
Mattogno then discusses the ways information was transmitted to the RSHA in Berlin. These were by radio and courier. This was as instructed by Heydrich in a circular of 3 July 1941. The resulting confusion may have led to the same information being included several times in the consolidated reports. Mattogno then produces some calculations intended to demonstrate that the figures of victims must be exaggerated,as they exceed the number of Jews present in the areas concerned. Many copies seem to have disappeared. The defence regretted that original documents were not presented at the trial. For the incident reports as a whole, Mattogno says:
"I do not wish to state that the incident reports currently available are forgeries, but these anomalies certainly deserve resolution." (page 51)
This is somewhat at odds with his view in the Introduction cited above. that questioning the authenticity of documents "does not make sense". The following article from Inconvenient History (2018) has a relevant summary of the authenticity question:
https://codoh.com/library/document/the-einsatzgruppen-trial/en/

Mattogno raises the issues of how casualty numbers could in practice be established and the problems of digging mass graves in the Russian winter when the ground would be frozen. He makes some use of the books of Earl (2009) on the Trial and Headland (1992) on the Einsatzgruppen reports.

It is good to see critical use being made of non-revisionist sources. Several of the points Mattogno makes raise fundamental doubts about the nature of the evidence accepted by the received history. The section contains both arguments for acquittal and arguments in mitigation.

EtienneSC
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 647
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Mattogno on the Einsatzgruppen - Part 1 Chapter 1

Postby EtienneSC » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Tue Jun 15, 2021 12:54 pm)

Einsatzgruppen "Justifications" for Killing Jews
Numerous Incident reports by the Einsatzgruppen include descriptions of executions of people identified as Jews, together with various reasons for the executions. A number of explanations have been suggested for this by received historians. Mattogno points out that if there had been a general order to kill Jews, it would be superfluous to offer additional reasons. Headland suggests that there may be elements of self-justification, or precautionary camouflage in the event of Germany losing the war. At one point, he falls back on:
"the inexplicable and irrational quality inherent in much National Socialist thinking and methodology." (page 65),
Arguably this is more a failure to make sense of the evidence at hand. Some documents witness to an order to exterminate the Jews (e.g. the "basic orders" mentioned in Summary Report of Einsatzgruppe A for 16 October to 31 January 1942). Mattogno comments:
"What these "basic orders" were and where and by whom they were issued remains unknown. But if they really existed, it would have made no sense to justify the various executions, as it would have been more than sufficient to indicate (as in other documents) that the victims were "treated as per orders."" (page 67)
However, other documents record actions with non-fatal outcomes for individuals and groups identified as Jews (e.g. resettlement). In many documents, there is a jarring mixture of reported executions of small numbers of Jews, often named in the report along with detailed reasons, alongside laconic mentions of executions of thousands and tens of thousands of Jews. An example of the former is:
"On the same day [16 October 1941] the Jews Stanislaus Bonski and Tolja Ahonim as former NKVD agents, and the Jews Simon Alexandrovich, Shuster Pelzer and Michael Sakei were liquidated for possession of explosives." (Einsatzgruppe B, EM 133, 14 November 1941)
Another example is the report on Kodyma by Einsatzgruppe D dated 4 August 1941, where there was a meeting to co-ordinate attacks on German soldiers attended by 98 Jews:
"The remaining 175 persons, without exception Jews, could not be proven guilty of participation. They were transferred to the armed forces prisoner of war camp as hostages, while the above-mentioned 98 persons were shot after taking their personal data." (page 70)
Stalin's order on partisan warfare is cited in a German source as a justification for killing opponents. It blurred the distinction between combatants and civilians and led to the Geneva conventions not being applied. One report stated that;
"Without a single exception, Jews and partisans are an identical concept." (page 77)
My impression of the sources cited (where genuine and accurate) is that there were harsh or unjustified executions where imprisonment or confinement would have been more appropriate measures. However, under conditions of martial law - intermediate between battlefield conditions and civilian administration - such acts were countenanced by the German authorities. It sounds like the Russian campaign was ill-planned, with inadequate resources devoted to returning conquered territories to regular government.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10371
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Mattogno on the Einsatzgruppen - Part 1 Chapter 1

Postby Hannover » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Wed Jun 16, 2021 1:43 am)

EtienneSC said:
My impression of the sources cited (where genuine and accurate) is that there were harsh or unjustified executions where imprisonment or confinement would have been more appropriate measures.

I disagree, there simply is no proof.
In summary, the absurd 'holocau$t' Industry claims that ca. 2,000,000 Jews were shot by the Einsatzgruppen into huge pits, the enormous mass graves & human remains are claimed to exist in specifically known places.
So, is that:
100 graves of 20,000?
200 graves of 10,000?
400 graves of 5,000?
500 graves of 4,000?
1000 graves of 2000?
2000 graves of 1000?
No such remains exist.

For more see:
search.php?keywords=hannover+etiennesc+einsatzgruppen&fid%5B0%5D=2

I also challenge EtienneSC, or anyone for that matter, to show this forum immense human remains that would necessarily exist for even the lesser level of a "holocaust-lite" that they are obviously trying to claim.
Such attempts will be vigorously challenged.
I'm not much for throwing The Industry a 'bone' when the facts do not support such appeasement.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

EtienneSC
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 647
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Mattogno on the Einsatzgruppen - Part 1 Chapter 1

Postby EtienneSC » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Wed Jun 16, 2021 3:45 pm)

Hannover wrote:I disagree, there simply is no proof.
In summary, the absurd 'holocau$t' Industry claims that ca. 2,000,000 Jews were shot by the Einsatzgruppen into huge pits, the enormous mass graves & human remains are claimed to exist in specifically known places. [.....]

I also challenge EtienneSC, or anyone for that matter, to show this forum immense human remains that would necessarily exist for even the lesser level of a "holocaust-lite" that they are obviously trying to claim.
Such attempts will be vigorously challenged.
I'm not much for throwing The Industry a 'bone' when the facts do not support such appeasement.

- Hannover
The figures I was talking about of specific executions might be 1% to 2% of the 450,000 total that Carlo Mattogno and Vincent Reynouard mention. Specifically, are you saying that none of the reports Mattogno gives of executions on pages 67-78 are genuine?

As Mattogno goes on to argue, there is little or no physical evidence for the large scale shootings. He discusses physical evidence later in the book. There is also a danger of not seeming or being even-handed, when reported killings of Germans, kulaks, etc are accepted with less scrutiny.

EtienneSC
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 647
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Mattogno on the Einsatzgruppen - Part 1 Chapter 1

Postby EtienneSC » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Wed Jun 16, 2021 4:24 pm)

The Historical Value of the Einsatzgruppen Trial
This is the final section of the first chapter. Arguably, the subject would make a book in itself.
Here is a link to the published record of the trial:
https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/NT_war-criminals_Vol-IV.pdf
The trial was held between September 1947 and April 1948 before a US military court. The main characters included young prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz, chief counsel for the prosecution Telford Taylor, Catholic judge Michael Musmanno and defendants Otto Ohlendorf and Paul Blobel.

Ferencz as Prosecutor
Ferencz comes across as a sinister figure in John Wear's article cited above, though he has later acquired a benign reputation as an innovator in international law, with his reminiscences and talks still available on the internet. At the trial, he confused an order from Heydrich about the Polish campaign with the evidence for the Russian campaign and cited Goering's letter to Heydrich as evidence of a plot to kill Jews, though it is now known not to bear that meaning.

The Trial
Mattogno says that the testimony at the trial was part of a defence strategy and so not reliable for historical purposes. Ohlendorf testified to having seen the Incident reports (whose accuracy he would not confirm). The prosecution case relied on these and other documents, about which Mattogno says:
"Where the documents are concerned, there is no doubt that those introduced as evidence do possess probative value." (page 79)
However, he does not justify this statement (or at least, not here). Mattogno says that all documents at the trial were prosecution documents (though page 3 of the trial record says that many were introduced by the defence). Mattogno concedes that their discovery and examination was a valuable exercise.

Ferencz misleadingly sought to claim that the sole task of the Einsatzgruppen was killing Jews, despite defence objections. Musmanno asked Ohlendorf about this, and Ohlendorf strongly repudiated the charge.

Mattogno points out that Paul Blobel, reputedly in charge of Aktion 1005, which was discussed at the trial, was not examined on the subject. This will be relevant in the second part of the book about Aktion 1005. In the end, 14 death sentences were passed, of which four were carried out. There were seven defendants from Einsatzgruppe D (Ohlendorf, Seibert, Braune, Bosske, Haussmann, Rühl, Schubert and Graf). Four were sentenced to death, but only two (Ohlendorf and Braune) hanged in 1951.

Mattogno ends the chapter by quoting Maurice Bardèche's critique of the Nuremberg trials, that the Allies could only maintain moral authority by accusing the Germans of worse crimes than they had committed themselves.

As discussed, I will open a new thread for discussion of subsequent parts of the book.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10371
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Mattogno on the Einsatzgruppen - Part 1 Chapter 1

Postby Hannover » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Wed Jun 16, 2021 8:36 pm)

EtienneSC wrote:
Hannover wrote:I disagree, there simply is no proof.
In summary, the absurd 'holocau$t' Industry claims that ca. 2,000,000 Jews were shot by the Einsatzgruppen into huge pits, the enormous mass graves & human remains are claimed to exist in specifically known places. [.....]

I also challenge EtienneSC, or anyone for that matter, to show this forum immense human remains that would necessarily exist for even the lesser level of a "holocaust-lite" that they are obviously trying to claim.
Such attempts will be vigorously challenged.
I'm not much for throwing The Industry a 'bone' when the facts do not support such appeasement.

- Hannover
The figures I was talking about of specific executions might be 1% to 2% of the 450,000 total that Carlo Mattogno and Vincent Reynouard mention. Specifically, are you saying that none of the reports Mattogno gives of executions on pages 67-78 are genuine?

As Mattogno goes on to argue, there is little or no physical evidence for the large scale shootings. He discusses physical evidence later in the book. There is also a danger of not seeming or being even-handed, when reported killings of Germans, kulaks, etc are accepted with less scrutiny.

A classic strawman.

I never said 'the Einsatzgruppen didn't execute anyone', only that they did so legally, and in extremely smaller numbers vs. what is supposedly alleged in the laughable "reports".

Please show us the massive remains from the sites that you say Mattogno alleges 450,000 Jews were allegedly murdered.
According to bogus "holocaust historians', those remains exist to this day.

While we're at it, please show us the actual "reports".

Ah.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

EtienneSC
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 647
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Mattogno on the Einsatzgruppen - Part 1 Chapter 1

Postby EtienneSC » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:04 pm)

Hi Hannover,
Mattogno points out later in the book that there is a lack of physical evidence to support the large numbers in the reports. The book reproduces a couple of "Ereignismeldungen" (pages 722-23), with photographs of purported excavations in the subsequent pages. I haven't read that far yet.

EtienneSC
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 647
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Mattogno on the Einsatzgruppen - Part 1 Chapter 1

Postby EtienneSC » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Thu Jun 17, 2021 6:50 pm)

Correction: the documents on pages 722-23 are reproductions of the front pages of two copies of a single report.

User avatar
Archie
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 277
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 12:44 am

Re: Mattogno on the Einsatzgruppen - Part 1 Chapter 1

Postby Archie » 1 month 5 days ago (Tue Jun 29, 2021 6:29 pm)

Nice effortposting, Etienne.

EtienneSC wrote:This essay by Mattogno dates back to 2016. Mattogno points out that writing on the Holocaust has moved further East in recent years, possibly because of the influence of revisionism. For the Einsatzgruppen, "there is at least abundant and specific documentation". He says that there is "a large and certainly authentic documentation that attests to mass executions of Jews". In this regard, he says:
"Questioning the authenticity of the documents does not make sense, but the fact that they are authentic does not necessarily mean that their contents are true." (page 25)
This is despite "the well-founded suspicion that certain mass executions mentioned in them may have been completely invented." (Ibid.) Claims of the scale of shootings range from 900,000 (Hilberg) to 2,600,000 (Arad). On this point, he claims that no internal documentary criterion exists to establish the truth of what happened, so material evidence must be sought.

I would just note that there have been variety of revisionist approaches to this material. Arthur Butz dismissed the reports as forgeries in Hoax of the Twentieth Century. Mattogno is opting for a less aggressive argument here, not wanting his argument to hinge on the document authenticity. From Butz,

The most frequently cited evidence is a collection of documents purporting to be daily and other reports of the Einsatzgruppen to Himmler and Heydrich for the period June 1941 to May 1942. Document numbers are 180-L – said to be a report of Stahlecker found in Himmler’s files[46] – 2273-PS – said to be another Stahlecker report on actions up to January 31, 1942, “captured by Russians in Riga” (Stahlecker was killed in March 1942)[47] – 119-USSR, and many others, too numerous to list, most having numbers around NO-3000. Beside telling of regular anti-partisan activities, the reports tell of individual actions of mass executions of Jews, with numbers of victims usually running in the thousands. It is indicated, in most cases, that many copies, sometimes as many as a hundred, were distributed. They were mimeographed, and signatures are most rare and, when they occur, appear on non-incriminating pages. Document NO-3159, for example, has a signature of a R. R. Strauch, but only on a covering page giving the locations of various units of the Einsatzgruppen. There is also NO-1128, allegedly from Himmler to Hitler reporting, among other things, the execution of 363,211 Russian Jews in August-November 1942. This claim occurs on page 4 of NO-1128, while initials said to be Himmler’s occur on the irrelevant page 1. Moreover, Himmler’s initials were easy to forge: three vertical lines with a horizontal line drawn through them.[48]

In connection with these matters, the reader should be informed that, when examining printed reproductions of documents in the IMT and NMT volumes, a handwritten signature not be assumed unless it is specifically stated that the signature is handwritten; “signed” generally means only a typewritten signature. Document 180-L, for example, is reproduced in German in the IMT volumes, and excerpts in English are reproduced in the NMT volumes. In both cases signatures are indicated, but the actual document merely has “gez. Dr. Stahlecker” (signed Dr. Stahlecker) typewritten in two places.[49]

The second Lohse document is 3663-PS and is one of several documents bearing the major irregularity of having been processed by the Yivo (Yiddish Scientific Institute) of New York before being submitted as Nuremberg trial documents. There are about 70 such documents said to have been found in the Rosenberg Ministry in September 1945 by Sergeant Szajko Frydman of the U.S. 82nd Airborne Division. Frydman, however, was a staff member of the Yivo both before and after his service in the Army. Indeed, the Yivo was so active in producing documents supposedly found in the Rosenberg Ministry that it may very well have some enlightening information on the origins of the supposed text of Himmler’s Posen speech. The first part of the document is written on the stationery of the Ministry. It is a letter to Lohse, dated October 31, 1941, with a typewritten signature by Dr. Leibbrandt and an illegible handwritten endorsement by somebody else.

Other documents that are relevant are numbered 3660-PS through 3669-PS (excepting 3663-PS). The documents are attributed to various people, e.g. Kube and Gewecke, and in every case the descriptive material accompanying the document specifies that the location of the original is unknown and that only a photostat is available. With only a couple of exceptions, there are no handwritten signatures.

Even Reitlinger seems puzzled by the existence of these reports and other documents, because he remarks:[52]

“It is not easy to see why the murderers left such an abundant testimony behind them, for in spite of their wide circulation list, Knobloch’s [the Gestapo official who edited the reports] reports seem to have been designed primarily to appeal to Himmler and Heydrich. Thus, in addition to much juggling with the daily death bills in order to produce an impressive total, there are some rather amateur essays in political intelligence work.”

It is the “amateur essays” that convince one of forgery here; the contents of these reports are ridiculous in the selection of things reported.

It is not difficult to see why these documents exist: without them, the authors of the lie would have no evidence for their claims except testimony. We have seen that with Auschwitz there was an abundance of material facts to work with and whose meanings could be distorted: shipments of Jews to Auschwitz, many of whom did not return to their original homes, large shipments of a source of hydrogen cyanide gas, elaborate cremation facilities, selections, the stench. The situation with the Einsatzgruppen was different; there was only one fact: the executions. Standing alone, this fact does not appear impressive as evidence, and this consideration was no doubt the motivation for manufacturing these documents on such a large scale. This is in contrast to the Auschwitz hoax, for which forgery of documents is not nearly so prominent and where the forgeries were accomplished with more care. With Auschwitz, we are dealing with a lie manufactured by Washington, but with the Einsatzgruppen, we are dealing with one manufactured by Moscow, and the hand is correspondingly heavier.

Butz's treatment of the Einsatzgruppen is probably one of the more frequently criticized aspects of his book. In Joel Hayward's thesis he dedicates a lengthy chapter to Butz's book and while it's overall pretty favorable he's pretty critical on this section.
We have touched upon several of the most important of Butz’s arguments, and have seen that his work is flawed and out of date in places. First, in response to any piece of evidence apparently contradicting his theses, Butz, if unable to explain or refute it, tends to accuse it of being “fabricated”. By doing so he leaves himself wide open to criticism from anti-Revisionists, who allege that he ignores whole bodies of evidence. Moreover, in stating that particular sources have been manufactured, Butz naturally has to say who he believes did this and why. This occasionally leads him to write about Jewish or Communist “hoaxes” and “lies”, phrases that make him appear extreme and anti-Semitic. These terms, and some of his arguments in defence of their usage, also diminish his claim that he has produced a dispassionate analysis. His treatment of Jews and Zionists at the Nuremberg and other war crimes trials shows that he is not as unbiased as he claims. These sections contain little more than speculation and unsustained allegations based on his own preconceptions.

Hayward thinks the reports are authentic but says the numbers are not realistic or possible. So pretty similar to what Mattogno says.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10371
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Mattogno on the Einsatzgruppen - Part 1 Chapter 1

Postby Hannover » 1 month 5 days ago (Tue Jun 29, 2021 6:54 pm)

Archie:
Hayward thinks the reports are authentic but says the numbers are not realistic or possible. So pretty similar to what Mattogno says.

That is absurd.

If "the numbers are not realistic or possible", then the reports are necessarily fraudulent.
Which have have been proven to be so at this forum & elsewhere.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 736
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Mattogno on the Einsatzgruppen - Part 1 Chapter 1

Postby HMSendeavour » 1 month 4 days ago (Wed Jun 30, 2021 1:13 am)

Useful information on the Einsatzgruppen reports by C.W. Porter here.

Porter and I had a brief conversation regarding this specific letter. He told me that many of these documents are "unsent file copies", meaning, they were drafts that were never actually sent, but the prosecution at Nuremberg used them as evidence which is very underhanded because they'd also add markings to the documents that never existed because they were file copies. Porter notes that they did this with 1650-PS.

Porter told me a very fitting analogy which I think is worth sharing:

Most correspondence takes place in 2 stages. I go to the dentist, get back, and write a letter saying, "you call that painless, you bastard? You nearly killed me". You're not going to waste expensive stationery on a first draft, now are you?

So, you think better of it. When it goes to court, lawyers don't like this kind of language. You're supposed to say "we are considering legal action", or some such bullshit.

Then maybe you forget about it. Years later, somebody finds this first copy, this rough draft, this file copy, in your files and it's used as evidence against your dentist when there's no proof of authenticity, and no proof you ever saw a dentist. That's crazy.


So what's happened is at Nuremberg the Allies used these files copies to prosecute Germans, when the documents in question had no real evidentiary basis in the first place. Forgeries or not, the content isn't accurate whatsoever which voids the documentary value of them as a historical source.

EtienneSC wrote:
"Questioning the authenticity of the documents does not make sense, but the fact that they are authentic does not necessarily mean that their contents are true." (page 25)


This is despite "the well-founded suspicion that certain mass executions mentioned in them may have been completely invented." (Ibid.) Claims of the scale of shootings range from 900,000 (Hilberg) to 2,600,000 (Arad). On this point, he claims that no internal documentary criterion exists to establish the truth of what happened, so material evidence must be sought.


If the documents are authentic, he'd have to prove what about the documents are authentic. If the contents aren't accurate then it hardly matters how "authentic" they are. If they are.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests