Germar Rudolf wrote:
As documentary evidence for the number of Jews shot by the Einsatzgruppen behind the Russian front, the so-called event reports (Ereignisberichte) are frequently quoted. These reports are said to have been prepared by the Einsatzgruppen, who also supposedly sent them to Berlin, where these documents were found after the war. One of the most well-known experts on the subject of Einsatzgruppen, however, Hans-Heinrich Wilhelm, stated as early as in 1988 that he is not certain whether or not the event reports are correct. Because he could show that the statistics in these reports about the number of murdered Jews are unreliable, he warned his colleagues as follows:"When the reliability [of these reports] in non-statistically areas is not greater, which can only be verified by comparing them with other sources from the same region, historical research would be well advised to be much more suspicious in future than it was so far when using any SS-sources."
This remark was only consequential, since he did express similar doubts about the reliability of these documents already in his first book, when he speculated:"that here as well at least several ten thousand exterminated Jews were added to the report in order to 'improve' it, which was otherwise thought to be hardly justifiable, because the number of killed partisans was far too low."
Elsewhere he noted that one of the event reports of the Einsatzgruppen was evidently manipulated by adding a zero to 1,134, thus turning the total to 11,034. The forgers - this is what we deal with here - evidently had an interest in suggesting victim counts as high as possible. In case the Einsatzgruppen were the forgers, then one would assume that they believed that somebody in Berlin desired to see as many Jews murdered as possible. But what if someone else was the forger?
The event reports were transmitted from the front via radio or telex to a department of the RSHA in Berlin. The official in charge there, who was responsible for the final written form of the reports - as they exist today - was Dr. Günther Knobloch (born 1910). During a hearing by the Central Office Ludwigsburg in 1959 Knobloch gave the following description about the preparation of the event reports and the Activity- and Situation Reports:"From the incoming flood of messages I always marked the interesting parts red and our secretaries knew exactly, in what form to bring these messages. [...] It was important at that time that the messages were quite voluminous. [...] Because of this I saved material from days, when we received many messages, for days with only a few messages. The messages from the individual Kommandos and Groups were always filed under these Kommandos and Groups, and an error can of course not necessarily be ruled out. [...] Practically no changes in content occurred. [...] I would like to add, however, that SS-Gruppenführer Müller [...] frequently made handwritten changes also to the actual content. [...] I also had often the impression that the information contained exaggerated events and numbers.[...]
At some time in the year 1942, we had to summarize the daily event reports in fortnightly reports, and later these were even changed to monthly reports. But it is also possible that the sequence was reverse. These summaries were prepared by me as well. [...] These reports were based exclusively on the daily event reports."
The "time in the year 1942" mentioned by Knobloch is either a printing error in the book or Knobloch remembered it wrong, since these Tätigkeits- und Lageberichte
exist since June 1941, that is since the very beginning of the Russian campaign. The meaning of these summaries, however, is not clear. Why these repetitions in the Tätigkeits- und Lageberichte, which actually, as Wilhelm noticed while comparing them with the event reports, were often no repetitions but new reports?
From both Wilhelm's and Knobloch's descriptions the following can be deducted: reports from the front, prepared by non-qualified persons-some of them in double or even multiple versions, were received by the RSHA in Berlin by radio or telex, often with considerable delays. There they were reviewed by Knobloch, important parts highlighted, rewritten by secretaries
and sent out unchecked and uncorrected as the final event reports. Later on, after weeks, summaries were prepared from these event reports, to which, however, new data were added while others were deleted on an unknown basis. These summaries were issued as Tätigkeits- und Lageberichte (Activity and Situation Reports).
Krausnick and Wilhelm call these reports with their dubious history "authentic" documents. According to the opinion of the same authors, this authenticity is further supported by the following:
1. they were captured by the U.S. units;
Partisan warfare during the Russian campaign. Similar pictures became well-known in America only after the U.S. Army applied similar tactics during the Vietnam war.
2. they were cited in Nuremberg in all relevant trials;
3. no defense lawyer ever seriously attempted to question their authenticity;
4. the editors who were responsible within the RSHA for their preparation as well as numerous recipients of the report at that time did identify them.
Regarding #4, the responsible report editor Knobloch testified the following, when photo copies of these reports were submitted to him in Ludwigsburg:"The photocopies of the reports submitted to me can be considered as the event reports issued at that time in regards to their form.""In regards to their form"
- Knobloch said either nothing about their content or we are not told about it!
Although the above mentioned points made by Krausnick and Wilhelm do in no way prove the authenticity of the submitted documents, they still could be authentic. However the problem in this case is that the events reported in these presumably authentic documents are evidently incongruent with reality, as is clear from the descriptions of Wilhelm and Knobloch.
 Together with Helmut Krausnick co-author of the famous book Die Truppe des Weltanschauungskrieges, (The Troop of the War of Ideology) op. cit. (note 17)
 H.-H. Wilhelm, lecture during an international history conference at the university Riga, September 20-22, 1988, p. 11. Based on this recital Wilhelm wrote the article "Offene Fragen der Holocaust-Forschung" (Open Question about the Holocaust Research) in U. Backes, E. Jesse, R. Zitelmann (ed.), Die Schatten der Vergangenheit, Propyläen, Berlin 1992 S. 403, which however does not contain this section. I obtained this information from Costas Zaverdinos, who had the manuscript of Wilhelms Riga lecture and who reported about this during the opening speech of the history conference on April 4, 1995 at the university of Natal, Pietermaritzburg.
 H.-H. Wilhelm, op. cit. (note 17), p. 515.
 Ibid., p. 535
 H. Krausnick, H.-H. Wilhelm, op. cit. (note 17), p. 337f.
 Ibid., p. 335.
 Ibid., p. 338http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/3/RudolfSchroeder321-330.html