fake Einsatzgruppen document

[Bergmann]

We don’t know whether this paper is authentic. Is it an original or an authenricated page or just a piece of paper? There is no letter head, no file number, no signature, only a piece of paper.

This page is taken from G. Fleming Hitler and the Final Solution, who found it in the Bundesarchive Koblens, Germany, he says.
What happened to page 1?
And where and by whom was it discovered?

If a paper exists which addresses President Bush and lists 363,211 Iraqui insurgents killed, would this be accepted as correct and the historical truth? Or does this type of uncritical acceptance only apply to the Germans, who lost the war?

[Vallon]

And where and by whom was it discovered?

This document was already known at Nuremberg. It is in Volume XIII of the NMT proceedings (the ministries case), document NO-1128.

Hannover cannot name anybody who analyzed this document as a forgery, and just refers to his nick as a credible authority on the authenticity of documents. He asks for signatures. According to Browning, this Meldung 51 was signed by Himmler:

On December 26, 1942, the Higher SS and Police Leader for South Russia, the Ukraine, and the Northeast submitted a report on the campaign against the partisans for the three-month period from September 1 to December 1, 1942.

Three days later, on December 29, 1942, the report was retyped in the so-called Führer-type (especially large type that Hitler could read without his glasses) and retitled:

Reports to the Führer on combatting partisans.
Report No. 51.

The report was signed by Heinrich Himmler. On the top of the front page was the initialled hand-written note: "submitted 31.12.42."

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/e ... ing004.asp

Butz says that it was initialed by Himmler.

[Hannover]

Vallon, you dodged Bergmann's question:

And where and by whom was it discovered?

Why?

Vallon, you ignored my request to produce this 'Report 51'. Let's see this alleged 'report'. But then if it's non-existent, well, that's all so typical.

And yes, I'm more credible than you Vallon. Alas, you dodge my points:

- no official stationary
- no signatures
- initials that could be easily added
- no indication of typist...standard procedure
- no forensic/physical confirmation via mass graves for numbers given
- could have been typed by anyone
- completely unverifiable

You, Vallon, produce keyed in text from charlatan Browning, but cannot show your claimed 'Report 51'.

- Hannover

[grenadier]

Vallon wrote:

Hannover cannot name anybody who analyzed this document as a forgery, and just refers to his nick as a credible authority on the authenticity of documents. He asks for signatures. According to Browning, this Meldung 51 was signed by Himmler

Except that Butz tells us Himmlers' signature is not on the incriminating
pg.4, but on the irrelevant pg.1. Plus he reminds the readers that
Himmlers initials were ridiculously easy to forge: 3 vertical lines with
an horizontal line drawn through them.

In connection to Bergmanns' remarks I cite some comments by
C.Porter on Nuremberg documents in general:

The documents used in evidence at Nuremberg consisted largely of "photocopies" of "copies". Many of these original documents were written entirely on plain paper without handwritten markings of any kind, by unknown persons. Occasionally, there is an illegible initial or signature of a more or less unknown person certifying the document as a 'true copy'. Sometimes there are German stamps, sometimes not. Many have been 'found' by the Russians, or 'certified authentic' by Soviet War Crimes Commissions.
[...]The Hague has few, if any, original documents.
[...]The National Archives in Washington (see Telford Taylor's Use of Captured German and Related Documents, A National Archive Conference) claim that the original documents are in The Hague. The Hague claims the original documents are in the National Archives.

The Stadtsarchiv Nurnberg and the Bundesarchiv Koblenz also have no original documents, and both say the original documents are in Washington. Since the originals are, in most cases, 'copies', there is often no proof that the documents in question ever existed.

Porter also claims that very few people visit the archives, they
usually write for photocopies. I know that to be true for a lot, if not
most historians. That´s apart from when they simply copy away from each other.
If my mind serves right, a few mainstream holocaust historians have
mentioned the tremendous difficulty to find original Nuremberg
documents, among them J.C.Pressac.
IMO, it is a lot of noise about the content of apocryphal documents.

Vallon seems to think that revisionist historians, suffering extreme
pressure and with very meager resources, could cover every single
corner of the Holocost tale, every single document, etc.

[Gertrud]

My personal translation is: “Jews, if they are caught as parisans, shall be exterminated.”

That's an obvious misinterpretation.

This is a strange “second page”. It appears that the page number “-2-“ was added later.

The number -2- in fact indicates that a second page follows.

[Daniel Saez Lorente]

363,211 Russian Jews had been executed.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Himmler/Meldung291242.html
and
http://vho.org/VffG/1999/2/Image24.jpg

Maybe I'm missing something, but if that many people are to be believed killed because of a single piece of paper (which could easily be retyped simply changing the figures) then where are the bodies; who dug the holes; and, above all, who filled the holes in again? That's a hell of a lot of work. Stalinist mass graves are being found all the time.

[Gertrud]

The authenticity of a document and its truthfulness are different issues altogether and should be kept apart.

[Bergmann]

That's an obvious misinterpretation.

Himmler notiert als Besprechungspunkte für eine Besprechung mit Hitler u.a.: Es geht hier um das Wörtchen »als«. Für deutsche Ohren ist der Sinn eindeutig: diejenigen Juden, die als Partisanen gefaßt werden, sind »auszurotten«. So versteht es auch Christian Gerlach, Autor der Studie Die Wannsee-Konferenz, das Schicksal der deutschen Juden und Hitlers politische Grundsatzentscheidung, alle Juden Europas zu ermorden.[2]

(Hitler noted as a discussion point with Hitler a.o.: »Judenfrage / als Partisanen auszurotten« . The meaning is for German ears obvious: those Jews who are caught as partisans have to be »auszurotten«. Christian Gerlach, the author of the study Die Wannsee-Konferenz, das Schicksal der deutschen Juden und Hitlers politische Grundsatzentscheidung, alle Juden Europas zu ermorden also understands it this way.)

http://www.vho.org/VffG/2001/3/Schirmer ... 8-352.html

How would you translate “als” in this case?

[Hannover]

Gertrud:

The authenticity of a document and its truthfulness are different issues altogether and should be kept apart.

True enough. But there is nothing on this piece of paper that indicates it's a real German document.

- Hannover

[Daniel Saez Lorente]

And then Max tries to pass off a note which in fact buttresses the Revisionist point that partisans, who were largely Jews (today 'partisans' are called terrorists) were shot, which was acceptable under international of law for 'non-uniformed combatants'.

I'm sorry but this is simply not true.

Alain

What part of this multiple-clause sentence is untrue? Do you mean that the shooting of guerrillas is not permitted under international law? That the partisans were not largely Jews? That today "partisans" are not called "terrorists"? That partisans were not shot? That the not does not in fact buttress the position that the Jews were shot because they were partisans and not because they were Jews? What do you mean exactly?
Please try to write something that we can understand.
Thanks.

[Gertrud]

»Judenfrage / als Partisanen auszurotten«. The meaning is for German ears obvious: those Jews who are caught as partisans have to be »auszurotten«.
How would you translate “als” in this case?

First of all, there's a hiatus after "Judenfrage" which can't simply be bridged by replacing "Judenfrage" by "Juden". We aren't dealing with a complete sentence.
The "als" suggests that the people in question are to be treated like partisans though not necessarily being partisans. If Himmler had written instead "als feindliche Ausländer zu behandeln", for instance, he would have meant that the Jewish question were to be solved by treating Jews, German and foreign nationals alike, as enemy aliens.
This is not about German ears, it's about German grammar.

[Bergmann]

»Judenfrage / als Partisanen auszurotten«. The meaning is for German ears obvious: those Jews who are caught as partisans have to be »auszurotten«.
How would you translate “als” in this case?

First of all, there's a hiatus after "Judenfrage" which can't simply be bridged by replacing "Judenfrage" by "Juden". We aren't dealing with a complete sentence.
The "als" suggests that the people in question are to be treated like partisans though not necessarily being partisans. If Himmler had written instead "als feindliche Ausländer zu behandeln", for instance, he would have meant that the Jewish question were to be solved by treating Jews, German and foreign nationals alike, as enemy aliens.
This is not about German ears, it's about German grammar.

Let us say that we agree that we don't agree.

My understanding of Himmlers note is, as I said before, in line with
http://www.vho.org/VffG/2001/3/Schirmer ... 8-352.html :

Himmler noted as a discussion point with Hitler: »Judenfrage / als Partisanen auszurotten« . The meaning is for German ears obvious: those Jews who are caught as partisans have to be »auszurotten«. Christian Gerlach, the author of the study "Die Wannsee-Konferenz, das Schicksal der deutschen Juden und Hitlers politische Grundsatzentscheidung, alle Juden Europas zu ermorden" also understands it this way.

The phrase "Geman ears" refers to "Sprachgefuehl" (feeling for a language) and has nothing at all to do with grammar.

[Radar]

In all the backing and forthing about this document we seem to have lost sight of the initial question: is it authentic? I would point out that in a US Court it would not be accepted in evidence for the purposes suggested by Vallon and the others. It would be rejected. They would have to show where it came from, prove the author by real evidence, and that it was what they claim it to be. As Hannover has said they cannot do that and rely on supposition about it likely being a second page, etc. It isn't a case of critics needing to show that it is a fake but of authenticating it in the first place.

The question isn't whether partisans were executed or whether the Germans killed others it is about this document.

I realize that we are not in court here but we should certainly hold ourselves to higher standards than Nuremburg which accepted any "document" intrroduced by the prosecution, even, absurdly, "affidavits", and disregarded the rules of evidence.

[Moderator]

Vallon:
Your of posting various scans of the same paper are useless in this debate.
Your continual referral, to "Report 51", but not producing it, after being challenged to do so, go against our stated guidelines.
Your dodging of points made by many, which you were repeatedly asked to address, are not conducive to sincere debate.
Address the issues and challenges, please.
M1

[Gertrud]

In all the backing and forthing about this document we seem to have lost sight of the initial question: is it authentic?

Well, the initial question went beyond that. In the meantime, we were discussing two different documents, one of which is authentic but difficult to interpret.
As to the context of the typewritten document, I'd like to know what's on the missing second page. I've mentioned earlier that the -2- in the lower right corner indicates that another page follows.