Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Discussions
User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24652
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Sep 09, 2015 10:37 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote: Rather than deal with this and other evidence rubbishing his false claims, Monstrous fled the SSF forum.
Incorrect, no point in being here when the Believers have no intention of answering the Revisionists arguments regarding the implausibilities and impossibilities of the stories but instead simply just repeat and repeat the Nuremberg show trials testimonies and documents regardless of their implausibility and impossibility.
Yeah, that sums up their whole shtick. Ignoring the impossible and repeating the testimony.
Ok, Maryzilla, maybe can you answer the questions that Monstrous has been dodging for weeks? Or are you here just to kick up your sneakers and do cheerleading splits and hollers?
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24652
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Sep 09, 2015 10:39 pm

From the Posen thread, where bizarrely Monstrous decided to transfer his thoughts, such as they are, on the Einsatzgruppen reports and their purported fabrication:

- - - - - - - -
Monstrous wrote:"Ohlendorf’s testimony contrasts with that of Haensch, an SS Lieutenant Colonel who was in command of a Sonderkommando in group C for about seven weeks. The fact that Haensch had not testified previously when others were on trial and the fact that his lower rank made the a priori constraints on Case 9 of lesser effect in his case, gave him a freedom that Ohlendorf did not enjoy.
. . . this denier idea of "constraints" on Ohlendorf is so much BS. Ohlendorf volunteered his explanations about EG D to British and American interrogators - and then testified for the prosecution at the IMT.

He was of course free to change his mind and open himself up to perjury charges if he wished when he himself sat in the dock during the Einsatzgruppen trial. In other words, any problem Ohlendorf faced in his NMT trial involved the facts and the earlier statements he'd volunteered.

But let's chat about Walter Haensch . . .
Monstrous wrote:He testified that absolutely nobody, in giving him his orders, had ever mentioned Jews as such in connection with executive activities of the Einsatzgruppen and that his Sonderkommando had not, as a matter of fact, had a policy of executing Jews as such. He estimated that his Sonderkommando executed about sixty people during his period of service. All of these claims were completely in conflict with what are said to be the reports of the Einsatzgruppen."
http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=7
In the first place, you guys are amazing - you will believe anything a defendant says to wriggle out of his legal issues . . . if it dovetails with your beliefs and wackadoo claims.

But, yes, Haensch, unlike most of the other defendants, denied receiving or carrying out execution orders, especially with regard to the Jews. Nosske was another outright denier at the Einsatzgruppen trial (btw, I want to congratulate you for here getting the correct trial for the EG defendants, even if you got it in the Posen thread., whereas in the thread on the EGs you came up with the wrong trial.)

You may or may not know it but Haensch was deployed to EG-C, Sonderkommando 4b, in 1942, not during the widespread mass murder in Ukraine during summer-fall 1941. That is why in his defense, according to Hilary Earl (pp 162-163), during the EG trial Haensch was eager to put his time in the occupied USSR as late as possible and why he stressed to the court he'd not been posted to the east until the very end of February 1942 or the middle of March - and that he had spent only 7-8 weeks there from March through July 1942. Haensch indeed claimed not to have learned about the mass murder of Jews until after the war, making him an outlier among the EG trial defendants, most of whom pleaded some form of superior orders and military necessity whilst admitting mass murder. Your source "forgot" to mention this point.

What your quotation also failed to mention is that, according to Earl, EG reports do place Haensch in SK 4b when the unit had killed 3,401 persons between January and February 1942 (this was when Haensch had told the court he was not in the east - but at a dentist appointment in Berlin etc; if Earl is wrong, and Haensch wasn't detailed to the east until March, as he claimed, then his testimony is clearly worthless as to documented murders by SK 4b during January and February.)

In any event, according to Hilberg (vol. I, pp 386-387), the most significant actions in the eastern Ukraine carried out by EG C during early 1942, under which SK 4b operated, included Makeyevka, Stalino, Gorlovka, and Artemovsk. Indeed, according to Arad (The Holocaust in the Soviet Union, p 271), “By the end of 1941 most of the Jews in the German-occupied regions of Generalbezirk Zhitomir and Kiev had been murdered. The few that remained in ghettos were exterminated in 1942. After the first wave of massacres, no Jews remained in Generalbizerk Nikolaev and Dnepropetrovsk with the exception of a few dozen Jewish artisans in some of the towns.” - thus in this area SK 4b did not have to carry out major extermination actions like Babi Yar of fall 1941, you know, the massacre about which Nick Terry smacked you silly.

As to the smaller actions that continued in this territory, EG report no. 177 (6 March 1942) stated, “As a result of the measures carried out by Einsatzkommando 6, both the Gorlovka and Makeyevka districts are free now of Jews.” Despite executions of 100s in Stalino, a small number of Jews remained there to be dealt with later (these Jews were murdered in spring 1942, according to Arad, THISU, p 193). As to Haensch’s unit, around the same time “Sonderkommando 4b executed 1,317 people (among them 63 political agitators, 30 saboteurs and partisans, and 1,224 Jews). With this action, the district of Artemovsk was also freed of Jews.” (report no. 177 excerpted in Arad, Krakowski, Spector, The Einsatzgruppen Reports, p 305) Report no. 187 reiterated the successes of EK 6 in Gorlovka and Makeyevka (“purged Jews out”) and three other towns during the second sweep in eastern Ukraine. (Arad, Krakowski, Spector, p 322)

Implausibly, Haensch denied in his testimony, among other things, the use of the equation Bolsheviks = Jews by the Germans as well as any discussion of actions against the Jews in Russia. The court's judgment dismissed Haensch's claims as "simply incredible" and "incredulous" and said that the court “rejects completely” Haensch’s “statement that he did not know of the execution of Jews.”

In its judgment, the court argued that even if Haensch's alibi as to his time of duty in the east were to be accepted, he was responsible for mass murder. The judgment reviewed the location of SK 4b in April 1942 (there's a typo in this review), during the period of Haensch's command, and then quoted from EG report no. 189 on the execution of 50 hostages at Zhitomir and from a report (NO-5087) on mass executions at Gorlovka.

Illustrative of Haensch’s dubious value in “exonerating” the EGs is an excerpt from the judgment against him. The judgment cited the previously mentioned report of an execution by SK 4b of 1,224 Jews occurring 3-4 weeks before Haensch’s claimed assumption of command:
[Haensch] was asked—
“You have now stated that you have no reason to doubt the correctness of these reports. Therefore, if 1,224 Jews were shot by your organization before you took over, does it not seem strange to you that in all the time that you were with the very men who conducted these executions, that not a word was ever said about so extraordinary a phenomenon as the execution of 1,224 human beings because they were Jews?”
His only reply was that no one talked about these killings or any killings at all . . .
This was the action described in EG report no. 177 which took place in the Artemovsk district, as noted above. The judgment reasoned that, as Haensch had testified that he was to continue the actions of SK 4b, it was not believable that in turning over command to Haensch, his predecessor had not briefed him on the unit’s anti-Jewish actions, many of them detailed in EG reports. One need not agree with the court’s reasoning that Haensch’s defense was ludicrous to see that your quoting him doesn’t help dismiss reports of murders when he says he wasn’t present!

The judgment also noted that in a written statement given 21 July 1947 - “devoted to a discussion on executions and his, the defendant’s, manner of conducting them” - Haensch had said that he could no longer estimate the number of people his unit had executed in Russia in the absence of records; the judgment concluded that Haensch's statement “reveals irrefutably” that for him “mass killings formed a regular routine . . . and were not unusual events.” The judgment quoted at length from the written statement to support this conclusion.

(from Green Series, vol. 4)

Haensch makes a very poor witness for your assertions - as he seems to have accepted the authenticity of the EG reports but tried distancing himself, as an individual, from the actions recorded in the reports. Further, his unit, best I can tell, was involved in mopping up actions against the Jews, not in the major actions against large Jewish communities that had been mostly completed in SK 4b's area of action by early 1942. It’s not clear why you brought this guy up, as he only helps support the arguments I and others have made in this thread. So . . . thanks!
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
NathanC
Regular Poster
Posts: 599
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:19 am

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by NathanC » Thu Sep 10, 2015 3:35 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:In the first place, you guys are amazing - you will believe anything a defendant says to wriggle out of his legal issues . . . if it dovetails with your beliefs and wackadoo claims.
There's a murder case I'm following. While the moment of the murder wasn't captured, the suspect was caught on video as being the last person with the victim, before the murder.
To this day, he insists he didn't do it and comes up with denials and explanations.

Hoensch and Ohlendrof aren't different from him. Or George Zimmerman, or any killer for that matter. The lesson here is that no one, no one wants to admit to being a killer. A murder suspect will never confess, there's always a rationalization or an excuse.

Deniers are dumb. This is also why normal people don't become deniers- they live in the real world, and not the denier fantasy land where testimony that refutes their nonsense is false or coerced, and testimony that supports it is genuine, even if they're generated by the same trial.

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Monstrous » Fri Sep 11, 2015 5:14 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Monstrous wrote:On the liar Ohlendorf:

"The second affidavit which the American prosecution presented in Nuremberg was that of Otto Ohlendorf, Chief of the SD and leader of Einsatzgruppe D. This affidavit as well had obviously been recorded by one of the American interrogators and given to Ohlendorf to sign. In it he confirmed that his Einsatzgruppe had been sent 'death vans' from Berlin and that women and children were killed in them by 'turning on' the gas. The affidavit was dated November 5, 1945.[48]

On being questioned as witness during the trial he stated that as of spring 1942 his Einsatzgruppe had been assigned a Special Unit led by Dr. Becker, which used 'gas vans' to kill Jewish women and children and Soviet political commissars. Death took ten to fifteen minutes, he said. He claimed not to know any technical details regarding these 'gas vans'.[49]

Ohlendorf was also shown the letter from Becker to Rauff (PS-501) and he supposed it might be "correct" since it "approximated his [Ohlendorf's] experiences."

Two things contradict this account.

In the letter the writer (Becker) gives the impression that he was on an inspection tour to the various Einsatzgruppen, specifically from the south (Group D) moving northwards (on his way to Group B). But this activity does not agree with that specified by Ohlendorf, according to whom Becker was the Chief of a Special Unit which had been assigned specifically to Einsatzgruppe D.
In the letter the writer specifically mentions vehicles of the Saurer type, which were equipped exclusively with Diesel engines and for this reason were not suitable for exhaust-gas murders. However, the writer does not find any fault with this – he only criticizes that they were "absolutely immobilized in rainy weather". How such vehicles, which were as unsuitable as could be for killing human beings, could nevertheless be used to murder Jewish women and children, remains a mystery.

Ohlendorf's affidavit and witness testimony contradict the facts in several decisive respects and cannot in any way be considered evidence for actions which are technically impossible."
http://codoh.com/library/document/933/

"By referring to a post-war affidavit by Otto Ohlendorf,[577] leader of Einsatzgruppe D, Raul Hilberg summarizes as follows:[578]
"According to Ohlendorf, the commanders of the Einsatzgruppen were briefed by Himmler personally. They were informed that an important part of their task was the elimination [Beseitigung] of Jews - women, men, and children - and of Communist functionaries."...

...PS-3710. - However, Alfred Streim, Director of the Ludwigsburg Central Office for the Resolution of NS Crimes, wrote regarding this: "Ohlendorf 's testimony and submissions concerning the inauguration of the 'Führer Order' [...] are false. In the Einsatzgruppen Trial the former Head of Einsatzgruppe D was able to get his co-defendants to submit to a line of defense put forward by him with the suggestion that if one had, from the very beginning, carried out the extermination operations against the Jews on 'order of the Führer,' one could count upon a more lenient sentence. (A. Streim, "Zur Eröffnung des allgemeinen Judenvernichtungsbefehls gegenüber den Einsatzgruppen", in: E. Jäckel, J. Rohwer, op. cit. (note 276), p. 303.)"
http://codoh.com/library/chapter/1791/

"General Field Marshall Erich von Manstein was Commander of the Eleventh Army and was fighting on the Black Sea and in the Crimea. In 1949, he came before a British military court in Hamburg on charges of complicity in the massacres committed by Einsatzgruppe D. His defense counsel was the Englishman Reginald T. Paget, who wrote a book - translated into German the year after - about the trial in 1951.[593] In it, he reports the following concerning the activities of Einsatzgruppe D in the Crimea:[594]

"It seemed to me that the S.D. claims were quite impossible. Single companies of about 100 with about 8 vehicles were reporting the killing of up to 10,000 and 12,000 Jews in two or three days. They could not have got more than about 20 or 30 Jews who, be it remembered, thought they were being resettled and had their traps with them, into a single truck. Loading, travelling at least 10 kilometres, unloading and returning trucks would have taken nearer two hours than one. The Russian winter day is short and there was no travelling by night. Killing 10,000 Jews would have taken at least three weeks.

In one instance we were able to check their figures. The S.D. claimed that they had killed 10,000 in Simferopol during November and in December they reported Simferopol clear of Jews. By a series of cross checks we were able to establish that the execution of the Jews in Simferopol had taken place on a single day, 16th November. Only one company of S.D. were in Simferopol. The place of execution was 15 kilometres from the town. The numbers involved could not have been more then about 300. These 300 were probably not exclusively Jews but a miscellaneous collection of people whe were being held on suspicion of resistance activity. The Simferopol incident received a good deal of publicity because it was spoken of by the prosecution's only witness, an Austrian corporal called Gaffa who said that he heard anti-Jewish activities mentioned on an engineers' mess when he was oderly and had passed the scene of the Simferopol execution. As a result we received a large number of letters, and where able to call several witnesses who had been billeted with Jewish families and also spoke of the functioning of the local synagogue and of a Jewish market where they bought icons and similar bric-a-brac right up to the time that Manstein left the Crimea and after.

It was indeed clear that the Jewish community had continued to function quite openly in Simferopol and although several of our witnesses had heard rumours about an S.D. excess committed against Jews in Simferopol, it certainly appeared that this Jewish community was unaware of any special danger.

Ohlendorf had reported that not only Simferopol but the whole Crimea was cleared of Jews. He was clearly a man who was prepared to say anything that would please his employers. The Americans found him a perfect witness.""
http://codoh.com/library/chapter/1791/
I'm so sorry. That's not remotely responsive to what's been posted in this thread, the topic under discussion, or what you've been asked. You set off copy-pasting mindlessly from a piece on the IMT, whereas we are discussing NMT Trial 9, where Ohlendorf was not a witness for the prosecution but on trial for his life. Put there by "his employers."

You may want to look up the difference between the IMT and the NMT. This discussion is about the latter.

Which raises anew the question you didn't answer - proof that the Americans were "his employers"? Where is that? The quid pro quo you keep alluding to - evidence for it?

Remind us how it all worked out for this dutiful employee of the Americans . . . and answer what you've been asked instead of posting a potpourri of stuff YOU CAN COPY AND PASTE HOORAY FOR YOU!

Btw I agree with Streim that Ohlendorf's defense at the Einsatzgruppen trial, involving the so-called Führer Order to the Einsatzgruppen, supposedly issued prior to Barbarossa, was strategic and dishonest. So what? No one is arguing that Ohlendorf is a model of rectitude but rather that 1) he sometimes for his own reasons let the cat out of the bag and 2) he was trapped by a combination of his own statements and the evidence against him.

Sigh, it doesn't look as though you plan on giving any reply at all to the questions you've been asked - which were for you 1) to give us proof of quid pro quos based on bribes or of mistreatment to coerce specific testimony, 2) to provide evidence showing Soviet fabrication of the EG reports (you're now wittering about supposed American "coaching" of Ohlendorf who was in British custody when he started singing about his role as head of EG D - to the initial skepticism of the Brits!*), and 3) to explain why, given your theory of coerced and bribed witnesses, the prosecution called only 2 or so witnesses in the Einsatzgruppen trial - and the defendants put themselves on the stand in their own defense?

* Earl, The Nuremberg SS- Einsatzgruppen Trial, 1945-1958, pp 50-55
Actually, the thread is called "Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen" and is not limited to the NMT.

Proof that the "Americans" were "his employers"? No definitive "proof" but his false affidavits and testimonies during the IMT points to some agreement with Allies - probably the Soviets in such a case, the Einsatzgruppen and the gas vans allegedly acted mainly in Soviet territory and the gas vans allegations originate from the Soviets. That the Soviets did not bother to honor their agreement with him after his usefulness was over is not particularly surprising.

"Btw I agree with Streim that Ohlendorf's defense at the Einsatzgruppen trial, involving the so-called Führer Order to the Einsatzgruppen, supposedly issued prior to Barbarossa, was strategic and dishonest. So what? No one is arguing that Ohlendorf is a model of rectitude but rather that 1) he sometimes for his own reasons let the cat out of the bag and 2) he was trapped by a combination of his own statements and the evidence against him."

Really? You agree with Streim that Ohlendorf and the other EG leaders secretly reached an agreement with one another to commit perjury regarding the EG orders? This makes all of their testimonies completely valueless.

I suggest you never mention them again and stick to spamming EG reports from now on.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24652
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Sep 11, 2015 8:10 pm

Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Monstrous wrote:On the liar Ohlendorf:

"The second affidavit which the American prosecution presented in Nuremberg was that of Otto Ohlendorf, Chief of the SD and leader of Einsatzgruppe D. This affidavit as well had obviously been recorded by one of the American interrogators and given to Ohlendorf to sign. In it he confirmed that his Einsatzgruppe had been sent 'death vans' from Berlin and that women and children were killed in them by 'turning on' the gas. The affidavit was dated November 5, 1945.[48]

On being questioned as witness during the trial he stated that as of spring 1942 his Einsatzgruppe had been assigned a Special Unit led by Dr. Becker, which used 'gas vans' to kill Jewish women and children and Soviet political commissars. Death took ten to fifteen minutes, he said. He claimed not to know any technical details regarding these 'gas vans'.[49]

Ohlendorf was also shown the letter from Becker to Rauff (PS-501) and he supposed it might be "correct" since it "approximated his [Ohlendorf's] experiences."

Two things contradict this account.

In the letter the writer (Becker) gives the impression that he was on an inspection tour to the various Einsatzgruppen, specifically from the south (Group D) moving northwards (on his way to Group B). But this activity does not agree with that specified by Ohlendorf, according to whom Becker was the Chief of a Special Unit which had been assigned specifically to Einsatzgruppe D.
In the letter the writer specifically mentions vehicles of the Saurer type, which were equipped exclusively with Diesel engines and for this reason were not suitable for exhaust-gas murders. However, the writer does not find any fault with this – he only criticizes that they were "absolutely immobilized in rainy weather". How such vehicles, which were as unsuitable as could be for killing human beings, could nevertheless be used to murder Jewish women and children, remains a mystery.

Ohlendorf's affidavit and witness testimony contradict the facts in several decisive respects and cannot in any way be considered evidence for actions which are technically impossible."
http://codoh.com/library/document/933/

"By referring to a post-war affidavit by Otto Ohlendorf,[577] leader of Einsatzgruppe D, Raul Hilberg summarizes as follows:[578]
"According to Ohlendorf, the commanders of the Einsatzgruppen were briefed by Himmler personally. They were informed that an important part of their task was the elimination [Beseitigung] of Jews - women, men, and children - and of Communist functionaries."...

...PS-3710. - However, Alfred Streim, Director of the Ludwigsburg Central Office for the Resolution of NS Crimes, wrote regarding this: "Ohlendorf 's testimony and submissions concerning the inauguration of the 'Führer Order' [...] are false. In the Einsatzgruppen Trial the former Head of Einsatzgruppe D was able to get his co-defendants to submit to a line of defense put forward by him with the suggestion that if one had, from the very beginning, carried out the extermination operations against the Jews on 'order of the Führer,' one could count upon a more lenient sentence. (A. Streim, "Zur Eröffnung des allgemeinen Judenvernichtungsbefehls gegenüber den Einsatzgruppen", in: E. Jäckel, J. Rohwer, op. cit. (note 276), p. 303.)"
http://codoh.com/library/chapter/1791/

"General Field Marshall Erich von Manstein was Commander of the Eleventh Army and was fighting on the Black Sea and in the Crimea. In 1949, he came before a British military court in Hamburg on charges of complicity in the massacres committed by Einsatzgruppe D. His defense counsel was the Englishman Reginald T. Paget, who wrote a book - translated into German the year after - about the trial in 1951.[593] In it, he reports the following concerning the activities of Einsatzgruppe D in the Crimea:[594]

"It seemed to me that the S.D. claims were quite impossible. Single companies of about 100 with about 8 vehicles were reporting the killing of up to 10,000 and 12,000 Jews in two or three days. They could not have got more than about 20 or 30 Jews who, be it remembered, thought they were being resettled and had their traps with them, into a single truck. Loading, travelling at least 10 kilometres, unloading and returning trucks would have taken nearer two hours than one. The Russian winter day is short and there was no travelling by night. Killing 10,000 Jews would have taken at least three weeks.

In one instance we were able to check their figures. The S.D. claimed that they had killed 10,000 in Simferopol during November and in December they reported Simferopol clear of Jews. By a series of cross checks we were able to establish that the execution of the Jews in Simferopol had taken place on a single day, 16th November. Only one company of S.D. were in Simferopol. The place of execution was 15 kilometres from the town. The numbers involved could not have been more then about 300. These 300 were probably not exclusively Jews but a miscellaneous collection of people whe were being held on suspicion of resistance activity. The Simferopol incident received a good deal of publicity because it was spoken of by the prosecution's only witness, an Austrian corporal called Gaffa who said that he heard anti-Jewish activities mentioned on an engineers' mess when he was oderly and had passed the scene of the Simferopol execution. As a result we received a large number of letters, and where able to call several witnesses who had been billeted with Jewish families and also spoke of the functioning of the local synagogue and of a Jewish market where they bought icons and similar bric-a-brac right up to the time that Manstein left the Crimea and after.

It was indeed clear that the Jewish community had continued to function quite openly in Simferopol and although several of our witnesses had heard rumours about an S.D. excess committed against Jews in Simferopol, it certainly appeared that this Jewish community was unaware of any special danger.

Ohlendorf had reported that not only Simferopol but the whole Crimea was cleared of Jews. He was clearly a man who was prepared to say anything that would please his employers. The Americans found him a perfect witness.""
http://codoh.com/library/chapter/1791/
I'm so sorry. That's not remotely responsive to what's been posted in this thread, the topic under discussion, or what you've been asked. You set off copy-pasting mindlessly from a piece on the IMT, whereas we are discussing NMT Trial 9, where Ohlendorf was not a witness for the prosecution but on trial for his life. Put there by "his employers."

You may want to look up the difference between the IMT and the NMT. This discussion is about the latter.

Which raises anew the question you didn't answer - proof that the Americans were "his employers"? Where is that? The quid pro quo you keep alluding to - evidence for it?

Remind us how it all worked out for this dutiful employee of the Americans . . . and answer what you've been asked instead of posting a potpourri of stuff YOU CAN COPY AND PASTE HOORAY FOR YOU!

Btw I agree with Streim that Ohlendorf's defense at the Einsatzgruppen trial, involving the so-called Führer Order to the Einsatzgruppen, supposedly issued prior to Barbarossa, was strategic and dishonest. So what? No one is arguing that Ohlendorf is a model of rectitude but rather that 1) he sometimes for his own reasons let the cat out of the bag and 2) he was trapped by a combination of his own statements and the evidence against him.

Sigh, it doesn't look as though you plan on giving any reply at all to the questions you've been asked - which were for you 1) to give us proof of quid pro quos based on bribes or of mistreatment to coerce specific testimony, 2) to provide evidence showing Soviet fabrication of the EG reports (you're now wittering about supposed American "coaching" of Ohlendorf who was in British custody when he started singing about his role as head of EG D - to the initial skepticism of the Brits!*), and 3) to explain why, given your theory of coerced and bribed witnesses, the prosecution called only 2 or so witnesses in the Einsatzgruppen trial - and the defendants put themselves on the stand in their own defense?

* Earl, The Nuremberg SS- Einsatzgruppen Trial, 1945-1958, pp 50-55
Actually, the thread is called "Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen" and is not limited to the NMT.
I didn't say it was. I said that you'd been asked about the NMT because you made claims about the NMT and that you'd dodged the questions - and one way you dodged was by spamming about a different trial. Do try following along.
Monstrous wrote:Proof that the "Americans" were "his employers"? No definitive "proof"
That seems to be a thing with you - no proof but lots of claims.
Monstrous wrote:but his false affidavits and testimonies during the IMT points to some agreement with Allies - probably the Soviets in such a case, the Einsatzgruppen and the gas vans allegedly acted mainly in Soviet territory and the gas vans allegations originate from the Soviets. That the Soviets did not bother to honor their agreement with him after his usefulness was over is not particularly surprising.
Probably the Soviets in that Ohlendorf was held first by the British and then turned over to the Americans?

How in god's name do so-called false affidavits and testimonies point to agreements among the Allies - and not the more obvious explanation, that Ohlendorf changed his testimony to minimize the crimes and to save his neck?

To leap from "changes in testimony" to "Soviet doings" you need something more than, er, "changes in testimony."
Monstrous wrote:"Btw I agree with Streim that Ohlendorf's defense at the Einsatzgruppen trial, involving the so-called Führer Order to the Einsatzgruppen, supposedly issued prior to Barbarossa, was strategic and dishonest. So what? No one is arguing that Ohlendorf is a model of rectitude but rather that 1) he sometimes for his own reasons let the cat out of the bag and 2) he was trapped by a combination of his own statements and the evidence against him."

Really? You agree with Streim that Ohlendorf and the other EG leaders secretly reached an agreement with one another to commit perjury regarding the EG orders? This makes all of their testimonies completely valueless.
I didn't say that - I said I didn't believe that there was a Führer order to exterminate the Jews wholesale issued before the attack on the USSR.

I didn't weigh in on how it came to be that many of the defendants used this excuse - but here I would offer that, since this line of defense was well exercised earlier at the IMT, even if it was not successful, it didn't take much genius for these guys to repeat it.

Finally, I didn't ever argue that the testimonies were with great value on their face - or valueless. Critical assessment of what the defendants said - e.g., how they explained their actions, the fact that most admitted to mass murder but rationalized it, questions that were not successfully dealt with, problems with their narratives, outright dishonesty, etc - is useful.

The defense of superior orders is problematic for you, because it presupposes the mass executions - that these men blamed the murder orders, as did the IMT defendants, largely on leaders who were dead and beyond the law makes their explanations suspect. Still, the question remains, if the EG leaders weren't involved in mass murder, why would they say their units had committed mass murder and justify it through superior orders? Why not just say that they'd not massacred Jews and the reports saying that they did were forged? Yet few of them followed the course taken by Haensch.
Monstrous wrote:I suggest you never mention them again and stick to spamming EG reports from now on.
Sorry, Maryzilla wrote, when asked if the reports were fabricated, "I don't think there is enough proof to say for sure that they were all fabricated. They might've been. We know that the Soviets made a tremendous effort to introduce completely fabricated evidence at Nuremberg. Hell, the AMERICANS introduced BS evidence at Nuremberg." Which, being rather beside the point, did raise the issue of NMT case 9. And you wrote, trying to explain why the EG leaders themselves hadn't said the reports were forged, that it was for "reasons such as torture and being bribed with immunity if testifying for the prosecution" - which, whilst revealing your staggering ignorance of this topic, raised the one of the very questions I've been trying to get you to answer about these men.

I am sure we all are acutely aware by now that you have no evidence for what you wrote.

As to introducing EG reports into the thread, we've not actually dealt with many of them directly. You're right, it might be a good idea to do so - but for now I am enjoying watching as you squirm in a useless effort to dodge simple, direct questions you've been asked.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24652
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Sep 11, 2015 8:16 pm

In the "Posen" thread, we've learned that SS Obersturmführer Rudolf Schneider in 1946 gave an affidavit in which he described the complaints of Waffen SS leaders, in response to Himmler's demand that they be involved in the final solution, about the diversion of their men from military activities. According to Schneider, the Waffen SS leaders were "opposed to the solution to the Jewish problem as proposed by the Reichsfuehrer SS. . . . Steiner was also opposed to the use of the Waffen SS in the so-called operati[…] commandos (Einsatzkommandos), since the front troops would lose important support and this activity was, moreover, not within the sphere of duties of the Waffen SS.”

Strangely, Steiner, Phleps, and the other leaders referred to by Schneider didn't explain the EG actions as anti-partisan or having any military importance at all - quite the opposite - such operations, focused on "the Jewish problem," damaged, in the generals' view, military operations.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Xcalibur
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1434
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Xcalibur » Sat Sep 12, 2015 12:29 am

Essentially all this boils down to is a bunch of internet anti-semitic chimps "outraged' (yet again) at the "injustice" done to Germans following WW2. And none of them are {!#%@} German....

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24652
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sat Sep 12, 2015 2:29 am

Xcalibur wrote:Essentially all this boils down to is a bunch of internet anti-semitic chimps "outraged' (yet again) at the "injustice" done to Germans following WW2. And none of them are {!#%@} German....
It's never been clear to me how many chimps are needed to constitute a "bunch." Well, the chimp who started this thread likes denying the obvious.

Speaking of von Herff and Posen and die Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa!, David Irving has posted excerpts from Maximilian von Herff’s diary at his website (von Herff being one of the SS leaders on whose behalf Schneider spoke). Von Herff's entry for 18 May 1945 is interesting. It says in part:
Die Judenvernichtung war der Anfang für unser Unglück. Hier mußten Männer auftreten und Einhalt gebieten. Nichts geschah. Der große Mitschuldige war der Reichsführer, der in völlig falsch verstandener Treue sich des größten Verbrechen aller Zeiten schuldig macht. Gleich schuldig die Partei, die diesen Wahnsinn zuließ.
Rough translation: “The annihilation/destruction of the Jews was the beginning of our misfortune. Here men should have spoken up and stopped it. Nothing happened. The great accomplice was the Reichsführer [Himmler], who in totally misconceived loyalty makes himself guilty of the greatest crime of all time. Equally guilty is the party who allowed this madness.”

In his 1946 affidavit Schneider gave his view that the Waffen SS leaders learned about the extermination of the Jews from the Reichsführer SS in his 4 October 1943 speech at Posen: “My impression of this evening was that the statements made by the Reichsfuehrer SS came as a surprise to the participants. . . . I declare once more that on the evening of 4 October 1943 the generals of the Waffen SS expressed their opposition to the solution of the Jewish question as proposed by the Reichsfuehrer SS. I had the impression that they would rather not have heard anything at all of what they had learned. Steiner, Phleps and von Herff emphasized the fact that they were combat soldiers and that they as well as their troops did not want to be burdened with other problems.”

If Schneider’s account was correct, it destroys Monstrous’s argument. Indeed, von Herff’s diary entry vents against Himmler himself. If Schneider was mistaken, however, and von Herff had known before Posen about the extermination, that too is of no help to Monstrous, who claims that there was nothing to know and that the anti-Jewish actions and Himmler's policy - which von Herff wrote of as “the annihilation/destruction of the Jews” - really had to do with military operations against partisans.

My my. What's an asinine anti-Semite to do when his heroes let him down?
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sat Sep 12, 2015 5:36 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote: "Steiner, Phleps and von Herff emphasized the fact that they were combat soldiers and that they as well as their troops did not want to be burdened with other problems.”
I sort of wonder, that, if the Waffen SS officers are pretending to only have become aware in October 1943, as this was after Kursk and defeat was probable, that the Waffen SS officers are simply making an attempt to get out of future war crime indictments by refusing to comply (although they had probably already participated in rounding up Jews at the front.)

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24652
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sat Sep 12, 2015 11:32 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote: "Steiner, Phleps and von Herff emphasized the fact that they were combat soldiers and that they as well as their troops did not want to be burdened with other problems.”
I sort of wonder, that, if the Waffen SS officers are pretending to only have become aware in October 1943, as this was after Kursk and defeat was probable, that the Waffen SS officers are simply making an attempt to get out of future war crime indictments by refusing to comply (although they had probably already participated in rounding up Jews at the front.)
For at least some of them, more likely than not. With regard to Schneider's affidavit, there's the Franke-Gricksh report of May 1943 which would mean von Herff knew about Auschwitz; further, it was of course not in 1943 that Waffen SS units became engaged in providing support for EG actions. For the three Waffen SS leaders named by Schneider as "opposed to the solution to the Jewish problem as proposed by the Reichsfuehrer SS" at Posen, we get this slightly blurry picture:

1) von Herff took his position as head of chief of the Persönlicher Stab Reichsführer-SS not until October 1942. I believe von Herff had served in North Africa and then in administrative positions before his appointment as head of personnel.

2) Felix Steiner, also mentioned by Schneider, formed and led SS-Division Wiking, which was a Panzergrenadier force; here it says that despite Steiner and others promoting a "clean" Wiking record, Dieter Pohl has documented some (not extensive) involvement of the Wiking division in the extermination of Jews (a single massacre in July 1941 near Tarnopol).

3) Artur Phleps was with the Wiking division during 1941 (Lviv, Kremenchuk, and Dnipropetrovsk) and then assigned command of SS-Freiwilligen-Division "Prinz Eugen" in 1942; this force trained in the Banat and then, after deployment to fight the Chetniks in Serbia, part of Fall Weiss in the NDH and part of Fall Schwarz against Tito's forces. "Prinz Eugen" division was notorious for war crimes against civilians in the Balkans - but not afaik involved in the FS; Phleps himself was killed in 1944.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24652
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:10 pm

On 19 September 1946, RSHA chief Ernst Kaltenbrunner explained tp his interrogator at Nuremberg why the Germans had to murder large numbers of Jews in the occupied East. He said that
An American would not believe
the influence and power of the Jews but that Jews were the main problem facing the German occupation:
All partisan activity, every resistance movement, every form of espionage had the Jew as its organizer, as the principal mainstay of the Bolshevik idea; he was the decisive element in every hostile element.
Therefore, according to Kaltenbrunner, the Germans necessarily had to deal with the Jews en masse - and that is why the Einsatzkommandos executed large numbers of Jews:
If, therefore, it is said in the reports of the Einsatzgruppe . . . that, let us say, of 11,000 enemy dead, 500 or 600 of them were Jews, that was to be expected [so ist das etwas ganz Normales gewesen]; it corresponded to local conditions and did not constitute a will to annihilation.
This statement was made months before the Americans discovered the EG reports in Berlin (Headland, Messages of Murder, p 14); in short, Kaltenbrunner justified the murders recorded in the EG reports as military and political necessities imposed on the Germans by the role of the Jews in the East; he most certainly did not describe the reports as forgeries, as Monstrous has argued without adducing even one piece of evidence in this entire thread. Monstrous has failed, channeling Mattogno & Graf, in to make out Ohlendorf as being in the employ of the Allies - will he now so describe Kaltenbrunner - or will he argue that Kaltenbrunner, who steadfastly denied his guilt, was coerced or bribed to give his Nuremberg interrogator this specific explanation of documents which were not yet even read by the Allied investigators?

(quotation from Peter Black, Ernst Kaltenbrunner: Ideological Soldier of the Third Reich, pp 151-152)
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Monstrous » Sun Sep 13, 2015 3:31 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote: The defense of superior orders is problematic for you, because it presupposes the mass executions - that these men blamed the murder orders, as did the IMT defendants, largely on leaders who were dead and beyond the law makes their explanations suspect. Still, the question remains, if the EG leaders weren't involved in mass murder, why would they say their units had committed mass murder and justify it through superior orders? Why not just say that they'd not massacred Jews and the reports saying that they did were forged? Yet few of them followed the course taken by Haensch.
The legal defense of superiors orders and having been an opponent of the Holocaust but being unable to prevent it was better than the suicidal legal defense of denying the Holocaust, meaning that the defendant was an unrepentant liar who had not been a powerless Holocaust opponent.
Sorry, Maryzilla wrote, when asked if the reports were fabricated, "I don't think there is enough proof to say for sure that they were all fabricated. They might've been. We know that the Soviets made a tremendous effort to introduce completely fabricated evidence at Nuremberg. Hell, the AMERICANS introduced BS evidence at Nuremberg." Which, being rather beside the point, did raise the issue of NMT case 9. And you wrote, trying to explain why the EG leaders themselves hadn't said the reports were forged, that it was for "reasons such as torture and being bribed with immunity if testifying for the prosecution" - which, whilst revealing your staggering ignorance of this topic, raised the one of the very questions I've been trying to get you to answer about these men.
Have not said that all the reports were forged/edited or that the EG troops did not kill many Jews and others.
Last edited by Monstrous on Sun Sep 13, 2015 3:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Monstrous » Sun Sep 13, 2015 3:36 pm

Arguments regarding Schneider is replied to in the Posen speech thread.

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Monstrous » Sun Sep 13, 2015 3:45 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:On 19 September 1946, RSHA chief Ernst Kaltenbrunner explained tp his interrogator at Nuremberg why the Germans had to murder large numbers of Jews in the occupied East. He said that
An American would not believe
the influence and power of the Jews but that Jews were the main problem facing the German occupation:
All partisan activity, every resistance movement, every form of espionage had the Jew as its organizer, as the principal mainstay of the Bolshevik idea; he was the decisive element in every hostile element.
Therefore, according to Kaltenbrunner, the Germans necessarily had to deal with the Jews en masse - and that is why the Einsatzkommandos executed large numbers of Jews:
If, therefore, it is said in the reports of the Einsatzgruppe . . . that, let us say, of 11,000 enemy dead, 500 or 600 of them were Jews, that was to be expected [so ist das etwas ganz Normales gewesen]; it corresponded to local conditions and did not constitute a will to annihilation.
This statement was made months before the Americans discovered the EG reports in Berlin (Headland, Messages of Murder, p 14); in short, Kaltenbrunner justified the murders recorded in the EG reports as military and political necessities imposed on the Germans by the role of the Jews in the East; he most certainly did not describe the reports as forgeries, as Monstrous has argued without adducing even one piece of evidence in this entire thread. Monstrous has failed, channeling Mattogno & Graf, in to make out Ohlendorf as being in the employ of the Allies - will he now so describe Kaltenbrunner - or will he argue that Kaltenbrunner, who steadfastly denied his guilt, was coerced or bribed to give his Nuremberg interrogator this specific explanation of documents which were not yet even read by the Allied investigators?

(quotation from Peter Black, Ernst Kaltenbrunner: Ideological Soldier of the Third Reich, pp 151-152)
Again, I have not denied that the EG sent reports, claimed that all of the "found" EG reports are forgeries/edited, or denied that the EG killed many Jews and others. I have mentioned arguments against the EG reports proving a genocidal policy as well as against scale of the killings (such as arguments regarding the absence of corpses and to which I have received no reply).

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24652
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Sep 13, 2015 5:02 pm

Monstrous wrote:The legal defense of superiors orders and having been an opponent of the Holocaust but being unable to prevent it was better than the suicidal legal defense of denying the Holocaust, meaning that the defendant was an unrepentant liar who had not been a powerless Holocaust opponent.
Tough {!#%@} for the defendants, they had to make the challenging call whether to lie or whether to offer a piss-poor defense or to man up. Boo-hoo. But superior orders was not a brilliant decision in any event - unless those offering it were guilty of the actions charged - because a superior-orders defense was specifically disallowed by the IMT charter, which was adopted by Control Council Law No. 10, governing the NMT trials and specifically case no. 9 (Green Series, vol. V, p XVIII). (See Article 8, which allowed superior orders to count as a mitigating factor in punishment, but not as a defense - by invoking superior orders, a defendant in essence stipulated to carrying out the actions charged.)

I do agree with you that the denial of the facts by many of the defendants was all-out ridiculous - "meaning that the defendant was an unrepentant liar"; indeed, some defendants were such liars. We agree on that much. Progress.
Monstrous wrote:Have not said that all the reports were forged/edited or that the EG troops did not kill many Jews and others.
Of course, you've tried saying that unspecified parts of the reports were fabrications - you've not explained which parts and you've not explained how, by whom, when, under what circumstances. Asking you to spell out and support your position has become a tedious exercise.

Your throwing in that you've not "denied that the EG killed many Jews and others" is beside the point: we're discussing whether Jews were exterminated as Jews and whether the reports of the special units included statements and descriptions of such.

And, again, the point you were responding to was this:
you wrote, trying to explain why the EG leaders themselves hadn't said the reports were forged, that it was for "reasons such as torture and being bribed with immunity if testifying for the prosecution" - which, whilst revealing your staggering ignorance of this topic, raised the one of the very questions I've been trying to get you to answer about these men.
The reply you've made here has nothing to do with the point raised against your argument. Again, the defendants had a defense available to them - a rather better defense than "hell, yeah, we killed 1000s of Jews but we were ordered to and all the Jews were Communists." And better than, "hell, no, we didn't conduct executions." That better defense, if it were true, was this: "portions of the reports you're using against us were forged." None of the defendants offered such a defense. You've still not explained why.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Sun Sep 13, 2015 9:52 pm, edited 3 times in total.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24652
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Sep 13, 2015 5:47 pm

Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:On 19 September 1946, RSHA chief Ernst Kaltenbrunner explained tp his interrogator at Nuremberg why the Germans had to murder large numbers of Jews in the occupied East. He said that
An American would not believe
the influence and power of the Jews but that Jews were the main problem facing the German occupation:
All partisan activity, every resistance movement, every form of espionage had the Jew as its organizer, as the principal mainstay of the Bolshevik idea; he was the decisive element in every hostile element.
Therefore, according to Kaltenbrunner, the Germans necessarily had to deal with the Jews en masse - and that is why the Einsatzkommandos executed large numbers of Jews:
If, therefore, it is said in the reports of the Einsatzgruppe . . . that, let us say, of 11,000 enemy dead, 500 or 600 of them were Jews, that was to be expected [so ist das etwas ganz Normales gewesen]; it corresponded to local conditions and did not constitute a will to annihilation.
This statement was made months before the Americans discovered the EG reports in Berlin (Headland, Messages of Murder, p 14); in short, Kaltenbrunner justified the murders recorded in the EG reports as military and political necessities imposed on the Germans by the role of the Jews in the East; he most certainly did not describe the reports as forgeries, as Monstrous has argued without adducing even one piece of evidence in this entire thread. Monstrous has failed, channeling Mattogno & Graf, in to make out Ohlendorf as being in the employ of the Allies - will he now so describe Kaltenbrunner - or will he argue that Kaltenbrunner, who steadfastly denied his guilt, was coerced or bribed to give his Nuremberg interrogator this specific explanation of documents which were not yet even read by the Allied investigators?

(quotation from Peter Black, Ernst Kaltenbrunner: Ideological Soldier of the Third Reich, pp 151-152)
Again, I have not denied that the EG sent reports, claimed that all of the "found" EG reports are forgeries/edited, or denied that the EG killed many Jews and others. I have mentioned arguments against the EG reports proving a genocidal policy as well as against scale of the killings (such as arguments regarding the absence of corpses and to which I have received no reply).
You've received direct replies on the question of genocidal policy (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and elsewhere in the thread) - with evidence which you've been unable to explain - as well as receiving direct replies in fact on mass graves ([url=hhttp://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=25822#p474845]here[/url], here, here, and elsewhere - I am not going to track all such references down to reply to your dishonesty on this stuff). Please do not lie in the future. You were also told that until we resolved the issues raised in your opening post I for one was not going to allow you to divert and change the topic.

Recall that at the outset of this thread you charged that
The EG reports, the summaries, and the circulation list were likely all forged. There were some real EG reports and summaries but these were likely intended only for a small circle

and
The obvioud explanation is, of course, that the Soviets forged the documents
and
The forgers likely captured the very limited number of real Einsatzgruppen reports and summaries in the Berlin archives and destroyed those documents that were not compatible with the forgery. Or they were similarly destroyed when the prosecution carefully combed through the German archives during the Nuremberg trials.
These quotations are from your very first post and they form the focus on what you said you wanted to discuss here. It may be that you no longer believe these claims or that you no longer wish to defend or discuss them. But, sorry for you, those claims are what you set out with in this thread. And you've not been able to support them in any way.

The problem that Kaltenbrunner's testimony causes for you, and which you didn't dare touch, is that he specifically talked about the portions of the EG reports on the murder actions against the Jews, which you would have us believe contain forged material.

You come across as being in full rout at this point. Your posts are deflated and almost perfunctory even as you try escaping from your original claims. Unfortunately for you, the trick you're attempting is transparent.

If you wish to drop the claims you made in the OP, simply say so - and then we can move on to new issues you now say you want to discuss. That's fine with me. But your simply dodging and diverting isn't fine. No matter how forlorn you sound at this point.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Mon Sep 14, 2015 12:57 am, edited 2 times in total.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24652
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Sep 13, 2015 7:19 pm

Normally, people draw conclusions from evidence. But Monstrous in the Third Person is anything but normal.

Monstrous in the Third Person proceeded here in the Alice in Wonderland way: verdict first, trial later. In this thread, we've seen him convict the Soviets of forging the EG reports - then grasp at straws to find evidence in support of the claim - and now finally, having found no such evidence, resolutely try to change the subject away from his OP to other topics (scope of the murders, forensic evidence, aim of the murderers).

If there were a mercy rule here, I feel certain Pyrrho would have by now invoked it.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Sep 13, 2015 11:26 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:If there were a mercy rule here, I feel certain Pyrrho would have by now invoked it.
Just for the record RYU238 just got suspended for seven days on the JREF/ISS forum for linking to extremist websites without adding commentary. He may come back here and continue this activity.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... p?t=298052

Xcalibur
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1434
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Xcalibur » Mon Sep 14, 2015 12:41 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Normally, people draw conclusions from evidence. But Monstrous in the Third Person is anything but normal.

Monstrous in the Third Person proceeded here in the Alice in Wonderland way: verdict first, trial later. In this thread, we've seen him convict the Soviets of forging the EG reports - then grasp at straws to find evidence in support of the claim - and now finally, having found no such evidence, resolutely try to change the subject away from his OP to other topics (scope of the murders, forensic evidence, aim of the murderers).

If there were a mercy rule here, I feel certain Pyrrho would have by now invoked it.

Short version: Jesus wept. :lol:

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Monstrous » Mon Sep 14, 2015 4:45 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Monstrous wrote:The legal defense of superiors orders and having been an opponent of the Holocaust but being unable to prevent it was better than the suicidal legal defense of denying the Holocaust, meaning that the defendant was an unrepentant liar who had not been a powerless Holocaust opponent.
Tough {!#%@} for the defendants, they had to make the challenging call whether to lie or whether to offer a piss-poor defense or to man up. Boo-hoo. But superior orders was not a brilliant decision in any event - unless those offering it were guilty of the actions charged - because a superior-orders defense was specifically disallowed by the IMT charter, which was adopted by Control Council Law No. 10, governing the NMT trials and specifically case no. 9 (Green Series, vol. V, p XVIII). (See Article 8, which allowed superior orders to count as a mitigating factor in punishment, but not as a defense - by invoking superior orders, a defendant in essence stipulated to carrying out the actions charged.)...

...The reply you've made here has nothing to do with the point raised against your argument. Again, the defendants had a defense available to them - a rather better defense than "hell, yeah, we killed 1000s of Jews but we were ordered to and all the Jews were Communists." And better than, "hell, no, we didn't conduct executions." That better defense, if it were true, was this: "portions of the reports you're using against us were forged." None of the defendants offered such a defense. You've still not explained why.
A claim of forgery would have been automatically dismissed and looked upon as an aggravating factor during sentencing. A claim of exaggeration had some theoretical possibility of being accepted.

The accused at the Nuremberg trials realized that the Allied Holocaust version was a political truth that could not be denied. The leaders directly involved could only hope for was leniency during sentencing and reduced sentences later.

To quote the chief Soviet Judge "We are dealing here with the chief war criminals who have already been convicted and whose conviction has been already announced by both the Moscow and Crimea [Yalta] declarations by the heads of the [Allied] governments... The whole idea is to secure quick and just punishment for the crime... The fact that the Nazi leaders are criminals has already been established. The task of the Tribunal is only to determine the measure of guilt of each particular person and mete out the necessary punishment -- the sentences."
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_Webera.html

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Monstrous » Mon Sep 14, 2015 4:57 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote: Recall that at the outset of this thread you charged that
The EG reports, the summaries, and the circulation list were likely all forged. There were some real EG reports and summaries but these were likely intended only for a small circle

and
The obvioud explanation is, of course, that the Soviets forged the documents
and
The forgers likely captured the very limited number of real Einsatzgruppen reports and summaries in the Berlin archives and destroyed those documents that were not compatible with the forgery. Or they were similarly destroyed when the prosecution carefully combed through the German archives during the Nuremberg trials.
These quotations are from your very first post and they form the focus on what you said you wanted to discuss here. It may be that you no longer believe these claims or that you no longer wish to defend or discuss them. But, sorry for you, those claims are what you set out with in this thread. And you've not been able to support them in any way.
Maybe there was a bit of "poetic license" here, to quote Vrba. I should clarify this as not necessarily all of the documents were forged.

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Monstrous » Mon Sep 14, 2015 4:59 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote: receiving direct replies in fact on mass graves ([url=hhttp://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=25822#p474845]here[/url], here, here, and elsewhere
Seriously? The only sourced claim is to "Holocaust by Bullet". That has been dismissed as I noted here:
http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/ ... graves.php
Last edited by Monstrous on Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Monstrous » Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:01 pm

Double post.
Last edited by Monstrous on Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Monstrous » Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:20 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote: The problem that Kaltenbrunner's testimony causes for you, and which you didn't dare touch, is that he specifically talked about the portions of the EG reports on the murder actions against the Jews, which you would have us believe contain forged material.
Kaltebrunner? Please. Completely unreliable and self-serving. Aside from the possibility he was tortured since he was often absent and obviously very sick when he appeared. Allegedly due to strokes.

"Those defence witnesses that did arrive at Nuremberg were softened
up by the prosecution interrogators before being turned over to the
defence. Some ended up in solitary confinement in the prison wing.
S.S. Obergruppenführer Karl Wolff, who volunteered to defend
Kaltenbrunner and the S.S., was whisked away by the Americans to a
lunatic asylum until, summoned to give evidence at a subsequent trial
(the Milch Case) a year later, he was able to establish his sanity and
released on the trial judge’s orders to a normal prison....

...Like Adolf Eichmann when he was caught fifteen years later,
Kaltenbrunner would argue legalistically that he was not responsible
for concentration camps – they were Pohl’s pigeon, as chief of the
Economics and Administrative Main Office, or Wirtschafts- und
Verwaltungshauptamt, the W.V.H.A., which was parallel to the R.S.H.A.
He had taken over from Heydrich after the atrocity-system was al-
ready functioning, and the Reichsführer Himmler had by-passed
Kaltenbrunner in handing down the orders to Adolf Eichmann, who
was head of the Jewish desk IV-b– in the R.S.H.A.; Eichmann, and
by implication S.S. Gruppenführer Heinrich Müller, head of Amt IV,
in the R.S.H.A., had continued to oversee the Jewish deportations
from Germany and other countries after Heydrich’s death in ,
without reference to Kaltenbrunner.* At the end of the war, claimed
Kaltenbrunner, he too was in the doghouse, having obliged Himmler
to cease all extermination operations in October.
Gilbert pointed to the obvious logical weakness in his argument: it
exploded the prisoner’s contention that he knew ‘practically nothing’
about what was going on."
NUREMBERG , THE LAST BATTLE, DAVID IRVING

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24652
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:20 pm

Monstrous wrote:A claim of forgery would have been automatically dismissed and looked upon as an aggravating factor during sentencing. A claim of exaggeration had some theoretical possibility of being accepted.
You know this how? The defendants knew this how? Funny, at the IMT Goering kept saying that the documents were translated wrong . . . which isn't why he was sentenced to hang, by the way. No, a claim of forgery, if it could have been proven, would have had tremendous sway with Musmanno at the subsequent proceeding (see: Penguin Rule etc.).

But pray tell, show us your sources for a) the court's position on automatically dismissing claims of forgery and b) the defendants' decision not to use a defense of forgery because they thought a claim of exaggeration the wiser course.
Monstrous wrote:The accused at the Nuremberg trials realized that the Allied Holocaust version was a political truth that could not be denied. The leaders directly involved could only hope for was leniency during sentencing and reduced sentences later.
Again, more slowly this time, the "Holocaust" was not on trial; in NMT case no. 9 twenty-two defendants were charged with specific crimes. They had the right and ability to contest those charges by arguing that the specific crimes didn't take place, that they themselves were not participants in the specific crimes, that the crimes were justified, or that the specific crimes were carried out under the burden of superior orders. Some defendants, like Haensch basically denied everything whilst most accepted that the murders had been carried out and tried to escape individual culpability. Even Haensch, in his denial, didn't claim forgery.
Monstrous wrote:To quote the chief Soviet Judge "We are dealing here with the chief war criminals who have already been convicted and whose conviction has been already announced by both the Moscow and Crimea [Yalta] declarations by the heads of the [Allied] governments... The whole idea is to secure quick and just punishment for the crime... The fact that the Nazi leaders are criminals has already been established. The task of the Tribunal is only to determine the measure of guilt of each particular person and mete out the necessary punishment -- the sentences."
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p167_Webera.html
There was no Soviet judge in the NMT, you ignoramus. The NMT cases were tried by the Americans without Soviet or even other Allied participation in the tribunals (and especially not Soviet, with the Cold War developing in earnest). We are dealing here with the twenty-two Germans on trial in what are also called "the subsequent trials," where in case no. 9 the defendants were charged with directing the Einsatzgruppen to commit mass murder of the Jews in their areas of operation and other crimes. An American judge, Michael Musmanno, presided. Please try to stay focused. The question you were asked was why the NMT defendants failed to offer a defense of forgery. This question has nothing to do with the Soviet judge at a different trial. You still have nothing.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Tue Sep 15, 2015 12:57 am, edited 2 times in total.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24652
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:22 pm

Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote: Recall that at the outset of this thread you charged that
The EG reports, the summaries, and the circulation list were likely all forged. There were some real EG reports and summaries but these were likely intended only for a small circle

and
The obvioud explanation is, of course, that the Soviets forged the documents
and
The forgers likely captured the very limited number of real Einsatzgruppen reports and summaries in the Berlin archives and destroyed those documents that were not compatible with the forgery. Or they were similarly destroyed when the prosecution carefully combed through the German archives during the Nuremberg trials.
These quotations are from your very first post and they form the focus on what you said you wanted to discuss here. It may be that you no longer believe these claims or that you no longer wish to defend or discuss them. But, sorry for you, those claims are what you set out with in this thread. And you've not been able to support them in any way.
Maybe there was a bit of "poetic license" here, to quote Vrba. I should clarify this as not necessarily all of the documents were forged.
You are missing the point, guppy. You set out making charges which you've back-tracked on and which you now try diverting the thread away from. Your claims are just as {!#%@} with your new claim of convenience - that the Soviet fabricated just those parts of the EG reports to which you object - as they were in the OP. And you've still not even identified the supposed forgeries or provided any detail on them. Your performance in this thread is beyond laughable.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24652
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:36 pm

Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote: The problem that Kaltenbrunner's testimony causes for you, and which you didn't dare touch, is that he specifically talked about the portions of the EG reports on the murder actions against the Jews, which you would have us believe contain forged material.
Kaltebrunner? Please. Completely unreliable and self-serving. Aside from the possibility he was tortured since he was often absent and obviously very sick when he appeared. Allegedly due to strokes.

"Those defence witnesses that did arrive at Nuremberg were softened
up by the prosecution interrogators before being turned over to the
defence. Some ended up in solitary confinement in the prison wing.
S.S. Obergruppenführer Karl Wolff, who volunteered to defend
Kaltenbrunner and the S.S., was whisked away by the Americans to a
lunatic asylum until, summoned to give evidence at a subsequent trial
(the Milch Case) a year later, he was able to establish his sanity and
released on the trial judge’s orders to a normal prison....

...Like Adolf Eichmann when he was caught fifteen years later,
Kaltenbrunner would argue legalistically that he was not responsible
for concentration camps – they were Pohl’s pigeon, as chief of the
Economics and Administrative Main Office, or Wirtschafts- und
Verwaltungshauptamt, the W.V.H.A., which was parallel to the R.S.H.A.
He had taken over from Heydrich after the atrocity-system was al-
ready functioning, and the Reichsführer Himmler had by-passed
Kaltenbrunner in handing down the orders to Adolf Eichmann, who
was head of the Jewish desk IV-b– in the R.S.H.A.; Eichmann, and
by implication S.S. Gruppenführer Heinrich Müller, head of Amt IV,
in the R.S.H.A., had continued to oversee the Jewish deportations
from Germany and other countries after Heydrich’s death in ,
without reference to Kaltenbrunner.* At the end of the war, claimed
Kaltenbrunner, he too was in the doghouse, having obliged Himmler
to cease all extermination operations in October.
Gilbert pointed to the obvious logical weakness in his argument: it
exploded the prisoner’s contention that he knew ‘practically nothing’
about what was going on."
NUREMBERG , THE LAST BATTLE, DAVID IRVING
None of this wittering is remotely relevant. Kaltenbrunner may have been mistreated (beaten) in British custody during summer 1945, according to an American intelligence officer. But we don't know for sure, we don't know the circumstances, and we aren't even discussing his interrogation in July 1945 whilst in British custody - but rather how he explained the EG reports in Nuremberg, during his interrogation there over a year later, in September 1946. According to a report on his earlier interrogation whilst in British hands, after he was given "third degree treatment" Kaltenbrunner clammed up (initially he'd been cooperative and forthcoming) and stuck to firm denial - the opposite of what you seem to think.

Indeed, Kaltenbrunner's defense and denials were absurd - but that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing what he told a Nuremberg interrogator - and how he justified the EG killings during his interrogation. This wasn't a case of Kaltenbrunner lying in court to save his ass, or telling the Allies what they wanted to hear (which Kaltenbrunner most assuredly did not do) but rather of Kaltenbrunner thinking he had a good explanation for the EG murders and spelling it out for his interrogator. Just one more person in the know failing to explain that the reports contained Soviet forgeries . . .
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Mon Sep 14, 2015 10:27 pm, edited 3 times in total.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24652
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Sep 14, 2015 9:41 pm

Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote: receiving direct replies in fact on mass graves ([url=hhttp://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=25822#p474845]here[/url], here, here, and elsewhere
Seriously? The only sourced claim is to "Holocaust by Bullet". That has been dismissed as I noted here:
http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/ ... graves.php
So what? You said that there had been no replies on mass graves - which wasn't true. We've not been through a point by point discussion about mass graves - neither from you nor from anyone else. But that's not what you said - and it is beside the point when all you're doing is trying to wriggle out of the dilemma you've caused for yourself by making charges you can't back up. Indeed, I quoted Nick Terry's comments about mass graves, at a high level, early in the thread, Nick posted about mass graves, and Jeff posted about the Desbois book. But we've been trying to deal with your unsupported claims made in the OP - and holding your diversions for later.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Xcalibur
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1434
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Xcalibur » Tue Sep 15, 2015 2:22 am

>"So what."

Indeed.

We're 6 pages in. Anytime, VBG. Boring {!#%@}.

Hey, Berg, why don't you come rescue thread from this {!#%@}? Spice this thread up with a little chat about diesel, baby. Yo.? Forgot, you're challenged now. Maybe your bitch Hunt can change your diapers and get you here. After what you guys have shared, it's shocking you wouldn't share a password.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24652
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Tue Sep 15, 2015 1:13 pm

Xcalibur wrote:>"So what."

Indeed.

We're 6 pages in. Anytime, VBG. Boring {!#%@}.

Hey, Berg, why don't you come rescue thread from this {!#%@}? Spice this thread up with a little chat about diesel, baby. Yo.? Forgot, you're challenged now. Maybe your bitch Hunt can change your diapers and get you here. After what you guys have shared, it's shocking you wouldn't share a password.
Instead of even an iota of evidence backing this imbecile's claims of Soviet chicanery with regard to EG reports, we are now treated to Irving's exquisitely irrelevant rendition of Kaltenbrunner in custody and on trial. I think it was you who wrote, "Jesus wept."
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4993
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Jeff_36 » Thu Sep 17, 2015 5:37 am

What is critical to note here (and Jeff has explained this to monstrous time and time again) is that the defendants who were mistreated complained about it openly. Hoses, Kaltenbrunner, Pohl, and Frank. Ohlendorf did no such thing and neither did any of his men.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24652
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Sep 18, 2015 7:27 pm

Letter written by Armaments Inspector Ukraine, Major-General Hans Leykauf, summarizing his observations and the concerns of Wehrmacht economics expert Seraphim; sent to OKW armaments chief General Thomas, 2 December 1941:
. . . Regulation of the Jewish question in the Ukraine was a difficult problem because the Jews constituted a large part of the urban population. We therefore have to deal - just as in the General Government - with a mass problem of policy concerning the population. Many cities had a percentage of Jews exceeding fifty percent. Only the rich Jews had fled from the German troops. The majority of Jews remained under German administration. The latter found the problem more complicated through the fact that these Jews represented almost the entire trade and even a part of the manpower in small and medium industries besides the business which had in part become superfluous as a direct or indirect result of the war. The elimination therefore necessarily had far-reaching economic consequences and even direct consequences for the armament industry (production for supplying the troops).

The attitude of the Jewish population was anxious - obliging from the beginning. They tried to avoid everything that might displease the German administration. That they hated the German administration and army inwardly goes without saying and cannot be surprising. However, there is no proof that Jewry as a whole or even to a greater part was implicated in acts of sabotage. Surely there were some terrorists or saboteurs among them just as among the Ukrainians. But it cannot be said that the Jews as such represented a danger to the German armed forces. The output produced by Jews who, of course, were prompted by nothing but the feeling of fear, was satisfactory to the troops and the German administration. The Jewish population remained temporarily unmolested shortly after the fighting. Only weeks, sometimes months later, specially detached formations of the order police executed a planned shooting of Jews. The action as a rule proceeded from east to west. It was done entirely in public with the use of the Ukrainian militia, and unfortunately in many instances also with members of the armed forces taking part voluntarily. The way these actions, which included men and old men, women, and children of all ages, were carried out was horrible. The great masses executed make this action more gigantic than any similar measure taken so far in the Soviet Union. So far about 150,000 to 200,000 Jews may have been executed in the part of the Ukraine belonging to the Reichskommissariat; no consideration was given to the interests of economy.

Summarizing, it can be said that the kind of solution of the Jewish problem applied in the Ukraine, which obviously was based on the ideological theories as a matter of principle, had the following results :

(a) Elimination of a part of partly superfluous eaters in the cities.

(b) Elimination of a part of the population which hated us undoubtedly.

(c) Elimination of badly needed tradesmen who were in many instances indispensable even in the interests of the armed forces.

(d) Consequences as to foreign policy-propaganda which are obvious.

(e) Bad effects on the troops which in any case get indirect contact with the executions.

(f) Brutalizing effect on the formations which carry out the execution-order police.

The export of agricultural surpluses from the Ukraine for the purpose of feeding the Reich is only possible if the internal trade in the Ukraine is reduced to a minimum. This can be attained by the following measures:

1. Elimination of unwanted consumers (Jews; the populations of the large Ukrainian towns, which, like Kiev, receive no food allocation whatsoever).

2. Reduction as far as possible of food rations allocated to the Ukrainians in other towns.

3. Reduction of food consumption by the peasant population.

It must be realized that in the Ukraine eventually only the Ukrainians can produce economic values by labor. If we shoot the Jews, let the prisoners of war perish, condemn considerable parts of the urban population to death by starvation and also lose a part of the rural population by hunger during the next year, the question remains unanswered: Who, then, is supposed to produce economic values here?

As to the scarce resource man, it is beyond doubt that neither now nor in a foreseeable time there will be enough Germans available in the German Reich. If the Ukrainian is to be made to work, we must look after his physical existence, not for sentimental motives, but out of very sober economic considerations. This also and in the first place requires, however, the creation of an orderly relation between money, prices of goods and wages.

Summary:

Population: The attitude of the Ukrainian population, despite the deterioration of their material situation in the last months, is still one of good will. In case of a surely foreseeable further deterioration of the food situation the mood can be expected to turn around.

The ethnic Germans of the Ukraine are not an element on which the administration and economy of the country can rely.

A considerable part of the Jews, who in the cities of the Reichskommissariat made up more than half of the population, have been executed. Thus the greater part of the tradesmen has been lost, whereby interests of the Wehrmacht (troops’ supply needs, lodging) have also been affected.

Living conditions, food, clothing conditions, and the health of the prisoners of war are bad; mortality is very high. We may reckon on the fact that during this winter people will perish at the rate of tens and even hundreds of thousands.

This includes forces that could have successfully been made useful for the economy of the Ukraine, including skilled workers and tradesmen.
translation: Roberto Muehlenkamp, 3257-PS

Is Leykauf's letter also forged?
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4993
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Jeff_36 » Sat Sep 19, 2015 5:57 pm

is monstrous alright? seriously some of this stuff is on the Clayton Moore level of idiocy.

Hey {!#%@}: You have lost this debate. Deal with it.

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Monstrous » Sat Sep 19, 2015 7:30 pm

Irving confirms that Otto Ohlensdorf was tortured: ""Oh, yes," said Irving. "The SS General Ohlendorf and the SS General Pohl were both very severely maltreated at Nuremberg and in the internment camps where they were held by the Allies after the Second World War and prior to their testimony. They subsequently testified to that to their fellow prisoners like Field Marshal Milch, who kept a diary which I have and also in the subsequent trials."
http://www.ihr.org/books/kulaszka/35irving.html

Yet another reason to consider Otto Ohlensdorf to be untrustworthy.

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Monstrous » Sat Sep 19, 2015 7:49 pm

Mark Weber quotes from the EG reports and shames the Believers:

"I also quoted from several Einsatzgruppen reports to show that there was no extermination policy. For example, the reports of July 24, 1941, and August 5, 1941, refer to the establishment of Jewish health centers in the newly-created Jewish ghettos to prevent the outbreak of diseases.

I quoted from the report of September 12, 1941 (No. 81, p. 14), which clearly suggests that the "solution of the Jewish question" was simply to get the Jews out of Europe, not to kill them. It also shows that these security units were glad when they did not have to deal with the large numbers of Jews who fled to the eastern areas still under Soviet control:

During the first weeks [of the military campaign] considerable numbers of Jews fell under our control, whereas in the central and eastern Ukrainian districts it has been observed that in many cases 70 to 90 percent, and sometimes 100 percent, of the Jewish population has fled. This can be seen as an indirect result of the work of the Security Police [Einsatzgruppen], since the removal [Abschiebung] at no cost of hundreds of thousands of Jews -- most of them reportedly to beyond the Urals -- represents a considerable contribution to the solution of the Jewish question in Europe.

Numerous Jewish sources also confirm that the great majority of Jews were evacuated or fled from the Soviet territories before they were occupied by the Germans.

The Einsatzgruppen report of August 25, 1941 (No. 63, pp. 6-7) also explains what was meant by "solution of the Jewish question":

Slowly but surely, one of the most important problems, the solution of the Jewish question [emphasis in original], is being tackled. In Kishinev [the capital of Bessarabia, a Rumanian-speaking province], there were approximately 60 -- 80 thousand Jews before the war. Most of them were deported with the withdrawal of the Russians. When the city was captured, there were only about 4,000 Jews present, but that number has since increased. Upon the initiative of the Einsatzkomando the Rumanian city commander established a Jewish ghetto in the old city which currently contains about 9,000 Jews. The Jews are being organized into work groups and assigned to various German and Rumanian units for clean-up work and other kinds of labor."
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p389_Weber.html

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Monstrous » Sat Sep 19, 2015 7:52 pm

"The tasks of the Einsatzgruppen were clearly laid out in an order by Heydrich, the chief of the Security Police and the Security Service, dated July 2, 1941, I said. This order specified that the only ones to be executed in the occupied Soviet territories as Jews were Jews in [Communist] Party and [Soviet] government positions." It also ordered the executions of "other radical elements (saboteurs, propagandists, snipers, assassins, inciters, etc.)" as well as high-level, middle-level Communist officials along with radical lower-level Communist officials. When I mentioned that this document had only come to light in recent years, Jews in the back of the courtroom expressed audible skepticism that such an order ever really existed. So I quickly added that it has appeared in several works, including Documents on the Holocaust, published by the Israeli government's Yad Vashem center in 1981. The courtroom crowd seemed struck by this citation."
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p389_Weber.html

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Monstrous » Sat Sep 19, 2015 7:55 pm

"Although the Einsatzgruppen reports would indicate that 2.2 million Jews were killed, every reputable historian who has written on this subject acknowledges that this figure bears little relationship to reality. In this regard, I cited the works of historians Gerald Reitlinger, Raul Hilberg, William Shirer, Reginald Paget, and Werner Maser, as well as the most detailed work on this subject, Die Truppe des Weltanschauungskrieges, by Helmut Krausnick and Hans-Heinrich Wilhelm. I also mentioned statements by Einsatzgruppen trial defendants Paul Blobel and Gustav Nosske."
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p389_Weber.html

User avatar
Jeff_36
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4993
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Jeff_36 » Sat Sep 19, 2015 9:31 pm

Monstrous wrote:Irving confirms that Otto Ohlensdorf was tortured: ""Oh, yes," said Irving. "The SS General Ohlendorf and the SS General Pohl were both very severely maltreated at Nuremberg and in the internment camps where they were held by the Allies after the Second World War and prior to their testimony. They subsequently testified to that to their fellow prisoners like Field Marshal Milch, who kept a diary which I have and also in the subsequent trials."
http://www.ihr.org/books/kulaszka/35irving.html

Yet another reason to consider Otto Ohlensdorf to be untrustworthy.
Ohlendorf, as has been demonstrated to you time and time again, was not a meek accepting defendant (as tortured defendants always are), but rather an aggressive, combative {!#%@} on the stand. This makes his concessions important to note, and he made no qualms about his men having killed 40,000 Jews on orders from above. These were Jews killed as Jews. Did you even bother to read that Wehrmacht doc cited by SM?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24652
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sat Sep 19, 2015 10:52 pm

Monstrous wrote:Irving confirms that Otto Ohlensdorf was tortured: ""Oh, yes," said Irving. "The SS General Ohlendorf and the SS General Pohl were both very severely maltreated at Nuremberg and in the internment camps where they were held by the Allies after the Second World War and prior to their testimony. They subsequently testified to that to their fellow prisoners like Field Marshal Milch, who kept a diary which I have and also in the subsequent trials."
http://www.ihr.org/books/kulaszka/35irving.html

Yet another reason to consider Otto Ohlensdorf to be untrustworthy.
I don't consider Ohlendorf to be trustworthy . . . I've said so repeatedly in this thread. What are the details of Ohlendorf's mistreatment and torture? When was he tortured? To obtain what information? By whom and under what circumstances? When did he report being tortured? To whom besides Milch - what does Milch's diary say? How did the mistreatment influence Ohlendorf's testimony? Why did he put up such a vigorous defense at the NMT if torture had made him compliant?

I've read Harwood's and Irving's comments on this, which are mere assertion, and so I know you will be eager to share details.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24652
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Monstrous on the Einsatzgruppen

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sat Sep 19, 2015 11:10 pm

Monstrous wrote:"The tasks of the Einsatzgruppen were clearly laid out in an order by Heydrich, the chief of the Security Police and the Security Service, dated July 2, 1941, I said. This order specified that the only ones to be executed in the occupied Soviet territories as Jews were Jews in [Communist] Party and [Soviet] government positions." It also ordered the executions of "other radical elements (saboteurs, propagandists, snipers, assassins, inciters, etc.)" as well as high-level, middle-level Communist officials along with radical lower-level Communist officials. When I mentioned that this document had only come to light in recent years, Jews in the back of the courtroom expressed audible skepticism that such an order ever really existed. So I quickly added that it has appeared in several works, including Documents on the Holocaust, published by the Israeli government's Yad Vashem center in 1981. The courtroom crowd seemed struck by this citation."
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p389_Weber.html
This is such old "news" I am again surprised that you think you have something here. The Nuremberg tribunals wondered how general orders were implemented in practice and what guidance was given around them. So they asked some further questions of your new favorite defendant, Ohlendorf. First, we hear from him at the IMT:
COL. AMEN: So that before you commenced to march into Soviet Russia, you received orders at this conference to exterminate the Jews and Communist functionaries in addition to the regular professional work of the Security Police and SD; is that correct?

OHLENDORF: Yes. . . .

COL. AMEN: [To the witness] Can you state whether the liquidation practices which you have described continued after 1942 and, if so, for how long a period of time thereafter?

OHLENDORF: I don't think that the basic order was ever revoked. But I cannot remember the details - at least not with regard to Russia - which would enable me to make concrete statements on this subject. The retreat began very shortly thereafter, so that the operational region of the Einsatzgruppen became ever smaller. I do know, however, that other Einsatzgruppen with similar orders had been envisaged for other areas.

COL. AMEN: Your personal knowledge extends up to what date?

OHLENDORF: I know that the liquidation of Jews was prohibited about six months before the end of the war.
And then at the NMT:
Q. When was the order given for the liquidation of certain elements of the population in the U.S.S.R. and by whom was it handed over?

A. As far as I recollect, this order was given at the same time when the area of operations was made known. In Pretzsch, the chiefs of offices I and IV, the then Lieutenant Colonels [Obersturmbannfuehrer] Streckenbach and Mueller gave the order which had been issued by Himmler and Heydrich.

Q. What was the wording of this order?

A. This special order, for such it is, read as follows: That in addition to our general task the Security Police and SD, the Einsatzgruppen and the Einsatzkommandos had the mission to protect the rear of the troops by killing the Jews, gypsies, Communist functionaries, active Communists, and all persons who would endanger the security.
And
A: . . . A. I understand your question completely in reference to the eastern Jews, in the case of the Jews who were found in the eastern campaign. These Jews were to be killed — according to the order — for the reason that they were considered carriers of bolshevism, and, therefore, considered as endangering the security of the German Reich. . . .

Q. So they came absolutely under the Fuehrer Decree or the Streckenbach Order to kill all Jews?

A. Yes.

Q. Because of blood?

A. Because they were of Jewish origin. For you must understand the Nazi ideology, as you call it. It was the opinion of the Fuehrer that in Russia and in bolshevism, the representatives of this blood showed themselves especially suitable for this idea, therefore, the carriers of this blood became especially suitable representatives of the bolshevism. That is not on account of their faith, or their religion, but because of their human make-up and character. . . .

Q. So the criterion and the test which you applied in your slaughter was blood?

A. The criteria which I used were the orders which I got, and it has not been doubted during the entire trial, that in this Fuehrer Order the Jews were designated as the ones who belonged to that circle in Russia and who were to be killed.

Q. Very well, Witness, let's not quibble. Let's come back again. What you followed was the Fuehrer Order. Now, I leave you out of it for a moment, your own idea of what should be killed and what should not be killed.

PRESIDING JUDGE MUSMANNO: I disagree with you, Mr. Heath, that the witness has quibbled. I think he has stated very clearly that his orders were to kill all Jews, that was the criterion which he followed. If he was a Jew he was killed, if he was not a Jew then they might figure some other reason to kill him but he wouldn't be killed because he was a Jew. . . .
These in addition to the numerous posts in this thread citing execution of Jews as Jews and orders for such executions.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .