Image result for einsatzgruppen reports

In a nutshell the answer is no. Mr Wear now tries to prove that the defendants at the Einsatzgruppen trials were falsely accused because the evidence used to try them was forged.

Shortly after the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, German Einsatzgruppen units with the help of the SS, Order Police, the Wehrmacht and local nationalist units started to round up Jews for execution. The first to be rounded up were the men, followed by women then children. Withing a few short months whole communities were being rounded up and taken to places outside their villages and towns where they were shot or put into gas vans. The result of these actions was the deaths of over 2 million Soviet Jews.

Mr Wear would have us believe that most of these deaths never happened and that there was no deliberate policy to target Jews as separate to partisan units. One of the main pieces of evidence that was vital in the incrimination of the men responsible for these actions was the documentation kept by the Nazis stating the numbers killed on a regular basis.

Mr Wear would have us believe that these reports were forged.

“Since the Einsatzgruppen reports were crucial to the prosecution’s case, we will examine the validity of these reports.”

Many of the reports can be found here:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-einsatzgruppen-operation-situation-reports

The following report is quite damning:

Operational Situation Report USSR No. 111
12.October.1941

These were the reasons for the executions carried out by the Kommandos: political officials; plundereres and saboteurs; active Communists and political representatives; Jews who gained their release from prison camps by false statements; agents and informers of the NKVD; persons who by false depositions and witness influencing were instrumental in the deportation of ethnic Germans; Jewish sadism and revenge; undesirable elements; partisans; politruks; danger of plague and epidemics; members of Russian bands; armed insurgents supplying Russian bands; rebels and agitators; drifting juveniles; JEWS IN GENERAL.

“Jews in General” is the key phrase here because it shows how Jews were murdered simply for being Jews. It is easy to see why Holocaust Deniers and Nazi apologists want to discredit these documents as much as possible.

So let us see what Mr Wear has to say on the issue.

THE EINSATZGRUPPEN REPORTS

“The Einsatzgruppen sent reports of their activities back to Berlin by radio. These reports were transcribed and edited by civil servants and distributed in summary format to non-SS offices such as the German Foreign Office. None of these reports exist today in the original—all of them are copies.”

Of course, the Nazis tried to get rid of as many documents as possible. The problem was that there were just too many copies of them around to get rid of them all. What Mr Wear does neglect to mention is the fact that the British were reading Radio intercepts and breaking the codes in which they were relayed. Historian Nick Terry has carried out an examination of these decrypts, the result of which can be found here:

Conflicting Signals British_Intelligence on the Final Solution through_Radio Intercepts and Other Sources 1941-1942 

Moreover, the situation in the USSR in those first months of the invasion were not exactly secret. Many of the mass shootings were observed and indeed filmed and photographed. German soldiers wrote home to their friends and families relating what was happening to the Jews in the occupied areas. Captured German soldiers who had served in the east were secretly recorded as they discussed the slaughter that they had been directly or indirectly involved in.

The reason why Himmler wanted to create an extermination camp system was because he wanted the mass murders carried out in far more secrecy using a system (gas) and which put far less emotional stress on the men who were having to shoot women and children.

“That the Germans let copies of the Einsatzgruppen reports fall into the hands of the Allies is strikingly odd. They could have easily burned these few stacks of incriminating papers before the Allies conquered Germany”

The Germans could not destroy ever single document. Mr Wear fails to take into account the confusion and chaos in Nazi Germany during those last few months of the war.

“The authenticity of the Einsatzgruppen reports has also been questioned because, like so much other “evidence” of Nazi atrocities, the documents emerged from the Soviet occupation zon. (sic)”

Actually the reports were found by the U.S. army when they searched the Gestapo archives. These full sets of reports were used at the Einsatzgruppen trials. The people who created the reports all confirmed their authenticity.

“Peter Winter writes…”

All sorts of rubbish. He is a Holocaust denier.

“Dr. Arthur Robert Butz also questions the authenticity of the Einsatzgruppenreports.”

He claims they are faked. This is the “backs to the wall” fallback used by all deniers  as a last resort. Butz also claims that there are masses of documents hidden somewhere in the USSR which describe a mass exodus of Jews somewhere east. He can’t provide us with any evidence though.

“Carlo Mattogno has shown that the figures quoted in the Einsatzgruppen reports are inaccurate.”

This issue is explained quite well here:

http://www.phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/intro-einsatz/

Specifically:

“Otto Ohlendorf, the commander of Einsatzgruppen D, was asked during the Nuremberg Trial why the records of his Einsatzgruppen report fewer victims than the other groups. He claimed that some of the other commanders exaggerated the number of murders they committed. Ohlendorf could not, however, explain these exaggerations.

The main problem with accepting Ohlendorf’s explanation was the system Heydrich established to make sure that the reports were accurate. The reports were first sent by radio and then by written dispatch signed by the commander of the Einsatzgruppe or his deputy. Since the two methods of reporting were used a check on each other, exaggeration or inflation of the reports would have been quite difficult. While it would have been possible to exaggerate the numbers in a single report, it would have been almost impossible to do so on a regular basis.

If, despite Heydrich’s system of double-checking the reports from the field, the reports were exaggerated we must ask why. The only reason for exaggeration would have been for the commanders to impress superiors with the efficiency of their performance. As anybody reading the reports can see, the reports quite specifically state that the primary activity of Einsatzgruppen was the extermination of the civilian Jewish community. The necessary implication of any argument that the reports were “exaggerated” is that the conduct that is reported was condoned and encouraged by the superior officers — Himmler and Heydrich — as an execution of the orders that were given to the Einsatzgruppen and the policy behind those orders.”

So now we move away from the Einsatzgruppen reports.

“The British trial of German Field Marshall Erich von Manstein in Hamburg, Germany also proved the inaccuracy of the Einsatzgruppen reports. The prosecution’s case was based on the reports showing that Einsatzgruppe D under the command of Otto Ohlendorf had executed some 85,000 Jews in four and one-half months. Manstein’s defense attorney, Reginald T. Paget, wrote that these claims seemed quite impossible.”

This claim has been refuted at the excellent Holocaust Controversies website in this article by Roberto Muehlenkamp :

The Simferopol Massacres

An excellent study of the Simferopol massacre can be found here.

Einsatzgruppe D in Simferopol 

by Hans Metzner.

“Von Manstein testified that he had no knowledge that the Einsatzgruppe D or the German army had a policy of murdering Jews. The court believed Manstein and found him innocent of murdering Jews.”

It appears that Manstein had a good defense lawyer. So much for the claims of kangaroo courts and jumped up charges made by Nazi apologists when it comes to the post war trials. Here is what Manstein actually wrote to his troops.

“This struggle is not being carried on against the Soviet Armed Forces alone in the established form laid down by European rules of warfare.
Behind the front too, the fighting continues. Partisan snipers dressed as civilians attack single soldiers and small units and try to disrupt our supplies by sabotage with mines and infernal machines. Bolshevists left behind keep the population freed from Bolshevism in a state of unrest by means of terror and attempt thereby to sabotage the political and economic pacification of the country. Harvests and factories are destroyed and the city population in particular is thereby ruthlessly delivered to starvation.
Jewry is the middleman between the enemy in the rear and the remains of the Red Army and the Red leadership still fighting. More strongly than in Europe they hold all key positions of political leadership and administration, of trade and crafts and constitutes a cell for all unrest and possible uprisings.
The Jewish Bolshevik system must be wiped out once and for all and should never again be allowed to invade our European living space.
The German soldier has therefore not only the task of crushing the military potential of this system. He comes also as the bearer of a racial concept and as the avenger of all the cruelties which have been perpetrated on him and on the German people.

Easy to see why all Jews were seen as the guilty party and put down for slaughter.

BENJAMIN FERENCZ’S CREDIBILITY

Ferencz seems to be a favourite whipping boy of Mr Wear.

“the defense counsel at the Mauthausen trial in Dachau insisted that signed confessions of the accused, used by the prosecution to great effect, had been extracted from the defendants through physical abuse, coercion and deceit.”

Mr Wear then fails to tell us that the judges at the trial found the claims to be unfounded. For a prior debunking of Mr Wear’s claims regarding Benjamin Ferencz, see here:

Improper Postwar Interrogations

DEFENDANTS’ TESTIMONY

“Otto Ohlendorf testified at the IMT that Einsatzgruppe D, the mobile security unit he commanded in the Crimea between June 1941 and 1942, was responsible for the murder of approximately 90,000 people.”

Indeed he did. Here is the important bit Mr Wear missed out.

He also told of the methods he employed to prevent the exaggeration of figures. He did say that other Einsatzgruppen were not as careful as he was in presenting totals, but he presented no evidence to attack numbers presented by other Einsatzgruppen. Reference must also be made to the statement of the defendant Heinz Schubert who not only served as adjutant to Ohlendorf in the field from October 1941 to June 1942, but who continued in the same capacity of adjutant in the RSHA, office [Amt] III B, for both Ohlendorf and Dr. Hans Emlich, until the end of 1944. If there was any question about the correctness of the figures, this is where the question would have been raised, but Schubert expressed no doubt nor did he say that these individuals who were momently informed in the statistics entertained the slightest doubt about them in any way.”

See here for more details:

That’s Why It’s Denial Not Revisionism

“Otto Ohlendorf at the Einsatzgruppen trial retracted his earlier testimony at the IMT that there had been a specific policy to exterminate Jews on racial or religious grounds. Under cross examination, Ohlendorf testified that any Jews and gypsies killed by his group D were killed as part of anti-partisan activities. Ohlendorf also testified that only 40,000 people had been executed by his group D instead of the 90,000 that he had testified to at the IMT.”

…and we know Ohlendorf was telling the truth because….?

“Another defendant at the Einsatzgruppen trial, Walter Haensch, claimed he knew nothing of the murder of the Jews and denied any criminal wrongdoing by his Kommando while he was its leader.”

It’s just that the court didn’t believe him. He was found guilty.

“Four Einsatzgruppen units altogether numbering 3,000 men—including non-combat troops such as drivers, interpreters, and radiomen—became operational soon after the German invasion of the Soviet Union. One of their missions indisputably consisted of fighting against partisans, and in this regard they committed numerous mass shootings.”

That would be 3,000 men as well as support from the Wehrmacht, SS units, the Order Police and local nationalist groups. Deniers don’t mention the latter groups because they like to make us believe that the Einsatzgruppen were too small to carry out the mass murders that have been associated with them.

Indeed they hunted down and killed partisans. The Einsatzgruppen reports confirm that fact. The problem for Mr wear is that the murders of Jews are noted separately.

THAT is why the Einzatsgruppen reports are such an embarrassment to the Holocaust Denial movement and why the likes of Mr Wear feel the need to discredit them.

 

 

Advertisements