RE: Debunking Holocaust Denial (part 7)

Jesus Christ.  This isn’t something I really intended to become an ongoing thing.  But fuck it, it gives me an excuse to learn some history.  There’s a chance I may edit and lengthen this post, depending on how any responses go.  I’m just reposting from the comments section from part 6 (comments which I’ll delete after a month or two, as the whole point of re-posting them here is both for attention and organization).

Edit: Scratch that.  Ended up deleting them after a week.  They’re here in this post.

This is another conversation/argument from some guy named ilya, or elia, or however many aliases and alternate spellings of his name that he has that rivals that of Zinovjev (you’ll see what I mean if you wind up reading through this beast).

A Discussion on the Numbers Killed in the Ukraine, and Notes on the Bolshevik Revolution


ilya_muromets

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/holocaustcontroversies/leykauf-s-letter-to-thomas-2-december-1941-t1849.html [translation]

https://documents.yadvashem.org/index.html?language=en&&GridItemId=3731740&TreeItemId=5727401 (original)

“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 Anomalous Host

Yes, well, assuming that translation of your is accurate, aspects of it also support my current view. For instance, it doesn’t say explicitly that it was the Germans doing the executing (and if you dare to bring up that thing regarding the Einsatzgruppen, I’ll just bring up Arthur R. Butz’s The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, which has plenty to say about that). Don’t get me wrong, I have no doubt the Germans did do a portion of executions in this newly occupied area of the Ukraine (previously occupied by the Soviets). But stating that this was entirely on the Germans is leaving out a huge chunk of context, regarding the Ukranians themselves. For instance, how their own troops, citizens, and police squads did their own killing spree.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ukraines-part-in-the-holocaust/2019/05/31/9922ad8e-8259-11e9-b585-e36b16a531aa_story.html

And this occupation of the Soviets, which was then followed by an occupation of Germany, caused conflicts with the Ukranian population. Forced to serve under and abide by totalitarian communist Stalinist rule for a respectable amount of time, now they had to do similar under Germany (the severity of how Germany enforced such public displays of loyalty varies depending on the source, but common sense dictates they wouldn’t tolerate support of the Soviets). So now there was a portion of infighting with the Ukranians, particularly between west and east Ukraine. Even in recent years do some in western Ukraine believe that it was a great thing for Germany to have liberated them from Stalin, though obviously others may disagree with them. To this day the opinions on it differ.
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t870298/

Anyway, even a portion of the Ukranians didn’t seem to care much for the Jews, especially with stories being circulated that some of them (not all, not most, just some) were hoarding food supplies while most of Ukraine was in short supply of those necessities. Therefore, they committed a respectable portion of the “executions,” various rebel and terrorist and espionage groups aside (there’s always a few). Plus some Soviet spies dressed up as Germans committing atrocities just prior to the Germans coming in to take over the territory, creating confusion as to whether they should be glad to be liberated by the Germans or to fight them (a tactic of war).

So assuming this 200,000 number is accurate, what of it? How is this supposed to support the Holocaust in the grand scheme of things? All this does is make for a fascinating case study of one event of the entirety of WWII, between Germany, the Soviets, and the Ukranians caught in the middle (to say nothing of the Jews and Poland). Plus even your own quote states this isn’t something the Germans necessarily wanted. They needed workers, Jewish or otherwise, to help with the war effort. In fact, the Germans were thin on population numbers. To quote from your source:

“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.”

Kind of puts into question that whole theory of the Third Reich planning on taking over the world (as if the size of their country wasn’t enough to question that theory, compared to the size of Russia).

 




ilya_muromets

What the document shows is that the Nazis were so committed to mass murdering Jews that they did it regardless of the damage to the interests of economy and regardless of the fact that the Jews themselves did not actually pose any sort of threat to the Germans.
That is how you tried to justify the previously brought up Einsatzgruppen death tolls, as the Jews allegedly being partisans and saboteurs, which is obviously demolished by Seraphims report.

 




The Anomalous Host

What the document shows is that the Nazis were so committed to mass murdering Jews that they did it regardless of the damage to the interests of economy and regardless of the fact that the Jews themselves did not actually pose any sort of threat to the Germans.

Pardon me if I disagree with your opinion on what you believe the document shows, especially when you’ve had difficulty with taking to literal dictionary-definitions in prior discussions. Cite a specific example, or give a very good reason as to why that can only be taken one way by expanding upon the context. Especially when one of the excuses given for those numbers was via gas vans, which I have already pointed out in a previous argument is far-fetched rubbish.

You mean to tell me the “specially detached formations of the order police” were, in fact, Germans rather than Ukrainians? The “Ukrainian militia” (interesting that they were allowed to have one if the Germans had such wicked intentions against them)?

I’ll grant you this part: “unfortunately in many instances also with members of the armed forces taking part voluntarily.” I will take this to mean that the “members of the armed forces” indicated German forces. However, it is strange at the very least to see a letter from a German authority figure (of a kind) state that this is “unfortunate,” if the Germans were so committed to mass murder, to the point where they were willing to overlook economic interests in favor of mass killings, even when they needed a solid economy to keep the war effort going. Especially when, since I feel I need to repeat myself since you’re not getting the message: “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.”

You want to be convinced that this wasn’t about Nazis being so committed to mass murder that they were willing to overlook economic interests at a time when they were in need of them? You want to see justification for Einsatzgruppen death tolls, as the Jews allegedly being partisans and saboteurs? You haven’t seen anything yet.

On 22nd June 1941, the Wehrmacht marched into the USSR. The official version of history has it that this was an unprovoked attack. On the other hand, Revisionists such as the Russian historian Suvorov and the German historian Hoffmann maintain that by doing so, Hitler was able to forestall an impending Soviet attack.

In the territories taken by the Germans, Soviet partisans stirred up a bloody underground war which took the lives of many German soldiers. The Soviets boasted that their partisans had killed 500,000 members of the German army. The Germans reacted to these actions – which violated international law – the way other occupying powers before and since have done, with severe reprisal measures even against the civilian population. Many civilians were shot as hostages, whole villages were burned to the ground.

Because from the very beginning, Jews in the Soviet Union had played an inordinately large role in the making of the Communist system, and also made up a disproportionately large share of the partisans, Jewish civilians suffered in the German repression measures to a much greater degree than non-Jewish civilians. That there were even ‘wild’ shootings, which is to say, shootings that were done not as a reaction to attacks by partisans, can hardly be excluded. It is also not disputed that many Jewish-Communist commissars were killed because of Hitler’s 1941 “Commissar Order,” which was only reluctantly applied by German officers in the East and which was abrogated in early 1942. In addition, thousands of Jews were killed in pogroms initiated by the native populations following the German invasion. After they had been freed from the Bolshevist yoke, Latvians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians and others took revenge on Jews because the Red terror machinery had been led mainly by Jews, and this retribution unfortunately fell also on Jews who had nothing to do with the Communist crimes.

[…]

The claimed numbers of victims of the Einsatzgruppen are impossibly large. The largest of the four, Einsatzgruppe A, had 990 members. If we subtract from this the 172 vehicle drivers, 3 women employees, 51 interpreters, 3 teletypewriter operators and 8 radio operators, there are about 750 combatants left to use for the mass killings (p. 303; DEJ, p.289). Up to 15th October 1941, Einsatzgruppe A supposedly killed 125,000 Jews (p. 309; DEJ, p. 289). Considering the fact that the mass murders first began in August (p. 307; DEJ, na), the overwhelming majority of the 125,000 victims, let us say 120,000, must have been killed in a period of ten weeks.

Since the Jews certainly cannot have gone to their deaths willingly, they must have been tracked down and driven together in the cities, where there certainly would have been escape attempts and resistance. Also there would have been the difficulty of moving the condemned to the outskirts of the city, where most of the pits undoubtedly would have had to have been newly dug.

Besides carrying out the massacres, the Einsatzgruppen were required to comb the POW camps for commissars, fanatical Communists and Jews. This would have been an immense task, because, up to the end of 1941, no less than 3,350,000 Red Army members had fallen into German hands (p. 351; DEJ, p. 334). Even when one considers that only a part of them had been captured by the middle of October, that the Einsatzgruppen did not have to do all the work, only “the major part” of it, and that there were four Einsatzgruppen, under these conditions, during the ten weeks from the beginning of August until the middle of October Einsatzgruppe A must have searched through hundreds of thousands of POWs for the persons to be liquidated – in addition to shooting 120,000 Jews and fighting partisans!

— Jurgen Graf, The Giant with Feet of Clay: Raul Hilberg and His Standard Work on the Holocaust, 2nd ed. Castle Hill Publishers. January 2015. p.35-36, 41

Shall I bring other sources into this discussion for this topic?

which is obviously demolished by Seraphims report.

Is that a joke? If this “report” refers to anything other than a 6-winged angel, or referring to an angel hierarchy in Jewish orthodoxy, than I’m not aware of it. Don’t recall it being brought up in the discussion, nor can I find anything online about it. If it’s to be a joke, than my hat’s off to you, as that’s an interesting form of high-brow dark humor to be had within the context of this discussion.

 




ilya_muromets

“You mean to tell me the “specially detached formations of the order police” were, in fact, Germans rather than Ukrainians?”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnungspolizei#Invasion_of_Poland

“The battalions were originally numbered in series from 1 to 325, but in February 1943 were renamed and renumbered from 1 to about 37 to distinguish them from the Schutzmannschaft auxiliary battalions recruited from local population [i.e Ukrainians for example] in German-occupied areas.”

Yes, the Ordnungspolizei aka ORPO were pretty much exclusively german. Just a bit of googling could save you from this embarrassment.

“If this “report” refers to anything other than a 6-winged angel, or referring to an angel hierarchy in Jewish orthodoxy, than I’m not aware of it.”

I meant the author of the document, Prof. Peter-Heinz Seraphim who was the armaments inspector for OKW in the Ukraine: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter-Heinz_Seraphim

You could have found this out by actually reading the document you are trying to BS about.

Also, instead of spamming a wall of text from some holocaust denier you should point out which points in it are relevant to the document I posted.

By the way that entire Graf quote you spammed is eviscerated here: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2008/10/how-many-perpetrators-in-ussr-part_04.html

 




The Anomalous Host

In connection with these matters, the reader should be informed that, when examining printed reproductions of documents in the IMT and NMT volumes, a handwritten signature not be assumed unless it is specifically stated that the signature is handwritten; “signed” generally means only a typewritten signature.
— Arthur R. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, 4th ed. Castle Hill Publishers. February 2015. p.260

Link to the more authentic document regarding Leykauf’s Letter to Thomas: https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/NT_Vol-XXXII.pdf

First of all, try not to quote wikipedia again. They’re not reliable. At best, the sources they utilize are reliable, and thus it’s their sources that should be utilized.

Second, a bit of googling is meaningless if I didn’t know in the first place that “order police” were “Ordnungspolizei.” I told you before I wasn’t all that familiar with the German language, and therefore can’t be bothered to look at all the German text all that closely, especially if I don’t know which words to look for. Therefore, rather than waste a bunch of time trying to figure this out, it would be faster for an intelligent fellow like yourself to rebuke me and point out what you know to be the obvious.

So now that I know the Ordnungspolizei executed planned shootings of Jews in Ukraine, that changes my perception of the letter, that it’s now a soft condemnation of the Germans for the killings of the Jews in the Ukraine, at least between June (when the Germans invaded Ukraine) and December 1941; though considering the document states it was weeks to months after this when the atrocities started, I’d say between July and December is more accurate, especially since it was in July when the Ukraine Reichskommissariat was formed, so over the course of 6 months at the most. Considering the mixed facts I’ve gotten from differing sources over this, with some historians saying the killings began in July, while others state it began in August, I’ll just assume for now, for the sake of argument, that July is when the killings began.

So in 6 month’s time, we’re suggesting that the Germans (both the Ordnungspolizei and the Einsatzgruppen) had killed 200,000 Jews (maximum, especially since the document states “may have been executed,” key word being “may”) during that time period in the Ukraine (or at least the Reichskommissariat Ukraine). We’re at least in agreement on that right? Being executed in a place where the Germans had begun resettling them (one of a few places) during the autumn of 1941.

I meant the author of the document, Prof. Peter-Heinz Seraphim

I knew that was too easy. And I should’ve known better than to think highly of your sense of humor (assuming you have one). That’s the real embarrassment for me right there. Actually refreshing to get humbled every now and again, keeps me grounded. Though in all fairness, I did some web searching for Seraphim, and the whole angel thing was what basically popped up for a considerable portion. Should’ve checked the document more thoroughly for that one. Curious last name, all things considered.

Also, instead of spamming a wall of text from some holocaust denier you should point out which points in it are relevant to the document I posted.

Thought the whole thing was relevant for providing context. But fair enough.

I stated earlier in this post that, best case scenario (for your case), these mass killings occurred over the 6 month period of July to December. Well, it’s argued that these mass killings didn’t begin until August, which seems to line up with what the document states.

Considering the fact that the mass murders first began in August (p. 307; DEJ, na)
–Graf, p.41

So that’s 5 months now, to kill 200,000 Jews in the Reichskommissariat Ukraine. From what I gather, the majority of them were killed in August, when the mass killings were most focused up until December. While it may be true that the Ordnungspolizei had a role in the killings, the Einsatzgruppen did the largest portion of it.

All told, according to Hilberg, 1.35 million Jews perished in the Soviet territories taken by the Germans. Of these, more than two thirds were murdered by the Einsatzgruppen
–Graf, p.40

The point is that it is stated the Einsatzgruppen did enough of the killing to compose 2/3rds of the total number, meaning they would’ve had to have killed roughly 132,000 over the course of 5 months, the large majority of that being done within one month. By large majority, that’s like 120,000. Which is barely higher than the amount Hilberg gives to just one Einsatzgruppe group during the entirety of this time period. An Einsatzgruppe group composed of 750 combatants.

Up to 15th October 1941, Einsatzgruppe A supposedly killed 125,000 Jews (p. 309; DEJ, p. 289). Considering the fact that the mass murders first began in August (p. 307; DEJ, na), the overwhelming majority of the 125,000 victims, let us say 120,000, must have been killed in a period of ten weeks.
–Graf, p.41

In other words, the document is arguing that 200,000 were killed in total in Reichskommissariat Ukraine, by the Einsatzgruppen and Ordnungspolizei (among others I’m sure) combined, compared to non-revisionist historians who state that just one Einsatzgruppen group is capable of killing that much in total over the entire period of time. Which means the 200,000 number, even when added to similar numbers from other Soviet territories taken by the Germans at that time period, would be considerably lower than what the non-revisionists say.

So guess what? We’ve just inadvertently made the argument that the official non-revisionist 1.35 million number that contributed to the 6 million number of Jews killed in WWII by Germans is bullshit, thus indicating the 6 million number is bullshit (to say nothing of the gas chamber arguments we’ve been through already).

All this, and I just wanted to make the point that non-Germans disliked Jews and did their own killing of them too during this time.

It is also not disputed that many Jewish-Communist commissars were killed because of Hitler’s 1941 “Commissar Order,” which was only reluctantly applied by German officers in the East and which was abrogated in early 1942. In addition, thousands of Jews were killed in pogroms initiated by the native populations following the German invasion. After they had been freed from the Bolshevist yoke, Latvians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians and others took revenge on Jews because the Red terror machinery had been led mainly by Jews, and this retribution unfortunately fell also on Jews who had nothing to do with the Communist crimes.
–Graf, p.35-36

 




ilya_muromets

“By large majority, that’s like 120,000. Which is barely higher than the amount Hilberg gives to just one Einsatzgruppe group during the entirety of this time period. An Einsatzgruppe group composed of 750 combatants.”

Literally anyone even slightly familiar with Einsatzgruppe A would tell you that they extensively used assistance from Lithuanian and Latvian militias when they slaughtered the Jewish population in the Baltic states. Read the Jäger report: https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/works/jaeger-report/htm/img001.htm.en.html

This alone blows open the pathetic strawman that Graf tries to spin, and which you gullibly regurgitate. By the way, the rest of Graf is torn to shreds here: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2008/10/how-many-perpetrators-in-ussr-part_04.html

Basically, no serious historian attributes all the Jews shot by the Nazis in the occupied soviet areas solely to the Einsatzgruppen. Multiple forces massacred Jews there, such as local militias acting under the Nazis, Ordnungspolizei, HSSPF’s, Einsatzgruppen and also Wehrmacht.

 




The Anomalous Host

Had to search the spam folder and pull out your last 2 comments.

By the way that entire Graf quote you spammed is eviscerated here: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2008/10/how-many-perpetrators-in-ussr-part_04.html

I’ll keep that in mind when responding to your next comment. That being said, you’re being a bit hypocritical by bitching about me providing a wall of text, while making me not only also have to read another wall of text, but go to another site to do it. You know, as opposed to pointing out which points in it are relevant.

Literally anyone even slightly familiar with Einsatzgruppe A would tell you that they extensively used assistance from Lithuanian and Latvian militias when they slaughtered the Jewish population in the Baltic states.

I don’t see how this is helping your cause. It’s still low-balling the non-revisionist numbers. Unless you’re claiming that 200k number previously mentioned doesn’t include those groups who “assisted” the Germans didn’t count their killing numbers, in which case I would ask how they could possibly manage that distinction. Or better yet, within the context of the document, why they would make that distinction. So now you’re supporting the idea that the Einsatzgruppe were incapable of slaughtering that many on their own. In addition, regardless of what you say about this blog link eviscerating Graf, it’s supporting his remark of the locals having a hatred for the Jews as well, enough to go about killing them too. Unless you want to make the claim that they were made to do this forcefully against their will, in which case I’d say that would be the case for a minority of them, not the majority.

Basically, no serious historian attributes all the Jews shot by the Nazis in the occupied soviet areas solely to the Einsatzgruppen. Multiple forces massacred Jews there, such as local militias acting under the Nazis, Ordnungspolizei, HSSPF’s, Einsatzgruppen and also Wehrmacht.

That’s what I’ve been saying! Hell, that’s also what Graf has been saying! What the hell are we arguing about here? That they acted “under the Nazis” and thus against their will? What makes you so sure they weren’t also acting out on their own, willfully, against the Jews?

I will address the stuff that bashes Graf directly once we’ve gotten the rest of this settled (which isn’t going to make you happy, because it’s doing the same form of strawman and cherrypicking it accuses Graf of doing; pretty sure the Graf quotes I gave earlier, particularly in that “wall of text” says it all). Because I’m not sure what sort of case it is you’re making here.

Initially I thought this 200k killing number in Reichskommissariat Ukraine was supposed to be evidence that supported the 6 million Jew death number of the Holocaust, so I showed how this isn’t the case. And so far you’ve done nothing to directly address that other than to make the claim that Graf isn’t a reliable source for historical arguments, which doesn’t do anything to help you currently when it comes to the numbers argument.

Then I thought this became an argument of whether or not it was exclusively Germans who were killing the Jews, but now it seems of your own admission you know that’s not to be the case.

Or you’re arguing that the non-Germans who were killing the Jews did so against their will, because the Germans forced them to, because they had no reason whatsoever to have a grudge against the Jews. In which case, I say you don’t know as much about history as you think you do (not to mention the prior arguments I’ve made before, even well before this blog post).

Only other thing I can think of is argument behind the letter’s intention based on the words used. Considering how you’ve defined words in the past, forgive me if I’m skeptical about going down that road again.

I’m assuming you’re trying to argue from a numbers standpoint, in which case it’s not clear what you’re arguing for exactly. All you did in your post that initially brought up this subject was quote from Nuremberg Document 3257-PS, IMT, Volume XXXII, without any context as to what you are arguing for, what point you’re trying to make.

So what point are you trying to make?

 




ilya_muromets

“That’s what I’ve been saying! Hell, that’s also what Graf has been saying!”

Hes not saying that. Hes saying that the “alleged” Einsatzgruppen numbers are “impossible”, citing Einsatzgruppe A alone having 750 combatants. He is thus completely ignoring the native collaborators. He also pretends that Hilberg claimed these 750 alone had killed the Jews in the Baltic states but this is not the case.

You also fell for this strawman when you said that Hilberg attributed the 120 000 number solely to the 750 EG A members: “the amount Hilberg gives to just one Einsatzgruppe group during the entirety of this time period. An Einsatzgruppe group composed of 750 combatants.” and here as well when you claim that “non-revisionist historians state that just one Einsatzgruppen group is capable of killing that much in total over the entire period of time”.
Since your incoherent claims about the death toll in RK Ukraine mentioned by Seraphim and its relation to the 6 million total hinged on these strawmen, they can be ignored.

To quote Hilberg from here http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2008/10/how-many-perpetrators-in-ussr-part_04.html:

“The operations assisted by the Lithuanians accounted for more than half of the Einsatzkommando’s killings by that date (p.122)”

Rather, its you who hasn’t actually done anything to grapple with what 3257-PS actually shows, namely the systematic extermination program against Jews in RK Ukraine which even ignored economic interests, and the fact that Jews were killed because of their “race”, not because of any alleged wrongdoing on their part. You simply made up arguments about things mentioned in the document that you knew nothing or understood nothing about, basing them on what claims made by a lying holocaust denier which you took at face value.

 




The Anomalous Host

*rubs forehead*

What do I have to do to get the point across? I mean, you’re just making your position worse. You’re demonstrating that it’s not only not the case for the Einsatzgruppen to have killed off that many number of Jews, but that they also couldn’t have done it without assistance from the locals. I’m arguing from the alleged numbers of Jews killed, not the number of Einsatzgruppen there were (I just wanted to mention what I believed was considered the largest organized Einsatzgruppen force in that area during that time period for the most radical of examples to make the point, the fact that this largest number is composed of more or less locals and Germans isn’t as relevant as how many they managed to kill). I’m arguing that the amount of Jews killed as cited in the Nuremberg Document is at odds with what the historian Hilberg (not Graf, I was just utilizing a source written by Graf that cited Hilberg in this case) stated. That it’s not possible for it to add up to that 1.35 million number all across the taken Russian territory if just the Ukraine area only adds up to 200k Jews killed at the most. Do you see the point I’m making here?

You keep changing the subject from the point I’m trying to make, mainly because proving Graf wrong, while that makes for an interesting discussion on its own (and am willing to address at a later time when the other main points are addressed), is beside the main point. Mainly in me asking you to state what point you were initially trying to make with the Nuremberg Document quote. So I’ll just assume I’m not going to get a straight answer out of you.

Though you do imply what point you were trying to make with the initial comment that (re)started this discussion:
Rather, its you who hasn’t actually done anything to grapple with what 3257-PS actually shows, namely the systematic extermination program against Jews in RK Ukraine which even ignored economic interests, and the fact that Jews were killed because of their “race”, not because of any alleged wrongdoing on their part.

First of all, I have already stated my opinion of 3257-PS. In that the document is about expressing concern for the killings of the Jews because it goes against economic interests. I have stated this more than once. If you fail to notice this and continue to think I’ve done nothing to grapple with what it shows, that’s your problem. If you notice it now, now would be a good time to express why I am wrong and for what reason.

Second of all, now you’ve finally indicated what point you’re trying to make. That this “systematic extermination program” was done purely because of their race, and not because of any alleged wrongdoing. And since both you and the source you linked to (Jonathan Harrison) seem to be in agreement (though have reservations with how Graf puts it) over the fact that natives of Ukraine were involved in the killings, I’m under the impression you believe they participated in the systematic killing of a race of people who composed of 50% of the urban population also for no other reason than racial hate. I could be wrong. It could be that you believe the Germans forced them to do it, or that the Ukrainians, Lithuanians, whoever else had more than racial motivations for killing Jews; but that’s not something you’ve made clear in your position. In any case, it’s rather peculiar, at the very least, that Ukrainians would go about killing Jews purely out of racial hatred even though they had been coexisting up until that time period.

But for this response, I’ll generalize what you’ve said up to this point regarding what, I’m assuming, is your main argument. That the Einsatzgruppen, among the other forces composed of both Germans and non-Jew locals acted out on an extermination program against the Jews between July and December 1941 in the Ukraine which resulted in a max of 200,000 Jews being exterminated due purely for racial reasons.

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.
— 3257-PS

Interesting that the writer would express concern stating that the manner of executions was “horrible.” Perhaps that’s not an accurate translation as far as German->English goes? Grauenhaft. Can also be translated to “terrible.” From what I’ve gathered, this seems to be accurate enough to me. So what we have here is a German stating that it’s “horrible” for Jews to be exterminated in the manner done by both the locals and the German forces. But perhaps this was expressed solely for practical reason having nothing to do sorrow?

Consequences as to foreign policy-propaganda which are obvious.
–3257-PS

Which can be taken to mean it wasn’t about concern for their well-being, but for the propaganda war. Can’t show how much the Germans and the locals hated the Jews for racial reasons, right? That would make the rest of the world hate the Germans all the more, making them more willing to want to get involved in the war against Germany that France, the UK, and now Russia was involved in. If they want to exert the impractical desire of killing off members of a race purely for racial reasons, they need to disguise it by giving the illusion of doing so for practical means, am I right?

Or demonstrate that there is another reason that is more practical and rational than just racial hatred. Because these are just assertions. Why is the “Jewish problem” a problem? Well:

Because from the very beginning, Jews in the Soviet Union had played an inordinately large role in the making of the Communist system,(35) and also made up a disproportionately large share of the partisans,(36) Jewish civilians suffered in the German repression measures to a much greater degree than non-Jewish civilians. That there were even ‘wild’ shootings, which is to say, shootings that were done not as a reaction to attacks by partisans, can hardly be excluded. It is also not disputed that many Jewish-Communist commissars were killed because of Hitler’s 1941 “Commissar Order,” which was only reluctantly applied by German officers in the East and which was abrogated in early 1942. In addition, thousands of Jews were killed in pogroms initiated by the native populations following the German invasion. After they had been freed from the Bolshevist yoke, Latvians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians and others took revenge on Jews because the Red terror machinery had been led mainly by Jews, and this retribution unfortunately fell also on Jews who had nothing to do with the Communist crimes.(37)

35. Of 531 leading personalities in the Soviet Union in 1920, 447 were Jews, cf. Juri K. Begunov, Tajnye Sily w istorii Rossij, Isdatelstvo Imeni A.S. Syborina, St. Petersburg 1996.

36. Die Enzyklopädie des Holocaust (ed. by Eberhard Jäckel, Peter Longerich and Julius H. Schoeps, Argon Verlag, Berlin 1993) contains this comment: “The partisan groups [in the USSR] often formed spontaneously. Many units consisted largely of Jewish fighters.” (p. 1348).

37. All six main architects of the Communist slave camp system were Jews (Alexander Solschenizyn, Der Archipel Gulag, Scherz Verlag, Bern 1974, photographic section).

–Graf p.36

In other words, those in positions of power in the Soviet Union, and the main architects of the Communist slave camp system, were Jews. And I know you currently have reservations on Graf (reservations which aren’t relevant to the main topic of discussion here, though I am interested in addressing them after discussion of this main topic are concluded). However, this is a make-or-break moment. If you can show that this evidence is bullshit, that Jews didn’t make up a significant amount of influential/powerful positions in the Communist camps and other means for oppressing those in the Ukraine prior to when the Germans arrived, then you’ll have something that runs a high chance of changing my mind. Because otherwise, this is strong support for the notion that the Ukrainians had a reason other than racial hatred to go after the Jews. It certainly supports the notion that a good portion of the Ukraine was happy to be liberated from USSR control by Germany during this time period (though not all, as there were some sections, primarily in the East, still loyal to the USSR during this time). Since you have links that seemingly eviscerate/decimate/obliterate Graf’s arguments, this shouldn’t be a problem. Utilized him so you can more easily utilize these sources again.

 




ilya_muromets

“I’m arguing that the amount of Jews killed as cited in the Nuremberg Document is at odds with what the historian Hilberg (not Graf, I was just utilizing a source written by Graf that cited Hilberg in this case) stated. That it’s not possible for it to add up to that 1.35 million number all across the taken Russian territory if just the Ukraine area only adds up to 200k Jews killed at the most.”

You do understand that the mass murder of Jews in Nazi occupied soviet areas didn’t end in 1941? For example, regarding Ukraine, a further 363,211 Jews were killed by forces under the Higher SS-and Police Leader (NOT Einsatzgruppen) there between July-November 1942, which resulted in the death toll seen in Himmler’s Report NR.51 to Hitler: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Himmler_report.jpg
So if we just add Seraphims number and Meldung 51 together thats over 500 000 Jews killed between 1941-42 in the Ukraine alone.

But now, lets see if the claim that “Of 531 leading personalities in the Soviet Union in 1920, 447 were Jews” (“leading personalities” is an awfully and suspiciously vague term). So lets look at the highest levels of Soviet Government in 5.4.1920: http://holocaust.skeptik.net/misc/party.htm

“TsK: Members: Andreev A. A. (Russian), Artem F. A., Buharin N. I. (Russian), Dzerzhinskij F. E. (Pole), Zinovjev G. E. (Jewish), Kalinin M. I. (Russian), Kamenev L. B. (Jewish), Krestinskij N. N. (Ukrainian), Lenin V. I. (Russian), Preobrazhenskij E. A. (Russian), Radek K. B. (Jewish), Rakovskij H. G. (Bulgarian), Rudzutak Ja. E. (Lett), Rykov A. I. (Russian), Serebryakov L. P. (Russian), Smirnov I. N., Stalin I. V. (Georgian), Tomskij M. P. (Russian), Trotskij L. D. (Jewish)”

19 members, of whom 4 are Jews. Another BS claim goes into the trash bin.

And this one: “The partisan groups [in the USSR] often formed spontaneously. Many units consisted largely of Jewish fighters.”

There were very few, if any, partisan units in Nazi occupied Ukraine in 1941, and literally none at all in the Baltic States at that point. So trying to justify the mass murder of Jews with that simply doesn’t work.

 




The Anomalous Host

But now, lets see if the claim that “Of 531 leading personalities in the Soviet Union in 1920, 447 were Jews” (“leading personalities” is an awfully and suspiciously vague term). So lets look at the highest levels of Soviet Government in 5.4.1920

1920? Oh dear, I guess we do have to address that year don’t we? As Graf cited it in his footnotes to make his argument. Let’s hope this doesn’t lead us into a debate of the Bolshevik Revolution, as relevant as that would be in this context.

At least your source admits this much, albeit in a form implying those who are declared as Jews aren’t necessarily Jewish:

Note that assignment of ethnicity is not a straightforward process and is subject to debate. For example, Lev Kamenev is identified as Jewish because that’s what’s written in his Party documents. Apparently, he self-identified as a Jew. There could be objections to this from those who would not accept an atheist son of a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother identified as Jewish, since it goes against the Halachic law. However, purely religious law is not necessarily an overriding determinant of secular ethnic identity, which is why Kamenev is not excluded.

Therefore, the list of people you brought is open to debate, as specified by the source you’ve utilized for those names and racial denominations.

As for the list of people it does bring up, you’ll notice there’s a significant absence here. Graf (or to be more precise, the source he utilized, Begunov Juri’s Tajnye Sily w istorii Rossij, which I haven’t been able to track down, and even if I did I’m not so sure I could reliable utilize it since, you know, it’s in Russian) stated that there were 531 leading personalities in Russia in 1920. The site you utilize shows only 57 names in that year, including candidates. That’s a significant absence of names if you ask me.

As for the listed political organizations themselves:

Abbreviations:
TsK (Tsentral’nyj Komitet) – Central Committee.
KPK (Komitet Partijnogo Kontrolya/Komissija Partijnogo Kontrolya) – Committee for Party Control/Commission for Party Control.
TsRK (Tsentral’naja Revizionnaja Komisija) – Central Inspection Commission.
KSK (Komissija Sovetskogo Kontrolya) – Commission for Soviet Control.
TsKK (Tsentral’naja Kontrol’naja Komissija) – Central Control Commission.
Politbyuro (Politicheskoje byuro) – Political Bureau.
Orgbyuro (Organizatsionnoje byuro) – Organizational Bureau.

The TsK sounds important and powerful, until you read up on some history about it. And good news for you, I didn’t have to utilize revisionist-historians to do it:

The first Central Committee was founded by Vladimir Lenin’s Bolshevik faction in 1912 when it broke off from the Russian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party. The committee determined broad policy objectives for the Bolsheviks, and in October 1917 it established a Politburo of five of its members to lead the Russian Revolution. The size of the Central Committee made it an unwieldy body for quick decision-making, however, and it almost immediately began to lose power to the Politburo, the newly created Secretariat, and other party organs. Party secretary Joseph Stalin expanded the committee’s membership in the 1920s with his own supporters, but the Central Committee continued to function as a quasi-parliamentary body, with free debate and factions, until the mid-1930s, when Stalin had most of its membership executed in order to establish his complete personal control over the party. Thereafter the Central Committee’s role was greatly diminished
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Central-Committee-Soviet-political-body
— emphasis added

Not so sure the Central Committee is the organization that should be cited as a leading organization if they weren’t all that powerful. Not if they were powerful “in name only”. The Politburo seems like a more prime candidate for a powerful/influential organization.

Politburo, in Russian and Soviet history, the supreme policy-making body of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The Politburo until July 1990 exercised supreme control over the Soviet government

[…]

The first Politburo was created in Russia by the Bolshevik Party Central Committee in late October 1917 to provide continuous and flexible leadership in that year’s uprising. The seven Politburo members included Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and Joseph Stalin. The Bolshevik coup accomplished, the Politburo was dissolved. The 8th Party Congress in March 1919 instructed the Central Committee to elect a new Politburo of five from its ranks; its formal role would be to decide on questions too urgent to await Central Committee deliberation. The Politburo soon assumed a major position in party and state administration, and it eventually came to overshadow the role of the Central Committee.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Politburo

Thankfully, your source cites it as the Politbyuro TsK. And it also lists Vladimir Lenin, as a Russian. Well there’s one of those “open for debate” definitions. Genetically-speaking, he was only part Jewish, on his great grandparent’s side, but wasn’t known publicly, or even for the most part privately, to consider himself Jewish. Some would say that would be enough to make him a Jew, but I’m willing to relent on that and say he was far less a Jew and far more a Russian. That being said, the ideology he utilized for the Bolshevik Revolution and the Communist rule of Russia (much less the overthrow of Christianity as the dominant religion in that country) was highly influenced, if not directed, by Karl Marx (Jewish) and Moses Hess (Zionist). In addition, Lenin had a strong relationship with the Jew Grigory Zinoviev, head of the Comintern (the Communist International), a Holodomor perpetrator. It’s a similar case with Stalin, in that he wasn’t a Jew but was influenced by Jews in high advisory positions.

I could go on with how that links into things, but I fear I’m going on too much of a tangent. Just wanted to establish that even those who weren’t officially Jewish were influenced by Jews. We should be currently trying to establish if Graf was right in stating that Jews were of the majority of leading personalities in Russia in 1920, so I’ll get back to that.

Just to get the Politburo out of the way, for 1920:

Kamenev L. B. (Jewish), Krestinskij N. N. (Ukrainian), Lenin V. I. (Russian), Stalin I. V. (Georgian), Trotskij L. D. (Jewish)

For non-Jewish members, I’ve already addressed Lenin. Haven’t really gotten into Stalin much, just implied his situation was similar. As far as I can tell Krestinskij wasn’t Jewish. But there’s something else to note. This entry of members of the Politburo is absent of at least one name. Grigory Yevseyevich Zinoviev (aka Zinovyev), original name Ovsel Gershon Aronov Radomyslsky, a Jew. Candidate in March 1919, full member by March 1921. Not listed on the source you utilized at any time as either a candidate or member. I can only imagine how many more names would be absent from that site, especially for one that claims to “systematize the more or less objective information about ethnicities of the highest-ranking party members.”

Therefore the site doesn’t have enough information to debunk Graf (let alone his source) regarding Jews in leadership positions in Russia in 1920. But I know what you’re thinking, just the absence of 1 name from a site shouldn’t be enough to make Graf’s claim any more valid. To that I would say the absence of at least 531-57=474 names would be enough to declare the site is incapable of debunking Graf. So no, this claim does not go into the trash bin.

That all said, it’s also peculiar you would attack Graf on the 1920 citation given that we’re discussing 1941 times. I would’ve thought the better strategy would be to mention how Stalin would purge the Soviet regime of Jews during the 30s, which would make Graf’s statement a moot point since the number of Jews in leadership positions by 1941 would be different than in 1920. On the other hand, that would also be admitting they were in positions of power during the Bolshevik revolution (of which Graf claims Jews were responsible for creating and instigating, which was primarily the point of that Graf footnote) which resulted in the massacre and torture of many Russians (of which the Ukrainians would also feel such effects) during that time period, which is something that would be remembered 20 years later. So I guess just trying to discredit Graf altogether would be the better strategy.

There were very few, if any, partisan units in Nazi occupied Ukraine in 1941, and literally none at all in the Baltic States at that point.

Heh, this might be partially my fault on this one. That’s taking Graf out of context, as he’s referring to the Eastern Front in general, not specifically the Ukraine.

Would get back to addressing the numbers Graf made at this point (regarding numbers killed, numbers composed of Einsatzgruppen and whatnot), but it seems you have another comment lined up that needs addressing. Here’s hoping it relates directly to that so we can try to get that issue resolved (though I doubt it; this conversation just moved onto two fronts; hesitant to address the Einsatzgruppen numbers issue until the subject of this post is fully resolved, as it’s more important).

Edit: I take that back. After looking at the other comment you made, I refuse to publish it until this particular topic is resolved first. You have a habit of branching out this conversation to the point where we’re trying to cover too many bases and nothing ends up getting resolved, not even on an “agree to disagree” note. Resolve this topic of Jews in power in 1920 first, then then I’ll post that comment about Lithuania. Considering how quickly this can branch out, I’d rather get one year (plus or minus one) settled version before branching into something that takes place in 1940. You decided to focus on 1920 a bit more heavily in your previous comment, I’m not going to let it not take priority now. We get this resolved, then we can talk Lithuania 1940. Then after that, we can talk Einsatzgruppen numbers.

 




ilya_muromets

“Therefore the site doesn’t have enough information to debunk Graf (let alone his source) regarding Jews in leadership positions in Russia in 1920. But I know what you’re thinking, just the absence of 1 name from a site shouldn’t be enough to make Graf’s claim any more valid. To that I would say the absence of at least 531-57=474 names would be enough to declare the site is incapable of debunking Graf. So no, this claim does not go into the trash bin.”

All of this is nonsense. First, just the insane vagueness of “leading personalities” means that its impossible to say what or who is actually being referred to. Grafs claim is thus totally useless for proving anything in the first place. In any case, concrete statistics trump any vague claim.

As to your claim that Zinoviev is : “Not listed on the source you utilized at any time as either a candidate or member”

Well, you’re wrong again, big surprise: http://holocaust.skeptik.net/misc/party.htm

“25 March 1919 (VIII Congress of RKP(b))

Candidates: Buharin N. I. (Russian), Zinovjev G. E. (Jewish), Kalinin M. I. (Russian)

16 March 1921 (X Congress of RKP(b))

Politbyuro TsK: Members: Zinovjev G. E. (Jewish),”

That shows me exactly how seriously I should take your attempts at obfuscating the statistics!

 




The Anomalous Host

Zinovjev G. E.

Grigory Yevseyevich Zinoviev / Zinovyev

Zinovyev G. Y.
Zinoviev G.Y.
Zinovjev G. Y.
Zinovyev G. E.
Zinoviev G.E.
Zinovjev G. E.

Well shit. CTRL+F isn’t always that reliable, is it? All it takes is one fucking letter change from the 2-3 versions of the name I went though, and then it just doesn’t show up.

That shows me exactly how seriously I should take your attempts at obfuscating the statistics!

Yeah, I guess it does. Whoop-dee-doo. Now you have something on me that rivals the stupidity of you defining the word “evacuate.” Big fucking deal. We’re both dumbasses. Still doesn’t change the fact that 474 names aren’t listed.

All of this is nonsense. First, just the insane vagueness of “leading personalities” means that its impossible to say what or who is actually being referred to.

Then I guess it’s time for me to take this more seriously and stop fucking around.

Since we’ve at least established the Politburo was composed of roughly 50% Jews (give or take with Lenin and GYZ or GEZ or however the fuck you spell Grigory’s name), I’d say it’s not nonsense. That’s a far greater than 4% representation of the Jewish population in Russia (the average percentage of the overall population at the time). In what was basically the highest positions of power at the time.

As for what else could have been referred to, I already mentioned that Gregory Zinoviev (yet another way to say that fucker’s name) was head of the Comintern (the Communist International, aka the Third International, aka Comintern [gotta try to nail all those alternative spellings and aliases before I fuck something up again and wind up with you bitching about it]). The Comintern is an organization not listed on your source (at least I’m pretty sure it is this time, I’m not seeing anything that matches with any of the organization’s aliases, or random letter changes). It’s possible I could’ve missed that like in did Grigory. He was a Jew who was the leader of this organization, before eventually getting replaced by Stalin years later, who eventually had that purge happen.
https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/index.htm

Organizations aside, you probably want something more generalized in support of the idea that there was a significant and noticeable amount of Jews in leadership positions at that time. Well, Winston Churchill certainly supported the notion:

This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus–Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

[…]

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and an the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution: by these international and for the most part atheistic Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek — all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses.

The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.

[…]

Zionism offers the third sphere to the political conceptions of the Jewish race. In violent contrast to international communism.

Zionism has already become a factor in the political convulsions of Russia, as a powerful competing influence in Bolshevik circles with the international communistic system. Nothing could be more significant than the fury with which Trotsky has attacked the Zionists generally, and Dr. Weissmann in particular. The cruel penetration of his mind leaves him in no doubt that his schemes of a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination are directly thwarted and hindered by this new ideal, which directs the energies and the hopes of Jews in every land towards a simpler, a truer, and a far more attainable goal. The struggle which is now beginning between the Zionist and Bolshevik Jews is little less than a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people.

— Winston S. Churchill, A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People, Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8, 1920, page 5.
http://www.patriot.dk/churchill.html
https://archive.org/details/ZionismVsBolshevismByWinstonChurchill

Then there’s Genrikh Yagoda (Jewish, though he converted to Christianity near the end of his life). Joined the Bolsheviks in 1907, became a member of the presidium of the Cheka (Soviet secret police) in 1920, and would later go on to become the head of the NKVD (another organization not listed on that source; primarily because it’s more enforcement than it is political; regardless, it’s a leadership position). And he had hundreds of thousands sent to the Gulags and killed.
https://spartacus-educational.com/RUSyagoda.htm

Lazar Kaganovich, the Jew who was Stalin’s advisor, who was “conspicuously spared in Stalin’s postwar campaign of persecution against the Jews.” Played a role in advising Stalin on the “resulting state-organized forced famine, was a planned genocide and killed 7,000,000 Ukrainians between 1932 and 1933, and inflicted enormous suffering on the Soviet Central Asian republic of Kazakhstan.”
https://www.darkmoon.me/2013/the-mass-murder-of-russian-christians-and-the-destruction-of-their-churches/
https://rense.com/general11/stal.htm

This explains in particular, adds the Count, the President’s scandalous partiality towards the Bolsheviks. In reply to the question how it was possible for high finance to favour Bolshevism, which is hostile to property, movable and immovable, the Jewish banker began by explaining that those who are astonished at the alliance between Israel and the Soviets forget that the Jewish nation is the most intensely national of all peoples and that Marxism is simply one of the weapons of Jewish nationalism.
— Fahey, Denis. The Rulers of Russia, American ed. Condon Printing Co., Detroit. 1940. [1st edition in 1938]. p.3

I present to my readers a number of serious documents which go to show that the real forces behind Bolshevism in Russia are Jewish forces, and that Bolshevism is really an instrument in the hands of the Jews for the establishment of their future Messianic kingdom.

[…]

The second document, treating of the financing of the Russian Revolution by the Jewish Bank of Kuhn, Loeb and Company, is the one drawn up by the American Intelligence Service and transmitted by the French High Commissioner to his government.
— Fahey p.21-24

But just to let you know I’m at least somewhat open-minded about all this, I have been over this thread:

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t307902-16/

Where user LionAxe makes good arguments against some of the claims made related to this subject. The primary take-away I got from it for the current topic is British reporter Robert Wilton is unreliable with his facts and figures regarding the numbers of Jews in positions of authority during this time period primarily because one of his primary sources of information was the Black Hundreds. I haven’t been able to verify that, but I have cross-checked some of the information he gives with that site you provided, and LionAxe’s arguments seem to have enough merit to discredit Wilton on those grounds, so I won’t utilize him. From what I’ve gathered with Graf’s work, he doesn’t utilize him either. So the previous source by Fahey should be taken with a grain of salt because of the Foreward which does cite Wilton. Regardless of that, true or false, given the time period, that would contribute towards a hatred of the Jews in the Ukraine if similar information was being passed among the populace. Considering the Black Hundreds was a Russian organization, that would imply Stalin’s plan ahead of time for their removal, and thus sowing the seeds of hate among the populace.

There’s also Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s “The Jews in the Soviet Union,” which is a book that is banned almost everywhere (including Amazon), along with “200 Years Together Russian-Jewish History,” which has something to say about all this. But it’s never been officially translated into English. However, a review of it can be found here:
https://russia-insider.com/en/solzhenitsyns-damning-history-jews-russia-review/ri22354

It provides reasons why there was hatred of the Jews in Russian areas (though I’m sure some of the reasoning can be extended to Germany). As one who was a prisoner in these Russian Gulags, he is in some position to make these statements controversial enough for Russia to try to remove its existence. And if that sort of information can be suppressed, I could only imagine what other forms of history regarding the Jews in Russia would also be suppressed from that time period. Solzhenitsyn would also state that two-thirds of Cheka in the Ukraine were composed of Jews.
https://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Was-the-Russian-Revolution-Jewish-514323

The roughly three million Jews of the Soviet Union at the time of the revolution constituted the largest Jewish community in the world, but they were only around 2% of the USSR’s population. They were concentrated in the Pale of Settlement (a western region of Imperial Russia) and in Ukraine and Belarussia, where they were 5% to 10% of the population, whereas in Russia itself the 1926 census found only 600,000 Jews.
https://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Was-the-Russian-Revolution-Jewish-514323

Sever Plocker, a Jew, has also acknowledged the Jew’s role in the Cheka programs. But I’ll just quote this one bit from him:

The Jews active in official communist terror apparatuses (In the Soviet Union and abroad) and who at times led them, did not do this, obviously, as Jews, but rather, as Stalinists, communists, and “Soviet people.” Therefore, we find it easy to ignore their origin and “play dumb”: What do we have to do with them? But let’s not forget them. My own view is different. I find it unacceptable that a person will be considered a member of the Jewish people when he does great things, but not considered part of our people when he does amazingly despicable things.
https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html

Lastly, David R. Francis is quoted as saying, “The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution.”
https://archive.org/details/russiafromameric00franuoft/page/214/mode/2up

So this belief isn’t limited to just Graf and that source he gives regarding Jews in majority positions of authority. Now, is it possible the source Graf utilizes is wrong, and that it overrepresents the number of Jews in positions of authority? Yeah, I can acknowledge that it’s possible. But I haven’t seen enough to sway my beliefs away from that just yet. At best, this discussion has swayed me a bit towards the fence (but not on it).


Above, left image is a greeting card used during that time period of a Jew holding the Talmud and a fowl with the head of Tsar Nicholas II, disposed of at the end of the Bolshevik revolution. He was ordered killed by the Jew Yakov Sverdlov.
http://www.renegadetribune.com/jewish-murder-russian-imperial-family/

There were Jews in positions of power during that time, and they were in positions that directly affected the leaders who called the shots, from Lenin to Stalin, let alone the military/enforcement organizations that were formed by them. And if nothing else, it has been shown why those in the Ukraine would have reason to hate the Jews beyond just for racial reasons.

Edit: Just a little extra reference, where the stuff related to the discussion doesn’t really start until 25:44

 




 

ilya_muromets

The quotes you posted are irrelevant as to whether “Jewish Bolshevism” was a factual reality. A lot of people did believe in it, Churchill included, which of course does not make it true. For a while, the only source of information on the makeup of the Bolshevik movement to the West were White Russian emigres, many of whom wanted to play up the proportion of Jews among Bolsheviks, which is probably one of the reasons Churchill had the impression he had.

Its good however, that you seem to recognize that the claims made by someone like Robert Wilton don’t stand up to scrutiny. Obviously, the actual statistics about the makeup of the highest bodies of the CPSU further debunk it.

 




 

The Anomalous Host

The quotes you posted are irrelevant as to whether “Jewish Bolshevism” was a factual reality. A lot of people did believe in it, Churchill included, which of course does not make it true. For a while, the only source of information on the makeup of the Bolshevik movement to the West were White Russian emigres, many of whom wanted to play up the proportion of Jews among Bolsheviks, which is probably one of the reasons Churchill had the impression he had.

I’ll remember you said this.

Anyway, so I guess this means those other Jews I named mean fuck-all in the grand scheme of things as far as “leading personalities” go; regardless of their positions. I guess it’s just coincidence for there to be that many in what positions skeptic.net does manage to acknowledge in terms of official positions of political office, considering the percentage that made up the population. Guess Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn should be disregarded as well, as his descriptions of the going-ons during that period aren’t valid enough.

Even though it should be rather strange that the majority of Jews in Russia were concentrated primarily on the western side of that country, which is particular if they weren’t involved in the revolution. Guess that just means they were there to begin with amidst all this. Either that, or they just decided to move in near the end of this whole Bolshevik Revolution, while not primarily being a part of it. Even though the whole Communist Manifesto that directly inspired the revolution was created by Jews (Karl Marx and Moses Hess were both Jewish, as were those not only close to but who financed Lenin and the revolution). But that’s just one big coincidence.

Not enough “concrete statistics” to make it all that convincing. Sure would be nice to have concrete statistics on the Bolsheviks themselves, and the Cheka, and the NKVD, or anything related to “secret police” during that time period. Sure, it was more on the down-low, and the Russians may not have been preservative or forth-coming of their information during that time period (let alone the disinformation they sowed back then, let alone today). But it would’ve been nice to have those concrete statistics to verify the makeup of those military and enforcement organizations. But we don’t have that to verify the leadership and organizational make-up of those do we?

And I’m pretty sure I can take for granted that you’ll dismiss Hitler’s complaints about them Mein Kampf.

It’s mostly circumstantial when it comes to “the big picture” of it all, I’ll grant you that. But that’s also the case for your position in this matter.

This is some standard you have. Wonder what else it could be used on?

Anyway, despite there not being enough to meet your standards for convincing you of this position, there isn’t anything to dissuade me from it either. You wanted concrete statistics demonstrating proof of Jews in leadership positions within the Bolshevik revolution and Russia around the 1920 time period. By that logic, I want concrete statistics of the same thing, but for non-Jews. There are more leadership positions than those in political office. Leadership positions within those Bolshevik, Cheka, and NKVD positions, for instance. Kind of like asking for who is running the dark money in the present.

On that note, just for a fun fact (that doesn’t support my position anymore than it goes against it), it’s interesting that the funding for the Bolshevik Revolution came from Germany, Britain, and the U.S. (Wall Street).
http://themillenniumreport.com/2018/07/the-nyc-and-london-banker-who-financed-the-bolshevik-revolution/

Its good however, that you seem to recognize that the claims made by someone like Robert Wilton don’t stand up to scrutiny. Obviously, the actual statistics about the makeup of the highest bodies of the CPSU further debunk it.

I did some actual cross-referencing of the hard data to verify. Nothing extensive, just enough to realize that the scrutiny against him is valid.

****************************************************

Guess there’s nothing more to be said on this subject. Main thing that seems to have been decided upon, currently, is that we can’t confirm or deny the Jewish leadership position in the USSR as far as “leading” personalities go (the makeup of the Politbyuro excluded), which means you’ll take the position of Graf’s source used to make the claim being worthless, while I do not.

But if nothing else, it can be admitted that reasons for Ukrainian hatred of the Jews is not merely for hatred of the Jewish race. You may not currently believe the validity of these, but the fact of the matter is there were beliefs of how the Jews lead the Bolshevik Revolution, were responsible for the slaughter of many, and they became overly privileged and financially well-off due to their positions of power and abilities to manage wealth and goods. Best case scenario (for your case), that may not have been true, but a good portion of the populace believed it. Which is why they opted to “take their revenge” when the Germans liberated them in 1941. And this was not propaganda spread by the Germans, but by the Russians (one such “disinformation” group that did this was the Black Hundreds, though I do need to do some research on them: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Black-Hundreds).

It is peculiar though, that even if this Jewish Bolshevism is true, that a good portion of them wouldn’t live beyond the next 15 years to enjoy their newfound government and nation, as Stalin would make maneuvers and power grabs that resulted in many of those who physically made the revolution possible to be killed afterwards. Seems like a coup within a coup.

Anyway, I’ll let that 1940 Lithuanian comment through now, and address it at a later time (considering the ground we’ve covered so far, and how a portion of it seems to relate to it more or less, doubt it will take long before that’s over with and we’re back to Graff and the Einsatzgruppen numbers).

 




 

ilya_muromets

And regarding Soviet-occupied Lithuania (this is a summarization of the findings of literature regarding the subject): https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=446704#p446704

“One study of the composition of the Lithuanian Communists during this period found that of the commission that falsified the election results in July 1940, authorizing the Communist takeover, exactly zero were Jews. And those elected in that fraudulent election were 67 Lithuanians, 3 Poles, 2 Belorussians, 1 Russian, 1 Latvian, and 4 Jews. By June 1941, there were about 4,700 members and candidates in the Lithuanian CP – Jews were slightly overrepresented making up just under 13% (again, a higher % in Kaunas and also among the Communist youth movement). On the other hand, by June 1941, there were no Jews on the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Lithuanian SSR and only 5 out of 49 People’s Commissars were Jews. In common with the pattern of diminishing Jewish participation, the police apparatus saw the numbers of Russians in the NKVD grow during the period – with 23 Jews on the central staff of 138 by May 1941, when there was only 1 Jew out of 44 city and county chiefs and deputies. There were 2 Jews on the 13-member Supreme Court. Etc.”

Soviet mass deportations:

“….the deportations struck the Lithuanian Jewish population along with Lithuanians: almost 14% of those deported at the time were Jews, making Jews overrepresented among the victims.”

So the slaughter of Jews in the Baltic States cant be justified as Jews allegedly dominating during the Soviet occupation.

On Lithuanian Nationalists:

“In Lithuania, nationalists began cooperating with the Germans prior to Barbarossa. The Germans helped found the Lithuanian Activists Front (LAF), headquartered in Berlin, in late 1940. During 1941, LAF propaganda targeted Jews in Lithuania, threatening them and calling on Lithuanians to use the coming struggle to oust the Soviets as the occasion to settle accounts with the Jews, too. The LAF used the language of host/parasite to demonize the Jews and advocated ethnic cleansing of Lithuania. However, the LAF – this is telling – begged Lithuanian Communists to recant and come over to the nationalist cause. It would seem that for the Germans and the nationalists, the purveyors of the myth of Jewish-Communism, Lithuanian Communists could be forgiven but not Jews, whether Communists or not.”

 




 

The Anomalous Host

Ok, time to comment on that Lithuania 1940 post.

“One study of the composition of the Lithuanian Communists during this period found that of the commission that falsified the election results in July 1940, authorizing the Communist takeover, exactly zero were Jews.”

Ok, I won’t argue with that.

Soviet mass deportations:

[…]

So the slaughter of Jews in the Baltic States cant be justified as Jews allegedly dominating during the Soviet occupation.

From what was discussed earlier, I think it can be said this is the case. Because whether or not one believe the Jews were responsible for and lead the Bolshevik Revolution of the 1910s to early 1920s, it can’t be denied that Stalin’s power grab and execution of many involved with the Bolshevik Revolution lead to the death many of the Jews who were involved with it, to whatever degree. Especially after Vladimir Lenin’s death in 1924 (which from what I understand was of a brain hemmorage and coma; and he did his best to keep his Jewish roots hidden publicly from what I understand). There are different reasons alleged as to why Stalin did this Great Purge (aka Great Terror). Some say he was paranoid of the Bolshevik’s being a threat to his newfound power gained in 1929. Either way, it officially took place between 1936 and 1938. So whether the Jews were responsible for the Bolshevik Revolution or not, they wouldn’t be in as many positions of power within Russia by 1940 as they were between 1920 and 1936. Stalin still had a Jewish aid during that time, Lazar Kaganovich (in fact, this aid would live until 1991, outliving everyone who played a part in the Bolshevik Revolution), but that seemed to be the primary extent of it. That being said, his aid likely contributed to the overall contempt the public had for Jews by 1941, especially considering his involvement with many of the mass killings/murders also associated with Stalin during his reign.

Also didn’t help that the Jews were pretty much taking credit and offering praise for the Bolshevik Revolution. Let alone that Russia implemented laws against antisemitism (allegedly the first time in history a country implemented such laws).
https://russia-insider.com/en/pre-ww2-jewish-media-celebrating-jewish-nature-russian-revolution-30-examples/ri22899

During 1941, LAF propaganda targeted Jews in Lithuania, threatening them and calling on Lithuanians to use the coming struggle to oust the Soviets as the occasion to settle accounts with the Jews, too.

Yes, I imagine the reasons for this were pretty much the same reasons when this happened in the Ukraine during that same time period.

 




 

The Anomalous Host

Back to Graf and the Einsatzgruppen numbers that were “eviscerated” by Jonathan Harrison.

To organize what was argued prior to harping on the Footnote related to the 1920 issue (which is unresolved in some aspects, likely permanently, but it did manage to resolve the issue regarding how racially motivated the killings of the Jews in 1941 were, at least in the Ukraine), I’ll start with what I stated:

1.) This wasn’t about Nazis being so committed to mass murder that they were willing to overlook economic interests at a time when they were in need of them?

2.) Justification for Einsatzgruppen death tolls (150-200k in Reichskommissariat Ukraine) between August and December of 1941 (5 months), as the Jews allegedly being partisans and saboteurs.

3.) The grand total values for just Reichskommissariat Ukraine, even at maximum, wouldn’t be enough to add up to the 1.35 million number that Hilberg came up with, primarily because the 200k number is barely over what he claims just 1 Einsatzgruppen group managed to do in roughly the same amount of time. Which would mean if just 1 Einsatzgruppen group could theoretically take out that much, then the overall total would have to be much higher than the 200k reported in the 3257-PS Nuremberg document, if Hilberg’s calculations are to be believed.

And I quoted Graf to address those points.

You stated in response:

A.) That the Einsatzgruppen would also be assisted by a variable amount of Lithuanians and Latvians (among other non-Einsatzgruppen personnel). Indicating that those numbers added along with the Einsatzgruppen numbers could add up to the 1.35 million value.

But there’s a problem with that logic. The Nuremberg document already appears to account for this:

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. […] 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.

Which is why I responded, “I don’t see how this is helping your cause. It’s still low-balling the non-revisionist numbers. Unless you’re claiming that 200k number previously mentioned doesn’t include those groups who “assisted” the Germans didn’t count their killing numbers, in which case I would ask how they could possibly manage that distinction. Or better yet, within the context of the document, why they would make that distinction.”

Which is why I was getting frustrated about you changing the point. Your logic for doing so was this:
“Since your incoherent claims about the death toll in RK Ukraine mentioned by Seraphim and its relation to the 6 million total hinged on these strawmen, they can be ignored.”

This is known as the fallacy of composition. At best, you’re trying to prove Graf wrong on one thing in order to disprove his statements on something else (primarily my #3 point).

From there, it became more about critiquing Graf than it did with responding to my points #1-3 or your point A.

B.) Hes saying that the “alleged” Einsatzgruppen numbers are “impossible”, citing Einsatzgruppe A alone having 750 combatants. He is thus completely ignoring the native collaborators. He also pretends that Hilberg claimed these 750 alone had killed the Jews in the Baltic states but this is not the case.

Even if you (and Jonathan Harris) managed to prove this was true of Graf ignoring the native collaborators, that does nothing to disprove my point #3. If anything, that would only make it worse in relation to what 3257-PS states.

That being said, now is as good of a time as any to see if point B has any merit.

I consider that blog post you linked to to be very devious and manipulative to the point where it misrepresents Graf. It states that Graf ignores the numbers even when Graf states this:

In addition, thousands of Jews were killed in pogroms initiated by the native populations following the German invasion. After they had been freed from the Bolshevist yoke, Latvians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians and others took revenge on Jews because the Red terror machinery had been led mainly by Jews, and this retribution unfortunately fell also on Jews who had nothing to do with the Communist crimes.
— Graf p.36

The blog post quotes this very paragraph. So even though Graf notes that the natives played a part in the killing, Harris passes this off as Graf being hypocritical. He states that Graf pretends the natives didn’t play a part in one section of his book, while then stating that Graf acknowledges their existence in another. I mean, even if I didn’t have access to his work, I would find this criticism highly suspicious. Especially when this isn’t the only section where he admits to native involvement (Graf even quotes sections of Hilberg that mention native involvement). And especially when all of this is included in the same chapter, only a mere 5 pages apart (The chapter is titled: “The Massacres behind the Eastern Front”; keep in mind this is the 3rd edition, so some of the sections referenced by Harris are a page or two off, as he was referencing an older edition than the one I have).

Harris puts this as Graf is being contradictory. I put this as Graf acknowledging the natives played a part in addition to the Germans. The primary thing that is of issue is whether those were to be taken into account or not when Graf was critiquing Hilberg regard a hypothetal Einsatzgruppe group. The one with 750 combatants that supposedly killed 125,000 Jews during those 5 months (roughly 210k within the first 10 weeks). Harris quotes Hilberg:

The operations assisted by the Lithuanians accounted for more than half of the Einsatzkommando’s killings by that date

Well, they would certainly need that assistance considering:

Since the Jews certainly cannot have gone to their deaths willingly, they must have been tracked down and driven together in the cities, where there certainly would have been escape attempts and resistance. Also there would have been the difficulty of moving the condemned to the outskirts of the city, where most of the pits undoubtedly would have had to have been newly dug.

Besides carrying out the massacres, the Einsatzgruppen were required to comb the POW camps for commissars, fanatical Communists and Jews. This would have been an immense task, because, up to the end of 1941, no less than 3,350,000 Red Army members had fallen into German hands (p. 351; DEJ, p. 334). Even when one considers that only a part of them had been captured by the middle of October, that the Einsatzgruppen did not have to do all the work, only “the major part” of it, and that there were four Einsatzgruppen, under these conditions, during the ten weeks from the beginning of August until the middle of October Einsatzgruppe A must have searched through hundreds of thousands of POWs for the persons to be liquidated – in addition to shooting 120,000 Jews and fighting partisans!

— Graf p.41

Plus this doesn’t take into account that, if the natives were “assisting” the Einsatzgruppen, wouldn’t there have to be Einsatzgruppen around for them to assist? So that they could keep records of the numbers they rounded up or executed? Because if not, how could they be expected to have anything close to accurate data for all of this? Of course, it’s natural they can’t keep count of all who are killed, since I’m sure local native militias and citizens would “take revenge” when the Germans weren’t around. But in that situation, who would be around to track those bodies themselves, the locals? If that’s the case, would the locals give the numbers to the Germans? If not, how would anyone today have any of the numbers either Graf or Hilberg uses? This raises a lot of questions when trying to determine if, let alone how, the body count was differentiated between the Germans killing the Jews and the locals killing the Jews.

It’s very nitpicky on Harrison’s part, who doesn’t bother to address any of the major points Graf brings up in addition to that (such as how he would go on to address the 1.35 million number of Jewish dead later on in that same chapter (plus the purpose of ghettos, and that whole logic of Jews migrating back into the cities where massacres were happening [figure that logic out]).

And to end this on one last section from Harrison:
“In order to promote his antisemitism, he needs to show that the natives hated Jews, but, in order to maintain his Einsatzgruppen Straw Man, he also needs to claim that all killings must have been done by Einsatzgruppe A acting alone.”

Well, we’ve already been over that the natives had reason to hate the Jews. And I’ve addressed how Harrison’s claim of Graf utilizing a Straw Man is bullshit (if nothing else, Harrison is guilty of the very fallacy he claims Graf is guilty of). And most insignificantly, stating that Graf is an antisemite is an Ad-Hoc fallacy attack that would neither prove nor disprove any of the arguments he is making. At best, that would only indicate his motivations for tackling the subject. And in any case, this is assuming Graf is an antisemite at all. Considering what he’s said about the Jews in his work (something that Harrison actually quoted, which makes this more of a contradiction on his part than anything Graf has done), I doubt it.

After they had been freed from the Bolshevist yoke, Latvians, Lithuanians, Ukrainians and others took revenge on Jews because the Red terror machinery had been led mainly by Jews, and this retribution unfortunately fell also on Jews who had nothing to do with the Communist crimes.
— Graf p.36

Einsatzgruppen areas operations barbarossa map

 




 

ilya_muromets

Einsatzgruppen time:

Your whole gaffe about the numbers is incomprehensible to me. The number of 1.35 million refers to the total amount of Jews killed by the Nazis via shooting in the occupied Soviet territories, between 1941-43. Your claim about Seraphims report “contradicting” anything is totally made up.

“Plus this doesn’t take into account that, if the natives were “assisting” the Einsatzgruppen, wouldn’t there have to be Einsatzgruppen around for them to assist? So that they could keep records of the numbers they
rounded up or executed? Because if not, how could they be expected to have anything close to accurate data for all of this?”

There are very precise statistics from the Einsatzgruppe leaders themselves which differentiate between Jews killed in pogroms by the natives and those shot by the Einsatzgruppen. One such document, Stahleckers report, was already posted here, but I’ll bring it up again:
https://documents.yadvashem.org/index.html?language=en&search=global&strSearch=Einsatzgruppe%20O.18&GridItemId=3726606&TreeItemId=3656463

““According to the basic orders, the systematic cleansing work in the Ostland comprised the complete elimination of Jewry. With the exception of White Ruthenia, this goal has essentially been achieved through the executions of 229,052 Jews to date (see Annex). The remainder in the Baltic provinces is urgently needed for work and is housed in ghettos.””

The page of the report breaking down the victims:

“Executions carried out by Einsatzgruppe A until 1.2.1942:”

“Through Pogroms: 5500”

Another precise document is the Jäger Report: https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/works/jaeger-report/htm/img001.htm.en.html

 

“And I’ve addressed how Harrison’s claim of Graf utilizing a Straw Man is bullshit (if nothing else, Harrison is guilty of the very fallacy he claims Graf is guilty of).”

Nope, Graf very clearly claims that the Einsatzgruppen numbers are “impossibly large”, basing this argument off of the size of the group while completely ignoring the native collaborators, while hypocritically acknowledging the pogroms. Heres the Graf quote again:

“The claimed numbers of victims of the Einsatzgruppen are impossibly large. The largest of the four, Einsatzgruppe A, had 990 members. If we subtract from this the 172 vehicle drivers, 3 women employees, 51 interpreters, 3 teletypewriter operators and 8 radio operators, there are about 750 combatants left to use for the mass killings (p. 303; DEJ, p. 289). Up to 15th October 1941, Einsatzgruppe A supposedly killed 125,000 Jews (p. 309; DEJ, p. 289). Considering the fact that the mass murders first began in August (p. 307; DEJ, na), the overwhelming majority of the 125,000 victims, let us say 120,000, must have been killed in a period of ten weeks.”

Hes clearly trying to cast doubt, while lying by omission of the native collaborators. You didn’t even comprehend Harrison’s criticism.

 




 

The Anomalous Host

Your whole gaffe about the numbers is incomprehensible to me.

Well that’s your problem. I’ve laid out why I have this “gaffe” as you call it. I’d only be repeating myself at this point. And I’m tired of repeating the point that should be obvious to any intelligent reader who bothers making the effort to go through this whole post.

There are very precise statistics from the Einsatzgruppe leaders themselves which differentiate between Jews killed in pogroms by the natives and those shot by the Einsatzgruppen.

[…]

Stahleckers report

[…]

Jäger Report

Ah yes, I do recall the Jäger Report, though I must confess I only glanced at it previously (didn’t think it was worth much time as it appeared to only be reinforcing points already strongly made earlier). Didn’t account for it stating that the Einsatzgruppen kept records stating when Lithuanians were the ones who “assisted” with the killings. But once again, this doesn’t help your cause, as this would indicate they were tallied up with the official numbers (and didn’t go unaccounted for). Not to mention that the body count was less than 4,000; which even if it was entirely placed upon Einsatzgruppe A alone, is still a relatively small amount considering the numbers we’re actually dealing with. Plus the Jager Report seems to answer “yes” to this question I raised earlier:

“Plus this doesn’t take into account that, if the natives were “assisting” the Einsatzgruppen, wouldn’t there have to be Einsatzgruppen around for them to assist?”

Apparently so:

Executions carried out by Lithuanian partisans on my instructions and under my command

[…]

the following operations were carried out in collaboration with Lithuanian partisans
— Jäger Report

Therefore I’m not seeing any reason the max of 200,000 Jews killed in the Ukraine should be increased on account of the natives, as stated in the Nuremberg Document. The numbers are accounted for.

Hes clearly trying to cast doubt, while lying by omission of the native collaborators. You didn’t even comprehend Harrison’s criticism.

Nonsense. He omitted no such thing. Harrison even quotes Graf’s acknowledgement of there being native collaborators. Hell, I even brought up that very quote on this blog page, which Harrison also brought up on his very blog page. Therefore Graf is arguing those numbers would still be impossibly high regardless. I have already made my statements on why Harrison’s argument is rubbish on that account, and see no point in repeating myself again.

So allow me to bring in something new. And no, it won’t be from Graf. It will be from Hilberg himself. Let’s dispense with the bullshit and go straight to the source Graf is critiquing, and Harrison is defending.

The Einsatzgruppen did not move as compact units. The Kommandos generally detached themselves from the group staffs and operated independently.

[…]

The relative thoroughness of the killings was a function of the density of Jewish settlement and the speed of the German advance. […] In the Baltic region, […] detachments of Einsatzgruppe A stayed behind to move back and forth for more extensive killing operations. A summary report of Einsatzkommando 3 in Lithuania reveals a series of such repetitive movements.

[…]

The Einsatzkommandos that moved with the armies farther to the east encountered fewer and fewer Jews. The victims were thinning out for two reasons. The first was geographic distribution. By October-November 1941, the largest concentrations of Jews had already been left behind. […] The second reason was the decreasing percentage of the Jews who stayed behind. […] The Einsatzgruppe which operated in the central and eastern Ukrainian territories found that many Jewish communities were reduced by 70 to 90 percent and some by 100 percent [due to Jews evacuating upon hearing what fate awaited them from the Germans].

[…]

The Einsatzgruppen had moved with such speed behind the advancing army that several hundred thousand Jews could be killed like sleeping flies. Einsatzgruppe A reported on October 15, 1941 that it had killed 125,000 Jews. [Footnote 21.) The most lethal unit in the Einsatzgruppe was Einsatzkommando 3. Its count as of February 9, 1942, was 138,272 people killed (including 136,421 Jews).]

[…]

Although over a million Jews had fled and additional hundreds of thousands had been killed, it became apparent that many Jewish communities had hardly been touched. They had been bypassed in the hurried advance. To strike at these Jews while they were still stunned and helpless, a second wave of mobile killing units moved up quickly behind the Einsatzgruppen.
— p.293-295

Hilberg would also state that Einsatzgruppe B claimed to have killed a minimum of 45,000 Jews by November, Einsatzgruppe C would claim to have killed 75,000 in the same month, and Einsatzgruppe D claimed to have killed 55,000 by December.

Other sections that come afterwards state that the Hungarians were hesitant (if not just flat out refused) to help the Germans kill the Jews, while the Romanians were bloodthirsty savages when it came to killing Jews, which they did in the northern area of Ukraine (assisting Einsatzgruppe D, not A). Even to the point where Einsatzgruppe D was telling them to ease up. But then…

Thus in the northern sector, south of Leningrad, Einsatzgruppe A reported a subtle attempt by the local residents to justify their inactivity. The following anecdote was circulating in that sector: A group of Soviet prisoners of war was requested by its German captors to bury alive a number of Jewish fellow prisoners. The Russians refused. The German soldiers thereupon told the Jews to bury the Russians. The Jews, according to the anecdote, immediately grabbed the shovels.

The refusal to help the Jews was only a little more tenacious than the reluctance to help the Germans.

[…]

The Ukrainians were passive, benumbed by the “Bolshevist terror.” Only ethnic Germans in the area were busily working for the Einsatzgruppe.

[…]

The Einsatzgruppen, however, not only had the advantage of a generally neutral population; they also managed to obtain–at least from certain segments of the local citizenry–two important forms of cooperation in the killing operations: pogroms and the help of auxiliary police in seizures and shootings.

[…]

The Einsatzgruppen wanted the population to take a part–and a major part at that–of the responsibility for the killing operations. “It was not less important, for future purposes,” wrote Brigadefuhrer Dr. Stahlecker, “to establish as an unquestionable fact that the liberated population had resorted to the most severe measures against the Bolshevist and Jewish enemy, on its own initiative and without instructions from German authorities.” In short, the pogroms were to become a defensive weapon with which to confront an accuser, or an element of blackmail that could be used against the local population.

It may be noted in passing that Einsatzgruppen and military interests diverged on the matter of pogroms. The military government experts, like the civilian bureaucrats at home, dreaded any kind of uncontrollable violence. One rear (security) division, issuing a long directive for anti-Jewish measures, included also this sharply worded paragraph in its order: “Lynch justice against Jews and other terror measures are to be prevented by all means. The armed forces do not tolerate that one terror [the Soviet one] be relieved by another.” Most of the pogroms, therefore, took place in those areas that had not yet been placed in the firm grip of military government experts.

[…]

The newly arrived Security Police [of Einsatzgruppe A] approached the chief of the Lithuanian insurgents, Klimaitis (misspelled by the Germans Klimatis), and secretly persuaded him to turn his forces on the Jews. After several days of intensive pogroms, Klimaitis had accounted for 5,000 dead […]. Moving farther north, Einsatzgruppe A organized a pogrom in Riga, Latvia. The Einsatzgruppe set up two pogrom units and let them loose in the city; 400 Jews were killed. […] With the disbanding of the anti-Communist partisans, the northern pogroms ended. No other outbursts took place in the Baltic states.

[…]

Three observations about the pogroms may be noted. First, truly spontaneous pogroms, free from Einsatzgruppen influence, did not take place. All outbreaks were either organized or inspired by the Einsatzgruppen. Second, all pogroms were implemented within a short time after the arrival of the killing units. There were not self-perpetuating, nor could new ones be started after things had settled down. Third, most of the reported pogroms occurred in buffer territory, areas in which submerged hostility toward the Jews was apparently greatest and in which the Soviet threat of return could most easily be discounted, for the Communist government had been in power there for less than two years.

We come now to a second and somewhat more efficient form of local cooperation, namely the help extended to the Einsatzgruppen by auxiliary police. The importance of the auxiliaries should not be underestimated. Roundups by local inhabitants who spoke the local language resulted in higher percentages of Jewish dead. This fact is clearly indicated by the statistics of Kommandos that made use of local help. As in the case of the pogroms, the recruitment of auxiliaries was most successful in the Baltic and Ukranian areas.

[…]

The operations assisted by the Lithuanians accounted for more than half of the Einsatzkommando’s killings by that date [47,000 out of 85,000 by September 19, 1941].
–p.308-313

During the first sweep, the mobile killing units reported approximately one hundred thousand victims a month. By now we can understand how it was possible to seize so many people int he course of a mobile operation. A simple strategy–combined with a great deal of army assistance, native collaboration, and Jewish gullibility–had transformed the occupied Soviet cities into a series of natural traps.
–p.317-318

The wall of text is so that I hopefully don’t have to go back and get more from Hilberg’s work, at least as far as this topic is concerned.

Harrison argues that Graf completely discounts the natives involvements in the killings in spite of it being common knowledge among any respectable historian that the natives did assist the Einsatzgruppen; something I argue is a false claim on the part of Harrison. I mean, considering the amount of time Hilberg spend on the subject of native involvement (even with just the portions I pulled from the book; the version Harrison used I believe), that would certainly cast a poor light upon Graf if he didn’t acknowledge local involvement. He acknowledges this involvement prior to his statement, “The claimed numbers of victims of the Einsatzgruppen are impossibly large.” And he also states this prior to that statement:

Hilberg charges large-scale massacres of Jews not only to the Germans, but also to the Rumanians, who he claims slaughtered 19,000 Jews in a single day, 23rd October 1941
— Graf p.38

Besides, if Graf can be accused of leaving out the fact that Einsatzgruppe A utilized local help, then Hilberg can be accused of leaving out the reasons of their existence besides just rounding up and executing Jews (assuming they weren’t just being put into ghettos or camps). He states at the beginning of the Mobile Killing Units chapter that the primary purpose of this operation in Russia was to round up and eliminate the Jews. Yet he doesn’t take into account that this was a preemptive attack on Russia, who was planning on attacking Germany. It can be argued he fails to take into account that this was a defensive measure on Germany’s part to invade these territories (the whole “a good defense is a good offense” mentality, infamous of the Blitzkrieg). Because of this, he fails to focus on the other roles the Einsatzgruppen had besides just rounding up and eliminating a portion of Jews (which was a part of Hitler’s Commissar Order, and Hilberg does note aspects of this, even the part where some officers were hesitant to carry it out).

What other roles did they have, and was the elimination of Jews even the main role?

Their main task was maintaining order and security within the rear areas of the German armies on the eastern front. This included the gathering of intelligence and especially the combating and repression of partisans. With this new twist in the Holocaust story, they were also somehow additionally tasked with the total extermination of Jews. Not just the Jews of all the areas they were responsible for – Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Belarus, Ukraine, the Crimea, areas of the Caucasus, and occupied Russia – but also Jews from Germany and western Europe which were allegedly shipped off to them for liquidation.
–https://codoh.com/library/document/3103/

Graf will state something similar regarding their roles. And more importantly, give a reason as to why their roles were so important:

In the territories taken by the Germans, Soviet partisans stirred up a bloody underground war which took the lives of many German soldiers. The Soviets boasted that their partisans had killed 500,000 members of the German army. The Germans reacted to these actions – which violated international law – the way other occupying powers before and since have done, with severe reprisal measures even against the civilian population. Many civilians were shot as hostages, whole villages were burned to the ground.
— Graf p.35

So part of the argument as to why Hilberg’s numbers are ludicrous is that the Einsatzgruppen wouldn’t have been able to prioritize rounding up and/or executing Jews just for the fuck of it. They had other things to worry about. That being said, they would execute a large number of Jews because they were partisans working with the Soviets. This doesn’t apply to all of them, and Graf acknowledges that Jews who had nothing to do with the partisans would wind up caught up in the crossfire. But the Einsatzgruppen didn’t go out of their way to go after those Jews. The same can’t be said for a portion of the locals.

Lastly, regarding the locals helping the Einsatzgruppen; just how many were supposed to be helping them at each given time in each incident? Because I don’t believe they traveled along with the Einsatzgruppen as they made their way Eastward to watch the rear of the advancing German army. Especially when one takes into consideration supplies and space on the vehicles. How many could a force of 900 Einsatzgruppen employ at a time for their purposes before moving on? How effective could they be within the limited timespan? How long was the limited timespan before the Einsatzgruppen had to move further Eastward? You don’t think that’s another element Graf was implying with his critique of Hilberg?

I can comprehend Harrison’s criticism just fine. You can’t comprehend my responses. Perhaps if I eventually make a response that tackles the issue in the right way it will eventually get through to you. And on top of all that, this is rather petty compared to the other aspects of Graf’s criticism of Hilberg.

 




 

ilya_muromets

“That being said, they would execute a large number of Jews because they were partisans working with the Soviets.”

A claim instantly demolished by Seraphims report:

“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.”

“What other roles did they have, and was the elimination of Jews even the main role?”

Eliminating the Jews was in fact one of their main purposes:

Stahlecker 1.2.42

“According to the basic orders, the systematic cleansing work in the Ostland comprised the complete elimination of Jewry. With the exception of White Ruthenia, this goal has essentially been achieved through the executions of 229,052 Jews to date (see Annex).”

Stahlecker 15.10.41

“It was to be expected from the outset that pogroms alone would not solve the Jewish problem in the Ostland. On the other hand, in accordance with the basic orders, the cleansing work of the security police aimed at eliminating the Jews as completely as possible. Extensive executions were therefore carried out in the cities and in the countryside by special commands to which selected forces – in Lithuania partisan troops, in Latvia troops of the Latvian auxiliary police – were assigned.”

Heydrich 23.4.42
https://www.ns-archiv.de/imt/ps3801-ps4000/3876-ps/3876-ps-2.php

“C. Jews.

The way of working in the settlement of the Jewish question was quite different in the various sections of the front.

…..

In the remaining areas of the Eastern Front, the task of the Security Police and the SD, in addition to taking action against individual Jews who had become politically or criminally active, was to generally clean up larger towns and villages. Thus in Rakow alone 15,000 Jews were shot and in Artenowsk 1224, so that these places are free of Jews.”

EM 173 25.2.42

“In the course of a routine Security Police screening of an additional part of the civilian population around Leningrad, 140 more people had to be shot. The reasons for this were as follows:

a) Active participation in the Communist Party before the arrival of the German troops;

b) Seditious and provocative activity since the arrival of the German Army;

c) Partisan activity;

d) Espionage;

e) Belonging to the Jewish race.”

 

 




The Anomalous Host

There’s really no need for images of letters that are only in German. Not unless they’re also coming with signatures or something to prove their authenticity (signed by the individual who wrote them).

That being said, you do have a point. The Seraphim report does state that the Jews didn’t make of any significant portion of saboteurs and partisans (to state they would be independent of that and still be a part of the Russian fighting force would be splitting hairs, and there would be no good reason for the document to not acknowledge that if it was a problem). And by Seraphim report, we mean a Nuremberg document written up by an unnamed armament inspector in the Ukraine, addressed to a General Thomas, for the purposes of sending him a report made by Seraphim stating the current situation of the Jews and war production notes and advisement. Seraphim is primarily known as an academic economist, who primarily tracked the population and movements of Jews during that time period (and has written some works accordingly).

This makes his statements rather peculiar. We must presume he received reports from Germans on or near the front lines to get an accurate body count of the partisans who were killed in order to determine how many would be considered Jews who were fighting against the Germans, and how many were non-Jews. And also receive reports regarding attacks behind friendly lines and get an account of their race, whether they were Jewish or not. And the reports would have to make the racial distinction between Jews and non-Jews. I suppose one way they could’ve done that is by looking at the soldier’s personal information, which wasn’t via dog tags (that’s something the Russians didn’t use back then), but ebony capsules with paper in them.

During World War Two, Soviet soldiers’ ID tags were not made of metal – they were small ebony capsules containing a small piece of paper for their personal details. Sadly, the papers are often illegible. Others were left blank because many soldiers were superstitious – they believed filling in the forms would lead to certain death.

Alexander, who ran his own business selling food products before becoming a full-time digger, is holding a bullet case plugged with a small piece of wood. He hopes that it is an improvised ID tag. But when he turns it upside down in his hand, what comes out of it is not a roll of paper, but a trickle of brown liquid.

“Sometimes we find messages with the soldier’s name,” says Alexander. “Some wrote, ‘If I am killed, please pass this on to my girlfriend or my mum.’ You can’t help feeling touched by it.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25589709

ID which may or may not have had personal information on them, whether a name or a race (let alone religion). Not a completely reliable method in my opinion, assuming it was even done this way.

So how could Seraphim have come up with the data needed to make the determination that “there is no proof that Jewry as a whole or even to a greater part was implicated in acts of sabotage?” Unless something is up with that document, the translation of it, or there’s a reasonable explanation.

“Es ist aber nicht beweisbar, daß die Juden geschlossen oder auch nur in größerem Umfang an Sabotageakten u.a. beteiligt waren.”

“However, there is no proof that Jewry as a whole or even to a greater part was implicated in acts of sabotage.”

Utilizing Google translate (I know, not the most reliable, and it’s better if I was actually well-studied in the German language, particularly with 1940s consideration)

Es ist aber nicht beweisbar = But it is not provable (as opposed to “there is no proof”)
or = it cannot be proven

While still critical of eliminating so many Jews as that would be detrimental to the war effort (for reasons we’ve been over), that changes the nature of that sentence a tad. And gives some answers to the questions I’ve just raised. Seraphim didn’t know because he could not have known. Therefore he must be making the report not only with the argument that this would put a strain on military supply production, and risk bad international propaganda, but also that it couldn’t be definitively proven that the Jews were behind these acts of sabotage. Considering they often changed their names and tried to pass off as gentiles while trying to escape from the areas Germany was taking (let alone before it even started), and considering it was difficult to get an accurate count of their definitive population numbers (something various works can attest to), and considering what we’ve already been over regarding how it can’t be definitively proven that they played a major role in the Bolshevik Revolution (putting this in an interesting light), it makes for a rather interesting take on that Seraphim letter.

But it doesn’t disprove anything Graf has stated (and what I have stated in my previous comment). It’s an acknowledgement from Seraphim that he didn’t have all the necessary data to definitively indicate if this was the right course of action or not, or even if it was then what the downsides to it would be regardless. It would theoretically be more reliable to consider data gathered after-the-fact, presuming it’s not corrupted data.

***************************************************************************

Eliminating the Jews was in fact one of their main purposes:

Stahlecker 1.2.42

Oh for fuck’s sake. More documents and translations whose validity and accuracy I have to take at face value? I think I’ll just take the lazy route on this one.

On the other hand, Revisionists such as the Russian historian Suvorov and the German historian Hoffmann maintain that by doing so, Hitler was able to forestall an impending Soviet attack.
— Graf p.35

https://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/stalwarplans.html

Link to “Exposing Stalin’s Plan to Conquer Europe”

https://www.rt.com/news/stalin-letter-sothebys-auction/

 




 

ilya_muromets

“Utilizing Google translate (I know, not the most reliable, and it’s better if I was actually well-studied in the German language, particularly with 1940s consideration)”

It is much preferrable to use the official translation used at the Nuremberg Trials:
http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/documents/4390-letter-to-the-chief?q=PS-3257#p.1

Argumentum Ad Google Translate is not a good look, to say the least.

 




 

The Anomalous Host

 

Argumentum Ad Google Translate is not a good look, to say the least.

Neither is not linking to the official translation in the first place at the very start of this discussion.

Anyway, was hoping you’d talk a little more trash about Google before I got more into this. Because debating the actual meaning of words with you, that’s a good time waiting to happen.

So let’s say fuck-all to Google. There’s plenty of other translators to choose from. Plus there’s reason to have doubts regarding the “official translation.” Not that I have beef with the translator himself Lt. Willard Evans Skidmore mind you, at least not in terms of his knowledge and capability of translating German into English. It’s that this was translated with the mindset that the Germans were guilty before being proven innocent at the Nuremberg trials (or more importantly, that they had to be proven guilty regardless of whether they actually were or weren’t). But that’s another can of worms.

The point is the legitimacy of the translation. Which, for the record, I can already tell isn’t dead-on accurate just by looking at the original German sentence:

“Es ist aber nicht beweisbar, daß die Juden geschlossen oder auch nur in größerem Umfang an Sabotageakten u.a. beteiligt waren.”

There is no way, “Es ist aber nicht beweisbar,” translates to “However.” There’s no way all those German words made prior to the comma in the sentence adds up to being “However” in English prior to came after that comma in the English translation. Some liberties were taken on just that alone.

The main issue is the word “beweisbar.” Surely there’s a way that can be “officially” translated to its original meaning? Well, there is. Archive.org has a German-English dictionary from 1945, which should be dead-on accurate as to what that word means, independent of context. German-English and English-German Dictionary, by J. Bithell. Page 92:

Beweisbar (p.92) is an extension of the word beweis, which means “evidence.” So then the question becomes what the “-bar” extension actually does to the word. Unfortunately, the linked dictionary above doesn’t state the definition for this (and “bar” alone has a completely different meaning, equivalent to “nut” attached to “walnut”). Only extension I see in the dictionary is beweisen, which means “to demonstrate, prove.”

Thankfully, another dictionary from 1936 or 1939 (depending on which part you read) does the trick. Heath’s New German and English Dictionary, by Karl Breul. Page 107:

Beweis, -bar (adj.), -lich (adj): demonstrable

In other words, evidence that can be demonstrated. Putting beweisbar into the negative is “nicht,” which is a word whose meaning shouldn’t be too difficult to discern.

*********************************************************

From the Bithell dictionary, page 300:
nicht: not

Breul dictionary, page 429:
nicht (adv.): not, no

************************************************************

Breul, page 4:
aber (adv.): again, once more
aber (conj.): but
aber (subst.n [used in a sentence like a noun]): an objection

*************************************************************

Es ist aber nicht beweisbar
It is but not demonstrable = But it is not demonstrable = But it cannot be demonstrated

However, it cannot be demonstrated
However, there is no proof

Therefore this is an acceptable alternative to “However, there is no proof.” In fact, I’d say it’s more accurate to the original German version to utilize the alternative than the “official translation.” Especially when your case would be more solid if the word had just been “beweis” rather than “beweisbar.”

Plus there’s also this little dictionary website that was kind enough to provide sentence examples which seem to further indicate the alternative translation is more accurate:
https://context.reverso.net/translation/german-english/beweisbar

Dieser Satz ist wahr, aber nicht beweisbar.
This sentence is true, but not provable.

Along with this other dictionary website: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/german-english/beweisbar
beweisbar (adj): provable, demonstrable, capable of being proved

How’s that for a better look?

********************************************************************

And even if you could provide a convincing enough argument that the original translation by Skidmore is more likely to be the most accurate translation instead of the alternative translation, that comes with its own circumstantial problems I pointed out in my last post. That Seraphim would state “there is no proof” because there’s no way he could’ve gotten proof under the circumstances even if it did exist. Which, once again, doesn’t go against what Graf said when those issues are taken into consideration. The context matters.

 




 

ilya_muromets

Yup, and if anyone would be expected to agree to Jews allegedly being partisans and subverters, it would be Peter-Heinz Seraphim, who was himself a committed nazi and anti-semite https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter-Heinz_Seraphim

https://www.academia.edu/31208704/Bev%C3%B6lkerungs%C3%B6konomie_-_Ostforschung_-_Politik._Eine_biographische_Studie_zu_Peter-Heinz_Seraphim_1902-1979_

“However, there is no proof..” means that there is no proof of Jews being partisans and subverters etc, if there was, Seraphim would not have written what he did. Your attempt at hairsplitting fails instantly.

 




The Anomalous Host

if there was, Seraphim would not have written what he did.

Inaccurate statement. It would be more accurate to say “If Seraphim had any proof of Jews being unified on or being involved in a greater part of partisans/saboteurs, he would not have written what he did.” And by “any proof”, we mean “any conclusive proof”, as demonstrated with our little dictionary lesson. Regardless of his words, the locals had other thoughts about this. You can say what you want regarding how the Einsatzgruppen affected their opinions of the Jews in such a short amount of time. The fact of the matter is other historians have made their own statements with their own evidence (in a hindsight is 20-20 sort of way compared to Seraphim who didn’t have the luxury of hindsight at the time; Walter N. Sanning has plenty to say in a similar fashion as Seraphim in more recent years regarding Jewish population and their changes in similar regards in his work, The Dissolution of European Jewry), including Hilberg, whose statements quoted earlier you haven’t debunked (though it did make for a fascinating history lesson to expand upon to take his words into context which led to taking the Seraphim letter into context as well), and even then you only tried to selectively debunk.

The other fact is that you claimed these killings, however many were actually done, were done purely out of racial hate and for no other reason. That has been debunked by me, demonstrating how Churchill believed otherwise, other various writers of the time believed otherwise, and even various Jewish outlets believed otherwise, who were based in those USSR territories during that time period. True or not, it’s no stretch to believe portions of the populace would have hatred of Jews due to the belief they were responsible for the revolution, slave camps, and Holodomor.

You have also stated the killings were done without regard to economic interests. I have shown that it was done as part of a preemptive strike on Russia before they could attack Germany, and were thus securing territory taken by the front lines to ensure the front lines weren’t disrupted by partisans behind enemy lines. Whether the partisans were or were not Jewish (and thus whether the Germans were or were not justified on carrying out Hitler’s “Commissar Order”) doesn’t change that. That would only change whether they were justified in blaming the Jews for Communism and the USSR’s policies. One such indication for this justification was noted by Graf in a quote I provided earlier where he stated the main architects of the communist slave camps were Jewish, all 6 of the main ones (and he names them, so it’s not “insane vagueness”). At best we have argued that, due to a lack of documentation, that could currently go either way (you argue one way, I argue another).

Your attempt at hairsplitting fails instantly.

Subjective statement that is objectively wrong. Your attempt at ignoring aspects of my rebuttals has not gone unnoticed.

As far as I’m concerned, this discussion is over.

 

Edit (4-25-2020): Noteworthy link regarding Stalin’s anti-semitic purges, commenting an an article by Peter Myers: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=12734

 


 

Edit (5-22-2020): Something I overlooked.  I brought up earlier the issue of the Soviet Secret Police (NKVD, or Cheka), regarding what percentage of them were Jews.  And if could we even hope to ever know that considering how secretive the USSR was with information.  Well apparently, we can.

Many Jews played leading roles in the  secret police, and even more fell victim to it. “About 40 percent of high-ranking NKVD officers had Jewish nationality recorded in their identity documents,” writes Yale University professor Timothy Snyder in Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin, “as did more than half of the NKVD generals. . . . The Great Terror could be, and by many would be, blamed on the Jews.”

“At the time when the NKVD was killing members of national minorities, most of its leading officers were themselves members of national minorities…. In carrying out these ethnic massacres, which of course they had to if they wished to preserve their positions and their lives, they comprised an ethic of internationalism, which must have been important to some of them. Then they were killed anyway . . . and usually replaced by Russians.”

https://jewishcurrents.org/december-20-the-secret-police/

On top of that, as it turns out, those in the Ukraine did have reason to want to massacre Jews once the Germans came in around 1941.  Because when the USSR took those territories between 1939-41, the Jews welcomed their new commie overlords and started killing Poles (Source).  So it’s no wonder then, German propaganda or not, that they would be more than accommodating with “taking revenge” on the Jews once the Germans liberated Ukraine from the USSR.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s