"Morghus" <morghus@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:73fedc95.0307131812.7b95e9f3@posting.google.c om...

> "Philip Mathews" <philipmathews@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<tRjQa.53708$N7.6899@sccrnsc03>...

> > "Ludwig" <kolchab2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:14eaa81f.0307131153.2f51175e@posting.google.c om...

> >
> > > Ohlendorf, a prosecution witness, stated that the Einsatzgruppen had
> > > received a "Führer order" to kill all Jews in the occupied Russian
> > > territories, that exterminations were carried out by shootings or in
> > > diesel gas vans, and that his own unit had shot 90,000 Jews.
> > > Ohlendorf's testimony before the International Military Tribunal and
> > > his various affidavits are widely cited by historians as concrete
> > > evidence that the Einsatzgruppen conducted genocidal activities in the
> > > occupied Soviet territories, and that they did it on the Führer's
> > > orders.
> >
> > > However, two years or so after testifying for the prosecution at the
> > > main Nuremberg trial Ohlendorf was himself tried at Nuremberg before
> > > the American NMT. Historians tend to ignore his testimony at this
> > > trial (Case 9 - "The Einsatzgruppen Case"), mainly because Ohlendorf
> > > repudiated much of his earlier testimony.
> >
> > Well, perhaps Ludwig should read a little more carefully, since the
> > testimony quoted above comes from Ohlendorf's testimony in the
> > Einsatzgruppen Case.
> >
> > >Whilst he admitted killing
> > > Jews and Gypsies as a matter of course, he maintained that this was
> > > done as a security measure in the context of a brutal "total war" on
> > > the eastern front and not as part of a genocidal programme as such.
> >
> > Rubbish. Calling the murder of all people Jewish a security measure is
the
> > height of absurdity. Ohlendorf admitted in all his testimony that Jews
were
> > killed because they were Jews. The rationale of "security measures"
might
> > have made the genocidal nature of the actions easier to swallow, and
might
> > have allowed Ohlendorf an excuse at trial for his actions, the order was
> > clearly genocidal.

> You can dismiss it as "rubbish" if you think that helps your
> claim, but "security measures" is how Ohlendorf understood his orders.

No, that's how he claimed to understand them. Only a fool would believe that
all Jews,- men, women, children, the aged - constituted a security threat.
They were killed because they were Jews.

So the notion is rubbish.

> He testified clearly that any killings that took place were were
> related to security of the fighting troops.

He testified he was ordered to kill all Jews. That has no relation to
security.

>What's more, Ohlendorf
> testified that families and especially children were not included.

That is a lie.

> That certainly doesn't sound like a policy of genocide. Here's the
> testimony taken from the same page you cited:

> (begin quote)
> DR. ASCHENAUER: What is your conviction about the actual background of
> the Fuehrer order which was given to you?
>
> DEFENDANT OHLENDORF: I have had no cause, and I still have no cause
> today to think that any other goal was aimed at than the goal of any
> war, namely, an immediate and permanent security of our own realm
> against that realm with which the belligerent conflict is taking
> place.
>
> Q. The prosecution states that the contents of the order and its
> execution was part of a systematic program of genocide which had as
> its aim the destruction of foreign peoples and ethnic groups. Will you
> please comment on this?
>
> A. I did not have any occasion to assume any such plan. I assure you
> that I neither participated in plans, nor did I see any preparation
> for such plans which would have let me assume that such a plan
> existed. What was told to us was our security and those persons who
> were assumed to be endangering the security were designated as such.

> .....The commandos had the order during the execution of Communists to
> execute only those persons who by their proved deeds and conduct
> definitely represented a danger to security. Families were never
> seized, neither those of high functionaries nor of commissars nor of
> any other person.

> (end quote)

> See? No "Holocaust," no "genocide."

LOL!

That passage says nothing about Jews, poor desperate Morghus! So Ohlendorf
didn't testify that Jewish families and children were excluded. He said this
with respect to Communist functionaries.

He made quite clear that the order with respect to Jews was to kill all of
them.

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/Einsatz2c.htm

MR. HEATH: Very well, sir. Mr. Ohlendorf, I had begun to ask

Page 274

you about the Karaims [Karaites]* and the Krimchaks**, ' I think you called
them. I understood that you were confronted in the south of Russia with the
question further to slaughter Krimchaks. Krimchaks I understood were human
beings who had come by way of Italy to Russia, and they had Jewish blood.
The directive which you got from Berlin was to kill the Krimchaks, is that
correct?

DEFENDANT OHLENDORF : Yes.

Q. Now, I cannot pronounce it correctly, the Karaims were another sect whom
you encountered in the south of Russia, and this sect had no Jewish blood,
but it did share the religious confessions of the Jews. Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. You submitted to Berlin the question whether the Karaims should be
killed, and I understood you to say that the order you got from Berlin was
you shall not kill them for they have nothing in common with the Jews except
the confession?

A. Yes.

Q. Now during your direct examination you told this Court t.hat you had no
idea, and that you have no cause today to think that there was any plan to
exterminate the Jewish race in existence, nor that you had any information
of putting it into effect. Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Will you explain to the Court, please, what difference there was between
the Karaims and the Krimchaks, except Jewish blood ?

A. I understand your question completely in reference to the eastern Jews,
in the case of the Jews who were found in the eastern campaign. These Jews
were to be killed-according to the order-for the reason that they were
considered carriers of bolshevism, and, therefore, considered as endangering
the security of the German Reich. This concerned the Jews who were found in
Russia, and it was not known to me that the Jews in all of Europe were being
killed, but on the contrary I knew that down to my dismissal these Jews were
not killed, but it was attempted at all costs to get them to emigrate. The
fact that the Karaims were not killed showed that the charge of the
prosecution that persons were persecuted for their religion is not correct,
for the Karaims had that Jewish religion, but they could not be killed
because they did not belong to the Jewish race.

Q. I think, Witness, you answered exactly what I had antici-

*Sect which refused the Talmud and adopted the Old Testament as sole source
of faith.
**Turkish Jews of mixed Semitic and Tartaric blood.

Page 275

pated in the last sentence, "They did not belong to the JewishRace," is that
right?

A. Yes, That is right.

Q. They were found in Russia?

A. Yes.

Q. But they participated in the Jewish confession in Russia?

A. The Karaims had the Jewish faith, yes.

Q. But your race authorities in Berlin could find no trace of Jewish blood
in them?

A. Yes.

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

A. Yes.

Q. Because of blood?

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

Q. And because of their blood, right?

A. I cannot express it any more definitely than I stated, from their nature
and their characteristics. Their blood, of course, has something to do with
it, according to National Socialist ideology.

Q. Let's see, if I can understand it; we've got a lot of time, I hope. What
was the distinction except blood?

A. Between whom?

B. Between the Karaims and the Krimchaks?

A. The difference of the blood, yes.

Q. Only the difference in blood, is that so?

A. Yes.

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

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

-----------

I am truly glad that you don't mind having your head handed to you over and
over and over again!


--

Philip Mathews


"Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing
knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be
ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it."

Samuel Johnson

"Philip Mathews" <philipmathews@comcast.net> wrote in
news:z_oQa.55330$N7.6837@sccrnsc03:

<snip>

Say what you will, but I can produce documented proof that Hitler himself
is on record as saying that there was no Holocaust.

Such evidence can be found in the following telephone conversation he had
with Himmler on March 23rd 1943:

<quote>

HITLER: Next thing I know the ***** has come back with a packet of
peanuts. That is Borman for you. I said to him that I prefer crisps. I
mean, don't you?
HIMMLER: Yes.
HITLER: What is your favourite flavour?
HIMMLER: Cheese and Onion.
HITLER: Ah, I knew you'd be a cheese and onion man.

<end quote>

You see? No "Holocaust," no "genocide." Just chips and dips. Never
once in this conversation does Hitler mention anything about the
destruction of all of Europe's Jews nor did he instruct Himmler to
transport millions of Jews to their death. It's on the record.

You should read a little slower--it will help your comprehension.

--
THE MAD REVISIONIST
We do not recruit, we convince
Truth has no need for coercion
http://www.reptiles.org/~madrev/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm

"Ludwig" <kolchab2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:14eaa81f.0307131953.63f23da1@posting.google.c om...

> "Philip Mathews" <philipmathews@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<tRjQa.53708$N7.6899@sccrnsc03>...

> > Well, perhaps Ludwig should read a little more carefully, since the
> > testimony quoted above comes from Ohlendorf's testimony in the
> > Einsatzgruppen Case.

> Ludwig tries his best.

How sad.

> > >Whilst he admitted killing
> > > Jews and Gypsies as a matter of course, he maintained that this was
> > > done as a security measure in the context of a brutal "total war" on
> > > the eastern front and not as part of a genocidal programme as such.
> >
> > Rubbish. Calling the murder of all people Jewish a security measure is
the
> > height of absurdity. Ohlendorf admitted in all his testimony that Jews
were
> > killed because they were Jews. The rationale of "security measures"
might
> > have made the genocidal nature of the actions easier to swallow, and
might
> > have allowed Ohlendorf an excuse at trial for his actions, the order was
> > clearly genocidal.

> From an order dated July 2, 1941, issued by Heydrich himself to the
> Höhere SS und Polizeiführer in the occupied Soviet territories.
> Heydrich repeated to them in summary form the instructions he had
> already issued directly to the Einsatzgruppen.

No he didn't. He wrote a sanitized version of what he told them. That's why
the testimony of all the Einsatzgruppen leaders taken after the war clearly
state they were told to kill Jews.

>The relevant passage of
> this document, which only surfaced in the 1960s although its
> authenticity has since been verified by specialists in the field,
> states:

> EXECUTIONS.
> The following will be executed:
> Functionaries of the Comintern (most of who are simply professional
> Communist politicians).
> Functionaries of higher and medium rank and "radicals" in the Party,
> the Central Committee, and the regional and district committees.
> Commissars of the People. Jews in the Service of the Party and the
> State. Other radical elements (saboteurs, propagandists, snipers,
> assassins, agitators, etc.)...
> No actions should be taken to interfere with any activities that may
> be started by anti-Communist or anti-Jewish elements in the newly
> occupied territories. Rather, these are to be secretly encouraged.
> Nonetheless, all care must be taken to ensure that those who get
> involved in these local "self defence" activities are not able to
> claim later that they were merely following instructions or had been
> promised political protection.


> This document certainly lends itself to the argument that the
> Einsatzgruppen were not ordered to exterminate all the Jews of
> occupied Soviet territories.

No it doesn't. It presents a written for posterity version of what the order
was. Your problem is you fail to address the substantial evidence of what
the order indeed was, which evidence is not contradicted by this written
order.

The historian Peter Longerich commented on this document.

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/ieindex.html

7. This order is certainly not to be interpreted as meaning that Heydrich
intended to limit executions to those Jews who held "Party and State
functions". Given the fact that in the course of war preparations the
supposedly close connection between Jews and the Soviet system was
repeatedly emphasised, it can be concluded that the instructions to execute
"other radical elements" was primarily directed against the Jewish
population. Even the last word of this itemisation, "etc." shows that the
circle of "other radical elements" was by no means clearly delineated.

8. Further, the idea that efforts were made from the beginning to limit the
set of Jewish victims precisely to "Jews in Party and State functions" is
not compatible with the (stated) intention of allowing collaborators to
initiate these "self-cleansing operations", i.e. pogroms and massacres. A
pogrom once begun cannot be confined to specific Jewish victims chosen
according to their function.

>Heydrich's order is irreconcilable with
> the "Führer order" Ohlendorf claimed to have received but for which we
> have no real evidence.

No it isn't. It is merely a very common Nazi practice of not putting orders
for genocide in writing. The extensive evidence to the exact nature of the
order from numerous Einsatzgruppen, as well as the fact that Jews were
universally targeted and killed, establish conclusively the objectives of
the Einsatzgruppen.

(snip)

> > > He also insisted that his Einsatzgruppe was not responsible for 90,000
> > > Jewish deaths, as he had previously stated, but for only around
> > > 40,000. He could not, he said, vouch for the accuracy of the
> > > statistics given in some of the Einsatzgruppen reports.
> >
> > Let's look at what Ohlendorf's testimony was.

Reposting snipped testimony.

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/Einsatz2c.htm

CROSS-EXAMINATION [OF OTTO OHLENDORF]

MR. HEATH: Mr. Ohlendorf, to speed this examination I'd like to attempt to
agree with you upon one or two points. First, we. shall not quarrel about
numbers. You have indicated that Einsatzgruppe D under your command
slaughtered something less than 90,000 human beings. I understood you to
suggest to the Court that this figure is exaggerated although it appears in
an affidavit which you have given. I ask you now to give the Court the best
estimate you possibly can of the minimum number of human

Page 270

beings who were killed under your command by Einsatzgruppe D.

DEFENDANT OHLENDORF: In my direct examination I have already said that I
cannot give any definite figure, and that even the testimony in my affidavit
shows that in reality I could not name any figure. Therefore, I have named a
figure which has been reported "approximately". The knowledge which I have
gained by this day through the documents and which I have gained through
conversations with my men, make me reserve the right to name any figure and
strengthen this reservation. Therefore, I am not in a position to give you a
minimum figure, either. In my direct examination I have said that the
numbers which appear in the documents are at least exaggerated by one-half,
but I must repeat that I never knew any definite figure and, therefore,
cannot give you any such figure.

Q. You cannot give us a minimum figure?

A. If the prosecution wishes I am, of course, prepared to give my reasons
why I cannot give any figure.

Q. Well, let me ask you-perhaps I can help you * * *. In any event, I can
indicate to the Court one reason why you might have doubts about the
numbers. In 1943 the Reich Leader SS, Himmler addressed the SS major
generals at Poznan. You are aware of that speech, are you not?

A. Yes. I have heard it myself.

Q. Perhaps you recall his complaint; I will read it to you-" I come now to a
fourth virtue, which is very rare in Germany-truthfulness. One of the
greatest evils which has spread during the war is the lack of truthfulness
in messages, reports, and statements, which subordinate departments in civil
life, in the State, the Party and the services sent in to the departments
over them." Of course, that was in 1943. Did you exaggerate the reports
which you sent to the Reich Security Main Office?

A. I certainly did not on my own initiative, but I had to rely on those
things which were reported to me, and I know that double countings could not
be avoided, and I also know that wrong numbers were reported to me. I have
tied to avoid passing on such double countings or wrong statements, because
the individual Kommandos did not know the figures of the neighbor units;
nevertheless the reporting of wrong figures was not prevented-and especially
the reporting of strange figures as for instance, the report from
Chernovitsy. Here those figures are named for which the Rumanians in
Chernovitsy were responsible.

Q. Will you tell the Court what bookkeeping and record-making system was
maintained in Einsatzgruppe D to keep track of the people slaughtered

Page 271

A. In Einsatzgruppe D the various reports were received which were sent from
the Kommandos to the Einsatzgruppe, and these reports were gone over and the
figures contained in them were sent to the Reich Security Main Office.

Q. Well, it is quite obvious that that is what happened. But tell us now who
reported for Einsatzkommando 12, say, during the first six months of its
operations, the killings by Einsatzkommando 12, to you?

A. Einsatzkommando 12 itself.

Q. And who was the man who reported to you?

A. They were usually signed by the Einsatzkommando chief himself, in this
case by the then SS Major [Sturmbannfuehrer] Nosske.

Q. Very well, you relied on Nosske for truthful reporting of the numbers
killed by his unit?

A. I had no possibility to examine these executions because Nosske, was
sometimes 200 or 250 kilometers away from me.

Q. Witness, I don't mean to cut you off, but I think if I ask you now to
attempt to make your answers as responsive as possible, I shall attempt to
make my questions as explicit as possible-and I believe we both shall
benefit. So, I ask you again-not why you did not check up on Nosske, but
simply the question- Did you rely on Nosske for truthful reports of the
slaughters committed by Einsatzkommando 12 ?

A. I didn't understand the last part of the question.

Q. Did you rely on Nosske for truthful reports of the numbers of persons
slaughtered by Einsatzkommando 12 while it was under his command ?

A. I was of the opinion that these reports were truthful. In the case of
Nosske, however, in one case it was brought to my attention that the report
was not truthful. But that was at a relatively early stage of Nikolaev. We
found out that in this case Nosske reported figures which were not killed by
his Kommando but by a strange unit.

Q. Then in one instance at least, you did find your subordinate exaggerating
the number killed by his unit?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall any other exaggerations by any other men in the unit under
you?

A. Yes, for example, in the case of 10a.

Q. Yes. Do you recall an exaggeration in the case of lOa?

A. Yes. In the case of 10a.

Q. Any other Einsatzkommando do you recall exaggerating figures ?

A. Not from my part, no.

Page 272

Q. So within the limits of memory and the situation you find yourself in
today, it should be possible for you to give us a minimum figure based on
the reports of. the men who were under you, should it not?

A. I can only repeat what I already have been saying for two and one-half
years that to the best of my knowledge, about ninety thousand people were
reported by my Einsatzkommandos. How many of those were actually killed I do
not know and I cannot really say.


> > I think it's quite clear that Ludwig mischaracterizes the testimony.

> Ludwig does not think so:

> From NMT IX:

> Ohlendorf:

> "From the documents of the prosecution it becomes evident and my own
> men reproached me for it--that I was wrong in naming the figure 90000.
> It is evident that I mentioned this number 90000 by adding a number of
> other figures. I do not mention this in order to excuse myself, as I
> am perfectly convinced that it does not matter for the actual facts
> whether it was 40000 or 90000. But I mention this for the reason that,
> in the situation in which we are today, politically speaking, figures
> are being dealt with in an irresponsible manner. The material and the
> value of man seems to become so unimportant that the play with
> millions does not seem to be of any particular importance either."

Which doesn't show Ohlendorf saying only 40,000 were killed and which does
not contradict his testimony I posted in which he said:

"I can only repeat what I already have been saying for two and one-half
years that to the best of my knowledge, about ninety thousand people were
reported by my Einsatzkommandos. How many of those were actually killed I do
not know and I cannot really say."

So Ludwig's original distortion stands.

(reposting snipped evidence)

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/ieindex.html

9. That the Einsatzgruppen received explicit orders to murder Jewish
civilians has been confirmed by all members of the leadership of the
Einsatzgruppen who were questioned about this after the war. From this
testimony we have consistent corroboration that in the period from Spring to
the Summer of 1941 the Einsatzgruppen received orders for the mass murder of
the Jewish civilian population in the occupied Soviet Union. Even though
there are differences in the testimonies as to the exact time and place of
the issuance of orders, it is nevertheless remarkable that none of those
interrogated disputed having been given the order to liquidate and that the
large majority of the former leadership personnel testified that they
received instructions for the indiscriminate liquidation of the entire
Jewish population, including women and children.

10. An analysis of the available individual testimonies gives the following
picture: a series of former leaders- whether of the Einsatzkommandos (EK) or
the so-called Special Commandos (Sonderkommandos) who were interrogated on
this question after the war, i.e. Walter Blume (Leader of the Special
Commando 7 a), Martin Sandberger (Leader of the EK 1 a), Rudolf Batz (Leader
of the EK 2), Alfred Filbert (Leader of the EK 9), as well as Karl Jäger
(leader of the EK 3) testified that at the beginning of the war Heydrich had
informed them of an order by the Führer which made clear that the Jewish
population in the Soviet areas to-be occupied were to be liquidated; Paul
Johannes Zapp (Leader of the Special Commando 11 a) testified further that
this command also explicitly ordered the murder of women and children.
Several other former leaders testified in this regard that precise orders
for the liquidation of the Jewish civilian population were issued - but not
until the war had been started - yet still in the Summer of 1941 by the
Einsatzgruppen leaders;. namely Erwin Schulz (Leader of the EK 5), Gustav No
sske (EK 12), Karl Tschierschky (member of the staff of EG A), Otto
Bradfisch (Leader of the EK 8), and Erhard Kroeger (Leader of the EK 6). Two
Leaders, Günther Herrmann (Leader of Commando 4 b) and Erich Ehrlinger
(Leader of the EK 1b) testified only that they had been ordered by the
Einsatzgruppen commanders to shoot Jewish men after the invasion of the
Soviet Union.

Peter Longerich's expert report to the court in the Irving Trial.

> > Peter Longerich's expert report to the court in the Irving Trial.
> >
>
> Longerich got his stuff all from German Holocaust trials. You better
> forget them. They were political trials, the judges completely biased.

No they weren't. The testimonial evidence offered by a number of
Einsatzgruppen men support the mission of exterminating Jews. No historian
has any trouble with the testimony of these men, so it is you who better
forget the rather desperate attempt of denying inconvenient evidence.

> By the way, Jäger did not testify, he committed suicide before. The
> Soviets "found" his report 15 years after, like Demjanjuks
> identification card, they found that one too.

Except that the normal process of document verfication found that the ID
card was forged. The Jaeger report was not.

Nice try!

> > ---------------------------------
> > > Moreover, many scholars, including Raul Hilberg, no longer believe
> > > such an order existed.

> > More distortion.

> > Hilberg's speculations are about a written order for the Holocaust. That
is
> > not what we are discussing.

> But I am.

No you weren't. We were talking about Einsatzgruppen orders. No one has ever
said the orders with respect to exterminating Jews in Russia was a written
order. So when you raised Hilberg you were merely distorting the evidence,
again.

>That oral stuff is hearsay, maybe ok for the German style
> fascistic Holocaust trials. But future historians will not accept it.

Germans testifying to hearing an oral order is not hearsay.

It is disappointing to see you being reduced to making some of the lamest
denier statements. I guess you're no better than the rest.

Historians have no trouble accepting evidence, but then they are not driven
by an agenda of denial.

(snip irrelevant partisan claims, Jews were killed because they were Jews)

--
Philip Mathews

"Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing
knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be
ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it."

Samuel Johnson

"Philip Mathews" <philipmathews@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<z_oQa.55330$N7.6837@sccrnsc03>...
> "Morghus" <morghus@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
> news:73fedc95.0307131812.7b95e9f3@posting.google.c om...
>
>
> > See? No "Holocaust," no "genocide."
>
> LOL!
>
> That passage says nothing about Jews, poor desperate Morghus! So Ohlendorf
> didn't testify that Jewish families and children were excluded. He said this
> with respect to Communist functionaries.
>
> He made quite clear that the order with respect to Jews was to kill all of
> them.
>
> http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/Einsatz2c.htm
>
> MR. HEATH: Very well, sir. Mr. Ohlendorf, I had begun to ask
>
> Page 274
>
> you about the Karaims [Karaites]* and the Krimchaks**, ' I think you called
> them. I understood that you were confronted in the south of Russia with the
> question further to slaughter Krimchaks. Krimchaks I understood were human
> beings who had come by way of Italy to Russia, and they had Jewish blood.
> The directive which you got from Berlin was to kill the Krimchaks, is that
> correct?
>
> DEFENDANT OHLENDORF : Yes.
<snip>

Ohlendorf is obviously lying about the Krimchaks. We know the
Krimchaks were not killed. Here is a quote from EG report No. 157,
Ohlendorf's command,(found at
http://www.einsatzgruppenarchives.com/osr157.html )

(begin quote)

January 19, 1942

Operational Situation Report USSR No. 157
.....................

Einsatzgruppe D
Location: Simferopol
General situation and mood
.....................

The mood was also influenced by the deportaion of Jews, Gypsies and
Krimchacks from the Crimea during the period under report. The
unfounded fear that the Germans would exterminate the entire
population had subsided entirely a few weeks after the occupation of
the Crimea. It was revived when the deportation of 12 - 13,000 Jews,
Krimchaks and Gypsies was started in the beginning of December. It
surfaced for the first time due to Bolshevik proaganda spread by
Jewish refugees and [German] soldiers' gossip; the Jews were convinced
that they would be shot and not deported, while the population was
terrified of being deported by the Germans. A few days after the
deportations, calm set in. While the population in the towns of
Simferopol, Karasubasar, and Mushta were quiet again, the Karaites in
Yevpatoria are still convinced that their turn has come now. On
December 20, 1941, they even delivered all the gold in their
possession to the Teolkommando leader, a large amount, as a sign of
their loyalty. Obviously they do so from fear and in the hope that
this would prevent their deportation.

The deportation of the Jews, Krimchaks, and Gypsies, which is seen
almost without exception as the last deportation, is generally
welcomed. This again proves the general rejection of Jewry on the part
of the population, in the countryside as well as in the towns. The
identical treatment for Jews and Krimchaks is looked upon as natural
because the Krimchaks are generally regarded as Jews.

(end quote)

We can see from this report that neither the Jews nor the
Krimchaks were killed: they were deported. The rumors that the Germans
were killing the Jews were nothing but Soviet propaganda. Apparently,
that propaganda was extended to the post-war trials of the German
leadership.

So, it seems some parts of Ohlendorf's testimony are demonstrably
false. Sometimes Ohlendorf says there was an order to kill all the
Jews, other times he insists he never heard of such an order. At one
time he claims the Jews were killed because of their race, at another
time he claims killings were limited to security necessities.
Sometimes he says children were killed, at another time he states that
families were not included. He testifies the Krimchaks were killed,
but a report from the units in the field states that was nothing but
Soviet propaganda.

The Holocaust promoters know all this. They know that Ohlendorf's
testimony is useless to prove anything about World War II atrocities.
Yet, they continue to cite this confused and contorted testimony as
evidence of "The Holocaust."

Well then, turn about is fair play--we can use it as evidence that
there was no "Holocaust."

"Morghus" <morghus@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:73fedc95.0307140242.456a071d@posting.google.c om...

> "Philip Mathews" <philipmathews@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<z_oQa.55330$N7.6837@sccrnsc03>...
> > "Morghus" <morghus@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
> > news:73fedc95.0307131812.7b95e9f3@posting.google.c om...
> >
> >
> > > See? No "Holocaust," no "genocide."
> >
> > LOL!
> >
> > That passage says nothing about Jews, poor desperate Morghus! So
Ohlendorf
> > didn't testify that Jewish families and children were excluded. He said
this
> > with respect to Communist functionaries.
> >
> > He made quite clear that the order with respect to Jews was to kill all
of
> > them.
> >
> > http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/Einsatz2c.htm
> >
> > MR. HEATH: Very well, sir. Mr. Ohlendorf, I had begun to ask
> >
> > Page 274
> >
> > you about the Karaims [Karaites]* and the Krimchaks**, ' I think you
called
> > them. I understood that you were confronted in the south of Russia with
the
> > question further to slaughter Krimchaks. Krimchaks I understood were
human
> > beings who had come by way of Italy to Russia, and they had Jewish
blood.
> > The directive which you got from Berlin was to kill the Krimchaks, is
that
> > correct?
> >
> > DEFENDANT OHLENDORF : Yes.

> <snip>
>
> Ohlendorf is obviously lying about the Krimchaks. We know the
> Krimchaks were not killed. Here is a quote from EG report No. 157,
> Ohlendorf's command,(found at
> http://www.einsatzgruppenarchives.com/osr157.html )
>
> (begin quote)
>
> January 19, 1942
>
> Operational Situation Report USSR No. 157
> ....................
>
> Einsatzgruppe D
> Location: Simferopol
> General situation and mood
> ....................
>
> The mood was also influenced by the deportaion of Jews, Gypsies and
> Krimchacks from the Crimea during the period under report. The
> unfounded fear that the Germans would exterminate the entire
> population had subsided entirely a few weeks after the occupation of
> the Crimea. It was revived when the deportation of 12 - 13,000 Jews,
> Krimchaks and Gypsies was started in the beginning of December. It
> surfaced for the first time due to Bolshevik proaganda spread by
> Jewish refugees and [German] soldiers' gossip; the Jews were convinced
> that they would be shot and not deported, while the population was
> terrified of being deported by the Germans. A few days after the
> deportations, calm set in. While the population in the towns of
> Simferopol, Karasubasar, and Mushta were quiet again, the Karaites in
> Yevpatoria are still convinced that their turn has come now. On
> December 20, 1941, they even delivered all the gold in their
> possession to the Teolkommando leader, a large amount, as a sign of
> their loyalty. Obviously they do so from fear and in the hope that
> this would prevent their deportation.
>
> The deportation of the Jews, Krimchaks, and Gypsies, which is seen
> almost without exception as the last deportation, is generally
> welcomed. This again proves the general rejection of Jewry on the part
> of the population, in the countryside as well as in the towns. The
> identical treatment for Jews and Krimchaks is looked upon as natural
> because the Krimchaks are generally regarded as Jews.

> (end quote)

> We can see from this report that neither the Jews nor the
> Krimchaks were killed: they were deported.

Nonsense. Deportation meant killed.

http://www.einsatzgruppenarchives.com/osr150.html

The Chief of the Security Police and Security Service

Berlin,

January 2, 1942



65 copies

----------------

(57th copy)



OPERATIONAL SITUATION REPORT USSR NO. 150



.....................



Einsatzgruppe A

.....................



Reports

.....................

The number of persons checked within the period of the report by the
Kommandos of the Einsatzgruppe around Leningrad amounts to several hundred.
Altogether 93 people have been executed, among them a gang of Gypsies who
caused trouble in the Severskaya region. There is no longer any Jewish civil
population.



.....................





Executions

1) In Krasnoyo-Selo ten people out of 70 arrested suspects were shot for
partisan activity.



2) Sonderkommando 1b shot eight persons at Slutsk and Tosno for the
following reasons: out at night, partisan activities, looting, crimes
related to the use of explosives, and on suspicion of espionage.



3) Between November 1 and 22, 1941, the political department of the Police
HQ of Reval submitted to Einsatzkommando 1a 282 completed sentences [and
discharges], as follows:



79 executions

154 internments in a concentration camp

49 releases.



Einsatzgruppe D reports:





Situation and general mood

General mood is governed, as before, by the food problem.The attitude
towards the Jews has been confirmed. In general, the shooting of Jews has
been positively received after the initial fear of similiar treatment for
the rest of the population has subsided.



.....................





Jews

Simferopol, Yevpatoria, Alushta, Krasubasar, Kerch, and Feodosia and other
districts of western Crimea are free of Jews. From November 16 to December
15, 1941, 17,645 Jews, 2,504 Krimchaks, 824 Gypsies, and 212 Communists and
partisans have been shot. Altogether, 75,881 persons have been executed.



Rumors about executions in other areas complicated the action in Simferopol.
Reports about actions against Jews gradually filter down from fleeing Jews,
Russians, and also from the loose talk of German soldiers.





Arad, Yitzak, Shmuel Krakowski and Shmuel Spector, editors. The
Einsatzgruppen

=================

So it is not Ohlendorf who is lying, it is you.


>
> So, it seems some parts of Ohlendorf's testimony are demonstrably
> false.

Nope, it seems you are a liar.

Ohlendorf's testimony shows that the task of the Einsatzgruppen was to kill
Jews, all Jews, and that Krimchaks were killed because they had Jewish
blood.

Here is more of Ohlendorf on killing all Jews, which you lied about
yesterday.

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/Einsatz3b.htm

Q. Now, what was the general method used in execution?

A. Only one method was used by me. That was the military manner.

Q. Am I to infer from that: execution by shooting?

A. Yes.

Q. In what position were these victims shot?

A. Standing up or kneeling.

Q. What disposition was made of the corpses of the executed victims?

A. They were buried in that same place. The Kommando who carried out the
executions had to prepare the burying so that no signs of the executions
could be seen afterwards.

Q. What was done with the personal property of the persons executed,
General?

A. The personal property was confiscated. The valuables, according to
orders, were given to the Reich Ministry of Finance or rather to the Reich
Bank. The personal property was at the dis-posal of the local Kommando and
the city, except for exceptions in Simferopol where a group of the National
Socialist Peoples' Wel-fare Organization was assigned to the army who took
care of the textile items.

Q. Were all the victims, including the men, the women, and the children,
executed in the same way?

A. Until the spring of 1942, when by Himmler's order it was determined that
women and children be killed by gassing in gas vans. Your Honor, I ask to
make a remark about a question in yesterday's examination. I think a mistake
arose to the effect that your Honor asked me whether from the reports from
the Kommandos the fact that children were shot could be seen. If I have
answered to the effect that this opinion was confirmed, that would be wrong.
My confirmation in the IMT that men, women, and chil-dren are contained in
the figures is merely a conclusion from the fact that Jewish men, women, and
children were to be shot. In the reports which came from the Kommandos no
such difference was made. Actually I do not remember any report where
children-or figures of children-are mentioned. I repeat, the statement which
I confirm: It was a conclusion I came to, based on the order.

PRESIDING JUDGE MUSMANNO: I understand then that a report indicating that
5,000 Jews had been killed would not specify so many children, so many
women, but just 5,000 persons?

DEFENDANT OHLENDORF: Yes, yes.

======

You'll never get away with lying about testimony which demonstrates your
lies at every turn.


--

Philip Mathews


"Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing
knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be
ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it."

Samuel Johnson

"Philip Mathews" <philipmathews@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<LarQa.56137$N7.7463@sccrnsc03>...
[...]
> > From an order dated July 2, 1941, issued by Heydrich himself to the
> > Höhere SS und Polizeiführer in the occupied Soviet territories.
> > Heydrich repeated to them in summary form the instructions he had
> > already issued directly to the Einsatzgruppen.
>
> No he didn't. He wrote a sanitized version of what he told them. That's why
> the testimony of all the Einsatzgruppen leaders taken after the war clearly
> state they were told to kill Jews.
>

As testified in German Holocaust courts I assume?

[...]

>
> The historian Peter Longerich commented on this document.
>
> http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/ieindex.html
>

Longerich is a biased historian who is incapable to look at this the
way a historian should, namely unbiased. He built his whole
professional career on the orthodox Holocaust story.
You are reading too much into Longerich.
And that is your problem.

>
> >Heydrich's order is irreconcilable with
> > the "Führer order" Ohlendorf claimed to have received but for which we
> > have no real evidence.
>
> No it isn't. It is merely a very common Nazi practice of not putting orders
> for genocide in writing. The extensive evidence to the exact nature of the
> order from numerous Einsatzgruppen, as well as the fact that Jews were
> universally targeted and killed, establish conclusively the objectives of
> the Einsatzgruppen.
>
Rubbish!

[...]
>
> Which doesn't show Ohlendorf saying only 40,000 were killed and which does
> not contradict his testimony I posted in which he said:
>
> "I can only repeat what I already have been saying for two and one-half
> years that to the best of my knowledge, about ninety thousand people were
> reported by my Einsatzkommandos. How many of those were actually killed I do
> not know and I cannot really say."
>
> So Ludwig's original distortion stands.
>

Not my distortion, and I repeat, it is from NMT IX, p. 254-258:
Ohlendorf:
"From the documents of the prosecution it becomes evident and my own
men reproached me for it--that I was wrong in naming the figure 90000.
It is evident that I mentioned this number 90000 by adding a number of
other figures. I do not mention this in order to excuse myself, as I
am perfectly convinced that it does not matter for the actual facts
whether it was 40000 or 90000. But I mention this for the reason that,
in the situation in which we are today, politically speaking, figures
are being dealt with in an irresponsible manner. The material and the
value of man seems to become so unimportant that the play with
millions does not seem to be of any particular importance either."


[...]
>
> Peter Longerich's expert report to the court in the Irving Trial.
>

There is your problem again: You are reading too much into Longerich.

> > > Peter Longerich's expert report to the court in the Irving Trial.
> > >
> >
> > Longerich got his stuff all from German Holocaust trials. You better
> > forget them. They were political trials, the judges completely biased.
>
> No they weren't. The testimonial evidence offered by a number of
> Einsatzgruppen men support the mission of exterminating Jews. No historian
> has any trouble with the testimony of these men, so it is you who better
> forget the rather desperate attempt of denying inconvenient evidence.
>

Any German historian who dares to deviate from the orthodox Holocaust
point of view is finished. His professional career destroyed and he
may face criminal prosecution on top.
The accused in those German Holocaust trials were held in jail,
sometimes for years, before the trial even started. If the accused
tried to attempt to say that certain Holocaust events did not happen,
he practically threw his defense away. His only chance to get out of
the mess was to to admit that these events happened, that he had to
follow orders or else or that he was witnessing these events from the
distance while he was peeling potatoes or something like that.
What court of justice is that? What real historian could rely on this?

> > By the way, Jäger did not testify, he committed suicide before. The
> > Soviets "found" his report 15 years after, like Demjanjuks
> > identification card, they found that one too.
>
> Except that the normal process of document verfication found that the ID
> card was forged. The Jaeger report was not.
>
> Nice try!
>

The Soviets were experts in forging documents. Don't doubt that.

Why not get a good map of Latvia and try to locate all the places
mentioned in the report. And see whether they are all there.

And then try to determine how many Jews were actually in Latvia when
the Soviets occupied the country and when the Germans occupied the
country, and then compare that number with the Jäger Report.

And also try to study Korherr and find out how many Jews were deported
from the Baltic states and the Soviet Union. And then look at Jäger
again.
The problem with many Holocaust Believers is their Believe. They lost
their capability to think for themselves, they can only believe what
others told them.

>
> >That oral stuff is hearsay, maybe ok for the German style
> > fascistic Holocaust trials. But future historians will not accept it.
>
> Germans testifying to hearing an oral order is not hearsay.
>

What? Come again? Sorry, no lo comprendo.

> It is disappointing to see you being reduced to making some of the lamest
> denier statements. I guess you're no better than the rest.
>
> Historians have no trouble accepting evidence, but then they are not driven
> by an agenda of denial.
>

See my comments above about the German historians and Holocaust trial
procedures.
> (snip irrelevant partisan claims, Jews were killed because they were Jews)

Bullshit. Civilians were killed in a ferocious partisan war. Many were
Jews.
The story about the Einsatzgruppen can only be understood in context
with the partisan war. Only an ignoramus or someone who refuses to see
the truth would call this irrelevant.

Ludwig

"Ludwig" <kolchab2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:14eaa81f.0307141832.5780d3bf@posting.google.c om...
> "Philip Mathews" <philipmathews@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<LarQa.56137$N7.7463@sccrnsc03>...

> [...]
> > > From an order dated July 2, 1941, issued by Heydrich himself to the
> > > Höhere SS und Polizeiführer in the occupied Soviet territories.
> > > Heydrich repeated to them in summary form the instructions he had
> > > already issued directly to the Einsatzgruppen.

> > No he didn't. He wrote a sanitized version of what he told them. That's
why
> > the testimony of all the Einsatzgruppen leaders taken after the war
clearly
> > state they were told to kill Jews.

> As testified in German Holocaust courts I assume?

That is a meaningless statement.

As testified to and as accepted by all historians.

Denial of evidence only works in the closed circle of deniers.

> [...]
>
> >
> > The historian Peter Longerich commented on this document.

> > http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/ieindex.html

7. This order is certainly not to be interpreted as meaning that Heydrich
intended to limit executions to those Jews who held "Party and State
functions". Given the fact that in the course of war preparations the
supposedly close connection between Jews and the Soviet system was
repeatedly emphasised, it can be concluded that the instructions to execute
"other radical elements" was primarily directed against the Jewish
population. Even the last word of this itemisation, "etc." shows that the
circle of "other radical elements" was by no means clearly delineated.

8. Further, the idea that efforts were made from the beginning to limit the
set of Jewish victims precisely to "Jews in Party and State functions" is
not compatible with the (stated) intention of allowing collaborators to
initiate these "self-cleansing operations", i.e. pogroms and massacres. A
pogrom once begun cannot be confined to specific Jewish victims chosen
according to their function.


> Longerich is a biased historian who is incapable to look at this the
> way a historian should, namely unbiased. He built his whole
> professional career on the orthodox Holocaust story.
> You are reading too much into Longerich.
> And that is your problem.

Longerich is a well respected historian, and any historian specializing in
this area would laugh at your ignorance.

> > >Heydrich's order is irreconcilable with
> > > the "Führer order" Ohlendorf claimed to have received but for which we
> > > have no real evidence.

> > No it isn't. It is merely a very common Nazi practice of not putting
orders
> > for genocide in writing. The extensive evidence to the exact nature of
the
> > order from numerous Einsatzgruppen, as well as the fact that Jews were
> > universally targeted and killed, establish conclusively the objectives
of
> > the Einsatzgruppen.

> Rubbish!

From a report to Hitler from Himmler on the progress of Einsatzgruppen
activity in Russia.

http://shamash.org/holocaust/denial/nazi_doc.txt

Report No. 51 of Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler to Hitler about mass
executions in the east, 1942
[Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals -
Washington, U.S Govt. Print. Off., 1949-1953, Vol. XIII, p. 269-272]
----------------------------------------------------------------
August September October November

Prisoners executed
after interrogation 2,100 1,400 1,596 2,731

In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Ludwig wrote
in message <14eaa81f.0307141832.5780d3bf@posting.google.com>:

>"Philip Mathews" <philipmathews@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<LarQa.56137$N7.7463@sccrnsc03>...

[...]

>> > From an order dated July 2, 1941, issued by Heydrich himself to the
>> > Höhere SS und Polizeiführer in the occupied Soviet territories.
>> > Heydrich repeated to them in summary form the instructions he had
>> > already issued directly to the Einsatzgruppen.

>> No he didn't. He wrote a sanitized version of what he told them. That's why
>> the testimony of all the Einsatzgruppen leaders taken after the war clearly
>> state they were told to kill Jews.

>As testified in German Holocaust courts I assume?

No, this was well after the Holocaust. Can you document that *any* of
the people that were killed in the Holocaust were allowed the right to
a trial in a court?

[...]

>> The historian Peter Longerich commented on this document.
>>
>> http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/ieindex.html

>Longerich is a biased historian who is incapable to look at this the
>way a historian should, namely unbiased. He built his whole
>professional career on the orthodox Holocaust story.
>You are reading too much into Longerich.
>And that is your problem.

Can you demonstrate this bias you claim, and show that it ignores /
distorts / lies about the *facts* of the Holocaust?

>> >Heydrich's order is irreconcilable with
>> > the "Führer order" Ohlendorf claimed to have received but for which we
>> > have no real evidence.

>> No it isn't. It is merely a very common Nazi practice of not putting orders
>> for genocide in writing. The extensive evidence to the exact nature of the
>> order from numerous Einsatzgruppen, as well as the fact that Jews were
>> universally targeted and killed, establish conclusively the objectives of
>> the Einsatzgruppen.

>Rubbish!

Because...?

[...]

>> Which doesn't show Ohlendorf saying only 40,000 were killed and which does
>> not contradict his testimony I posted in which he said:
>>
>> "I can only repeat what I already have been saying for two and one-half
>> years that to the best of my knowledge, about ninety thousand people were
>> reported by my Einsatzkommandos. How many of those were actually killed I do
>> not know and I cannot really say."
>>
>> So Ludwig's original distortion stands.

>Not my distortion, and I repeat, it is from NMT IX, p. 254-258:
>Ohlendorf:
>"From the documents of the prosecution it becomes evident and my own
>men reproached me for it--that I was wrong in naming the figure 90000.
>It is evident that I mentioned this number 90000 by adding a number of
>other figures. I do not mention this in order to excuse myself, as I
>am perfectly convinced that it does not matter for the actual facts
>whether it was 40000 or 90000. But I mention this for the reason that,
>in the situation in which we are today, politically speaking, figures
>are being dealt with in an irresponsible manner. The material and the
>value of man seems to become so unimportant that the play with
>millions does not seem to be of any particular importance either."

Which doesn't show Ohlendorf saying only 40,000 were killed and which
does not contradict his testimony which Phillip posted in which
Ohlendorf said:

"I can only repeat what I already have been saying for two and
one-half years that to the best of my knowledge, about ninety thousand
people were reported by my Einsatzkommandos. How many of those were
actually killed I do not know and I cannot really say."

[...]

>> Peter Longerich's expert report to the court in the Irving Trial.

>There is your problem again: You are reading too much into Longerich.

And your problem is that you haven't shown that Phillip is reading
*anything* into Longerich.

>> > > Peter Longerich's expert report to the court in the Irving Trial.

>> > Longerich got his stuff all from German Holocaust trials. You better
>> > forget them. They were political trials, the judges completely biased.

>> No they weren't. The testimonial evidence offered by a number of
>> Einsatzgruppen men support the mission of exterminating Jews. No historian
>> has any trouble with the testimony of these men, so it is you who better
>> forget the rather desperate attempt of denying inconvenient evidence.

>Any German historian who dares to deviate from the orthodox Holocaust
>point of view is finished. His professional career destroyed and he
>may face criminal prosecution on top.

Too bad you cannot cite the law under which this would supposedly
happen.

>The accused in those German Holocaust trials were held in jail,
>sometimes for years, before the trial even started.

Which defendant are you referring to?

>If the accused
>tried to attempt to say that certain Holocaust events did not happen,
>he practically threw his defense away.

Because ludwig says so, evidently...

>His only chance to get out of
>the mess was to to admit that these events happened, that he had to
>follow orders or else or that he was witnessing these events from the
>distance while he was peeling potatoes or something like that.

Because they knew that the evidence supporting that it occurred was
overwhelming.

>What court of justice is that? What real historian could rely on this?

In order to support this claim, you would need to show that any of the
defendants truthfully *could* have disputed that the Holocaust
happened, something you have been singularly unable to do.

>> > By the way, Jäger did not testify, he committed suicide before. The
>> > Soviets "found" his report 15 years after, like Demjanjuks
>> > identification card, they found that one too.

>> Except that the normal process of document verf