Not to mention that executing people simply on the basis of their political beliefs or racial background is not considered acceptable by any civilized nation, especially when it is done wholesale, without a trial. Not matter what political view is in question.Michael Miller wrote:Mr. Mills, are you just presenting your understanding of the mindset of Jäger or is this your own personal assessment of the activities of the man and his Einsatzkommando? I certainly hope the latter is not the case. As mentioned by another poster, the "bad apples" included at least tens of thousands of totally innocent human beings, including an enormous number of children and the elderly.Yes, he was weeding out the "bad apples" and disposing of them.
~ Mike Miller
Karl Jager: "There are no Jews in Lithuania anymore
Re: ...
-
- Member
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Walter S spluttered:
If he bothers to turn the page, he will find on page 166 Porat's analysis of the causes of the conflict between Lithuanians and Jews that led to the destruction of the latter, facilitated by the German overthrow of Soviet power. She writes of a
Porat says that the Germans provided the framework and legitimation for killing Lithuanian Jews, while the national aspirations of the Lithuanians and their hatred of Communism provided the emotional motivation. She notes that there had been no tradition of pogroms in Lithuania, so this was a new situation.
If Walter S looks up the book referred to by me, "The Final Solution: Origins and Implementation", he will find on page 165, in the essay "The Holocaust in Lithuania" by Dina Porat, the statement:So now Mr Mills wants us to believe that a bunch of Lithuanians taught the Germans how to murder women and children? And that the Germans liked it so much they expanded on it? Once again Mr Mills distorts and obfuscates in his never ending quest to exonerate the Nazi government of any wrongdoing.
The Lithuanians showed them [=the Germans] how to murder women and children and perhaps made them accustomed to it.
If he bothers to turn the page, he will find on page 166 Porat's analysis of the causes of the conflict between Lithuanians and Jews that led to the destruction of the latter, facilitated by the German overthrow of Soviet power. She writes of a
The main reason for the conflict, in her eyes, was Jewish support for the Soviet occupation and annexation of Lithuania, partly because of a Socialist inclination, but also because they naturally preferred Soviet to Nazi rule. By contrast, the Lithuanians hoped to regain their independence with German help, as a reward for their anti-Jewish, anti-Bolshevik stance.combination of a complex of factors such as national traditions and values, religion, severe economic problems, and tragically opposed political orientations.
Porat says that the Germans provided the framework and legitimation for killing Lithuanian Jews, while the national aspirations of the Lithuanians and their hatred of Communism provided the emotional motivation. She notes that there had been no tradition of pogroms in Lithuania, so this was a new situation.
-
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23722
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
-
- Member
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Earldor wrote:
But in selecting out the bad apples from the good, we make our decisions purely on the basis of what suits our purposes, and disregard any feelings the apples may have.
If we could communicate with apples, we would no doubt discover that they do not consider it acceptable for many of their number to be consigned to the rubbish heap simply because they have undergone the normal process of putrefaction pursuant to giving new life to the seeds they contain.Not to mention that executing people simply on the basis of their political beliefs or racial background is not considered acceptable by any civilized nation, especially when it is done wholesale, without a trial. Not matter what political view is in question.
But in selecting out the bad apples from the good, we make our decisions purely on the basis of what suits our purposes, and disregard any feelings the apples may have.
I take this to mean, that you condone the indiscriminate killing of people on the basis of their racial background or their political views, and consider this as acceptable behaviour for an invading army.michael mills wrote: If we could communicate with apples, we would no doubt discover that they do not consider it acceptable for many of their number to be consigned to the rubbish heap simply because they have undergone the normal process of putrefaction pursuant to giving new life to the seeds they contain.
Does this comment have a point outside the obvious? Is there a reason you prefer using the apple metaphor instead of concrete terms, such as people?But in selecting out the bad apples from the good, we make our decisions purely on the basis of what suits our purposes, and disregard any feelings the apples may have.
- Michael Miller
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 9023
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 23:05
- Location: California
- Contact:
...
Earldor wrote:
I have to agree. Mr. Mills, you are a much more sophisticated thinker and certainly a great deal more educated than me, so I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your thinking in this regard is on a higher plan than any with which I'm familiar. But no, it really seems that you see the activities of the indigenous people in Lithuania (and other regions in which Jews were despised for real or perceived reasons) in exterminating "bad apples" (aka- human beings who happened to be Jewish) were justified. The sadism practiced by Lithuanian auxiliaries and civilians against Jews was not limited to "Jewish Bolshevik commissars" or informers, but clearly extended to total innocents whose only "crime" was their Jewishness. You've indicated that the pogroms in the East were not a primary responsibility of the Einsatzgruppen and that the actual triggermen were primarily local Lithuanians, Latvians, etc. and members of the Ordnungspolizei, and that the former can be explained as an act of retaliation against victims who had once oppressed them, but it was the Einsatzgruppen who organized and coordinated the slaughter. I admit that I haven't read all of your posts in their entirety, but what I have read seems to point to an attempt at exonerating the Einsatzgruppen of responsibility and defining their primary role as one of maintaining rear-area security. Maybe that's the case- but I think the record shows that their interpretation of what constituted "rear-area security" was a "Judenrein" rear area... hence hundreds of thousands liquidated in Einsatzgruppen-directed killing operations.
~ Mike Miller
I take this to mean, that you condone the indiscriminate killing of people on the basis of their racial background or their political views, and consider this as acceptable behaviour for an invading army.
I have to agree. Mr. Mills, you are a much more sophisticated thinker and certainly a great deal more educated than me, so I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your thinking in this regard is on a higher plan than any with which I'm familiar. But no, it really seems that you see the activities of the indigenous people in Lithuania (and other regions in which Jews were despised for real or perceived reasons) in exterminating "bad apples" (aka- human beings who happened to be Jewish) were justified. The sadism practiced by Lithuanian auxiliaries and civilians against Jews was not limited to "Jewish Bolshevik commissars" or informers, but clearly extended to total innocents whose only "crime" was their Jewishness. You've indicated that the pogroms in the East were not a primary responsibility of the Einsatzgruppen and that the actual triggermen were primarily local Lithuanians, Latvians, etc. and members of the Ordnungspolizei, and that the former can be explained as an act of retaliation against victims who had once oppressed them, but it was the Einsatzgruppen who organized and coordinated the slaughter. I admit that I haven't read all of your posts in their entirety, but what I have read seems to point to an attempt at exonerating the Einsatzgruppen of responsibility and defining their primary role as one of maintaining rear-area security. Maybe that's the case- but I think the record shows that their interpretation of what constituted "rear-area security" was a "Judenrein" rear area... hence hundreds of thousands liquidated in Einsatzgruppen-directed killing operations.
~ Mike Miller
-
- Member
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
What I think about the killing of Jews in Lithuania in 1941 by units of Lithuanians (sometimes commanded by one or two Germans, sometimes not) is immaterial.
What Mike Miller and Earldor think about it is immaterial.
Even what Karl Jäger thought about it is to some extent immaterial.
What is material is what the Lithuanians thought about it. It is their country, and if they decided that a group of people living there needed to be eliminated as "bad apples", who are we to gainsay them?
Vox populi, vox dei.
What matters to students of history is to determine whether, and to what extent, the attitudes and actions of Lithuanians influenced the actions and policies of the Germans who had occupied their country and, in the eyes of a significant section of the Lithuanian people, had liberated them from a year of Soviet occupation.
What Mike Miller and Earldor think about it is immaterial.
Even what Karl Jäger thought about it is to some extent immaterial.
What is material is what the Lithuanians thought about it. It is their country, and if they decided that a group of people living there needed to be eliminated as "bad apples", who are we to gainsay them?
Vox populi, vox dei.
What matters to students of history is to determine whether, and to what extent, the attitudes and actions of Lithuanians influenced the actions and policies of the Germans who had occupied their country and, in the eyes of a significant section of the Lithuanian people, had liberated them from a year of Soviet occupation.
-
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23722
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
Michael -- You said:
The fact that it was not their call to kill them is what makes the act a war crime, and the actors war criminals. Jaeger's recognition of that fact may have had something to do with his hanging himself with radio wire 22 May 1959 at Karlsruhe while awaiting trial. (NYT 16 Sept 1959:21:4)It is their country, and if they decided that a group of people living there needed to be eliminated as "bad apples", who are we to gainsay them?
michael mills wrote:What I think about the killing of Jews in Lithuania in 1941 by units of Lithuanians (sometimes commanded by one or two Germans, sometimes not) is immaterial.
What Mike Miller and Earldor think about it is immaterial.
Even what Karl Jäger thought about it is to some extent immaterial.
What is material is what the Lithuanians thought about it. It is their country, and if they decided that a group of people living there needed to be eliminated as "bad apples", who are we to gainsay them?
Vox populi, vox dei.
What matters to students of history is to determine whether, and to what extent, the attitudes and actions of Lithuanians influenced the actions and policies of the Germans who had occupied their country and, in the eyes of a significant section of the Lithuanian people, had liberated them from a year of Soviet occupation.
Well then we may all rest thankfully that the "vox" of people like you is relegated to a relative minority, at least amongst civilised folk.
- Michael Miller
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 9023
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 23:05
- Location: California
- Contact:
I am a human being first, an American second. And what happens to other human beings concerns me. If I see a person suffering a block away, I do what I can to help, and if I were to see a person suffering an ocean away, it is my responsibility to do whatever I can (even if it's just to contribute to the appropriate charity) to help that person. Lithuanians don't get a free pass to murder innocent and unarmed people just because they're doing it in their own country, and I'm stunned that someone would think they had a right to determine who should live and who should die solely because of their nationality.
~ Mike
~ Mike
-
- Member
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
I was referring to the "vox" of the Lithuanians.Well then we may all rest thankfully that the "vox" of people like you is relegated to a relative minority, at least amongst civilised folk.d
As I oppose the death penalty, I do not support the killing of anyone.
But I dare say that Americans would not take to kindly to non-Americans dictating to them whether or not they, as an organised polity, can kill any members of their own society they choose to.
Furthermore, it is not a war crime if Lithuanians choose to kill their fellow citizens. A war crime only exists if countries A and B are at war, and citizens of one country, whether military or civilian, inflict illegal injuries on the citizens, whether military or civilian, of the other country.
The killing by Lithuanians of their fellow citizens might be considered a crime against humanity or an instance of genocide. But it would only be a crime if the Government of Lithuania considered it a crime and prosecuted (or if a superior power conquered Lithaunia and prosecuted).
-
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23722
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
Michael -- You said:
The topic is the "Jaeger report," and Jaeger was German. As for the rest of your proposition, you are mistaken. As I have pointed out several times before, "War crime" is also a general term, which includes crimes against humanity. As for your claim that "it would only be a crime if the Government of Lithuania considered it a crime and prosecuted (or if a superior power conquered Lithaunia and prosecuted)", that has been discussed many times and uniformly rejected. I'm surprised that you didn't notice that your argument was a "discard" when you were discussing the proceedings of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.Furthermore, it is not a war crime if Lithuanians choose to kill their fellow citizens. A war crime only exists if countries A and B are at war, and citizens of one country, whether military or civilian, inflict illegal injuries on the citizens, whether military or civilian, of the other country.
-
- Member
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Now that the moderators have indulged their righteous indignation, perhaps we can get back to analysing an historical issue of some interest.
I have introduced the thesis of the Israeli historian, Dina Porat, that the extermination of the Jews of Lithuania was not simply an action carried out by the invading Germans, but was a sort of joint enterprise between anti-Soviet Lithuanian nationalists and the German occupation authorities, with the Germans providing the organisation and legitimation for the anti-Jewish actions and the lithuanians providing the motivating force. I have quoted her remarkable postulation that it may have been the Lithuanian nationalists who showed the Germans that it was possible to kill women and children and accustomed them to it.
To my mind, Porat's thesis goes a long way to explaining many of the anomalous features of the operations of EG A in the Baltic States which have puzzled some historians. For example, the fact that Lithuanian and Latvian units under the command of EG A went beyond the categories laid in the original orders and began killing women and children on a large scale well before the other German forces, and the fact that the Jewish population of the Baltic States had been well-nigh exterminated by the end of 1941, apart from a few ghettos, whereas in the rest of the occupied Soviet territories only a small part of the Jewish population had been killed by that time.
If Porat's thesis is correct, then David Thompson's comment that Jäger was a German is beside the point. I note that the moderators have ducked the questions posed by Porat's thesis, and have chosen a diversion into a meaningless discussion as to whether the German personnel of the Einsatzgruppen were "bad guys".
The issue is not really whether a particular group of people were "bad guys", but what were the causes for the commission of a "bad act" by a particular group of people on a particular group of victims in a particular place at a particular time. I suggest we continue discussion of that issue on the appropriate thread.
I have introduced the thesis of the Israeli historian, Dina Porat, that the extermination of the Jews of Lithuania was not simply an action carried out by the invading Germans, but was a sort of joint enterprise between anti-Soviet Lithuanian nationalists and the German occupation authorities, with the Germans providing the organisation and legitimation for the anti-Jewish actions and the lithuanians providing the motivating force. I have quoted her remarkable postulation that it may have been the Lithuanian nationalists who showed the Germans that it was possible to kill women and children and accustomed them to it.
To my mind, Porat's thesis goes a long way to explaining many of the anomalous features of the operations of EG A in the Baltic States which have puzzled some historians. For example, the fact that Lithuanian and Latvian units under the command of EG A went beyond the categories laid in the original orders and began killing women and children on a large scale well before the other German forces, and the fact that the Jewish population of the Baltic States had been well-nigh exterminated by the end of 1941, apart from a few ghettos, whereas in the rest of the occupied Soviet territories only a small part of the Jewish population had been killed by that time.
If Porat's thesis is correct, then David Thompson's comment that Jäger was a German is beside the point. I note that the moderators have ducked the questions posed by Porat's thesis, and have chosen a diversion into a meaningless discussion as to whether the German personnel of the Einsatzgruppen were "bad guys".
The issue is not really whether a particular group of people were "bad guys", but what were the causes for the commission of a "bad act" by a particular group of people on a particular group of victims in a particular place at a particular time. I suggest we continue discussion of that issue on the appropriate thread.
-
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 23722
- Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
- Location: USA
Michael -- You said:
You also said:
Einsatzgruppe A comprehensive report 22 Jun-15 Oct 1941
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=60197
As for this and another of your final comments, I haven't seen any evidence to breathe some fact into Porat's conclusion:
Two exaggerations for the price of one!Now that the moderators have indulged their righteous indignation, perhaps we can get back to analysing an historical issue of some interest.
You also said:
She, like you, may have overlooked SS-Brigadefuehrer Dr. jur. Walter Stahlecker's write-up (or have been "taken in" by the Nazi propaganda effort he mentions) in:I have introduced the thesis of the Israeli historian, Dina Porat, that the extermination of the Jews of Lithuania was not simply an action carried out by the invading Germans, but was a sort of joint enterprise between anti-Soviet Lithuanian nationalists and the German occupation authorities, with the Germans providing the organisation and legitimation for the anti-Jewish actions and the lithuanians providing the motivating force. I have quoted her remarkable postulation that it may have been the Lithuanian nationalists who showed the Germans that it was possible to kill women and children and accustomed them to it. (emphasis added)
Einsatzgruppe A comprehensive report 22 Jun-15 Oct 1941
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=60197
You went on to say:II. Cleansing and Securing the Area of Operations.
1. Instigation of self-cleansing actions. Considering that the population of the Baltic countries had suffered very heavily under the government of Bolshevism and Jewry while they were incorporate in the USSR, it was to be expected that after the liberation from that foreign government, they i.e. the population themselves)
983
would render harmless most of the enemies left behind after the retreat of the Red Army. It was the duty of the Security Police to set in motion these self-cleansing movements and to direct them into the correct channels in order to accomplish the purpose of the cleansing operations as quickly as possible. It was no less important in view of the future to establish the unshakable and provable fact that the liberated population themselves took the most severe measures against the Bolshevist and Jewish enemy quite on their own, so that the direction by German authorities could not be found out.
In Lithouania this was achieved for the first time by partisan activities in Kowno. To our surprise it was not easy at first to set in motion an extensive pogrom against Jews. Klimatis, the leader of the partisan unit, mentioned above, who was used for this purpose primarily, succeeded in starting a pogrom on the basis of advice given to him by a small advanced detachment acting in Kowno, and in such a way that no German order or German instigation was noticed from the outside. During the first pogrom in the night from 25. to 26.6 the Lithouanian partisans did away with more than 1.500 Jews, set fire to several Synagogues or destroyed them by other means and burned down a Jewish dwelling district consisting of about 60 houses. During the following nights about 2,300 Jews were made harmless in a similar way. In other parts of Lithouania similar actions followed the example of Kowno, though smaller and extending to the Communists who had been left behind. (emphasis added)
Well, as they say, "if" is the middle word in "life." Given your mistake about international law (pointed out above), I can see why you'd like to move on.If Porat's thesis is correct, then David Thompson's comment that Jäger was a German is beside the point.
As for this and another of your final comments, I haven't seen any evidence to breathe some fact into Porat's conclusion:
It's not a matter of "ducking it;" nothing tangible was thrown. (Your additional exaggerations/mischaracterizations are also noted -- are your arguments so frequently in need of a prop that you can't get along without resorting to them?) I don't believe I discussed whether or not the German personnel of the Einsatzgruppen were "bad guys," nor was that necessary. It is well-understood that to the extent that the Einsatzgruppen personnel commanded, directed, supervised, ordered, or knowingly aided and abetted those who shot groups of civilians into pits, they were war criminals, however nice they may have been to their own wife and kids.I note that the moderators have ducked the questions posed by Porat's thesis, and have chosen a diversion into a meaningless discussion as to whether the German personnel of the Einsatzgruppen were "bad guys".
-
- Member
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
There is also this throw-away line in Stahlecker's report:
I would think it contrary to the principles of fair historical discussion to simply shut one's eyes to a proposed explanation of what happened in Lithuania without having investigated it, simply because one does not like it.
Obviously Stahlecker was not too keen to play up the extent to which Lithuanians were acting independently.
Lithouanians are voluntarily and untiringly at our disposal for all measures against Jews, sometimes they even execute such measures on their own.
I would think it contrary to the principles of fair historical discussion to simply shut one's eyes to a proposed explanation of what happened in Lithuania without having investigated it, simply because one does not like it.