Demjanuk on Netflix

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
JaneMary
Member
Posts: 13
Joined: 12 Apr 2017 06:12
Location: Wanganui, New Zealand

Re: Demjanuk on Netflix

Post by JaneMary » 18 Nov 2019 04:06

Sergey Romanov wrote:
16 Nov 2019 15:53
Thus a close analysis shows how the false identification testimonies appeared. Many of the witnesses who would later claim absolute certainty were not certain at first or did not recognize D. at all at first, which means they simply convinced themselves over time. The positive witnesses were few and had every opportunity to meet and thus influence each other. There were more negative identifications than there were positive ones. The identification procedures were irredeemably flawed.
The judges now know all about these flawed identification procedures. Were those who made positive IDs ever asked if they'd met up with and discussed the matter with other survivors?

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1915
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Re: Demjanuk on Netflix

Post by Sergey Romanov » 18 Nov 2019 20:58

JaneMary wrote:
18 Nov 2019 04:06
Sergey Romanov wrote:
16 Nov 2019 15:53
Thus a close analysis shows how the false identification testimonies appeared. Many of the witnesses who would later claim absolute certainty were not certain at first or did not recognize D. at all at first, which means they simply convinced themselves over time. The positive witnesses were few and had every opportunity to meet and thus influence each other. There were more negative identifications than there were positive ones. The identification procedures were irredeemably flawed.
The judges now know all about these flawed identification procedures. Were those who made positive IDs ever asked if they'd met up with and discussed the matter with other survivors?
"Their testimony can be accepted only after it is established that they did not meet with the other three, or that at their meeting no reference to Ivan was made. Is it plausible that none of the three would mention the terrible shock they had after their discovery that Ivan was still alive? There is no evidence on this matter. The investigators did not record anything related to contacts among witnesses, and the matter was not thoroughly investigated in court." p.110

As for the investigators' demonstrably false claims and judges' persistent belief, what more evidence of bias is needed?

JaneMary
Member
Posts: 13
Joined: 12 Apr 2017 06:12
Location: Wanganui, New Zealand

Re: Demjanuk on Netflix

Post by JaneMary » 04 Dec 2019 07:12

Ok thanks. Well, it's a fascinating, intriguing case and the film makers did an amazing job of presenting it, in my view.

I found this strange evidence.

In the Netflix series defence lawyer Yoram Sheftel said "a picture paints 1000 words" with reference to the image of two men in a bedroom sometimes identified as Treblinka, and sometimes identified as a bedroom in Trawniki. One of the men is Ivan Marchenko.
The second man, Tkakchuk, testified in 1961 that the man he was with was Marchenko. However, apparently, in 1950, much closer to the time period he actually worked with the man who he supposedly knew hacked men, women and children up, he couldn't remember who the man in the photo was. What do you make of that?

note: this claim and reference is made by a Holocaust denier, a fund raiser for Demjanjuk's legal defense who had access to all significant documents. Demjanjuk's trial was funded by Holocaust deniers and some of these deniers also had the agenda to whitewash any of the Ukraine's unsavoury activities during the period. This particular evidence is being used with the attempt to demonstrate that no "Ivan the Terrible" ever existed because no mass murder ever took place at Treblinka etc etc. So, putting the agenda/meta narrative aside, what of the possibility he raises of a coerced and unreliable testimony by Tkachuk and a photo that may not really demonstrate what it is alleged to? Let me know what you think. I just thought it was interesting and haven't found any historian giving comment on this fax.

I've read similar things on Institute for Historical Review site too. What do you think about the claims? It raises some doubt as the credibility that Marchenko was Ivan the Terrible?

http://willzuzak.ca/lp/greenb04.html

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1915
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Re: Demjanuk on Netflix

Post by Sergey Romanov » 06 Dec 2019 22:16

> he couldn't remember who the man in the photo was

He said he couldn't remember the name and the place of residence. He didn't say, for example, that he couldn't remember what the guy did in Treblinka. He was simply silent about it. Now, whether he truly forgot the name (and then was reminded of it by the investigators who already had it from the other Trawnikis), or whether in 1950 he deemed it not quite beneficial for himself to "remember" that he shares a photo with one of the Treblinka motorists, is hard to say nowadays.

Since he and other Trawnikis confirmed the identity in the 1960s, I don't see any issue here.

The denier in question is Lubomir Prytulak, I've debunked him before: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... le-of.html

He's a pretty dumb f.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8824
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Demjanuk on Netflix

Post by michael mills » 12 Dec 2019 04:57

The essential problem with trying to determine the true identity of a member of the Ukrainian guard company stationed at Treblinka who was allegedly nicknamed "Ivan Grozny" by the prisoners is that it is highly likely that the figure of "Ivan Grozny" is not a single person, but rather represents conflation of a number of Ukrainian guards, with characteristics drawn from each of them attributed to a single individual.

The first description of a Ukrainian guard called Ivan who operated the gas chambers at Treblinka is contained in an account by a prisoner, Yankel Wiernik, who escaped during the uprising in August 1943. Wiernik subsequently found refuge with the Polish Underground, and while in hiding with them wrote an account of his experiences in late 193. That account was smuggled out of Poland and into the hands of the American Representation of the General Jewish Workers Union of Poland (the Bund), which published an English translation in 1944 under the title "A Year in Treblinka".
This is what Wiernik wrote about the two Ukrainian guards who operated the gas chamber at Treblinka:
The machinery of the gas-chambers was operated by two Ukrainians. One of them, Ivan, was tall, had kind and gentle eyes, but was, nevertheless, a sadist. He often attacked us while we worked and nailed our ears to the wall or made us lie down on the floor and whipped us brutally. While doing this, his face showed sadistic satisfaction and he laughed and joked. He finished off the gas victims according to his mood at the moment. The other machinist was called Nicholas. He had a pale face and the same mentality as Ivan.

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

Suddenly, the entrance door would fly open and out would come Ivan, holding a gas pipe, and Nicholas, brandishing a saber. At a signal, they would begin admitting the victims, simultaneously beating them mercilessly.

................................................................................................…..

On the way to their doom, they [the victims] were pushed and beaten with rifle butts and the gas pipe. Dogs were set on them, barking, biting and tearing at them.

…………………………………………………………………………………….....................................

As soon as the gassing was over, Ivan and Nicholas investigated the results, passed over to the other side, opened the door leading to the platform, and proceeded to heave out the gassed victims.
From Wiernik's description it is apparent that both Ivan and Nicholas played an equal role in the operation of the gas chambers, but it is obvious that Ivan made the greater impression on Wiernik, which is presumably why a character called "Ivan Grozny" emerged as the symbol of Treblinka in survivor accounts, rather than a figure called "Nicholas the something-or-other". It is also apparent that in later survivor accounts some of the attributes of Nicholas were transferred to Ivan, eg in those accounts Ivan is sometimes described as slashing the Jewish victims with a sword, although Wiernik names Nicholas as the person with the sword.

In some survivor accounts, as reported in the media during the trial, Ivan is described as having a dog which he set on the victims in such a way that it bit off the genitals of male victims. That action is usually attributed to a dog named Barry, a St Bernard owned by the deputy commandant of Treblinka Kurt Franz. That is another example of how the composite character named "Ivan Grozny" was assigned characteristics of persons other than the Ivan who operated the Treblinka gas-chamber as described by Wiernik.

The picture is further complicated by the fact that survivors of Sobibor also described a person to whom they gave the nickname "Ivan Grozny", with the difference that that person was not a member of the camp staff but rather one of the prisoners, a particularly ugly and barbarous-looking one. Furthermore, survivors of Sobibor also described the dog Barry being present at that camp and biting prisoners there, even though its owner, Kurt Franz, was never stationed at Sobibor.

So the bottom line is that it is pointless trying to identify a guard at Treblinka nicknamed "Ivan Grozny". What is meaningful is to determine whether one of the Ukrainian stationed at Trablinka , a person called Ivan Marchenko, is identical with the Ivan described by Wiernik.

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1915
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Re: Demjanuk on Netflix

Post by Sergey Romanov » 12 Dec 2019 17:26

> by the prisoners is that it is highly likely that the figure of "Ivan Grozny" is not a single person, but rather represents conflation of a number of Ukrainian guards, with characteristics drawn from each of them attributed to a single individual.

Not at all. Ivan Grozny, the Treblinka motorist, is a single person. That some of the things Nikolay did might have been attributed to Ivan and vice versa has nothing to do with identifying Ivan the motorist.

> The picture is further complicated by the fact that survivors of Sobibor also described a person to whom they gave the nickname "Ivan Grozny", with the difference that that person was not a member of the camp staff but rather one of the prisoners, a particularly ugly and barbarous-looking one

The picture is in no way complicated by this fact since the two Ivans have nothing to do with each other. The picture cannot be complicated by an unrelated, irrelevant fact.

> Furthermore, survivors of Sobibor also described the dog Barry being present at that camp and biting prisoners there, even though its owner, Kurt Franz, was never stationed at Sobibor.

This goes to show how little you know about the camps and that you're not qualified to write about them.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... le-of.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... barry.html

> So the bottom line is that it is pointless trying to identify a guard at Treblinka nicknamed "Ivan Grozny".

Nonsense. We know the identity of the guard at Treblinka nicknamed Ivan Grozny: Ivan Marchenko.

The bottom line is that you wrote a long comment that manages to be both wrong and nearly content-free.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8824
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Demjanuk on Netflix

Post by michael mills » 13 Dec 2019 03:55

Franz's personal photo album contained photos of Barry as a young dog, which suggests that he was owned by Franz from an early age.

www.deathcamps.org/treblinka/pic/barry.jpg


The average lifespan of a St Bernard dog is 8-10 years, according to this site:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bernard_(dog)

Since Barry was euthanased in 1947 due to old age, he was probably born in 1939-40. Accordingly, he was no longer the young dog shown in Franz's album at the time Franz was posted to Treblinka in August-September 1942. That suggests that Franz already owned Barry at the time he was posted to Treblinka, and indeed had owned the dog for a couple of years previous to that posting.

If Franz did own Barry before being posted to Treblinka, and brought the dog with him, that runs counter to the claim that Barry was owned first by Groth at Sobibor, then passed to Stangl, who brought him to Treblinka, and only then passed on to Franz. However, there is no evidence for that chain of ownership apart from comments made by former prisoners, ie the same sort of people who swore black and blue that John Demjanjuk was identical to a monstrous figure who had committed all sorts of atrocities at Treblinka in addition to operating the motor that supplied the engine exhaust to the gas chamber.

Here is a site which shows that the testimonies claiming the presence of Barry at Sobibor until the winter of 1942-43 are incompatible with the testimonies claiming its presence at Treblinka in August 1942, particularly the very early testimony of Wiernik:

https://holocausthistorychannel.wordpre ... hronology/

Ivan Marchenko was undoubtedly the Ivan named by Wiernik as one of the two Ukrainian guards who operated the gas chamber at Treblinka, since he was named by other guards captured after the end of the war and interrogated by their Soviet captors. The other gas chamber operator named was Nikolai Shalaev, the "Nicholas" mentioned by Wiernik. Here are some of the testimonies of the former guards:

https://www.holocausthistoricalsociety. ... henko.html

The testimonies of the former guards support the interpretation that the figure of "Ivan Grozny" is a composite, combining the attributes of Marchenko and Shalaev, and perhaps some other guards, since specific actions are sometimes attributed to Marchenko and sometimes to Shalaev. For example, one of the guards, Pavel Leleko, stated on 21 February 1945:
Marchenko for instance had a sword with which he mutilated the people. He cut off the breasts of women.
By contrast, a different former guard, Grigori Skydan, made this statement on 18 February 1950:
In addition Shalayev had a cavalryman's sword and his personal dog and Marchenko always walked around the camp with a 1 1/2 or 2 meter long waterpipe. Shalayev sometimes lopped off breasts of the Jewish women, cut off their noses and ears, with one stroke of the sword, he would virtually cut a man through; he enjoyed setting his dog on the naked people marching to the gas chambers - 'Dushehubka,' who would tear off pieces of flesh of living, men, women and children.

Marchenko was an expert in killing people with the water-pipe. I personally saw how with one blow of the pipe, Marchenko killed a physically strong man
The statement by Skydan is consistent with Wiernik's account, which has Ivan beating prisoners with a pipe and Nicholas hitting them with a sabre, and is therefore most probably more accurate than Leleko's statement. However, the statement by Leleko does show how actions by Shalaev were being attributed to Marchenko.

It appears that in the memories of surviving former prisoners Marchenko and Shalaev were conflated into a single monstrous figure to whom they gave the nickname "Ivan Grozny". That might explain why they claimed that John Demjanjuk was identical with that figure, even though the photo of Demjanjuk they were shown does not resemble Marchenko; they were not looking for an actual person whom they remembered, but a quasi-mythical figure.

This is Marchenko:

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm11120944/me ... 4123692801

And this is Demjanjuk at the time he served as a guard:

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_ ... njuk_1.jpg

Since Demjanjuk had never served at Treblinka, the survivor prisoners would never have seen this person in 1942 or 1943, but they would have seen Marchenko. But when they were asked to identify "Ian Grozny of Treblinka", they were not looking for Marchenko, they were looking for a quasi-mythical figure, and the face they saw in the photo they were shown of Demjanjuk could just as well be that figure, possibly because the face did look rather rough and brutal, perhaps more brutal than that of the real Marchenko.

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1915
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Re: Demjanuk on Netflix

Post by Sergey Romanov » 13 Dec 2019 09:10

Is quoting from a Holocaust denial blog that makes claims without sourcing them the best you can do after your ignorance about the basic Barry facts (you didn't even know Barry was in both camps) has been exposed?

This went to show how little you know about the camps and that you're not qualified to write about them.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... le-of.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... barry.html

You have no idea how young Barry was and when. You then go on to outright lie that "there is no evidence for that chain of ownership apart from comments made by former prisoners" despite the judgment quoted to you which clearly relies on a Nazi witness.

We're only talking about either Wiernik exhibiting an apparent memory error (either conflating Barry with Franz' earlier dog or putting him erroneously at the time of his arrival, simply misremembering due to Franz later always appearing with Barry), the most common and unremarkable mistake witnesses make.

Finally, you have done nothing to refute the main point: Ivan Grozny, the Treblinka motorist, is a single person. That some of the things Nikolay did might have been attributed to Ivan and vice versa has nothing to do with identifying Ivan the motorist.

Once again you have managed to write a long comment that is both mostly wrong and nearly content-free

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1915
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Re: Demjanuk on Netflix

Post by Sergey Romanov » 14 Dec 2019 14:06

Stangl on Barry (11.07.1967, BArch 162/3830, p. 125):

"Diesen habe ich von dem Kommandanten des Ausbildungslagers Trawniki geschenkt erhalten, der Streibl hieß. [...] Ich habe den Hund mit nach Sobibor genommen. Dort war er mein ständiger Begleiter."

P. 126: he let Barry stay in Sobibor after which he "verwahrlost ausgesehen", so he took him to Treblinka; he was no longer "schussfest"; gave him to Franz.

"Franz hat mir einmal gemeldet, der Hund hätte einen Häftling gebissen, den er angerufen hätte, weil er nicht gearbeitet hätte. [...] Ich habe mir dann selbst den Mann angesehen und festgestellt, daß er eine große Bißwunde im Oberschenkel hatte. Der Häftling ist vom jüdischen Arzt betreut worden. [...] Ich erinnere mich, gesehen zu haben, daß der Häftling noch eine Weile gehinkt hat. Ich habe mich noch selbst mal nach seinem Befinden bei ihm erkundigt."

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1915
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Re: Demjanuk on Netflix

Post by Sergey Romanov » 14 Dec 2019 14:11

On 03.10.67 (op. cit., p. 147):

Stangl knew about Barry "daß die Häftlinge ihn sehr gefürchtet haben. Wenn der Hund entweder vor meiner Baracke lag oder vor der Bracke des Franz, dann sind die Häftlinge der ausrückenden Kommandos ängstlich bemüht gewesen, mit dem Hund nicht in Berührung zu kommen. Sie sind mit möglichst großem Abstand an ihm vorbeigegangen." Claims however, that in Sobibor Barry was friendly and didn't bite anyone.

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1915
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Re: Demjanuk on Netflix

Post by Sergey Romanov » 14 Dec 2019 14:13

Miete on Barry, 22.09.1967, BArch 162/3831, p. 13 - saw Barry with Franz, did not see him biting but "Daß der Hund gefährlich war, das habe ich schon damals gehört."

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1915
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Re: Demjanuk on Netflix

Post by Sergey Romanov » 14 Dec 2019 14:20

Sobibor inmate Harry Cukierman, 09.05,1968, BArch 162/3832, p. 60: there were 3 dogs in the camp, one Barry, one Seppl, one unknown. Mostly Bolender was mit Barry (also confirmed by Szmajzner on 25/25.04.1968, op. cit., p. 34; Barry bit Sz.), sometimes Stangl. Once saw how Bolender set Barry on an inmate, whom the dog bit, then shot him. Stangl took Barry with him to Treblinka.

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1915
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Re: Demjanuk on Netflix

Post by Sergey Romanov » 14 Dec 2019 14:24

Sobibor inmate Samuel Lerer, 10.05.1968, op. cit., p. 64 - three dogs in the camp, Barry was with Bolender, Stangl and also Bredow. P. 65: was vary aggressive, "bin von Barry gebissen worden, und zwar in den rechten Oberarm", can't say where he bit anyone to death.

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1915
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Re: Demjanuk on Netflix

Post by Sergey Romanov » 14 Dec 2019 14:30

Plenty of statements also tying Barry to Groth.

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1915
Joined: 28 Dec 2003 01:52
Location: World

Re: Demjanuk on Netflix

Post by Sergey Romanov » 14 Dec 2019 14:34

Bolender, 07.06.1962, BArch 162/4431, p. 1324: "Es trifft auch zu, daß ich hin und wieder den Hund Bari mitführte."

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”