Demjanuk on Netflix

[JaneMary]

Anyone want to discuss The Devil Next Door currently popular on Netflix that has reopened debate on this most complex and protracted of all war crimes cases?

If you watched it did you think it left out anything important?

Also, it's hard to do fact checking on some claims assorted. Particularly, does anyone know where it's possible to view English versions of the KGB and other Soviet interrogation transcripts used to exonerate Demjanjuk? Do you accept the orthodox story, that contradicts the survivors, that the Soviet-supplied evidence is reliable and truly demonstrates that Demnjanjuk wasn't the terrible? Does anyone know much about the conditions under which most of the trawniki were interrogated under the Soviet Union?

[Sergey Romanov]

There's no serious debate on the identity of D., the facts are known and uncontroversial:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... out_9.html

[henryk]

https://www.polskieradio.pl/395/7785/Ar ... new-series

Polish PM urges Netflix to correct map shown in new series
12.11.2019 07:50 Polish Radio

Poland’s prime minister has urged video provider Netflix to make changes to a map shown in its new documentary series “The Devil Next Door,” saying the image was historically inaccurate and misled viewers about Poland’s role in World War II.

In a letter sent to Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said the map depicted in the series, which tells the story of a Nazi death camp guard, “falsely placed several German Nazi concentration camps within modern-day Poland’s borders.”
“There is no comment or any explanation whatsoever that these sites were German-operated,” Morawiecki said in his letter.
He added: “Not only is the map incorrect, but it deceives viewers into believing that Poland was responsible for establishing and maintaining these camps, and for committing the crimes therein.”

Morawiecki also said: “As my country did not even exist at that time as an independent state, and millions of Poles were murdered at these sites, this element of The Devil Next Door is nothing short of rewriting history.”
He asked Netflix to correct the mistake. “I believe that this terrible mistake has been committed unintentionally - and I am hoping that you will be able to correct it as soon as possible,” he said.

The Washington Post has quoted a Netflix spokesman as saying in an emailed statement: “We are aware of the concerns regarding The Devil Next Door and are urgently looking into the matter.”
The five-part series at the centre of the controversy tells the story of John Demjanjuk, a Ukrainian who died in Germany in 2012 at the age of 91, after decades-long efforts by prosecutors in multiple countries to prove that he was involved in Nazi crimes as a sadistic death camp guard known as “Ivan the Terrible,” The Washington Post reported.

The use of historically inaccurate terms by some international media and organisations has sparked numerous complaints from Poland in recent years, prompting some news agencies to change their style guidelines and eliminate misnomers such as "Polish" death camps.
Public broadcaster Polish Radio last year launched a special educational website aimed at debunking misconceptions about Poland’s role in the Holocaust, at GermanDeathCamps.info.

[Gorque]

Anyone want to discuss The Devil Next Door currently popular on Netflix that has reopened debate on this most complex and protracted of all war crimes cases?

If you watched it did you think it left out anything important?

Also, it's hard to do fact checking on some claims assorted. Particularly, does anyone know where it's possible to view English versions of the KGB and other Soviet interrogation transcripts used to exonerate Demjanjuk? Do you accept the orthodox story, that contradicts the survivors, that the Soviet-supplied evidence is reliable and truly demonstrates that Demnjanjuk wasn't the terrible? Does anyone know much about the conditions under which most of the trawniki were interrogated under the Soviet Union?

I found the series quite interesting and informative. What disturbed me, if true, was the withholding of evidence in the first Demjanjuk trial by the OSI that would have cleared him of being Ivan the Terrible. His reactions to some of the survivors in the first trial gave away, to me, his role as a Trawniki graduate.

[Sergey Romanov]

Anyone want to discuss The Devil Next Door currently popular on Netflix that has reopened debate on this most complex and protracted of all war crimes cases?

If you watched it did you think it left out anything important?

Also, it's hard to do fact checking on some claims assorted. Particularly, does anyone know where it's possible to view English versions of the KGB and other Soviet interrogation transcripts used to exonerate Demjanjuk? Do you accept the orthodox story, that contradicts the survivors, that the Soviet-supplied evidence is reliable and truly demonstrates that Demnjanjuk wasn't the terrible? Does anyone know much about the conditions under which most of the trawniki were interrogated under the Soviet Union?

I found the series quite interesting and informative. What disturbed me, if true, was the withholding of evidence in the first Demjanjuk trial by the OSI that would have cleared him of being Ivan the Terrible. His reactions to some of the survivors in the first trial gave away, to me, his role as a Trawniki graduate.

The involved OSI people should have gone to prison, but of course there were no consequences for their criminal conduct whatsoever.

In 1993 the judges of the US Court of Appeals of 6th Circuit concluded:
"Thus, we hold that the OSI attorneys acted with reckless disregard for the truth and for the government's obligation to take no steps that prevent an adversary from presenting his case fully and fairly. This was fraud on the court in the circumstances of this case where, by recklessly assuming Demjanjuk's guilt, they failed to observe their obligation to produce exculpatory materials requested by Demjanjuk."

http://web.archive.org/web/199910040834 ... uit-court/

[Gorque]

The involved OSI people should have gone to prison, but of course there were no consequences for their criminal conduct whatsoever.

In 1993 the judges of the US Court of Appeals of 6th Circuit concluded:
"Thus, we hold that the OSI attorneys acted with reckless disregard for the truth and for the government's obligation to take no steps that prevent an adversary from presenting his case fully and fairly. This was fraud on the court in the circumstances of this case where, by recklessly assuming Demjanjuk's guilt, they failed to observe their obligation to produce exculpatory materials requested by Demjanjuk."

http://web.archive.org/web/199910040834 ... uit-court/

Hi Sergey:

Thank you for the link. Very interesting reading.

EDIT: Just finished reading a few segments and its quite damning evidence regarding the OSI attorney's.

[Sergey Romanov]

And this wasn't even their first huge fk up. Frank Walus.

[JaneMary]

Thanks all for responding. I found the series interesting but then the whole convoluted case always has been. The series was also heartbreaking, watching those exasperated survivors testify that they recognized the man before them, only to be told they were all mistaken. In my opinion, one person could be. But all of them? With that much passion? No, in my opinion the survivors recognized JD, and wanted the right man to pay and they believed they had him. I realise this isnt the accepted narrative, as Sergey pointed out, but I think the case IS still unresolved and definitely needs more scholarly investigation.

So, being that JD was found guilty EXCEPT for the KGB-supplied evidence, the KGB evidence could have been faulty in a number of ways, and for a number of reasons.

1. How do we know that JDs workmates didn't conspire to implicate another man - a man they believed to be dead or safe (Marchenko)?

2. How do we know the KBG didn't pressure them to implicate the Ukranian THEY wanted implicated, for whatever reason of their own? Has the KGB never acted in such a way?

3. What elevates the written testimony of murderers (the trawniki) above the verbal, sworn testimony of survivors? Why does "everyone" except that the former is the reliable one?

4. How do we assess the KGB supplied evidence for ourselves?

5. That which I have been able to view and assess of the KGB supplied evidence raises questions about its reliability.

6. A book has recently been published by the daughter of another Treblinka survivor who maintained to her all his life, that JD was indeed Ivan the Terrible, and his evidence for this claim was barely touched on in the series.

I think the series was a little superficial in regard to my points and questions above. And I don't accept that this case is as over amd cut and dried as most people claim.

[JaneMary]

And as for the OSI cover up, what made them think they could get away with it? I suspect there is more to that too. Namely, that the OSI DIDN'T believe the KGB supplied evidence necessarily implicated another man (Marchenko), but that it could be used for that purpose. So the cover up may not have been quite as bad as it seems.

And yeah, Ukraine has always been concerned about being associated with the death camps and language in the media that would do so. None of that was really touched on

[JaneMary]

Anyone want to discuss The Devil Next Door currently popular on Netflix that has reopened debate on this most complex and protracted of all war crimes cases?

If you watched it did you think it left out anything important?

Also, it's hard to do fact checking on some claims assorted. Particularly, does anyone know where it's possible to view English versions of the KGB and other Soviet interrogation transcripts used to exonerate Demjanjuk? Do you accept the orthodox story, that contradicts the survivors, that the Soviet-supplied evidence is reliable and truly demonstrates that Demnjanjuk wasn't the terrible? Does anyone know much about the conditions under which most of the trawniki were interrogated under the Soviet Union?

I found the series quite interesting and informative. What disturbed me, if true, was the withholding of evidence in the first Demjanjuk trial by the OSI that would have cleared him of being Ivan the Terrible. His reactions to some of the survivors in the first trial gave away, to me, his role as a Trawniki graduate.

I'm not too familiar with this forum so hope I'm doing the quote thing correctly.

I agree about JDs reaction. No innocent man smirks and grins and comes across so cocky in the face of such disturbing testimony. He was able to maintain composure where others couldnt because what was said to him was not a shock. Is that what you meant?

[Sergey Romanov]

Thanks all for responding. I found the series interesting but then the whole convoluted case always has been. The series was also heartbreaking, watching those exasperated survivors testify that they recognized the man before them, only to be told they were all mistaken. In my opinion, one person could be. But all of them? With that much passion? No, in my opinion the survivors recognized JD, and wanted the right man to pay and they believed they had him. I realise this isnt the accepted narrative, as Sergey pointed out, but I think the case IS still unresolved and definitely needs more scholarly investigation.

So, being that JD was found guilty EXCEPT for the KGB-supplied evidence, the KGB evidence could have been faulty in a number of ways, and for a number of reasons.

1. How do we know that JDs workmates didn't conspire to implicate another man - a man they believed to be dead or safe (Marchenko)?

2. How do we know the KBG didn't pressure them to implicate the Ukranian THEY wanted implicated, for whatever reason of their own? Has the KGB never acted in such a way?

3. What elevates the written testimony of murderers (the trawniki) above the verbal, sworn testimony of survivors? Why does "everyone" except that the former is the reliable one?

4. How do we assess the KGB supplied evidence for ourselves?

5. That which I have been able to view and assess of the KGB supplied evidence raises questions about its reliability.

6. A book has recently been published by the daughter of another Treblinka survivor who maintained to her all his life, that JD was indeed Ivan the Terrible, and his evidence for this claim was barely touched on in the series.

I think the series was a little superficial in regard to my points and questions above. And I don't accept that this case is as over amd cut and dried as most people claim.

The conspiring hypothesis is obviously ridiculous, not only Trawniki men named Marchenko, and the Trawniki men consistently and independently identified the gas chamber operator throughout the decades at different places to different investigators; for this same reason we know they weren't pressured to name the same name since there's no evidence of any overarching NKVD/MGB/KGB conspiracy throughout the decades to frame one guy instead of the real culprit for an entirely incomprehensible reason.

As already explained, eyewitness identification after decades is not credible and the memories were tampered with by the dumb investigators through flawed procedures, thus also making such identifications useless in this particular case. I mean, false memories of events are a huge problem by themselves, and the visual memory is so much more volatile/malleable. So such ID had to be rejected independently of the fact that also conclusive counterevidence in the form of independent Trawniki (and not only) testimonies existed.

The KGB-supplied documents are great evidence, the question of the value of KGB (NKVD etc.) witnesses is more complicated as of course during the early years the use of the illegal methods was not unheard of, but that also changed with time, for in the 1960s some of the Trawnikis freely testified about the alleged coercion during their 1940s interrogations as far as their personal guilt was concerned, but they didn't deny having been in the camps, having witnessed the extermination and having correctly testified about the details. So the freely given 1960s (and later) testimonies, while casting some doubt on some of the confessions of personal crimes, tend to confirm the accuracy of the rest of the claims made in those testimonies. I.e. they can be used as historical sources and even in the trials, as was the case in the German court and as the OSI itself has been doing all the time.

So the case is clearly closed.

[Sergey Romanov]

And as for the OSI cover up, what made them think they could get away with it? I suspect there is more to that too. Namely, that the OSI DIDN'T believe the KGB supplied evidence necessarily implicated another man (Marchenko), but that it could be used for that purpose. So the cover up may not have been quite as bad as it seems.

And yeah, Ukraine has always been concerned about being associated with the death camps and language in the media that would do so. None of that was really touched on

I assure you that *fraud on the court* indeed is as bad as it seems.

[DavidFrankenberg]

What chocked me the most was the false testimony of a jewsih survivor who said to have killed Demaniuk in 1943 uprising...
The same man recognizing Demaniuk 40 years later...

[Sergey Romanov]

What chocked me the most was the false testimony of a jewsih survivor who said to have killed Demaniuk in 1943 uprising...
The same man recognizing Demaniuk 40 years later...

Quite obviously he made an assumption of having killed Ivan in his earlier testimony (literally leaving him "for dead"), and as he convinced himself that Demjanjuk was the Ivan, he also realized that his earlier belief was an assumption. So it's neither here nor there.

[DavidFrankenberg]

What chocked me the most was the false testimony of a jewsih survivor who said to have killed Demaniuk in 1943 uprising...
The same man recognizing Demaniuk 40 years later...

Eliyahu Rosenberg; but quite obviously he made an assumption of having killed Ivan in his earlier testimony (literally leaving him "for dead"), and as he convinced himself that Demjanjuk was the Ivan, he also realized that his earlier belief was an assumption. So it's neither here nor there.

You cant rely on his testimony.