Regarding the accuracy of the Einsatzgruppen Reports

[Hebden]

We reproduce the following excerpt from the webpage:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/ftp. ... ccuracy-01

From: [email protected] (John Morris)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 970408: Partisans
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 09:08:19 GMT
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Lines: 26

[...]

In <5jm2f8$smv$[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:

[snip]

>REPLY: Let's cut this argument short. Where is
>the corroborating evidence which proves that
>Jaeger's alleged statements were accurate?

Short, sweet, and to the point: the authors of the Einsatzgruppen
Reports claim that they executed 500 Jews at the village of Serniki,
Ukraine in 1942. In 1990, Richard Wright, an archeologist at the
University of Sydney, Australia, located and exhumed their mass grave.
In the grave, he found about 550 human skulls. It was also reported
that the children of Ustinovka, Ukraine were shot after their parents
because they were left behind in the village. In 1991, Dr. Wright
located and exhumed their mass grave near Ustinovka, and the bodies of
the children were on top of the bodies of the adults.

Given the relative accuracy of other Einsatzgruppen Reports, what
leads you to believe that Jaeger's Report is inaccurate?

--
John Morris
at University of Alberta

More information on the Serniki exhumations can be found here:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/places/uk ... xcavations

An open and shut case, one might think, but something was troubling us. Why did Mr. Wright make no mention of the highly relevant and highly incriminating Einsatzgruppen Report in his presentation?

To ease our mind, we emailed John Morris some days ago and asked him for more information on the Einsatzgruppen Report in question. To date, he has not replied. We now notice that the webpage cited at the top of the page has apparently disappeared from the Nizkor site. Fortunately, we took the precaution of making a copy.

Can anyone else tell us which Einsatzgruppen Report in particular we should be looking for?

[Roberto]

We reproduce the following excerpt from the webpage:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/ftp. ... ccuracy-01

From: [email protected] (John Morris)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 970408: Partisans
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 09:08:19 GMT
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Lines: 26

[...]

In <5jm2f8$smv$[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:

[snip]

>REPLY: Let's cut this argument short. Where is
>the corroborating evidence which proves that
>Jaeger's alleged statements were accurate?

Short, sweet, and to the point: the authors of the Einsatzgruppen
Reports claim that they executed 500 Jews at the village of Serniki,
Ukraine in 1942. In 1990, Richard Wright, an archeologist at the
University of Sydney, Australia, located and exhumed their mass grave.
In the grave, he found about 550 human skulls. It was also reported
that the children of Ustinovka, Ukraine were shot after their parents
because they were left behind in the village. In 1991, Dr. Wright
located and exhumed their mass grave near Ustinovka, and the bodies of
the children were on top of the bodies of the adults.

Given the relative accuracy of other Einsatzgruppen Reports, what
leads you to believe that Jaeger's Report is inaccurate?

--
John Morris
at University of Alberta

More information on the Serniki exhumations can be found here:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/places/uk ... xcavations

An open and shut case, one might think, but something was troubling us. Why did Mr. Wright make no mention of the highly relevant and highly incriminating Einsatzgruppen Report in his presentation?

To ease our mind, we emailed John Morris some days ago and asked him for more information on the Einsatzgruppen Report in question. To date, he has not replied. We now notice that the webpage cited at the top of the page has apparently disappeared from the Nizkor site. Fortunately, we took the precaution of making a copy.

Can anyone else tell us which Einsatzgruppen Report in particular we should be looking for?

1. Who is "we"?

2. Depending on the date on which the Serniki killings were carried out, there may be an Einsatzgruppen report mentioning them or not. These reports were SOP until mid-1942 IIRC, but from then onward the entities involved in the mass killings seem to have decided that it was not advisable to produce such explicit documentary evidence.

You may try luck among those Einsatzgruppen Operational Situation Reports the translation of which is available online:

http://www.pgonline.com/electriczen/einsatz.html

3. Who is the idiot asking for "corroborating evidence which proves that
Jaeger's alleged statements were accurate"?

[Hebden]

We get mail. Lest we be accused of misrepresenting or misquoting Mr. Morris's confession, we have taken the liberty of reproducing it in its entirety:

Dear Mr. Hebden,

Thank you for your note. As a rule, I don't carry on discussions by
private e-mail with Holocaust "Revisionists." As another rule, I don't
join web-based discussion forums. Therefore, this will be my only
reply to you.

First off, I had already read some of your messages at
thirdreichforum.com: one participants tipped me that my name came up in
the discussion. I have no doubt that this reply will be wasted someone
who wonders whether there might be a sinister agenda at work in Robert
Van Pelt's omission of a single word when quoting a readily-accessible
and popular secondary source.

My original message was posted in a usenet newsgroup before I could
verify my claim, but I was confident that I would be able to verify it
if challenged. Since it was never challenged, I let it go. It was an
educated guess based on the following: that Einsatzgruppen C was
operating in the Kiev-Zhitomir area at approximately the time of the
Serniki and Ustinovka massacres; that Martin Gilbert listed the Serniki
massacre in his 1988 _Atlas of the Holocaust_. Because Gilbert listed
the Einsatzgruppen Reports in his general bibliography, I simply
assumed that was his source for listing the massacre at Serniki.

In short, I jumped to a conclusion that I shouldn't have. In the
meantime, I had no idea that Ken McVay had archived the usenet post at
his Nizkor website. I asked Ken to remove the file until I could
verify your query in case the information I gave was erroneous.

While you were so impatient for my reply, I was waiting for a reply
from Konrad Kwiet, the consulting historian in the Australian war
crimes case which commissioned Richard Wright's studies. Kwiet
informed me that Einsatzgruppen did not report activities in Serniki.
The figures for Serniki may well be subsumed in the figures for
Zhitomir, but there would be no way of telling now. None of the
published excerpts from the Einsatzgruppen Reports mention Ustinovka.

Kwiet also asked me to clarify my request for information about the
Serniki and Ustinovka cases. I am still waiting for his second reply.
If he doesn't reply soon, I shall ask Richard if he recalls exactly
what contemporaneous historical evidence was presented aside from his
forensic archaeology report. And that is the reason for my slowness in
responding: I was, and am, interested in treating your request for
information seriously.

Suffice it to say, however, my original claim was in error that the
Serniki and Ustinovka studies corroborate the Einsatzgruppen Reports.

In the meantime, the web page is down at my request because it was in
error. If, however, you (all) lose your copy, you can root it out of
the google newsgroups archive.

Regarding your perplexity that Richard did not discuss the other
evidence employed in the trial: I suspect it was because he wanted to
tell his own story and to focus on the usefulness of archaeology in
forensic investigations rather than to rehearse the entirety of the
trials. It seems to me fairly clear from his remarks were not made in
a vacuum and that he is discussing Nazi crimes and not some other
crimes.

Lastly, I have taken the liberty of bcc'ing this to the kind soul who
let me know where I was discussed. Heaven forfend that you should
scruple to misquote or misrepresent my remarks to you.

Cheers,
John Morris

[Marcus]

Who are "we" ??

/Marcus

[Luca]

[Hebden]

Who are "we" ??

/Marcus

For the benefit of non native English speakers, we reproduce the following definition from the Concise Oxford English Dictionary:

we [.....] 2 used for or by a royal person in a proclamation etc. and by a writer or editor in a formal context. [...]

We trust this is the last time we shall be required to dispense free English lessons.

[Luca]

We trust this is the last time we shall be

.......... + =



8)

[GFM2000]

We trust this is the last time we shall be required to dispense free English lessons.

Ouch....

[Marcus]

Hebden,

Drop the unfriendly attitude!


And btw, this forum hardly qualifies as a "formal context".

/Marcus

[David E M]

WE have decided that Hebden is really a royal person in disguise.

By the way, WE used by royalty really means "God and I..."

Cheers from US.

[Hebden]

Having reflected upon Mr. Morris's communication, we take the liberty of responding to it by breaking it up into more manageable and digestible proportions. Later instalments shall follow at our leisure.

Dear Mr. Hebden,

Thank you for your note. As a rule, I don't carry on discussions by
private e-mail with Holocaust "Revisionists." As another rule, I don't
join web-based discussion forums. Therefore, this will be my only
reply to you.

We merely note that Mr. Morris's lack of spine is his loss not ours.

First off, I had already read some of your messages at
thirdreichforum.com: one participants tipped me that my name came up in
the discussion. I have no doubt that this reply will be wasted someone
who wonders whether there might be a sinister agenda at work in Robert
Van Pelt's omission of a single word when quoting a readily-accessible
and popular secondary source.

To recap: we asked ourself this question:- what purpose could van Pelt have in omitting the number two from Hans Stark's description of the gas chamber in Krema I: "In the ceiling there were two openings of about 35 cm in diameter at some distance from each other." Why should he wish to conceal how many openings there were for the introduction of Zyklon B pellets? Is there some doubt on this matter? Let's see:

Hans Stark claimed there were 2.
Hans Aumeier claimed there were '2 or 3'.
Pressac claims there were 3.
The Auschwitz Museum claims there were 4.
Nizkor claim there were 5.
Filip Muller and Pery Broad claim there were 6.

[Roberto]

Having reflected upon Mr. Morris's communication, we take the liberty of responding to it by breaking it up into more manageable and digestible proportions. Later instalments shall follow at our leisure.

Dear Mr. Hebden,

Thank you for your note. As a rule, I don't carry on discussions by
private e-mail with Holocaust "Revisionists." As another rule, I don't
join web-based discussion forums. Therefore, this will be my only
reply to you.

We merely note that Mr. Morris's lack of spine is his loss not ours.

What an idiotic remark. Whether or not someone feels like posting on this forum is his or her free choice. But I often wonder why so few of the Codoh True Believers join open debate on this forum.

First off, I had already read some of your messages at
thirdreichforum.com: one participants tipped me that my name came up in
the discussion. I have no doubt that this reply will be wasted someone
who wonders whether there might be a sinister agenda at work in Robert
Van Pelt's omission of a single word when quoting a readily-accessible
and popular secondary source.

To recap: we asked ourself this question:- what purpose could van Pelt have in omitting the number two from Hans Stark's description of the gas chamber in Krema I: "In the ceiling there were two openings of about 35 cm in diameter at some distance from each other." Why should he wish to conceal how many openings there were for the introduction of Zyklon B pellets? Is there some doubt on this matter?

More junk. What makes the True Believer think that van Pelt purposefully omitted the statement that he makes such a fuss about?

Let's see:

Hans Stark claimed there were 2.
Hans Aumeier claimed there were '2 or 3'.
Pressac claims there were 3.
The Auschwitz Museum claims there were 4.
Nizkor claim there were 5.
Filip Muller and Pery Broad claim there were 6.

Well, that means that a number of witnesses saw openings in the sealing.

The fact that individual observation of such details differs among witnesses as it usually does in such cases - probably also due to the fact that the various witnesses made their observations at different times - doesn't blind criminal investigators and historians to the common thread running through all eyewitness testimonials.

True Believers don't think like that, of course.

These folks expect you to believe that if one witness said two holes and another said three, this means there were no holes at all.

Which makes you wonder how many holes such people have in their heads.

[Marcus]

Hebden,

Again (and for the last time), stop with the unfriendly attitude!

/Marcus

[Hans]

Pressac claims there were 3.

Where does Pressac claim that and on what evidence is it based?

The Auschwitz Museum claims there were 4.
Nizkor claim there were 5.

There is a photograph at the nizkor website showing a sealed gas introduction hole - in the photographers opinion. If we add this sealed hole to the other four that were supposedly reopened by the Poles after the war when they reconstructed the crematorium, we note that were presumably 5 holes in the roof of the gas-chamber. This is not nessecary the opinion of "nizkor", it is a conclusion that can be drawn due to evidence presented at nizkor.org. One could also draw other conclusions: That the Poles reopened 0, 1, 2 or 3 holes and that there were 1, 2, 3 or 4 holes in the roof of the gas-chamber. It isn't said what they believe. Therefore your above qouted claim is untrue and false. And this makes me asking myself this question: what purpose could Hebden have in stating that: "Nizkor claim there were 5." Why should he wish to add a prominent name to his list?

Filip Muller and Pery Broad claim there were 6.

Where does Müller claim that? Please quote it!

[David E M]

Hebden , can you stop with this supersillious attitude? I know where you are coming from , you may have something valuable to contribute, but you are pissing off every one. Don't talk down to us, some of us ( believe it or not ) may have more knowledge than you, we are here to help each other out in our various endevours, I hate to see people get kicked off this forum but we have to get along.
cheers.