Carlos Whitlock Porter Presents Analysis of documents from the Nuremberg trial Letter n 25 On the Einsatzgruppen Reports, etc.
READER: Hello Mr. Porter. In an article by you about document L-180, you wrote: "Far from being an "original", Document L-180 (like the other Einsatzgruppen Reports) is a negative photostat without letterhead, signatures, or handwritten markings of any kind. Like the 116-page so-called Himmler "secret speech" and probably ¾ of the other Nuremberg prosecution documents we have obtained so far, it contains not one single sharp S, a standard letter in the German alphabet. In the pages reproduced here, "Einfluss" should be written "Einfluß", and "Massnahmen" should be written "Maßnahmen"." I am trying to understand this. Specialists on the Einsatzgruppen such as Krausnick/Wilhelm rely mostly on Ereignismeldungen UdSSR (Event Reports USSR). These contain the event reports USSR(Ereignismeldungen UdSSR...), Tätigkeits- und Lageberichte( activity and situation reports..) and the Meldungen aus den besetzten Ostgebieten vom Chef der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD - Kommandostab". Now, what I am trying to find out is: Do the wartime Einsatzgruppen documents exist in the archives, or just negative photostats? I am trying to determine if these historians have used only these photocopies, or if they've used the originals. This seems very odd. Why do you think the originals from which the photocopies derived have vanished? (if that is the case). Because if the originals are nowhere to be found, that should have been more than enough for Mr.Weber or Mr. Irving to contest the authenticity of these things during the 1988 Zündel trial and the more recent Irving vs. Lipstad libel case. Yet, I don't think they did. They disputed only the correctness of the information contained in the reports but not their authenticity, if memory serves me right. Best wishes, NAME WITHHELD ME: I'm not entirely clear as to the difference between the Einsatzgruppen reports and the Ereignismeldungen UdSSR (Event Reports USSR), event reports USSR, and (Ereignismeldungen UdSSR...), and the Tätigkeits- und Lageberichte. I am quite certain that what I say is true because these facts -- particularly the disappearance of the original documents -- have been remarked upon by many people, revisionists and non-revisionists alike, including Pressac and Hilberg. There are no signatures, no letterheads, no originals and no sharp S. The original DID SIX MILLION REALLY DIE? written 30 years ago, remarks on all these points, except the sharp S. As I say, there must be authentic Einsatzgruppen reports, but nobody seems to know where they are. There are no originals of any Nuremberg trial documents, except for a few, more or less insignificant documents. Even the "file copies" are photocopies. Many people have remarked that nobody knows where thes e documents are. Have a look at my articles on Jean-Claude Pressac: and these aren't even Nuremberg Trial documents. What line of argument other people use, I don't know. Faurisson and Mattogno probably know the most about these documents. There appear to be many original archive documents (hundreds of thousands of them), but they were not introduced into evidence at the trials. In other words, the rule seems to be: if it is an original, it is not incriminating. Faurisson and Mattogno have seen these documents, but they certainly don't prove the existence of any gas chambers. Dog kennels, potato warehouses, horse stables, carpentry shops, ironworking shops, etc., etc. yes. I suspect that the original Nuremberg Trial documents have vanished because the documents were mostly forgeries to start with, but they may have vanished for some other reason. To me, engaging in complicated arguments about the "content" of apocryphal documents is putting the cart before the horse. To me, the first question is, is it an original? What kind of document is it? Where did the copy come from? What kind of copy is it? And so on. Then we'll argue about what they say. There are no originals, as a rule, especially, no Nuremberg Trial originals, or very few. And no rules of evidence, no chain of evidence. No requirement that original documents be presented. Very few people visit the archives. They write for photocopies. If the photocopy is a positive, they don't know whether the original is there, or not. But most of them are negatives.
...Why don't you try an experiment? It's easy enough. Pick any of these documents at random and write to any archive for a photocopy of it. If the photocopy is negative, you know they don't have the original. If the photocopy is positive, ask them if they have the original. If they say no, ask them where the originals are? See what they say. You might also ask how many originals they have. And even if it is possible to come and look at them. I think you'll find that what I say is true. CARLOS READER: Interesting idea. Could you give me any pointers? Like addresses to write to the archives, or how to find the addresses, etc. Would they reply to someone who is not a researcher or historian, like me? I am not sure I understand when you say a 'positive" or "negative" photocopy. English is not my first language. Could you be so kind as to clarify that for me? NAME WITHHELD ME: The "negative photostats", in their jargon, are negative photographs, white text on a black background. Whenever you see that you know they don't have the original. If a document is five pages long, and even ONE PAGE looks like that (which is almost always the case), you know they don't have the original. Write to the Stadtarchiv Nurnberg, Bundesarchiv Koblenz, National Archives and the Peace Palace of the Hague. You don't really need a street address. They will reply. They are very busy at the Hague, though. It might take some time to get an answer....i've been hunting around for images to add to some of my texts, such as www.cwporter.com/anatliar.htm and www.cwporter.com/innocent.htm, and there are many sites that sell autographed portrait photos or letters signed by National Socialist personalities. In these cases, the value depends entirely on the authenticity of the signature and document. If you offered somebody a "photocopy" of an autographed portrait of Keitel, you wouldn't get a nickel for it. Of course, if you are simply accusing the Germans of murdering tens of millions of people with all sorts of grotesque murder machines and torture devices, then the authenticity and origin of the document is simply beside the point. It is something which you almost never hear discussed. Incidentally, "negative photostats" can be converted into "positive photocopies" very easily by photographic means. I suspect that this has been done with some of the documents reproduced on http://www.holocaust-history.org, for example; to get 5 or 6 "positive photostats" in a row from the archives is fairly unusual. Most of them are negatives. But of course this doesn't look very good if you are trying to claim that the Hoaxoco$t is a "fact". People might start wondering why the photocopy is a negative, and where the documents are. CARLOS For more info on the following document [501-PS], see: National Archives Head Fakes Captions to Hoaxoco$t Poster Exhibit by C.W.Porter and J.M. Beard on the Gas Vans and Cremations
..
READER: Pretty good articles by the way. Revisionists should try to further dissect these Nuremberg documents and trials in detail. G. Rudolf was planning a book on those lines but unfortunately he has been put away. Do you have any familiarity with document NO-1128? It is a document allegedly from Himmler to Hitler, reporting among other things the execution of more than 360.000 jews in only 4 months! You can see a reproduction of it at Irvings' website here: http://www.fpp.co.uk/himmler/meldung291242.html A reader asks on the above webpage if Mr. Irving has seen the document, meaning I suppose, the original document. Unfortunately Mr. Irving, while stating he thinks the document is authentic, doesn't reply in regards to whether he ever saw the original of it. He indicates the original should be now in file NS19/291, Bundesarchiv, Koblenz. Irving's version -- incomplete and much sanitized.
ME: It is interesting to note Mr. Irving's exact words: "As stated in David Irving's biography Hitler's War, the original of the laconic report by Himmler that 363,211 Russian Jews had been executed will be found on US National Archives microfilm T175/124. The original is now in file NS19/291, Bundesarchiv, Koblenz." When Mr. Irving states that the "original" will be found on "microfilm", it becomes obvious that he simply does not understand what is meant by the word "original". Since the Bundesarchiv Koblenz has NO or iginal Nuremberg Trial documents (they told me so themselves), I doubt that the original is there, either. I think the document is ridiculous and the more I see of Irving the less I think he can be trusted. - C.P. Nov. 15, 2007 READER: The only revisionist I have seen making any comments in regards to NO-1128 is Mr. Butz in his "Hoax", but only very briefly. He says Himmlers' signature is on an irrelevant p.1 while the execution claim is on p.4. That however seems wrong because the number -2- at the lower right hand, indicates the next page, does it not? Therefore the execution numbers would be on the first page (which by the way is strange, don't you think?). Butz's note indicates NMT, vol 13, 269-272 (excerpts only). Would that be a facsimile? ME: FACSIMILE IN THE SENSE OF PHOTOCOPY, NO -- THEY ARE EDITED AND TYPESET, WITH TYPEWRITTEN SIGNATURES MARKED SIMPLY "SIGNATURE" IN THE TYPESET TEXT. READER: While Himmlers' signature indeed appears only on a different page, there seems to be a handwritten signature of a "Werner Grothmann", Himmler's adjutant at the lower right hand of the page detailing the executions. ME: There are no signatures anywhere on either of the two documents. gez. H. HIMMLER = signed H. HIMMLER = TYPEWRITTEN SIGNATURE = HIMMLER SIGNED SOMETHING SOMEWHERE BUT WE DON'T HAVE IT
Note: 2 different page numbers "Executed" page
There is no signature anywhere on the document. There are a couple of squiggles at the top of the page. Which one of these squiggles is supposed to be by Himmler? This is not what Himmler's "signature" or "initial" looked or looks like. Himmler initials Himmler signature Note: the figure of 363,211 is the total for the 4-month period put together -- almost 91,000 a month. Yet the SS and Ordnungs-und-Sicherheitspolizei are said to have lost a total of only 174 men killed in combat over the same period! These figures do not impress me as credible. Unless it was "Juden evakuiert", altered to "Juden executiert" and a few digits added; for example, "Jews evacutated, August", and some much lower figure, for example, "3124", retyped to show "31246"; that would make sense. There are other problems. For example, there are 2 different documents -- one prepared on what looks like Himmler's typewriter, and the other prepared on a typewriter with what looks like a Times New Roman typeface. The page numbers at the bottom have been added to the documents by the Americans. Question: Is the "Tines New Roman" "report" simply a rough draft for the "Himmler typewriter" "report"? Nobody knows. To add to the confusion, there are usually 2 page numbers on each page, one typewritten at the top, one written by hand at the bottom, by the Americans. FOR ALL FILES IN ORDER, click here
Times New Roman version of the "executed page", above. How strange to list the execution of almost 91,000 Jews a month along with the capture of "200 spades, shovels and saws" (last item on the right)!
Times New Roman report, page 1, above - C.P., 17 June 2017
READER: You know, one thing I find very strange about this document and the Einsatzgruppen reports in general, is that one cannot see any "Top Secret" stamps or something of the sort. That seems very weird to me. Plus, as others have mentioned, this No-1128 is supposedly a document that discusses the "Partisanenkrieg" (guer rilla warfare). Why then, mix up Jewish executions in it? The insurgency problem in the USSR was already very serious at the end of 1942, and a report about it to Hitler should have been objective and thorough. I don't know, it just seems strange in the things it reports. NAME WITHHELD ME: As I told you before, the Bundesarchiv Koblenz has NO ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS (at least none for the Nuremberg Trials). They told me so themselves. Why don't you write and ask them? You are right that the -2- should refer to the next page, I hadn't thought of that. The NMT documents reproduced in book form are TYPESET, without even any description of the documents (photocopy, mimeograph, certified true copy, original, etc.) or even any indication of WHETHER THEY WERE SIGNED OR NOT. In other words, the NMT volume s are almost completely worthless. They do not even contain the full transcript: for example, you get a whole series of questions asked by the prosecutor, to which the defendant or witness's answers have simply been deleted! There is no pretense that the witness remained silent; only the questions are considered worthy of interest. The liquidation of partisans should probably refer to liquidation of partisans, not Jews, although of course the contrary case is quite possible, if the Germans felt that nearly ALL Jews were partisans, which I think would be going too far. One of the Nuremberg defendants, I think it was von Manstein, said there were next to NO JEWS among the partisans. That is probably going too far. In France, the Jews formed 15% of the partisa ns but were only 1% of the population....i think the document has been retyped simply changing the figures; 360,000 is a ridiculous number. Who the hell is going to fill in all those holes? The original could have read 3,000, so a team of Soviet forgers retypes the thing, transfers the signature by photographic means, or by hand (the Soviets had whole government departments that did nothing but forge passports and other documents for about 70 years), and presto! It's absurd that anything incriminating would not bear a SECRET stamp. Either the document was not considered incriminating, or it is a fake. Of course the shooting of 3,000 partisans would not be considered incriminating. It is very easy to alter an existing document but fairly difficult to fake an original out of whole cloth, i.e., without a model to copy....i don't think that that is the first page of the document. It is obviously the second page. Yet the -2-, as you say, would normally refer to the following page, i.e, this should be the first page; but it seems strange. More riddles. Anyway, the figures are absurd. It's like all these documents saying the Germans cremated 10,000 or 20,000 bodies a day, or something. The document has to be forged, because what it describes is impossible. The page numbers at the bottom were obviously added by the Americans. It seems silly to write all over the evidence, but they did. Maybe somebody found a document that looked like this, but said "Juden evakuiert". They retype it, substituting "Juden executiert", and voilà. CARLOS READER: I had not thought of that, it is certainly a possibility. I intend to write to the archives, as you suggested. When I do I'll let you know the answer. NAME WITHHELD
ME: I think this is the way most of the Nuremberg documents were produced: by altering a single word or inserting a paragraph or page or occasionally an entire text, retaining the headings, if any. Faking an entire document is far from easy, but alteration is child's play; note the second paragraph above. That way, if necessary, you have the references, everything, so it fits into an entire file of authentic documents, if necessary, and may never be noticed, especially if the originals are never examined. As I have said, I consider the Himmler secret speech an altered speech on the military situation. That's just one example. Most forgeries require a model of some sort. For example, the Kujau "Hitler diaries" were faked by copying from Werner Maser's HITLERS BRIEFE UND NOTIZEN, published in 1973); it was the text (and the album covers) that gave him away.
If you look at famous forgers, you will see that very few of them produce original texts out of whole cloth; only signatures, which are often sold to private collectors and are never discovered. Almost the only successful exception was a Mormon, Mark Hoffman, who faked an original Emily Dickinson poem which was still being sold as authentic, certified by literary experts and handwriting experts, even after the guy had been in prison for almost 30 years. But that is very rare, in fact unique. A lot of people can fake a signature by Abraham Lincoln, for example, but when they try to fake a sentence or paragraph by him, they fail miserably, and get caught, because Lincoln's style in English is almost impossible to imitate. RECOMMENDED READING: GREAT FORGERS AND FAMOUS FAKES: THE MANUSCRIPT FORGERS OF AMERICA AND HOW THEY DUPED THE EXPERTS by Charles Hamilton (this is such a good book that one of the greatest forgers of all time -- the Mormon aforesaid -- Mark Hoffman -- had a copy of it) FAKE? THE ART OF DECEPTION Edited by Mark Jones With Paul Craddock and Nicolas Barker Published by the Trustees of the British Museum By British Museum Publications See also www.cwporter.com/no1128.htm BEST WISHES, CARLOS -2007 - UPDATED 26 JULY 2017] Layout by ungraindesable