How many documents were fabricated?

[bombsaway]

"fabrication of documents,"

Not very many. There are, what, three explicit gas chamber/gas van documents?

I would agree that a large number, say more than a hundred, is not realistic, but I don't think that was the case.

Gas van documents I count 5 or 6 here that revisionists say would be fake

4,5, 9, 10, 12, 14

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... tml#_doc12

We can add to this the FG report, the documents on HCN detectors in the crema (which Mattogno thinks were fabricated)

Sonderkommando manuscripts must all be fake as well, there are what 8 of them?

The Greiser correspondence points explicitly to 100,000 Jews being "euthanized" in his district (Warthegau)- FAKE

But this is just the beginning.

Archie, are all these documents real?

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... 29-30.html

I feel like we can easily get up to 100 documents that must be faked when we start taking into account the shootings in the East

[curioussoul]

It's very telling that pretty much every document that contains a no-nonsense admission of mass murder from the Germans themselves is related to the Einsatzgruppen. The question of the veracity of the EM reports is obviously a huge topic of discussion, and I do believe many of them contain genuine errors and exaggerations, but when your only serious documents about mass murder of Jews come from an anti-partisan combat unit operating in the Occupied Eastern Territories and specifically tasked with rooting out and neutralising threats behind the front line, it's clear you're on shaky grounds front the get-go.

As for faked documents unrelated to the Einsatzgruppen, serious revisionists very rarely allege fraudulence, but if you're to ask me, I would point to the June 28 Handover Protocol for Crematorium III at Birkenau as an obvious example of a possibly fraudulent document that just seems too convenient and absurd to be genuine, as well as the odd request to Topf for a Hydrogen Cyanide measuring device. Both of these documents have obviously been dealt with at length by Mattogno and others throughout the years.

I think the error antirevisionists tend to make is to assume no ill intent or nefarious motives. Of all the positions that antirevisionists take, this is hands down the most absurd one, because it's intuitively true for any sane person that there were massive incentives to lie about German crimes after the war. That doesn't automatically make the accusations false, but it should put us on edge when it comes to over the top or ridiculous claims, such as those related to the Holocaust. Faking documents, as a practical matter, would have been very easy and it's not hard to imagine some overly zealous Jew in the Allied occupation regime taking matters into his own hands.

[bombsaway]

This thread was about fabricated documents.

How many of those Babi Yar documents are fabricated, they're all real you think?

[Stubble]

This thread was about fabricated documents.

How many of those Babi Yar documents are fabricated, they're all real you think?

Raises an important question either way. If real, why do they exist, assuming the massive cover up operation. This small collection of files could have been easily destroyed and simply was left. Odd, ain't it?

We are told all reference was destroyed to any extermination and so we are left with 'criminal traces' and yet, here these sit.

Personally, I don't know how many of the Einsatzgruppen Reports are real or fake as I haven't bothered to look at all of them. I will say that slipping some fakes in with some real ones is a common tactic, and I've said this before.

most of these are mundane reports on antipartisan (antiterrorist) operations. Firefights, file recoveries, stuff like that. Some are different.

With Babi Yar specifically, again, I need to dig further. If there was an operation to move these jews, not have them lay head to foot face down in quicklime and wait patiently to be shot in the back of the head, how many of those are we talking? Not very many, eh?

Do you think the evil nazis were completely thorough with all the gassing documents but somehow missed this handful? I mean to say, you believe this? With a high percentage of certainty?

Edit; upon going back through the Einsatzgruppen OSR's I have come to realize, yes, I have read them, they however are not replete in their availability. Even the released OSR's are dominated by mundane reports of antiterrorist actions and intelligence gathering.

[bombsaway]

"Odd, ain't it?"

https://chatgpt.com/share/68216a63-f1ec ... 283418b790

It's an important question Stubble. This tells you what you need to know from the orthodox perspective

[Archie]

"fabrication of documents,"

Not very many. There are, what, three explicit gas chamber/gas van documents?

I would agree that a large number, say more than a hundred, is not realistic, but I don't think that was the case.

Allow me to elaborate on this comment a bit. To clarify, by no means do I think it is impossible for governments to forge a large number of documents. Nor would I get hung up on that 100 figure which I threw out off the top of my head. I think it was certainly within their means to lots of documents, I just don't think that's what happened. They didn't really need to forge a bunch of documents for those show trials. It seems to me that if they were going to go through the trouble of forging a very large number of documents that they would have forged better, more explicit ones and they would have featured them more prominently. It just doesn't seem to have been the strategy. Could have have forged a good number and not really used them? I suppose, but I've never had reason to think that.

I would add that you should really consider when the document emerged/became known. Individual documents that surfaced late would not have to be part of any mass forgery operation. These could be one-offs and not all by the same entities. If there was really major forgery of documents, presumably this would have been in the early post-war period. But I could see a trickle of one-offs emerging later.

Another point would be whether we are talking about forging documents from scratch versus potential slight modifications of otherwise authentic documents. The latter would obviously be much easier. It is difficult to know to what extent any of the documents have been tampered with in some way. You might say that we can't assume this without conclusive proof but I see no reason to assume absolute fidelity. My position is that most documents are presumably but not necessarily authentic.

I would break this down into categories.

Stationary Gas Chambers

-The Second Franke-Gricksch Report
-You say HCN detectors but this would be circumstantial. Butz disagreed with Mattogno on this.
-Pressac criminal trace more generally: All of these are ambiguous/circumstantial, so it is not strictly necessary to assume forgery. My view is that these were not forged but more likely cherry-picked by Jan Sehn and the Poles and we are missing (perhaps deliberately) many of the documents that would have provided the necessary context to interpret all these things definitively.

There is, to my knowledge, one explicit document about CO gassings in euthanasia context (the one from the T1021 microfilm). This document has not received sufficient study. IF it is legit, then I would consider conceding CO gassings in the context of euthanasia, but this wouldn't automatically prove the gassings in the so-called extermination camps or establish the scale.

Gas Vans

The big ones are PS-501 and the Just document. Most revisionists think these are fake. There's also one about Mauthausen in the same folder as the Just document. I tend to lump those two together. Not a big number. I will check your link later, but 6 (taking your word for it for a moment) is not a big number.

Bottom line on the gas chambers we are talking about a quite small number of implicit forgeries. This is really what I had in mind with my comment, and nothing you have shared here inclines me to reconsider. If the gas chambers don't hold up, then the Holocaust is a fraud and honestly nobody is going to care about whatever other parts of it might have some grain of truth.

Einsatzgruppen

There are a lot of Einsatzgruppen documents, and some revisionists suggest forgery here, but I don't see this as necessary. Clarification here: Just because a document is "authentic" does not mean it is accurate. This seems to be a point anti-revisionists cannot grasp. If there is a document, even an authentic one, saying 34,000 Jews were killed in two days at Babi Yar, I still would not accept that number. I do not care what a piece of paper says. It's either bogus or modified or it's just wrong because of the logistical implausibility and lack of physical evidence. "But why would they inflate figures?" you might ask. This is actually extremely common in wars.

There are few Einsatzgruppen documents that might be challenged like maybe the Jaeger report which was not discovered until 1963. Maybe Meldung 51. But at least for me, I don't see the need to assume hundreds of forgeries here.

I could go on, but I think these are the key points.

[bombsaway]

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... 29-30.html

Archie, can you go through the Babi Yar documents and tell me your feeling on if they were faked or not? You can speak probabilistically and roughly here. If you accept that they all might be real, I'll show you in another thread why this is a problem for your argument that the event did not transpire as believed.

[Archie]

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... 29-30.html

Archie, can you go through the Babi Yar documents and tell me your feeling on if they were faked or not? You can speak probabilistically and roughly here. If you accept that they all might be real, I'll show you in another thread why this is a problem for your argument that the event did not transpire as believed.

We've discussed this before on the old forum. I'm not going to go through all of those right now but here is what I told you last time.

Speaking only for myself, I would not want to make any sort of definitive pronouncement on the authenticity of each of these documents.

I would sort them in three categories. Documents 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 12, 17, 18 are rather vague and I don't see them as very strong for your case. Documents 4, 7, 10, 11, 15, 16 are incriminating but they are USSR exhibits which to me makes them somewhat questionable. Then 8, 9, 13, 14, 19, 20 are other incriminating documents, although 14 doesn't give any numbers. The last one appears to have been an NMT document (NO-2657). Some of the facsimiles don't look very impressive (just regular typed pages). If they are authentic, we also have the question of numerical accuracy (see my earlier post).

https://archive.codohforum.com/20230609 ... c23cd.html

Probably a good one to focus on would #7. That's the most famous and has been the most discussed. It says "on 29 and 30 September 1941, 33,771 Jews were executed in Kiev," which is quite explicit. However--and this is what really separates my approach from yours--I would not accept that as proof even if the document were known with certainty to be authentic and unaltered. Because documents can be wrong, especially with numbers.

For me, the much stronger considerations are:

• The logistical implausibility of the procedure as described
• The lack of physical evidence (the Soviets found nothing there in Nov 1943)
• The story of the 80,000-100,000 bodies being dug and burned which was so implausible not even the NYT reporter believed the ESC's Jewish "eyewitness." The air photos also don't support this clean-up operation.

Now then, if there is a tension between some of the documents and the physical evidence, how could this be reconciled? Forgery or modification is one possibility. Another possibility is that the numbers might simply be completely wrong and unreliable.

[TlsMS93]

The story of the leaflet calling on the Jewish population of Kiev is already a forgery, let alone the place of the massacre, the number of deaths, the method of killing, blood geiser, good aerial photos of the untouched place, etc.

Einsatzgruppen?

“As for the number of victims, it cannot be excluded that the accounting precision with which the Event Reports were written conveys a false impression; it is possible that the exact number of people killed during the massacres was not recorded, and it seems conceivable that the figures given are exaggerated in order to polish the ‘record of success’.”

Peter Longerich

[Nessie]

...

Probably a good one to focus on would #7. That's the most famous and has been the most discussed. It says "on 29 and 30 September 1941, 33,771 Jews were executed in Kiev," which is quite explicit. However--and this is what really separates my approach from yours--I would not accept that as proof even if the document were known with certainty to be authentic and unaltered. Because documents can be wrong, especially with numbers.

For me, the much stronger considerations are:

• The logistical implausibility of the procedure as described

Argument from incredulity.

[*]The lack of physical evidence (the Soviets found nothing there in Nov 1943)

Alternative or a lack of evidence is how to correctly determine if a described event took place or not. In the case of Babi Yar, that would be evidence to prove after the Jews gathered there, they were transported to a camp or ghetto, or, there was a thorough search in 1943 and no traces of any corpses or bullets were found.

[*]The story of the 80,000-100,000 bodies being dug and burned which was so implausible not even the NYT reporter believed the ESC's Jewish "eyewitness." The air photos also don't support this clean-up operation.
[/list]

Back to the argument from incredulity, but with a nod to the need for evidence.

Now then, if there is a tension between some of the documents and the physical evidence, how could this be reconciled? Forgery or modification is one possibility. Another possibility is that the numbers might simply be completely wrong and unreliable.

Or, it has come about because of a Nazi cover-up. A crime that was not thoroughly investigated at the earliest opportunity, that has had a large scale destruction of evidence, is not going to end up with "tension". The bottom line is that if 80-100,000 Ukrainian Jews were not killed at Babi Yar in 1941-2, then where were they in 1943? There is corroborating documentary, physical and witness evidence they were shot. That the evidence is limited in its scale, is explainable by the destruction of evidence. There is also evidence of motive and opportunity, with the actions of the EG and Nazi attitudes towards Eastern European Jews.