Текст книги "ГУЛаг Палестины"
Автор книги: Лев Гунин
сообщить о нарушении
Текущая страница: 54 (всего у книги 88 страниц)
Only later was the source of the "evidence" against Walus that had reached
Simon Wiesenthal identified. Walus had bought a two-family duplex when he came
to Chicago. In the early 1970s, he rented out the second unit to a tenant with
whom he eventually had a fight. Walus evicted the tenant, who then started
telling one and all how his former landlord used to sit around and reminisce
about the atrocities he had committed against Jews in the good old days.
Apparently one of the groups to which he told the story was a Jewish refugee
agency in Chicago, which passed the information along to Simon Wiesenthal.
(Charles Ashman Robert J. Wagman, The Nazi Hunters, 1988, p. 195)
For a statement concerning the Walus case made by Frank Walus himself, please read Frank Walus's
letter to Germany.
The Deschenes Commission
But is the Walus case a single slipup in Simon Wiesenthal's otherwise blemish-free career? No,
other slipups can be found – in one instance a batch of 6,000 others. Simon Wiesenthal kicked
the ball into play with the accusation that Canada harbored "several hundred" war criminals
(Toronto Star, May 19, 1971). The Jewish Defense League caught the ball, found it soft and
inflated it to "maybe 1,000" (Globe and Mail, July 5, 1983) before tossing it to Edward
Greenspan. Edward Greenspan mustered enough hot air to inflate it to 2,000 (Globe and Mail,
November 21, 1983) before tossing it to Sol Littman whose lung capacity was able to raise it to
3,000 (Toronto Star, November 8, 1984). The ball, distended beyond recognition, was tossed back
to Wiesenthal who boldly puffed it up to 6,000 (New York Daily News, May 16, 1986) and then made
the mistake of trying to kick it – but poof! The ball burst!
Judge Jules Deschenes writing the report for Canada's Commission on War Criminals first
certifies that the ball had indeed reached the record-breaking 6,000 Canadian war criminals:
The Commission has ascertained from the New York Daily News that this figure is
correct and is not the result of a printing error. (Jules Deschenes,
Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals, 1986, p. 247)
But now the big ball was gone, and all that was left was the deflated pigskin which Mr.
Wiesenthal lamely flopped on the Commission's table – a list of 217 names (which in other places
becomes a list of 218 or 219 names). The list was focussed on Ukrainians – Mr. Wiesenthal's
Vienna Documentation Center Annual Report for 1984 claimed that "218 former Ukrainian officers
of Hitler's S.S. (elite guard), which ran death camps in Eastern Europe, are living in Canada."
Upon subjecting the deflated ball to close and prolonged scrutiny, Judge Deschenes, arrived at
the following conclusions:
Between 1971 and 1986, public statements by outside interveners concerning
alleged war criminals residing in Canada have spread increasingly large and
grossly exaggerated figures as to their estimated number ... [among them] the
figure of 6,000 ventured in 1986 by Mr. Simon Wiesenthal.... (p. 249)
The high level reached by some of those figures, together with the wide
discrepancy between them, contributed to create both revulsion and
interrogation. (p. 245)
It was obvious that the list of 217 officers of the Galicia Division furnished
by Mr. Wiesenthal was nearly totally useless and put the Canadian government,
through the RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] and this Commission, to a
considerable amount of purposeless work. (p. 258)
The Commission has tried repeatedly to obtain the incriminating evidence
allegedly in Mr. Wiesenthal's possession, through various oral and written
communications with Mr. Wiesenthal himself and with his solicitor, Mr. Martin
Mendelsohn of Washington, D.C., but to no avail: telephone calls, letters, even
a meeting in New York between Mr. Wiesenthal and Commission Counsel on 1
November 1985 followed up by further direct communications, have succeeded in
bringing no positive results, outside of promises. (p. 257)
From the conclusions of the Deschenes Commission alone, 60 Minutes might have decided that Simon
Wiesenthal is not the kind of person whose pronouncements may be aired without verification.
Had any Ukrainian come to 60 Minutes carrying such a load of hatred toward Jews as Simon
Wiesenthal carries toward Ukrainians, and displaying – or rather flaunting – such credentials of
unreliability, 60 Minutes would never have given him air time, or if it did, it would be only to
excoriate him. Instead of exposing Mr. Wiesenthal, 60 Minutes has joined him in portraying a
world filled with Nazis, and so has lent support to a witch hunt more hysterical than Joe
McCarthy's sniffing out of Communists in the 50's. Consider the following excerpts from cases
submitted to the Deschenes commission for investigation as suspected Nazi war criminals, and see
if you don't agree. In the Commission report, all of the following cases end with the words,
"On the basis of the foregoing, it is recommended that the file on the subject be closed." The
selection is not intended to be representative, as the overwhelming number of cases are simply
dismissed for lack of evidence – but rather is a sample of cases that upon casual browsing stand
out as being particularly comical, pathetic, or alarming depending upon one's mood. The sample,
furthermore, is far from exhaustive – a vastly greater number of similarly striking cases abound
within the Commission report:
CASE NO. 73. This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission by
Mr. Sol Littman. Mr. Littman made no particular allegation against the
subject, but referred to information obtained from a particular individual as
the source of the subject's name. Mr. Littman further indicated that the
subject resided at an unspecified address in Canada and had been the object of
an extradition request by the government of an Eastern European country. No
particulars of this alleged extradition request were provided. ... The
Commission confirmed that an extradition request had not been received by the
Canadian government and that the Berlin Document Center had no record on the
subject.
CASE NO. 121. This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission
by the RCMP, whose source of information was the Department of the Solicitor
General which, in turn, had received the information from a private citizen.
It was alleged that this individual may have been a doctor who experimented on
concentration camp prisoners. ... The interview established that the
complainant was not in a position to place the subject in a Nazi war camp nor
was she in possession of names of witnesses able to connect the subject with
wartime criminal activities. ... [T]he subject would have been only 15 to 20
years old during the war, hardly an age to have the position suggested above.
CASE NO. 122. This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission
by an anonymous note. The only allegation initially made was that the subject
was a war criminal and was living at a certain address in Canada. ... [T]he
evidence ... indicates the individual has lived all his life in Canada and was
drafted into the Canadian army for a short time in 1942.
CASE NO. 133. This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission
by the RCMP, whose source of information was Mr. Sol Littman. It was alleged
that the subject under investigation had been a member of the SS. ... These
investigations revealed that the subject was born in 1933 and would therefore
have been between 6 and 12 years of age during the war.
CASE NO. 156. This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission
by Mr. Sol Littman. Mr. Littman alleged only that the subject had been a
"propagandist for the party." When contacted by the Commission, Mr. Littman
indicated that he had no further evidence or information. ... On the basis of
the foregoing [itemized investigation], no evidence of participation in or
knowledge of specific war crimes is available.
CASE NO. 158. This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission
by a private citizen. The only allegation initially made was that the subject
was a war criminal because he was so wealthy and of German background. ...
The Commission was advised [by several German sources] that it had a record of
the subject which indicated his membership in the Luftwaffe (air force).
CASE NO. 171. This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission
by ... the Jewish Documentation Centre in Vienna. ... According to the year
of birth, this person would have been only five or six years old at the end of
World War II.
CASE NO. 179. This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission
by an anonymous letter. The allegation initially made was that the subject was
the owner of a shop who behaved curiously regarding the sources of the store's
goods. ... The subject is the spouse of the individual who is reported in
Case No. 180. Both were denounced in the same anonymous letter. ... The
Commission checked the shop itself and concluded that the complaint is entirely
spurious and unfounded.
CASE NO. 180. This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission
by an anonymous letter. The only allegation initially made was that the
subject was the owner of a shop who behaved curiously regarding the sources of
the store's goods. ... The Commission also checked the shop itself and
concluded that the complaint is entirely spurious and unfounded.
CASE NO. 190. This family's surname was brought to the attention of the
Commission by Mr. David Matas [chairman of the Jewish National Legal
Committee], whose source of information was an anonymous letter claiming the
family came from a foreign country and deserved investigation because they were
"recluses." There was no specific allegation of involvement in war crimes made
against this family.
CASE NO. 202. This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission
by the Canadian Jewish Congress, whose source of information was a private
citizen. There was no specific allegation of involvement in war crimes made
against this individual, and the information received was irrational. ... The
Commission contacted the wife of the subject, who stated that she did not know
the citizen (who made the allegation) and that her husband never had any
business dealings with a person by that name. The Commission also tried to
locate the complainant but to no avail.
CASE NO. 247. This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission
by the Canadian Jewish Congress, whose source of information was a private
citizen. There was no specific allegation of involvement in war crimes made
against the individual. ... The Commission was advised by the German Military
Service Office ... that it had a record of a person with the same name as the
subject, which indicated that he was a pilot in the Allied Air Force and had
been taken prisoner by the Germans.
CASE NO. 269. This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission
by the Canadian Jewish Congress, whose source of information was a private
citizen. It was alleged that this individual is a physician whose physical
description resembles that of the notorious war criminal Dr. Mengele. ...
Personal data of the subject taken from various documentation reveal the
following in comparison with the information contained in the Commission file
with respect to Dr. Mengele:
Year of Birth
Height
Weight
Eyes
Face
Chin
Subject
1913
6'3"+
195-215 lbs
Blue
Oval (from Photo)
Dr. Mengele
1911
5'8"+
Medium build
Brown
Round
Round
In addition, the picture of the subject appearing in the various documents
received, does not suggest that he resembles Dr. Mengele. All other search
responses were negative.
CASE NO. 431. This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission
by the RCMP, whose source of information was Mr. Sol Littman. Mr. Littman had
forwarded a letter to the RCMP from a private individual. It was alleged in
the letter that the subject under investigation had been in charge of an
unnamed camp and was believed to have shot civilians. ... The Commission
interviewed the individual who submitted the subject's name to Mr. Littman and
was advised that this individual had subsequently determined that the subject
under investigation had been a prisoner of war and further that the complaint
was unfounded.
CASE NO. 433. This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission
by the RCMP, whose source of information was an anonymous informant. The only
allegation made was that the subject was "a possible German involved in war
crimes". No specific allegation or evidence against the subject was provided.
... The Commission reviewed material available from the RCMP and CSIS, which
determined that the subject was born in 1933, and for that reason could not
have been involved in the commission of war crimes between 1939 and 1945.
CASE NO. 526. This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission
by the Canadian Jewish Congress, whose source of information was a private
individual. It was alleged that the subject under investigation might be Dr.
Josef Mengele. ... The Department of External Affairs reported that it had a
record in respect of the individual, but that the individual had been born in
1928 in Canada.... ... Furthermore, the subject's name is not one of the
aliases used from time to time by Josef Mengele.
CASE NO. 561. This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission
by the RCMP, whose source of information was the Canadian Jewish Congress. It
was alleged that the subject was responsible for the deaths of "hundreds of
Jews." No specific evidence of the alleged war crimes was provided. ...
Records of the Department of Employment and Immigration ... indicate that the
subject was born in 1941....
CASE NO. 588.1. This individual was brought to the attention of the Commission
by the RCMP, who were investigating the suspicions of the Department of
Employment and Immigration officials that the individual might be older than he
claims and might be hiding a questionable past, which may have involved the
Nazi Party. ... It was verified [through various investigations] that the
subject is indeed who he claims to be and that he was indeed born in 1929. He
was barely 10 years old at the start of the war.
Sol Littman's Mengele Scare
As another piece of evidence that we are in the midst of a witch hunt a witch hunt in which
Simon Wiesenthal plays the role of chief inquisitor – consider Sol Littman's Mengele Scare. On
December 20, 1984, Mr. Littman – Canadian representative of the Simon Wiesenthal Center – wrote
to the Prime Minister of Canada unequivocally affirming that
Mengele, employing the alias of Dr. Joseph Menke, applied to the Canadian
embassy in Buenos Aires for admission to Canada as a landed immigrant in late
May or early June, 1962. (In Jules Deschenes, Commission of Inquiry on War
Criminals, 1986, p. 67)
Then on January 23, 1985, Ralph Blumenthal wrote an article in the New York Times captioned
"Records indicate Mengele sought Canadian visa":
Other records indicate that Mengele applied to the Canadian Embassy in Buenos
Aires for a Canadian visa in 1962 under a pseudonym and that the Canadians
informed American intelligence officials of this attempt.
This information was widely reprinted and broadcast. Subsequently, both Mr. Blumenthal and Mr.
Littman affirmed that the information in this article concerning Josef Mengele came solely from
Mr. Littman. However, following its thorough investigation, the Commission concluded:
There is no documentary evidence whatsoever of an attempt by Dr. Joseph
Mengele to seek admission to Canada from Buenos Aires in 1962.
The affirmation has come from Mr. Sol Littman, and from him alone. ...
The advice which Littman solicited [in the course of his own research] ...
did not support his assumptions, but put him on notice about their fragility.
As stated at the outset, all that Littman could rely on was "speculation,
impression, possibility, hypothesis". Yet he chose to transmute them into
statements of facts which he publicized....
This is a case where not a shred of evidence has been tendered to support
Mr. Littman's statement to the Prime Minister of Canada on 20 December 1984, or
Mr. Ralph Blumenthal's article in the New York Times on 23 January 1985.
(Jules Deschenes, Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals, 1986, p. 70)
In view of Sol Littman's irresponsibility in engineering the Mengele Scare, it is not a little
ironic to note that it was this very scare which was the prime cause of the Canadian government
constituting the Jules Deschenes Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals. We see this
demonstrated when the reasons for the Commission being constituted are laid out, and Sol
Littman's Mengele disinformation – at the time accepted as information – appears at the top of
the list:
WHEREAS concern has been expressed about the possibility that Joseph Mengele,
an alleged Nazi war criminal, may have entered or attempted to enter
Canada.... (Jules Deschenes, Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals, 1986, p.
17)
What we see in Sol Littman, then, is a case somewhat paralleling that of Morley Safer – a single
Jew creates a story out of thin air, and gets it disseminated to tens of millions of people
through a Jewish-controlled media which conveniently neglects to verify it prior to
publication. In Littman's case, he goes well beyond dissemination – he further succeeds in
pressuring the Canadian government to waste taxpayer money (always in short supply for education
and health care) on a costly inquiry which turns up just about nothing, and whose only
appreciable benefit is not to the Canadian people, and not even to Jews collectively, but only
to Sol Littman personally – which benefit is the stirring up of Jewish anxiety on the one hand
together with anti-Jewish resentment on the other, both of which are necessary to increasing the
flow of Jewish contributions into Sol Littman's coffers. Sol Littman, in short, is a parasite
upon the Jewish people, preying on the fears of the more gullible of them, essentially playing a
role not unlike that of Stephen King in which the bigger a scare he is able to elicit out of his
audience by means of the fantastic stories he is able to concoct, the greater is his success.
Repeating the same principle in different words, we may say that the more anti-Semitism Sol
Littman is able to provoke, the greater is his success.
How does Sol Littman come to be in the vanguard of the fight to suppress hate on the Internet?
Consider the information on Sol Littman which can be found on The Ukrainian Archive: (1)
Reviewing the sampling higher above of irresponsible denunciations submitted to the Deschenes
Commission, we note that four of them were submitted by Sol Littman, suggesting that in the full
list of denunciations, his contribution would have been substantial. (2) The Sol Littman
Mengele scare immediately above. (3) My 27May98 letter to Demjanjuk persecutor Neal Sher, in
which I present data supporting the conclusion that Neal Sher and Sol Littman are members of a
subculture who lie not only to those who are not members of their subculture, but to each other
as well, thus steeping themselves in untruths. Still more information is available on a web
site unconnected to UKAR devoted exclusively to exposing Sol Littman. Given the present UKAR
disclosure of Sol Littman's irresponsibility, and given the similar disclosure on other sites on
the Internet, as the one cited above, it is little wonder that Sol Littman is today a leading
exponent for society bestowing upon him (and others like him) the power to suppress information
on the Internet when he decides (or they decide) that it expresses "hate." Perhaps a suspicion
that it would be healthy to occasionally entertain is that those who call loudest for the
suppression of information may be those with the most to hide.
Salem's Was Not the Last Witch Hunt
Surely the above data convinces us that many of the horrors that we all despise – that even Mr.
Safer might profess to despise – are being realized as contemporary actualities. Slanderous and
unfounded allegations. Anonymous letters of accusation. Government agencies investigating
people for no other reason than that someone has submitted their names. McCarthyism. A witch
hunt. Individuals accused of having committed war crimes while they were still in diapers. And
instead of standing back from this mass hysteria or exposing it, 60 Minutes has chosen instead
to play a contributory role.
The Deschenes Commission cites 31 newspaper accounts between 1971 and 1986 of Nazi war criminals
residing in Canada, and points out that this list is not exhaustive. Decades of coverage of
such sensational accusations leaves a permanent impression on the minds of the public, while the
Deschenes Commission refutation takes place only once, and does not carry the same lurid
appeal. The net effect is a propaganda victory for the false accusers. 60 Minutes is making
its contribution to this phenomenon – its false accusations in "The Ugly Face of Freedom" were
long and sensational and will be remembered by many, its retraction will be short and dull and
will be remembered by few. 60 Minutes hands Ukrainophobes another victory.
Letters to Simon Wiesenthal
I have written a number of letters to Simon Wiesenthal asking for his clarification on the
issues raised above, and on other issues relating to his credibility and to his calumniation of
Ukraine. These letters can be found by clicking the above link. Other material relating to
Simon Wiesenthal can be found scattered throughout the UKAR site, and can be located using the
Internal Search Engine whose link can be found on the Home Page. One item particularly worth
mentioning might be my sixth letter to Michael Jordan, Chairman of Westinghouse. Following
examination of any of these materials, clicking BACK on your browser will return you to this
location (if your browsing trail has not been too long).
CONTENTS:
Preface
The Galicia Division
Quality of Translation
Ukrainian Homogeneity
Were Ukrainians Nazis?
Simon Wiesenthal
What Happened in Lviv?
Nazi Propaganda Film
Collective Guilt
Paralysis of the Comparative
Function
60 Minutes' Cheap Shots
Ukrainian Anti-Semitism
Jewish Ukrainophobia
Mailbag
A Sense of Responsibility
What 60 Minutes Should Do
PostScript
What Happened in Lviv?
According to Simon Wiesenthal on the 60 Minutes broadcast, in three days following the
evacuation of the Communist forces and before the arrival of the German troops, Ukrainian police
killed between five and six thousand Jews:
SAFER: He [Simon Wiesenthal] remembers that even before the Germans arrived,
Ukrainian police went on a 3-day killing spree.
WIESENTHAL: And in this 3 days in Lvov alone between 5 and 6 thousand Jews was
killed.
...
SAFER: But even before the Germans entered Lvov, the Ukrainian militia, the
police, killed 3,000 people in 2 days here.
Some 60 Minutes viewers may have been struck by the curious observation that while the 60
Minutes expert witness – Simon Wiesenthal – claimed that the number of Jews killed was "between
5 and 6 thousand," in three days, the interviewer – Morley Safer chose to reduce that number
killed to "3,000" and the duration of the killing to two days – but without informing the viewer
on what grounds he did so.
Let us begin our examination of this claim by reviewing the historical context.
Historical Context of the Lviv Pogrom
Eight Years Previously. Although Western Ukraine was spared the induced famine of 1932-1933 in
which some six million Ukrainians perished, Western Ukrainians were nevertheless aware of the
famine in adjacent Soviet Ukraine and aware that it was administered at the top by Lazar
Kaganovich, a Jew, and was supported at the bottom by cadres, many said to be Jewish, who moved
from village to village confiscating grain and livestock.
During the previous 21 months. Western Ukraine was annexed by Soviet forces in 1939 for a
period of 21 months until the Germans arrived in 1941. What was the experience of Western
Ukrainians under Russian communism? It was traumatic. On top of suppression of culture and
confiscation of property, there was terror:
The most widespread and feared measure was deportation. Without warning,
without trial, even without formal accusation, thousands of alleged "enemies of
the people" were arrested, packed into cattle cars, and shipped to Siberia and
Kazakhstan to work as slave laborers under horrible conditions. Many of these
deportees, including entire families, perished. ... According to Metropolitan
Andrei Sheptytsky, the Soviets deported about 400,000 Ukrainians from Galicia
alone. ... West Ukrainians found their first exposure to the Soviet system to
be a generally negative experience and many concluded that "Bolshevik" rule had
to be avoided at all costs. (Orest Subtelny, Ukraine: A History, 1994, pp.
456-457)
Vasyl Hryshko (Experience with Russia, 1956, p. 117) puts the number killed or deported in
Western Ukraine during the Soviet occupation at 750,000. It was commonly perceived by
Ukrainians that Jews were disproportionately represented among the Communists inflicting this
suffering upon Ukraine.
During the preceding few days. As the Soviets retreated, the NKVD perceived by Ukrainians to
be manned disproportionately by Jews – went on a killing spree. Concerning this event, there
seems to be widespread agreement. Particularly relevant to our discussion, is that even Simon
Wiesenthal can be found adding his voice of assent in the fifth of the series of quotations
below:
While the movement to the East was taking place, the NKVD carried out mass
arrests and executions, chiefly of Ukrainians – especially those who tried to
avoid evacuation. In the jails most prisoners whose period of imprisonment was
more than three years were shot; others were evacuated if possible. In several
cities the NKVD burned prisons with prisoners in them. (Volodymyr Kubijovyc,
editor, Ukraine: A Concise Encyclopaedia, University of Toronto Press, Toronto,
1963, Volume I, p. 878, Vsevolod Holubnychy and H. M. wrote this section)
The Bolsheviks succeeded in annihilating some 10,000 political prisoners in
Western Ukraine before and after the outbreak of hostilities (massacres took
place in the prisons in Lviv, Zolochiv, Rivne, Dubno, Lutsk, etc.). (Volodymyr
Kubijovyc, editor, Ukraine: A Concise Encyclopaedia, University of Toronto
Press, Toronto, Volume 1, p. 886)
Before fleeing the German advance the Soviet occupational regime murdered
thousands of Ukrainian civilians, mainly members of the city's [Lviv's]
intelligentsia. (Encyclopedia of Ukraine, Volume 3, p. 222)
The Soviets' hurried retreat had tragic consequences for thousands of political
prisoners in the jails of Western Ukraine. Unable to evacuate them in time,
the NKVD slaughtered their prisoners en masse during the week of 22-29 June
1941, regardless of whether they were incarcerated for major or minor
offenses. Major massacres occurred in Lviv, Sambir, and Stanyslaviv in
Galicia, where about 10,000 prisoners died, and in Rivne and Lutsk in Volhynia,
where another 5000 perished. Coming on the heels of the mass deportations and
growing Soviet terror, these executions added greatly to the West Ukrainians'
abhorrence of the Soviets. (Orest Subtelny, Ukraine: A History, 1994, p. 461)
When the German attack came on 22 June the Soviets had no time to take with
them the people they had locked up. So they simply killed them. Thousands of
detainees were shot dead in their cells by the retreating Soviets. (Simon
Wiesenthal, Justice Not Vengeance, 1989, p. 35)
Right after the entry we were shown 2,400 dead bodies of Ukrainians liquidated
with a shot at the scruff of the neck at the city jail of Lemberg [Lviv] by the
Soviets prior to their marching off. (Hans Frank, In the Face of the Gallows,
p. 406)
In Lvov, several thousand prisoners had been held in three jails. When the
Germans arrived on 29 June, the city stank, and the prisons were surrounded by
terrified relatives. Unimaginable atrocities had occurred inside. The prisons
looked like abattoirs. It had taken the NKVD a week to complete their gruesome
task before they fled. (Gwyneth Hughes and Simon Welfare, Red Empire: The
Forbidden History of the USSR, 1990, p. 133)
We learned that, before the Russian troops had left, a very great number of
Lemberg citizens, Ukrainians and Polish inhabitants of other towns and
villages had been killed in this prison and in other prisons. Furthermore,
there were many corpses of German men and officers, among them many Air Corps
officers, and many of them were found mutilated. There was a great bitterness
and excitement among the Lemberg population against the Jewish sector of the
population. (Erwin Schulz, from May until 26 September, 1941 Commander of
Einsatzkommando 5, a subunit of Einsatzgruppe C, in John Mendelsohn, editor,
The Holocaust: Selected Documents in Eighteen Volumes, Garland, New York,
1982, Volume 18, p. 18)
On the next day, Dr. RASCH informed us to the effect that the killed people in
Lemberg amounted to about 5,000. It has been determined without any doubt
that the arrests and killings had taken place under the leadership of Jewish
functionaries and with the participation of the Jewish inhabitants of
Lemberg. That was the reason why there was such an excitement against the
Jewish population on the part of the Lemberg citizens. (Erwin Schulz, from
May until 26 September, 1941 Commander of Einsatzkommando 5, a subunit of
Einsatzgruppe C, in John Mendelsohn, editor, The Holocaust: Selected Documents
in Eighteen Volumes, Garland, New York, 1982, Volume 18, p. 18)
Chief of Einsatzgruppe B reports that Ukrainian insurrection movements were
bloodily suppressed by the NKVD on June 25, 1941 in Lvov. About 3,000 were
shot by NKVD. Prison burning. Hardly 20% of Ukrainian intelligentsia has
remained. (Operational Situation Report USSR No. 10, July 2, 1941, in Yitzhak
