It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.K. Prosecutors Will Not Pursue Himmler Forgeries, FT Reports

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2008 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 



these "retained" files, with many different dates of release or without such dates, were probably about Himmler's death. No mention of a general retention or a future general release in 2045.


(from François Delpla, who cannot connect himself !)




posted on May, 16 2008 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 



these "retained" files, with many different dates of release or without such dates, were probably about Himmler's death. No mention of a general retention or a future general release in 2045.


(from François Delpla, who cannot connect himself !)



Mr Delpla

Unfortunately I don't own the books in question so cannot double check the dates and details ...I believe the release date of 2045 applies to the circumstances surrounding his death as you say, but I can't be sure. I am currently preparing some research of my own that will eventually require me to visit Kew but until then I can only go by the word of other authors (as mentioned) I am sorry that I cannot clarify further for you. As I said at present I am merely a reader
As this thread clearly demonstrates also, even the most respected authors it seems are not beyond stretching the truth - I am finding that I spend much time reading between the lines.

I would very much like to know what it is about the case of Himmler that interests you and what led you to campaign for the information to be more freely available. It is sad to me that 70 years plus down the line we still need to keep these secrets and my mind is often occupied in theorising why this could be. Given your body of work which is focused on this period, as well as your nationality, I am most intrigued. I find it very frustrating that works written by German, Polish and French speakers are so seldom translated into English and while I am attempting to learn German (by small increments, my pronounciation is appalling!) I cannot foresee that I will ever be able to read the perspectives of the other european nations affected by the wars. I am therefore excited to have this opportunity to speak to you.

Do you recall any documents pertaining to Himmler that relate to Peace negotiations? Is it possible that there are documents that are not listed at all? What about files relating to Himmler's Circle of Friends or other known associates?

As far as logging in is concerned, the passwords and username tend to be case sensitive which could be the problem, if you continue to have problems try using the password retrival function, it will send a new password to your e-mail address. If you continue to have problems though please post and I will let a member of the admin team know and I am sure that they will be able to help you



posted on May, 17 2008 @ 10:52 PM
link   
from F. Delpla

connection problems : no button for it !

no reply from the staff


Himmler-Allen problem : I never believed Churchill would be disturbed by anything "Little H" could say, but by his potential actions as head of the SS in the beginning of the occupation of Germany.

It seems clear to me that, from the three archives Allen used to demonstrate the "murder", two are fakes, but not the "Thomas" telegramm : it was not expertised as a forgery wheter in 2005, nor after.

The scene of the suicide is probably genuine. The mystery is : who supplied the poison fial, and when ? Probably "Thomas", between the camp and the villa.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
from F. Delpla

connection problems : no button for it !

no reply from the staff


I am sorry that you are still having problems, the staff have been informed and I am sure they will resolve it as soon as they are able to. Please be persistent as I for one and very interested in talking to you.


Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
from F. Delpla
Himmler-Allen problem : I never believed Churchill would be disturbed by anything "Little H" could say, but by his potential actions as head of the SS in the beginning of the occupation of Germany.


Could you elaborate on what you mean here? Particularly which actions in particular you refer to...if I was to hazard a guess, do you mean the Roehm purge or rather the murders that were concealed within the purge - Schliechter (sp?) and Strasser for example, and the 'manufacture' of Hitler's consent by Goebbels, Goering and Himmler for this action. Or perhaps for his role in introducing Hitler to his key financiers...?

I agree though that Churchill had nothing to fear from Himmler or anything he may have had to say. I do though think that members of the British establishment would have been troubled by the 'power' of the information that Himmler held. British intelligence was firmly divided between the SIS and SOE, I believe it was the former that would have had the most the gain by Himmler's death.


Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
from F. Delpla
It seems clear to me that, from the three archives Allen used to demonstrate the "murder", two are fakes, but not the "Thomas" telegramm : it was not expertised as a forgery wheter in 2005, nor after.


I have to say I feel unqualified to comment, but I do think the whole thing stinks. I can't remember the content of the telegram that you refer to - is it the one to Ivone Kirkpatrick?


Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
from F. Delpla
The scene of the suicide is probably genuine. The mystery is : who supplied the poison fial, and when ? Probably "Thomas", between the camp and the villa.


I agree that the scene is correct but I am unsure of the mode of administration. I personally doubt that Himmler would have committed suicide and believe it more likely that he was forced to take the cyanide, if indeed that is what killed him. He was said to have consumed a cheese sandwich!!! how could he have done this with a vial over an inch long concealed in his mouth??!!!

Have you read Hugh Thomas's book? There is something very compelling about his theory that it was not Himmler at all but a double and he points out certain anamolies with the autopsy - additionally the fact that the British although in possession of Himmler's dental records did not use them to verify his identity. I am not convinced but I think it does add another dimension to the debate, I think it is possible that this story has been circulated to muddy the waters

What most interests me though, is that in 1946 Kim Philby arrived in Luneberg to 'verify' that Himmler was in fact dead and the body interred was Himmler. Schellenberg was also brought in to identify the corpse, he evidently confirmed that it was him. According to Thomas, some of the ex-SS personnel now working for Allied intelligence were getting jumpy because of memos that were being circulated that bore 'margin notes' that were highly reminiscent of Himmler's style. I am not sure if this fits. It could be that Philby was working under communist instructions but this seems somewhat doubtful given the level of clearance that he would have required to order the exhumation.

I think that Allen may have been targeted simply to muddy the waters and to prevent further study into these events. The prospect of being labelled as a fraud is enough to put many off.

I hope that the log in problem can be resolved soon, as it must be highly frustrating...please do not be put off though your contributions are valued.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Himmler could yet be dangerous by sabotage actions like "Werwolf".

I think this threat can explain a churchillian order of killing him (with this other advantage : breaking the morale of every SS man by the exhibition of his dead body -what eventually happened). But not on 23 or 24th May ! The SS power is then deadly broken. Perhaps an order of murder, sent early in May, was by mistake not cancelled ?

The best evidence that the scene of suicid is genuine is following : the whole staff there was not intelligence officers. The doctor had nothing to do with MI 6 or SOE ! It is difficult to think that a basic military medical officer was summoned to open the mouth of a prisoner in order to poison him.

Even if you do not read french, you can read on my site the report of Selvester, which destroys the idea that Himmler could keep in his mouth the fatal phial for the whole time he was under the control of the captain : somebody must have given it to him in the aftermath. www.delpla.org...

Hugh Thomas's book is not very fresh in my mind. I found it not compelling at all ! He is obsessive with the substitutions of persons. The truth is more simple : the identity of the prisoner was duly stated, and the need of a confrontation with his dental record inexistent !

Your Philby-Schellenberg story : did Thomas give evidences ? It would be very surprising that, despite their endeavours to hide the corpse, and the grave, the Brittons would have show both these things, one year later, to a German !

***I think that Allen may have been targeted simply to muddy the waters and to prevent further study into these events. ***

If so, that is not a success-story !


Sincerely

fd

ps technical problems at this time resolved, but I do not know how connect me quickly, and would very grateful if someone wd explain to me how change my password.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   
complement : the churchillian motive to hate Himmler and to wish his death is both his capacity of practical nuisance (my previous post) and a diplomatic one : Little H was very active, since at least 1943, to break the Grand Alliance and return the whole force of Germany and Western Allies against Soviet Union -by order of Hitler, I believe. Churchill was adamant, but perhaps Roosevelt not so much.

The beginning of May 1945 is decisive; the links between Himmler and the classic right forces (Schwerin, etc) can seem most dangerous, from London. Churchill does not want that Stalin takes more than his portion of Europe and Germany, but he wants that his portion is to him firmly granted. The game of Himmler is evidently to contest this.

But also this problem is, on 23th May, much less acute. The resignation or German people is clear.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 10:46 AM
link   
To change your password, click on the tab marked ‘MemCentre’ from the menu across the top of the board. From the column down in the left hand side of the new screen select ‘Change Password’.

You may find it helpful to scan through the board linked here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It answers most questions about the site and if not, you can ask your own.


Originally posted by François Delpla
Himmler could yet be dangerous by sabotage actions like "Werwolf".

I think this threat can explain a churchillian order of killing him (with this other advantage : breaking the morale of every SS man by the exhibition of his dead body -what eventually happened). But not on 23 or 24th May ! The SS power is then deadly broken.


I mis-interpreted what you said, I apologise. I realise now you meant the Allied occupation of Germany rather than the Nazi occupation. That makes better sense. I’m not sure how possible it is that Churchill was concerned about Werwolf and that that may have precipitated an order to assassinate. It depends on how much Churchill trusted the intelligence on the matter.

As I am sure you are aware Goebbels announced in a public address the existence of Werwolf, in retrospect it can be seen as a last ditch attempt at boosting the civilian population to annihilate itself in the defence of Germany…but the reality is that Werwolf was not going to be a real threat, comprised as it was by boys and ‘old men’, there may have been a threat in terms of sabotage but I don’t think that that would have been too considerable. I do agree that any threat that existed from the SS was already neutralized.

Whether Churchill chose to order Himmler’s assassination would depend fully on whether he believed there was a threat. At Nuremberg, tanks were placed outside the court house through fear of attacks. Outwardly at least the Allies seem to be responsive to a threat. ?????

I can’t remember where I read it but I did read somewhere that Churchill considered letting Himmler live, the implication being that he was offered amnesty from trial…but really the implication may be that he considered not assassinating him.

Do you think that Himmler’s death could have had any effect on breaking the allegiance of some SS personnel that had been interred? We know that some mercenary units were formed from the remanents of the SS, could Himmlers death have been required to get them to go over to the ‘other side’?


Originally posted by François Delpla
Perhaps an order of murder, sent early in May, was by mistake not cancelled ?


I don’t think this could be the case. Communications were too effective. Those working for Churchill would have verified the command. It is possible, if the assassination was carried out by personnel not under Churchill’s command though, those working for the other powers in Britain. The assassination to be ‘legal’, would have had to pass before the Joint Intelligence Committee. As far as I have found out it wasn’t (neither was Heydrich’s). I don’t think it is possible that an order like that would not have at some point in the 8 hours Himmler was at that base not have been countermanded. If he was assassinated intentionally I doubt it would have been a mistake.


Originally posted by François Delpla
The best evidence that the scene of suicid is genuine is following : the whole staff there was not intelligence officers. The doctor had nothing to do with MI 6 or SOE ! It is difficult to think that a basic military medical officer was summoned to open the mouth of a prisoner in order to poison him.

Even if you do not read french, you can read on my site the report of Selvester, which destroys the idea that Himmler could keep in his mouth the fatal phial for the whole time he was under the control of the captain : somebody must have given it to him in the aftermath. www.delpla.org...


Thank you. Thomas’ reproduces that report but it was helpful to refresh my memory. I think I may have misunderstood you, but at the base there were no intelligence officers I think you are saying. He was though escorted from the camp to the villa by 6 intelligence officers. Are you suggesting that the phial was given to him in transit?


Originally posted by François Delpla
Hugh Thomas's book is not very fresh in my mind. I found it not compelling at all ! He is obsessive with the substitutions of persons. The truth is more simple : the identity of the prisoner was duly stated, and the need of a confrontation with his dental record inexistent


I agree with your assessment of Thomas, I believe he has written a similar book on Bormann. I admittedly don’t find those elements compelling about Thomas’s theory, it is more the way in which the autopsy and identification were carried out. There are conflicts of information, there was on one side an outspoken desire to confirm without a doubt his identification, but certain information, like the dental records, were withheld from those conducting the autopsy. Therefore, I do feel inclined to believe that there was a desire to conceal something.


Originally posted by François Delpla
Your Philby-Schellenberg story : did Thomas give evidences ? It would be very surprising that, despite their endeavours to hide the corpse, and the grave, the Brittons would have show both these things, one year later, to a German !


Schellenberg was a ‘special’ prisoner. He was co-operating with the British and they with him. I can’t remember Thomas’s sources I am afraid, but I do not doubt that the British would have had too many reservation about using Schellenberg in this way. Otherwise you will have to excuse me, I do like a conspiracy and the Philby angle is highly intriguing for me in that respect.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Thank you for these informations. I must verify and think, but I want now focuse my attention -and, if possible, yours- on the "Thomas" telegram :
it is a copy of a decoded telegram of the 24th May (2. 50 am) from a Mr.Thomas in Bremen which includes the message that

"Further to my orders we successfully intercepted H.H. last night before he could be interrogated. As instructed action was taken to silence him permanently."

Great news : this document is genuine ! At least it can be exploited more surely than most of the currently used documents in the academic books, because a lengthy forensic examination, which discovered 29 fakes, did not find anything against it !

Here is the answer to your assertion, that of course a contact were taken between Camp 031 and London during the detention of Himmler. No contact at all ! And the explanation is clear : the mission was not very legal, and the commando had to act very quickly and discretely.

On the other hand, Churchill was yet in charge of gigantic problems and it is thinkable that such delicat matters were decided by him once for all times, then handed to small staffs, sure to be covered.

My hypothesis of an order old-fashioned but not updated, is yet vigorous !



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   
This is excellent, I had assumed that that was one of the fake documents! This makes the whole Allen episode more bizarre, perhaps he has just taken short cuts and bought fake documents or documents that he believed to be genuine but did not bother to verify. Someone just out to make money perhaps then? I’ll leave that aside though, as you say the Thomas document if FAR more interesting..

Can you remember who the Thomas telegram was sent to or addressed too. I would like to know if it was Ivone Kirkpatrick but either way a name or division would be most helpful. If the telegram is indicative of an ordered assassination then the recipient of the telegram is vitally important in understanding who ordered the assassination and more over whether it was from the Churchill camp.

It is still possible I admit, that the order was not recinded, I am still not entirely convinced though that it is likely. If the order to assassinate existed it is my opinion that it was meant to be carried out, I don’t think an order of that magnitude would be undertaken unless they were completely sure it was what was wanted. Whoever committed an assassination on a person of Himmler’s rank and importance would feel 100% confident of that order. Whether the assassination is legal or not. I am not sure about that one, but I doubt Himmler’s death could be the result of an oversight. Plus the transmission to verify the order would not necessarily have had to go to Churchill himself. Especially if the order didn’t originate from him, and this is what I would be most keen to verify.

Do you know where the six escorting intelligence officers travelled from? Were they already based at Luneburg? I sadly can't remember and I didn't keep notes of this information.


Edit to add - I've just had a thought, don't the fake documents point to Brendan Bracken as having ordered the assassination? If so, I think we should definately consider that the documents were meant to deflect attention TO the Churchill camp. We then perhaps, should look away from there.

[edit on 18-5-2008 by KilgoreTrout]



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by François Delpla
The beginning of May 1945 is decisive; the links between Himmler and the classic right forces (Schwerin, etc) can seem most dangerous, from London. Churchill does not want that Stalin takes more than his portion of Europe and Germany, but he wants that his portion is to him firmly granted. The game of Himmler is evidently to contest this.


I missed this, it is interesting. And, may explain the possibility that Philby was involved in a exhumation of Himmler. I am not sure if you are aware of the activities of the Cambridge spy ring, but Donald Maclean fed Stalin communiques between Churchill and Roosevelt in the run up to the Yalta, Posnan and another conference that I can't remember right now (frustratingly) I'll look it up later. Philby was working for the far-right as part of his cover as a Communist spy, he was also working for MI5. It is, for me unclear who, if any commanded his loyalty..but for the moment the importance here is that what you say above adds another circumstantial link to explain why Philby may have involved himself in the 'Himmler affair'. One of Philby's employers, if not all, may have considered the above of paramount importance, and if there was some dispute as to whether Himmler was dead or not could have caused some ruffled feathers. I think it is safe though to assume that it was Himmler's body.



posted on May, 18 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   
from F. Delpla (from another computer than the usual one, no way to connect me !!)

Thomas adresses his telegram to Bruce Lockhart.
Copy here : forum.axishistory.com...

That is enough to ruin the hypothesis of a non-churchillian team.

I have not here the book of Hugh Thomas. Gives it an evidence of this "exhumation" ?

Allen insinues "Thomas" is Ingrams. He is anyway a prominent member of PWE or SOE, which can give orders to colonel Murphy for the "silencing", not only of Himmler but of the whole file. When he is sent to Germany, Himmler appears to be dangerous and his elimination does not require a renewed order.

The expression "silence him permanently" does'nt implies necessary a murder, it fits also to a supply of a suicidal way.

The example of Göring is interesting : the last theory says that a Californian soldier supplied him the phial of cyanide (hiden in a package by a German girl) because he had a certain esteem to the fallen Reichsmarschall. That gives me the idea that "Thomas" or his emissary could play a similar game : a magnificent soldier against communism does'nt deserves the gallows, so I give you a way, hiden in your mouth it can be undiscovered, good luck !

It is a possible scenario. The Kew Archives Center, or the Cabinet, has the truth. Let us claim it !



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


"has the truth" is not a convenient formulation : "has the matter for the finding of the truth by the historians" is a better one.

FD



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS from F. Delpla

Thomas adresses his telegram to Bruce Lockhart.
Copy here : forum.axishistory.com...

That is enough to ruin the hypothesis of a non-churchillian team.


Absolutely, Lockhart was very much trusted by Churchill, also a staunch anti-communist.

This is from the original story about the forgeries and Allen from the Telegraph


The allegation that the SS leader was murdered, with the knowledge of Churchill and War Cabinet ministers, appeared in Himmler's Secret War, published in May.


This seems to be the main point the faked documents were supposedly to have disproved. But the 'Thomas' telegram, which is genuine, still supports that 'theory' that it could have been a verification that an assassination had been carried out as ordered. As you say it could also mean that he had been silenced by being given the means to commit suicide. I really don't understand why Allen would use faked documents to support this hypothese, when the 'Thomas' telegram stands scrutiny and by investigation a decent circumstantial case could be developed, one way or another.

Mundane or sensational, the truth in my mind is preferable, it should be down to the skill of the writer to draw a story from it that makes it interesting. Allen is a skilled writer, I don't feel that he needed to do this, I would rather give him the benefit of the doubt that he did not intentionally set out to mislead.


Originally posted by Anonymous ATS from F. Delpla

I have not here the book of Hugh Thomas. Gives it an evidence of this "exhumation" ?


I will get the book out from the library at the first opportunity. Until then I cannot say I am afraid.


Originally posted by Anonymous ATS from F. Delpla
Allen insinues "Thomas" is Ingrams. He is anyway a prominent member of PWE or SOE, which can give orders to colonel Murphy for the "silencing", not only of Himmler but of the whole file. When he is sent to Germany, Himmler appears to be dangerous and his elimination does not require a renewed order.



Admiral John Godfrey, the Director of Naval Intelligence, had got to the point of asking for my transfer to his staff when at last I was offered a real job by my Psychological Warfare bosses. Leonard Ingrams did the offering. This truly brilliant man combined a key job in the Ministry of Economic Warfare with another in the Cloak-and-Dagger Organisation S.0.2 later renamed S.O.E. (Special Operations Executive) which was responsible for the organisation of resistance, sabotage, assassination and kindred enterprises. He had yet a third job in S.O. i as my department was called. In truth he was a star operative on the British side of the Secret War of wits and I had the greatest admiration for him

www.seftondelmer.co.uk...

It certainly appears that assassinations were in his remit and being in PWE he was within Churchill's sphere. I'm not sure though. He was Black Propaganda - could the telegram be propaganda? Perhaps Himmler committed suicide or even died accidently, but it was considered useful 'psychologically' to allow others to think otherwise???


Originally posted by Anonymous ATS from F. DelplaThe expression "silence him permanently" does'nt implies necessary a murder, it fits also to a supply of a suicidal way.


Given that Ingrams was involved in Psychological warfare it could be conceived that Himmler succumbed to psychological torture which led to his suicide...I can see a plausibility there. It may also be something that Ingrams would consider handling personally.

I agree that it doesn't have to be a straight forward assassination, but isn't assisted suicide still illegal! If the intention was to silence Himmler 'permantly' and he was helped to his death, then I doubt it could be an oversight that they forgot to recind the order. It doesn't sit right for some reason.

Ingrams roles are pretty all encompassing and he would have been pretty much autonomous. It could be possible that the assassination was turned down or changed and that that order was not passed down the chain of command - intentionally perhaps?

I'm not sure....

I agree with you entirely that any papers relating to this could be released and clear up any doubt one way or another. Their failure to do so only suggests that they have something to hide. I doubt that anyone would be THAT shocked to find that Britain ordered the assassination of Himmler.

Have you had any response to your queries about why these documents are being retained?



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 07:47 AM
link   
Mr. Delpla,

Excuse me for going off topic in the thread, but I've send you two U2Us, one today and one yesterday. I can see you haven't opened them yet, as you probably not have noticed them.

In the top bar of the page just next to MemCenter a red button 'U2U' appears when you have unopened messages. Just click it and you can read them.

I am giving a quick tutorial concerning your log in problems.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


***Have you had any response to your queries about why these documents are being retained? ***

Never !
That is normal !

the retaining himself, in such matters, is not.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by François Delpla
 


It is normal for the UK, especially in matters covered by the Official Secrets Act and the Defence of the Realm Act (DORA). It is usually common that they are placed on some form of time release, the maximum being 100 years, though it is possible that this can be extended as considered necessary.



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
reply to post by François Delpla
 


It is normal for the UK, especially in matters covered by the Official Secrets Act and the Defence of the Realm Act (DORA). It is usually common that they are placed on some form of time release, the maximum being 100 years, though it is possible that this can be extended as considered necessary.



a good reform in that matter is a philosophical stone : if the law too liberal is, many departments will destroy their "sensitive" documents. 30 years before releasing (with possible derogations) is a good thing. But not, in a political matter, 63 !! The retention of the Himmler's death papers (we have not the slighest report on the affair, dated 23 or 24 May 1945, only the press cuts !) is an absolute scandal. And as the matter was, in his time, very important for the peace and balance of powers in the whole world, the dissimulation is both anti-democratic and stupid.

That hides a shame, of course. But no necessary a serious one. Britain was at war, with Japan, therefore the quick appeasement of the German situation was urgent, it was a just and defensive war and in a war (just or no) the means are not always those of Mere Teresa, the orders can be confuse, old-fashioned, etc.

I find the shame is perhaps only the dissimulation of a lie. In a war ! Anyway, the truth is a right, for the whole mankind, in a world so full of little heirs of Hitler and Himmler.

Perhaps a British citizen will object that only he and his compatriots have rights towards their Government. I will answer : all good, it is a duty !



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by khunmoon
Mr. Delpla,

Excuse me for going off topic in the thread, but I've send you two U2Us, one today and one yesterday. I can see you haven't opened them yet, as you probably not have noticed them.

In the top bar of the page just next to MemCenter a red button 'U2U' appears when you have unopened messages. Just click it and you can read them.

I am giving a quick tutorial concerning your log in problems.


Thank you, things are in order I think.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by François Delpla
I find the shame is perhaps only the dissimulation of a lie. In a war ! Anyway, the truth is a right, for the whole mankind, in a world so full of little heirs of Hitler and Himmler.


I could not agree more, I believe that by retaining these 'secrets' the British establishment and government have done a great disservice to us all. I have theorised a number of reason for this but come to no firm conclusions.

In the case of Himmler, I think that he may have been led to believe by some quarters that the full extent of the genocides in the east was unknown to the west and therefore he could surrender, and a deal would/ could be made - as it was in the case of Schellenberg and Karl Wolf.

The fact that Himmler ordered Action 1005 and entrusted Paul Blobel with the task of removing the evidence of the mass graves in the east suggests to me that on some level at least Himmler was under the illusion that he could conceal these crimes.

When he was taken into custody and interrogated, it is likely that he was informed otherwise. Britain had been intercepting German radio signals since 16 July 1941 and had the means of de-ciphering them (ULTRA). As all leaders of the Einsatzgruppen were instructed to send regular transmissions of their progress to Berlin and did so in great detail it can be assumed that Britain knew of the mass executions and the key locations involved.

This has never been admitted by the British government. In its silence in this matter, the British helped to ensure that a full examination of these activities was not mounted and it is only since the fall of the Iron Curtain that we are beginning to understand the motives and intentions of the Nazi heirarchy in these actions.

It can also be argued that Britain, like the US and others hindered the emigration of the Jewish people out of Europe and it can be argued that they would have been aware of the fate that awaited those people in the east.

My primary area of interest is in intelligence, and as I am sure you are aware the battles of the 'dirty war' conducted by Churchill were as intense as those fought on the ground. Churchill's policy of the 'Ends justifying the means' can perhaps be seen as a complete disregard for humanity in the cold light of peace. As Churchill himself said (and i paraphrase) 'History will be kind to me, I know because I intend to write it.' Certainly from the British side he did along with many former SIS officers turned historians. It is very difficult to extract the truth from the hype at times.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 02:48 AM
link   
If I good understood, you think a ground of the "silencing" of HH could have been the insufficient endeavour of the Allies to hinder the Final solution.

It seems to me logical... excessively !

That war, in the top of british or allied authorities, was a tremendous whirlpool, with only two clear aims : destroy the enemy and sustain the friend... the useful (even if potentially) friend. The civilians Jews are neither enemies, nor useful friends. Their misfortunes are not priorities, neither for the information nor (still less) for the action.

The idea the Allies did not do enough in that field is a polemic one, risen in the sixties. Churchill was very far to fear such a prosecution in May 1945.




top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join