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

Originally posted by François Delpla
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 !

No you have misunderstood me. I do not mean that they were the grounds for silencing Himmler, what I think is that Himmler may have believed that Britian did not know and the realisation that they did could have led him to consider suicide. ie he thought that he had 'gotten away' with it and HE felt that he could negotiate. Realisation to the contrary may have contributed to an understanding of how 'embarrassing' personally, his trial and execution would be. So while Himmler is known to have stated that he would under no circumstances commit suicide if captured, it is possible that information presented to him could have changed that assertion.

The Allies had by the surrender of Schellenberg and Wolf obtained or gained access to most if not all of the pertinent information they required. Any bargaining power that Himmler thought he may have had been nullified. Himmler could though testify against others. This is what some may have wanted to avoid, Himmler was only too well aware of how the Nazis had been funded and how some of those people had committed crimes against their countries laws and against international law. I believe that this could be the reason for wanting Himmler 'permanently silenced'. Himmler's infamy would require a trial and at a trial it would not be possible to 'contain' Himmler.

Originally posted by François Delpla
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.

Again I think you misunderstand me. The intercepts of transmissions relating to the holocaust could have been used to 'break' Himmler. It does not shock me that Britain and her allies were willing to consider the 'holocaust' as collateral damage. Par for the course I am afraid, what I am saying, is that Himmler may not have expected that Britain was in possession of such detailed knowledge and that knowledge made him realise that suicide was the better option.

The reason why Britain may consider this information not suitably for public release is that it had not 'shared' this information with its Allies. If the report contained any reference to ULTRA for example. ULTRA intelligence was withheld from everyone but the US and even then they were only showed what we wanted them to see. It may also have contained reference to VENONA, it was essentially that the Soviet Union not be made aware of those intercepts and would become ever more so as time progressed.

Originally posted by François Delpla
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.

No fear of prosecution but it would have had an impact of Foreign Relations and Britain's standing in the division of the 'spoils'. This and this alone would have been Churchill's primary concern.

Sorry for my misunderstandings ! And thanks for your explanations.

I think Himmler did not seriously hope that his role in the Final Solution could be ignored. I think still less that the commando headed by "Thomas" had in his mind, or his bags, the english records of this massacre.

If you know the interrogation reports of Schellenberg and Wolff, perhaps will you tell me whether the "holocaust" is a central topic in these documents, and whether they recognise their knowledge of it.

Originally posted by François Delpla

If you know the interrogation reports of Schellenberg and Wolff, perhaps will you tell me whether the "holocaust" is a central topic in these documents, and whether they recognise their knowledge of it.

I wish, I have seen one signed statement by Schellenberg it is highly sanitised, I'll try and dig out the link, but I doubt that the full report of his interrogation or perhaps 'debrief' would be a more appropriate term, will ever reach the light of day. Schellenberg's value to the Allies would have been greater than that of Himmler's. The evidence of genocide in the east I only theorise MAY have been sufficient to lead Himmler to take his own life. It would have had no bearing on Schellenberg's treatment.

Schellenberg was in Sweden and through his intermediary, Count Bernadotte was in negotiations with the British - supposedly on behalf of Himmler.

Wolf's surrender to Allen Dulles and any subsequent interrogation would be in US archives and I do not know whether such a report exists. Wolf's surrender is of lesser importance to me personally as it was more strategic than related to intelligence.

Schellenberg was in charge of intelligence for the entire Reich, including, since Canaris's arrest the Abwehr network. This information would have been of paramount importance to the Allies and Britain in particular. His representation by Bernadotte suggests that there were 'private' interests in Schellenberg's welfare also.

Schellenberg, as belied his 'trade' was a manipulative and clever man. He received a sentence that did not befit his position and seniority in the SS heirarchy. He got off, as did other 'useful' persons, very lightly in my opinion. He received special treatment, if he did not have SOMETHING to bargain with he would not have received that treatment.

This is a prime example of how at the trials of major war criminals where he appeared as a witness to the prosecution, Walter Schellenberg, was able, unchallenged to deflect attention on to others while making himself come out smelling of roses.

www.yale.edu...

DR. KAUFFMANN: Did Kaltenbrunner ever indicate to you that he had agreed with Himmler that everything concerning concentration camps and the entire executive power was to be taken away from him and that only the SD, as an intelligence service, was to be entrusted to him and that he wanted to expand this intelligence service in order to supply the criticism that was otherwise lacking?

SCHELLENBERG: I never heard of any such agreement, and what I found out later to be the facts is to the contrary.

DR. KAUFFMANN: Now, since you have given a negative answer, I must ask you the following question, in order to make this one point clear: Which facts do you mean?

SCHELLENBERG: I mean, for instance, the fact that after the Reichsfuehrer SS very reluctantly agreed, through my persuasion, not to evacuate the concentration camps, Kaltenbrunner-by getting into direct contact with Hitler-circumvented this order of Himmler's and broke his word in respect to international promises.

DR.KAUFFMANN: Were there any international decisions in respect to this-decisions which referred to existing laws or decisions which referred to international agreements?

SCHELLENBERG: I would like to explain that, if through the intermediary of internationally known persons, the then Reichsfuehrer SS promised the official Allied authorities not to evacuate the concentration camps, owing to the general distress, this promise was binding according to human rights.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


Yes but that version was notorious, since the publication of the memoirs of Bernadotte, in June 1945 ! Schellenberg added no charge against Kaltenbrunner.

I think all this was a play of roles, orchestrated by the Führer himself. Schellenberg was the good, Kaltenbrunner the monster, Himmler the centrist. Probably, after the fall fo the Reich, Schellenberg played a more personal role, in order to save his life.






Mod Edit: Entire quote of preceding post removed. Reply To function used. Please see ABOUT ATS: Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote. Thank you - Jak

[edit on 25/5/08 by JAK]

reply to post by KilgoreTrout




Mod Edit: Quoting – Please Review This Link.

khunmoon
staff

[edit on 20/5/2008 by khunmoon]

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


My apologies for not responding sooner but things have been hectic of late. I do wish to thank all of you for your very kind welcome to this interesting forum. I had hoped to post a detailed reply that would have answered many of your questions, but unfortunately the 4000 character maximum prevents me from doing so. If the response is published anywhere on the net, I shall follow up with a link to the URL.

In response to your specific comments regarding the evidence I had uncovered supporting the case for Himmler's assassination, I can say that it was of a circumstantial nature, but leading to the overwhelming conclusion that foul play was involved in the death of the Nazi leader. The evidence I had compiled was based upon forensic reports, a doctored and inadequate autopsy report, entries from personal diaries, and documentation from the PRO as well as other archives in the United States, such as Stanford University, the Library of Congress, military archives in Maryland, and other sources.

Over a span of ten years, I had exhaustively assembled every imaginable scrap of evidence from a wide variety of credible sources pertaining to Heinrich Himmler's last six months on earth and the circumstances of his arrest and death. My research also revealed the existence of private letters written by Himmler to his mistress, Hedwig Potthast. Although I did not use these letters in my book, David Irving latched upon them and is apparently including them in his upcoming Himmler book. Whether he gives me the credit for their discovery in the archives remains to be seen, but I doubt it.

I also made liberal use of taped interviews with Himmler's two companions, Heinz Macher and Werner Grothmann, who were with him up to the moment when he was led away by a British security detachment. Their insightful comments were helpful in unraveling the web of intrigue surrounding the case.

I am hoping to interest an English language publisher because the circumstances involved in Himmler's death are quite complex and really ought to be read in full.

One fact that can be mentioned was my discovery of the fact that Himmler had been rather viciously beaten after he was removed from the custody of Captain Tom Selvester, who had treated him with a certain level of courtesy.

Insofar as your comments re Mr. Allen, I must continue to remain circumspect and adopt a 'wait and see' strategy, although I will agree that the matter can go either way. I find it rather peculiar that no charges have been brought against Mr. Allen by the Crown. The authorities have never been shy in their prosecution of suspected or actual 'revisionists' before and I find their solicitous interest in Mr. Allen's declining health unconvincing. I had contacted Scotland Yard on a number of occasions requesting information as to when a suspect would be named and charged but their responses were always evasive, albeit polite.

In respect to your posted concerns re my "adoption by the revisionist community" and your apprehensions that words may have been placed in my mouth that are not necessarily reflective of my work, you are 100 percent correct.

I also happen to agree with you when you say that Himmler's death has absolutely no bearing on the Holocaust.

In regards to Mr. Irving, I know the man fairly well. I spent days with him whilst conducting research at Stanford prior to beginning my work on "Himmler's Death." He is a very competent individual, a gifted writer and quite well organized in everything he undertakes.



As I am running out of space, perhaps we can leave this subject to a future discussion.

Best regards,

JBellinger

reply to post by François Delpla


I have read your comments with interest. You are very close to discerning the facts. "Secret negotiations' between Himmler and Churchill [according to Mr. Allen] were never a factor in his assassination, according to the evidence I had painstakingly assembled. Neither was it the Holocaust.

reply to post by khunmoon


Thank you for your very kind welcome to your forum. I am very impressed by the quality and substance of the posts here and I shall do my best to answer your questions and comments.

I think you have confused my thesis with Mr. Allen's. In ten years of researching the subject of Himmler's death and his last six months of activities on this earth, I never did uncover convincing evidence that his death was decided upon due to concerns to keep alleged 'secret negotiations' with Mr Churchill secret. The thesis is seriously flawed, because no secret negotiations were ever undertaken by the British. With the exception of one brief moment of weakness on the part of Mr. Churchill, negotiations with Himmler were never an option. It was the American OSS agent Allen Dulles who cultivated that option, and quite cleverly at that, in an attempt to 'drive a wedge' between the SS and the German Army. To set Himmler against Hitler.

And to all extents and purposes, he succeeded - at least in turning Hitler against his paladin.

I have set out all of the circumstances in my book. I am currently in search of an English language publisher, because the book really must be read in toto to understand precisely all the various intrigues and events that were in play at the time. Are you by any chance fluent in French? I ask because a French language edition was published this past year.


Now, in respect to Mr. Allen...yes, I do believe it to be a very distinct possibility that the papers may have been planted in the archives before Mr. Allen ever began his own research and that they were intended for 'me' to discover. I remember David Irving contacting me via email when Hugh Thomas' book was suddenly published and serialised in the British press. I recall his utter astonishment that the book was released only a few months ahead of my own, as if to 'neutralise' the subject and my conclusions in advance. He was so wrought up about it that he asked me if I had ever had any contact with Thomas! Of course I hadn't, so the question of dirty tricks arises once again. Certainly, 'interested parties' had already become aware of my project after I had recited a public speech on the thesis. Moreover, I had corresponded with the curator of the Royal Dental Museum in Aldershot requesting copies of Himmler's autposy etc,, and photos were taken of Himmler's death mask and the impression of his teeth. Thus, the wheels of interested parties and the inevitable procession of copycat writers were set into motion.

I read Mr. Thomas' book with interest and some degree of amusement, because I find it very difficult to believe that a man of his intelligence and background could seriously believe in the thesis of his own book. Hence, my only conclusion was that the motivation for the book was one based upon 'damage control.'

Rather curiously, though, I am indebted to Mr. Thomas for filling in a number of gaps in the evidence just prior to Himmler's Death going to press.


Finally, I am not convinced that the case has been closed. If it has, then I find that decision to be somewhat suspicious. If that is indeed the case, then I think that the matter should not be allowed to rest. It ought to be pursued further. If it is true that Mr. Allen showed copies of the forgeries to his publisher in America - and I personally spoke with them - then it still does not preclude the suggestion that they might have been previously planted to lure me into taking the bait and not Mr. Allen. Without a proper hearing, we shall never know.

In fact, I did obtain and make use of a number of recently released documents from the PRO, but these controversial papers were not among them.

Regards,

JBellinger

Happy you found the time to post on ATS. I'm sure you'll find yourself at home here. All though we don't have any forum specific dedicated to History or WWII, we have the following forums where topics on subject matters concerning the era may fit:

General Conspiracies
Secret Societies
Disinfo & Deflection
Research Forum

All of the Forums of ATS can be explored from the Board Home

Original posted by JBellinger
I have set out all of the circumstances in my book. I am currently in search of an English language publisher, because the book really must be read in toto to understand precisely all the various intrigues and events that were in play at the time. Are you by any chance fluent in French? I ask because a French language edition was published this past year.

Unfortunately my French is (much) worse than my German. I might give the German version a try; along with a dictionary I should be able read it. The currilicum of both English and German are on equal footing in Danish schools. Unfortunately in my time, the Fifties and Sixties, it wasn't the most popular language class.

Though I don't have the detailed knowledge like yourself, Mr Delpla and Kilgore have on the subject matter it certainly thrills me to read it. I learn a lot from it. I do find it remarkable odd that any professional agency would make this forgery with a laser printer which makes me ponder --whether it was intended either at you or Mr Allen-- who is the source of the forgery. And of course what the intension of it can be.

Churchill was one of the true heroes of WWII we were taught, though evidence has shown a strong motive of revenge guided his decissions and he wasn't that 'serene' history wants to make him.

As I said my special knowledge is not that plentifull on the subject matter at hand here. I focus on the conspiracy angle as to why they won't prosecute or even have a hearing. I suspect the reason to be certain things they want to keep out of history. But as you yourself put it, "without a proper hearing, we shall never know."

Originally posted by François Delpla
Yes but that version was notorious, since the publication of the memoirs of Bernadotte, in June 1945 ! Schellenberg added no charge against Kaltenbrunner.

It may be helpful if I reiterate that I am a conspiracy theorist, or I at least consider myslef to be one. I therefore appraise information perhaps a little differently to you.

The fame of Bernadotte's and Schellenberg's version of events does not make it the correct version of events. The Fall of the Curtain, Bernadotte's memoir of the talks he held in Berlin at the end of the war is to my eye a piece of 'apologetica'. He not only seeks to stem the tide of criticism that his interactions my have invoked but also to direct the nature of that criticism.

I re-read it last-night (it is only 82 pages in length) and confirmed that he makes no mention of the SS's actions in the east, he refers only to the crimes that had been committed in the concentration camps. He writes glowingly of Schellenberg and helps to construct the scapegoating of Kaltenbrunner. His attitude to Himmler is quite benevolent, painting him as quite ineffectual in his dealings with Hitler and quite unaware of the atrocities committed in his camps. With retrospect we know this to be untrue, we know that Himmler took a great and personal interest in all these operations. Schellenberg's very carefully practiced testimony at Nuremberg re-enforces Bernadotte's acccount.

Schellenberg had been responsible for compiling the lists that were provided to the Einsatzgruppen in advance of the invasions of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Russia and the aborted invasion of Britain. He was responsible for the Venlo incident. He was also, allegedly involved in the failed attempt to kidnap the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. And, Kaltenbrunner, Schellenberg says, had tried to convince Himmler that Schellenberg was working for British Intelligence. Perhaps he was...

Originally posted by François Delpla
I think all this was a play of roles, orchestrated by the Führer himself. Schellenberg was the good, Kaltenbrunner the monster, Himmler the centrist. Probably, after the fall fo the Reich, Schellenberg played a more personal role, in order to save his life.

I certainly think that it is possible that Hitler was aware of the peace negotiations. Hitler was more than aware that there was no future for him, neither Churchill or Stalin or the US were going to make a deal with Hitler. Goebbel's is said to have attempted to open negotiations with the Russians, but most in Germany were deeply opposed to this, Hitler included. Hitler had made repeated attempts to negotiate with the British or with elements within Britain. He knew that they would not deal with him and he knew they would not deal with anyone of his behalf.

When we look at the last days of Hitler it is clear that he was not a well man and that he was dying. Everyone around him knew that there was no hope. Seemingly except Hitler, I truly feel he expected 'divine intervention' so sure was he that he was right and that he was the saviour. I do not think that any of those around him could have felt anything other than self-preservation. It is apparent to me that there are those who were more aware and who began planning for the eventuality of defeat as early as 1943. Goering made noises to the effect that he was willing to have Hitler declared 'mad' if peace could be obtained.

Though Bernadotte paints Himmler as harmless and somewhat ineffectual against Hitler we know that Himmler was not this way with everyone. As important as his oath may have been to him, as Bernadotte claims, we know that he had previously acted in tandem with the Nazi resistence. It to me is most telling that although he attended most meetings at the Wolf's Lair on the days that von Staffenberg was planning to attempt an assassination Himmler was absent. Von Staffenberg waited wanting Hitler, Goering and Himmler to be caught in the blast. When Himmler was repeatedly absent he went ahead anyway. Himmler's behaviour following the attempt suggests he was 'waiting it out', giving the coup attempt a chance...or seeing if Hitler would die. Either way it is apparent that Himmler was more than aware of actions of the 20 July 1944 plotters.

Himmler may have not been capable of acting alone against Hitler but he was not above allowing others to and then filling the breach himself. Himmler was looking forward and there were others within the 'Circle of Friends' who had bought Himmler's loyalty.

There was a great fear in Germany of both the Soviets and the socialist elements in the US government. Henry Morgenthau Jr had made it clear that he wished Germany to be absolutely destroyed and reduced to the level of an 18th century agricultural economy. Those with industrial interests in Germany were most concerned that this should not happen. Churchill too did not wish to see Germany completely destroyed. For Churchill's part it is possible, in my mind, that he would be willing to consider a deal with Schellenberg to avoid Himmler or Schellenberg falling into US hands. The Nazi resistence were already in communication with Allen Dulles, Churchill must have known this and he would have been eager that those who funded the Nazi Party in the first place were not able to take too great a share of the spoils. Churchill ever the 'pirate' will have been considering the division of the 'booty' and what that would mean for Britain.

Originally posted by JBellinger
One fact that can be mentioned was my discovery of the fact that Himmler had been rather viciously beaten after he was removed from the custody of Captain Tom Selvester, who had treated him with a certain level of courtesy.

Welcome back Mr Bellinger and thank you for taking the time to reply to my questions. The above intrigues me greatly and one of the reasons I was interested in the autopsy report as presented in Hugh Thomas's book.

According to thomas the autopsy state that Himmler (or the stand-in, according to Thomas), suffered a condition that results in asymetrical tissue growth in the face, causing a 'lop-sided' look. I however from studying the photographs I came to the conclusion that Himmler actually looks as though he has a broken jaw and that while his nose may not be broken, i think that the cartiledge at the tip of his nose (around the septum) may have been displaced.

I personally feel that a scenario where Himmler's is being restrained by two men, one holding his upper jaw and the other his lower could result in these type of injuries. Possibly forcing Himmler to consume something or to prevent him from doing so.

What do you think?

Edit to rephrase - less haste more speed!!!

[edit on 21-5-2008 by KilgoreTrout]

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


I agree with Kilgore on this : the signs of violence on the dead body are wholly explained by the attempts to save him (or the simulacres of).

To Mr Bellinger

What do you think about this idea : doctor Wells was not an intelligence officer, and therefore the scene of suicide, as he often related it in his lectures, must be genuine ?

The only problem therefore remains : who gave the poison ? (and, of course : why ?)

Greetings Messrs. Delpla and Bellinger,

I am one of the owners of AboveTopSecret.com and welcome you both to our little oasis on the web.

Because your learned interaction is highly valued here I have increased your character limits per post. I hope this new larger number accommodates your needs.

Best regards,

Mark...

reply to post by François Delpla

On 23 May, Himmler was taken to the Security Force Headquarters at Uelzener Straße 31a in Lüneburg.
He had to undress himself and was inspected by the military doctor, Captain C. J. Wells, accompanied by Colonel Michael Murphy (Secret Service), Major Norman Whittaker, and Company Sergeant Major Edwin Austin.
When the doctor saw a dark object in a gap in Himmler's lower jaw, he ordered him to come closer to the light and tried to remove the glass capsule. Suddenly Himmler bit on the cyanide capsule and at the doctor's fingers. Himmler fell to the ground (or: he was thrown to the ground) and someone shouted "The bastard beats us!" The smell of prussic acid spread through the room. "We immediately upended the old bastard and got his mouth into the bowl of water which was there to wash the poison out", noted Major Whittaker in his diary. "There were terrible groans and grunts coming from the swine." Himmler's tongue was secured in an attempt to prevent him from swallowing the poison. Dr Wells tried resuscitation but it was in vain. After a quarter hour they stopped. "... it was a losing battle and this evil thing breathed its last at 23:14 hours." (Winston G. Ramsey: Himmler's Suicide. In: After the Battle No 14, London 15th August 1976, p. 35)

www.deathcamps.org...

Re-reading this, the official account. It is perfectly feasible that both Himmler's jaw and nose could have been broken in the above struggle.

However, why would they then conceal the fact?

And, if indeed he had been subjected as you say to the thorough search and examination at the camp as described, where did he obtain the poison phial?

Someone is lying.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

Re-reading this, the official account. It is perfectly feasible that both Himmler's jaw and nose could have been broken in the above struggle.

However, why would they then conceal the fact?

And, if indeed he had been subjected as you say to the thorough search and examination at the camp as described, where did he obtain the poison phial?

Someone is lying.

This document is lying ! Because it conceals the whole stay of HH in the Selvester camp, and the searchs and examinations there.

***However, why would they then conceal the fact*** of the wounded corpse ? I propose : because they aimed a record without problems... and that aim was reached ! Half a century without question nor contestation, or so !

Originally posted by François Delpla
This document is lying ! Because it conceals the whole stay of HH in the Selvester camp, and the searchs and examinations there.

If you click on the link I provided it does detail Himmler's stay at Westertimke, I just quoted the part pertinent to his death. According to the quote it was published in 1976!! I don't think therefore it is the document that is lying, but is it possible that Captain Selvester is lying about the thoroughness of the search that he conducted. I am doubtful, what motivation would have to do so?

Originally posted by François Delpla
***However, why would they then conceal the fact*** of the wounded corpse ? I propose : because they aimed a record without problems... and that aim was reached ! Half a century without question nor contestation, or so !

I agree to a certain extent but from the photographs it is somewhat obvious that Himmler's face is not 'sitting' quite as it should. Wouldn't it have raised less suspicion if it had been reported that Himmler had been injured in the struggle to prevent him taking his own life. He had after all taken his own life according to the official story - why the need to conceal a reasonable set of injuries? And by doing so, raise questions - how ever many years down the line.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


the mention of injuries could raise questions, their concealing also but only if a Sherlock Holmes examined the whole affair with a suspicious mind.

That was not the case : the simply and logically related death of an execrable person was not to raise questions... and has not risen ! And if somebody watching the photos noticed the injuries, the answer was ready (and first in his mind) : the struggle during and immediately after absorption of poison was enough to explain this.

The publishing of the photos itself was a demonstration of honesty...


A remark about your source : the hours are very condensed ! 4 hours (indeed 8, at least) between the identification and the death and above all 1/2h (indeed 4h) for the time Himmler was in the hands of captain Selvester only !

Questions to Mr Bellinger :

the very credible testimony of Selvester says HH leaves his camp about 12 pm (and the very suspect one of Murphy, which contradicts it carefully, does not do it on this issue) : the date of the death must be transferred from the 23 to the 24, does'nt must ?

do you think that now the "Thomas" telegram is duly confirmed ? What changes it to your analyse ?

reply to post by François Delpla


your silence is an intriguing one, but I will be patient !

I want to precise some points.

I don't knew your work about H's death, but your interview in DNZ, n°36, sept. 2005, readable there in french : www.voxnr.com...

It did not gave me the need of an urgent reading of your book, because an interesting idea ("psychological warfare") was parasited by a contradiction (you shared the Irving-Allen theory of a silencing in order to hinder Himmler's revelations about negociations), and by speculations about the photos.

The precisions you gave here induced me to order this book.

I hope the debate on this forum will help both of us to perfect his analyse.