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: 4
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2008 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by François Delpla
reply to post by François Delpla
 


Rectification (english summary following, as soon as possible)

Je dois rectifier mes informations sur un point : le sort du télégramme "Thomas" dans le dossier mis en ligne le 3 mai. Ce document figure bien parmi les "faux" (à ma décharge : publié verticalement alors que nous sommes habitués à sa reproduction, comme il sied, à l'horizontale; et ce défaut de perception renvoie aussi au désordre chronologique, au mélange des documents relatifs aux trois livres, à l'absence de synthèse, de liste, de récapitulatif...).

D'autre part, il est un peu plus mentionné dans le dossier d'accompagnement que je ne le disais, mais à peine, et de façon plutôt aggravante. Il semble (sauf carence du lecteur qui m'a informé... je n'ai pas re-vérifié, estimant cette rectification plus urgente) qu'il n'ait pas vu le bout du nez d'un expert après le... 6 juillet 2005, soit au tout début de l'affaire.

Voilà qui ne met pas fin, bien au contraire, aux questions, ni à la nécessité urgente de poursuites judiciaires et d'un rapport officiel... en ce qui concerne les événements des années 1990-2000, ainsi que d'une ouverture honnête et complète des archives de 1945.




posted on May, 24 2008 @ 12:09 PM
link   
A mistake in my previous posts : the "Thomas" telegram is among the "fakes", a bit hidden, but it is ! My mistake was helped by the lack of order, chronology, summary of contents... An perhaps above all by the need of a quick reaction to the file of National Archives. The risk was that many people thought all the affirmations of Allen were in ruins.

And it is not the case, not at all ! For example, the first document online as a fake is an answer of Cadogan to a letter of Halifax, early in 1941. But the letter is not among the fakes ! Accordingly, the thesis of a British conspiration to attract Hess, or another top rank German, in an ambush, is consolidated.

In the Himmler case, the direct proof or the sending of a PWE-SOE team to track him is now missing, but the official thesis remains uncertain, because the 1963 report of Selvester to Manvell and Fraenkel, controlled by his hierarchy, attesting the serious search and observation of his person -and the concealing or minimizing of the four hours Himmler was in the hands of Selvester only, in the other official sources.

The revendication of Kershaw and C° (of an official report) must be sustained, and in addition we all must demand the opening of the whole archivistic material.



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 05:47 AM
link   
A fake by contumacy !


I did (not here, but on others websites) a second, slighter, mistake : I said that the whole file online on 3th May in the Kew National Archives website did not said anything, or so, about the examination of the "Thomas" telegram. An angry informer, who wishes remain anonym and does not seem about to write on the forums, noticed to me the following link : www.nationalarchives.gov.uk...

In it we are learning that the verdict against the Thomas telegram was reached without him !! And that, as the only ground of this verdict was the features of the typescripts !!! Suspect similarities were not even on a photcopy diagnosed, but by reading notes writen during a previous examination !!!!!

That does not mean it is genuine... but confirms that the complete releasing of all the documentation is today an elementary need of the democracy.



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Mr Delpla

So the Thomas telegram COULD be the victim of guilt by association but then could this not be the case with some of the other documents included.

I had a thought, the main evidence that these items are forgeries is that they were produced on the same type-writer. Given that most of the transmissions would have been typed out after decryption by a secretarial pool is it not feasible that some of them would have been typed on the same machine - though not necessarily by the same person.

To be clearer, the message may be sent via the Foreign Office or GCHQ (for example), decrypted, typed up and then forwarded to the named recipient. This does not work in the case of all the documents but in some cases it may. Therefore in order to ascertain whether this may be the case ALL typed documents in any given designation, in this case Foreign Office (file prefix FO), should be examined in order to ascertain the frequency with which the same typewriter may have been used.

Obviously this does not apply if the documents are signed by the sender, they would have used their own secretarial pool, but a statistical analysis of the documents contained would be necessary in order to trully establish whether use of the same typewriter is adequate evidence of forgery.

Just a thought...



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
Mr Delpla

So the Thomas telegram COULD be the victim of guilt by association but then could this not be the case with some of the other documents included.

I had a thought, the main evidence that these items are forgeries is that they were produced on the same type-writer. Given that most of the transmissions would have been typed out after decryption by a secretarial pool is it not feasible that some of them would have been typed on the same machine - though not necessarily by the same person.

To be clearer, the message may be sent via the Foreign Office or GCHQ (for example), decrypted, typed up and then forwarded to the named recipient. This does not work in the case of all the documents but in some cases it may. Therefore in order to ascertain whether this may be the case ALL typed documents in any given designation, in this case Foreign Office (file prefix FO), should be examined in order to ascertain the frequency with which the same typewriter may have been used.

Obviously this does not apply if the documents are signed by the sender, they would have used their own secretarial pool, but a statistical analysis of the documents contained would be necessary in order to trully establish whether use of the same typewriter is adequate evidence of forgery.

Just a thought...


Nothing is clear about these forgeries, and I think such was the aim of the recent on-line publication ! It is a dense wood, a labyrinth, to mislead the searcher and still more the public, in order to everybody thinks the whole affair is forgery or revisonist attempt to vanish Churchill's glory.

Your idea does not fits with the file : the "Thomas" document is said have been typed by the same typewriter than others used by Allen, dated 1940 to 45, and the main argument is the lack of erosion of the characters for the period.

A thing difficult to mesure without the document ! But the argument is nonetheless a considerable one. Some questions remain : had M Allen seen the same piece ? Had the forger entirely created a piece, or changed an existent ?

Anyway, a prosecution must be entered, at least to hear the explanations of Allen and every other reader which can be suspected.



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by François Delpla
Anyway, a prosecution must be entered, at least to hear the explanations of Allen and every other reader which can be suspected.


I consider it unlikely that any prosecution will be forth coming or that any retained files will be made public before they have to be. Unless there is something to be concealed I see no good reason for this. If Allen does not pursue or request a trial I would perhaps be inclined to say that he may be in some way complicit or compromised. In the latter case, it may be that he is in such a position that he feels unable to be honest. I find that most of the questions that I do have could be answered by Allen himself.

It is possible that Allen could have obtained an authenic typewriter and produced some of those documents, visited the archives and slipped them into the folders. Is it likely though? It is just as possible that a member of the SIS, MI5 or MI6 (etc up to at least 14 I believe these days) could have obtained an authentic typewriter and produced them. I cannot help but wonder who has the most to gain or what, in either case the motivation could be???

I also realise that unless Allen does 'speak' we have little chance of properly resolving the matter, that all we have is the ability to reason 'probable cause'. Or in the alternative scenario, there has not been a 'successful' whistle-blown against the British 'establishment' since Peter Wright. The Official Secret's Act alone is enough to prevent this in the majority of cases.

If the Thomas telegram is genuine then why forge others that help support it? It seems a strange amount of effort to go to in order just to discredit a single document. Why would anyone other than the author forge them to support it? The only answer I have to that is for profit...which may account for Allen's inability to properly explain himself. He may not wish to admit that he was taken advantage of in this way. It may be in such a scenario that the documents bought or given were genuine and Allen may feel inclined to protect that persons identity????

As you say the only way to resolve the matter is for it to be properly aired. Sadly, I find it unlikely that this will occur. Sometimes the only way in which to counter such tight-lips is to throw around a little mud and see what sticks.



posted on May, 25 2008 @ 10:37 PM
link   
I find you very pessimist !

This publication shows that the London authorities, both politic and archivistic, are in a difficult position. Perhaps you have no idea of the glory abroad of Ian Kershaw, the popularity of Anthony Beevor, etc. The advantage of the democracy, even if the governments does not intend to respect its rules, is that they watch carefully the public opinion.

Absolute silence was the only way. Since the 3th May 2008, it is old-fashioned.



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by François Delpla
I find you very pessimist !


I can completely understand why you would think that, but let me assure you that it is not entirely the case. I have much optimism but I also have a realism that results from a thorough understanding of my country's history.

We are not a democracy, we are a constitutional monarchy with a democratically elected Prime Minster and a heriditary monarch both of which are over-shadowed by a permanent and appointed civil service.

There is an excellent quote from the late Victor, third Baron Rothschild from the 70s when he was appointed by Ted Heath, the then Prime Minster to head the 'Think Tank';

'Not until I came to Whitehall did I learn that the country was run by two men, neither of whom I had ever heard of.'

At that time those two men were Burke Trend (Secretary of the Cabinet) and Sir William Armstrong (Head of the Civil Service). Gus O'Donnell now holds the combined post

www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk...

The National Archives falls under the jurisdiction of the civil service, parts of the SIS fall under their jurisdiction. They are answerable to Parliament but not wholly within its control. If forced to disclose they would rather destroy.


Originally posted by François Delpla
This publication shows that the London authorities, both politic and archivistic, are in a difficult position. Perhaps you have no idea of the glory abroad of Ian Kershaw, the popularity of Anthony Beevor, etc. The advantage of the democracy, even if the governments does not intend to respect its rules, is that they watch carefully the public opinion.


The two newspapers that ran the Allen story, the Times and the Telegraph are representative of the British establishment. Therefore their high profile promotion of the case is suggestive of some form of an agenda, whether it be to disparage MI5 (a recent target of the Times) or to discredit Allen I do not know, but there is clearly an agenda. Similarly, The Daily Mail choosing to serialise the Hugh Thomas book, raising the profile of Thomas's theory over Allen's; Lord Rothermere the owner of the Daily Mail is a prominent example of the establishment elite of this country and his paper is primer in what the establishment want the masses to believe. Their only interest in public opinion is how they can influence it.


Originally posted by François Delpla
Absolute silence was the only way. Since the 3th May 2008, it is old-fashioned.


I agree and as an optimist I do what I can, which admittedly at present is not much but I believe where there is a will there is a way. If Beevor and Kershaw can drive change with their popularity abroad then I applaud and support them. I hope that they do, but excuse me if i do not hold my breath in the meantime.



posted on May, 26 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   

If forced to disclose they would rather destroy.



I understood that.

The question is : the multitude of the yellow documents (it means "retained", without deadline, and substituted by phococopies concealing the "sensitive" parts) in the files of Kew Gardens which must contain the reports about Himmler's death (NO ONE is today available), is in the heart of your, my and, implicitly, Kershaw's & C° claim. Their alleged ultimate dissapearance would rise a more tremendous scandal than the news of the supply to Himmler by PWE or SOE of his poison phial.

That is the choice, now, at White Hall. And if the truth is nearer to the official statement of 25th May 1945 than my above hypothesis, the choice will be easy !



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by François Delpla

If forced to disclose they would rather destroy.



I understood that.

The question is : the multitude of the yellow documents (it means "retained", without deadline, and substituted by phococopies concealing the "sensitive" parts) in the files of Kew Gardens which must contain the reports about Himmler's death (NO ONE is today available), is in the heart of your, my and, implicitly, Kershaw's & C° claim. Their alleged ultimate dissapearance would rise a more tremendous scandal than the news of the supply to Himmler by PWE or SOE of his poison phial.

That is the choice, now, at White Hall. And if the truth is nearer to the official statement of 25th May 1945 than my above hypothesis, the choice will be easy !


I apologise if I am repeating myself.

Indeed if there is a record and file designation listed, it can be assumed that it would not be easy to destroy those particular files. But not impossible. No one can access files held under the Official Secrets Act unless they first sign the Official Secrets Act. Files can and have been 'lost' in the past. There are some very well documented cases. File that were transported to the British Forces, that are correctly receipted but were lost or signed out by an unintelligilble signatory.

The matter to question is why they would be retained. I have been attempting to find some of your work in English, sadly I have been unable to, but I did find some reference to your support of the Aubrac's. As you know from your experience in that case, some elements of the historical community would rather history be reduced to a 'scientific' matter. As you and I know history is a living entity where the experience of the individual helps us to understand the elements of cause and effect. The story of the Aubrac's or their version of events, conflicted with the 'collectivised' history and therefore it seems that not only was their version invalidated but they were placed under suspicion of collaborating.

The reason I raise this is that the Public Records Office, SIS and the government can stall this process for as long as they want until there is not a single person left alive who is left to explain it to us to give the story humanity. The death of Himmler then just becomes a fact, not an action that impacted upon humanity. However if we push we could lose the information all together. Sometimes the only way to deal with these situations is to, as I said before, sling enough mud to see what sticks. Make them release the documents in order to counter the allegations, skirt the libel laws until they bite.



What should be noted though is that there are other ways, there are slip ups and a good historian should be a good detective. The US and the former Soviet Union are not bound by the same rules as the Brits, these archives can fill some important gaps and highlight inconsistencies.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
The matter to question is why they would be retained. I have been attempting to find some of your work in English, sadly I have been unable to, but I did find some reference to your support of the Aubrac's. As you know from your experience in that case, some elements of the historical community would rather history be reduced to a 'scientific' matter. As you and I know history is a living entity where the experience of the individual helps us to understand the elements of cause and effect. The story of the Aubrac's or their version of events, conflicted with the 'collectivised' history and therefore it seems that not only was their version invalidated but they were placed under suspicion of collaborating.



The non-initiated reader can misunderstand, I am afraid. Not the whole french historian comunity took position against the famous couple of resistents. The most competent sustained them, even if I were the most indignant ! The matter of the suspicion was not at all an archivistic one, but only rumors on that the archives were about to reveal !!

To go back to Himmler's death, I agree the good historian is also a good detective. The London authorities can neither for many years conceal the reports of 24th May 1945, nore declare "Sorry, we lost them". And the mystery remains : who did supply to Himmler his fatal phial ?, as the captain Selvester's report convincingly shows that he could not eat nor speak as he did with such an impediment in his mouth.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by François Delpla
And the mystery remains : who did supply to Himmler his fatal phial ?, as the captain Selvester's report convincingly shows that he could not eat nor speak as he did with such an impediment in his mouth.


I agree that this question remains. I did consider that the phial could have been swallowed and following two large cheese sandwiches, nature may have taken it's course. The Intelligence Officers in charge of him may not have been alert enough to fully supervise Himmler's visits to the bathroom. A possibility??

I am being a little bit irreverent or attempting humour, but the point remains, if there is nothing to hide, however innocuous why retain the files. If someone gave him the phial does it really matter why, how or who after all this time. To us yes, but to the world at large, I don't think it is going to cause an international incident do you?



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   
LOL pardon my giggle but to me this is tragically funny

..
The notes are forged and if you just stop a minute to think and ask yourself
WHO gaines from this... do it and you have your forger and NO its not the deniers ..
what a silly word ...deniers ...they dont denie anything they only question so called facts ! and this ALONE is reason to be thrown to jail ...
Really what a fantastic fascist world we life in ..
so once again WHO profits the most of this story ...ask yourself ..
AND
WHY do they not pursue this?? Its simple a court hearing be more then uncomfortabel for many involved and investigation might turn up facts we REALLY are not allowed to find out
Winsten the alcoholic slave to the zionists .... a hero in the UK ..Really laughable



[edit on 27-5-2008 by memyself_I]



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by memyself_I
LOL pardon my giggle but to me this is tragically funny

..
The notes are forged and if you just stop a minute to think and ask yourself
WHO gaines from this... do it and you have your forger and NO its not the deniers ..
what a silly word ...deniers ...they dont denie anything they only question so called facts ! and this ALONE is reason to be thrown to jail ...
Really what a fantastic fascist world we life in ..
so once again WHO profits the most of this story ...ask yourself ..
AND
WHY do they not pursue this?? Its simple a court hearing be more then uncomfortabel for many involved and investigation might turn up facts we REALLY are not allowed to find out
Winsten the alcoholic slave to the zionists .... a hero in the UK ..Really laughable



[edit on 27-5-2008 by memyself_I]


That affair is a serious one.

No insult of low degree, no aerial speculation about "who profits" is today relevant.

And to every person who insults anonymously, my whole contempt is granted, short of an immediate notification of his identity.

Only the claim of the whole truth about what happened, both in Germany and in the Kew archives center, is the "action this day", to speak in a churchillian fashion, required.



posted on May, 30 2008 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Two days already !

The disappearance of "he himself" is not very surprising, that of Joseph Bellinger more disappointing.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 12:07 AM
link   
an article (in french, alas), which summarizes the whole affair : www.delpla.org...



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 03:16 AM
link   
Thank you for posting that Mr Delpla, even though I cannot read French there are enough similarities in our languages for me to get the jist of it.

Thank you for including a reproduction of the letter from what are indeed esteemed historians (in English too, bless you). They represent a cross section of perspectives and interests. Interesting to see Foot there. It is also interesting that they do not request an opening of the 'retained' archives, simply an inquiry. They are right of course that is the priority, without an inquiry it puts all the documents held in British archives under a shroud of suspicion and practically renders Kew an unreliable source. That is not beneficial to anyone.

It would help to know what evidence the Police have compiled against Mr Allen. I am not sure of the legalities of this if the case remains open. Normally information pertaining to a crime cannot be released until it is heard in court. Without a trial, this stays pretty much secret too.

I think that if Ferguson, Beevor, Kershaw et al, are determined to have an inquiry or even a trial they are going to have to push a lot harder. I very much hope that they do.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Nothing new under the sun, as far as I know.

And you ?



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by François Delpla
 


It is clear a this time that Mr Bellinger vanished and, accordingly, that the historical truth does not interests him, but only one presumed occasion to suspect Churchill's honorability.



posted on Sep, 1 2008 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by François Delpla
 



It does seem that Mr Bellinger has decided not to return, although he may be in some way incapacitated so we should not judge too harshly.

I feel that this story has died a death, despite the letter by the eminent British historians requesting a full enquiry, the CPS is unwilling or able to budge. It would perhaps have had more effect had they kept up the campaign, but they too sadly seem otherwise occupied and unwilling to go the extra mile necessary to kick up a stink. I suppose, after all, they have reputations to consider. A consideration that can at times effect ones drive for the truth. Sadly.




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join