Joseph Bellinger's                                           Himmlers Tod. Freitod oder Mord?

                                                                            Die letzten Tage des Reichsführers-SS

 

A Commentary by Fredrick Töben

3 October 2005

_________________________________________

Once upon a time there were three targets selected for assassination. There was the 'BIG H' –Hitler, the 'little H' – Himmler, and the 'littler H' – Heydrich, as dubbed by England's SOE, and then, there was the 'littlest h' – Höss.  The first three needed to be put out of the way and the 'littlest h' was reserved as a 'defence' witness for Kaltenbrunner, as well as for other purposes.  Of course Kaltenbrunner – 'little K' – also was in no position to speak for 'little H’ – Himmler, which is of course exactly why he was chosen.  - Joseph Bellinger, 26 September 2005

________________________________________________

1. Preamble – setting the scene

From the outset it is important to stress that I know little about the topic on which the book’s subject matter focuses. What I am aware of is the information/propaganda that ‘swirls about’ within our society that categorizes Heinrich Himmler as one of those ‘evil Nazis’. When I began focusing full-time on the allegation that during World War Two homicidal gassings occurred in German-controlled concentration camps, I knew that it was Heinrich Himmler who is deemed to have been the person who ultimately carried the responsibility for what is alleged to have occurred within these camps – industrial homicide!

One of my personal expectations in reviewing the book will therefore focus on what information I may find about the role played by Himmler in administering these concentration camps.

Having said that, though, I shall put aside my subjectivity and not be tempted to seek any detail, which would confirm my personal prejudices and worldview, i.e. that Himmler’s death was perpetrated by the British who held him in custody when he allegedly committed suicide on 23 May 1945. It reminds me of the death of 93-year-old Rudolf Heß when he was killed by British agents at Spandau prison, Berlin, on 17 August 1987.

This latter fact alone requires me to inject a certain amount of skepticism when plowing through this historical field that has been in dispute for well over six decades. In the Heß case, the fact that it is impossible for a 93-year-old man to commit suicide by strangling himself with an electric cord, that the autopsy finding supports this claim, and that the official version of events runs counter to the autopsy report, indicates a conspiracy in this matter is alive and well – and that it extends well into our present time. 

 To nurture such healthy skepticism is rather imperative in view of the fact that since 1994 we have had in 2001 the 911 ‘terrorist attacks’ on the USA – then this event being augmented recently by London 77 and 7/14, but preceded by Port Arthur massacre, Tasmania, in 1996, then Bali in 2003, going all the way back to the Oklahoma bombing, Waco, President Kennedy’s assassination, and even Wayback to Pearl Harbor. If this association of events is a little far fetched, then I claim that after consciously having kept an eye on world politics for over 40 years that the interrelatedness of events is not accidental. There are patterns of behaviour that tell their own story quite clearly without needing an interpretation. I am reminded of the alleged blueprints of the homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz, which do not prove the case for gassings out of themselves, but need an extra layer of interpretation imposed on them. The plans are interpreted with an ideological framework that aims to create facts on the ground where the actual blueprints do not offer such ‘facts on the ground’.

That 911 is a watershed in world politics i.e. has consciously been made such by the dominant power and those that stand behind it, is now a given fact.  However, the war-cry on ‘terrorism and for freedom and democracy’ rings hollow as the Muslim world is positioned to be the fall-guy for the New World Order, i.e. the continuation of World War Two politics. When the suspected leader of the Bali bombers received a relatively light prison sentence, embarrassingly we saw Australia’s PM John Howard, Britain’s PM Tony Blair and the US president George W Bush sing their protest in unison from the same song sheet.

Among the more adventurous and independent-minded historians, it is now agreed that Pearl Harbor was the pretext the US needed to enter World War Two, much as the 5 March 2003 Anglo-American-Zionist claim before the UN – Iraq’s ‘dictator’ had Weapons of Mass Destruction, WMD – was a pretext and a justification to invade Iraq to force a regime change. That four months earlier the US had already begun building its supply base extending over a 10 km area on the Arabian peninsular is one of those facts that speak for itself. Likewise the proposed attack on Iran has begun.

In the Arabic-speaking world it became a joke that stated the USA knew the names written on the receipts that sent WMDs to Iraq in the first place – namely the USA itself!

The world media quickly forgot, and failed to remind us, that the 1991 Iraq invasion was justified by a lie, and delivered to the UN by a young girl as she presented her evidence that Saddam Hussein’s soldiers were ripping babies from their humidity cribs in Kuwait. Now we know that all this lying has been done to guarantee the existence of the state of Israel!

Interestingly, a not-so-new ploy accepted as a fair justification by most individuals living in western democracies is the claim that information is to be withheld from the people on grounds of national security. However, that it is a ploy/a fraud/outright deception/a lie, is also gaining ground amongst those who have been watching the emerging pattern of behaviour that now pervades world politics where gross dissembling has become the order of the day.

It remains to be seen how much of this pattern of behaviour is evident in the events that Joseph Bellinger has studied in-depth as he focuses on the last days of Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler, and then determines if this man committed suicide or was killed by the British in the course of executing just another national security exercise, i.e. to create facts on the ground.

As an aside, the most recent myth busting example occurred in Australia when Dr Peter Stanley, historian of 25-year standing at the Australian War Memorial, Canberra, refuted the long-held belief that during World War II, Japan wished to invade and occupy Australia during 1942. Dr Stanley claimed, The Advertiser, 8 September 2005, the invasion story cannot be maintained any longer, that it was a "pathetic" desire to exaggerate the nation's role in the war.

A common denominator in all these physical world events/happenings is that an orthodox version of events is propagated, via the world media, by governments in whose interest it is for such events to have occurred in the first place. Anyone who refuses to accept/believe the official dogma is branded a conspiracy freak. Interestingly, when hapless individuals are deemed to be a threat or are alleged to be involved with organisations now branded as terrorist organisations, such individuals are quite speedily charged with, among other things, conspiring to cause terrorist activities!

The official version of events is always solidified by force of law where truth as a guiding principle/moral value becomes irrelevant. The pattern is always the same – from antiquity to today.

The official version of events always claims the ‘enemy’ has conspired to perpetrate violence upon those in whose interest it is to have such an event happening. It serves to justify extending official government oppression of the people under the guise of protecting them, for example, from trauma-inducing world political and economic events, which the government, in all probability, itself initiated directly or by proxy. On a local level such behaviour can be likened to any on-going protection racket - except that the criminal protection racket is honestly presented to its victims.

1.1 Jewish influence

Recently in Australia, in order to retain control of the ‘terrorism’ argument, the Howard government convened a conference involving ‘moderate Muslim voices’. Muslim community leaders considered to be moderate in their approach were invited, and those excluded were branded as propagating extreme views.  That Prime Minister, John Howard, and the leader of the opposition, Kim Beazley, are beholden to the Zionists in Australia, is a given fact. That this ‘moderate’ Muslim assembly will in time be fed ‘Holocaust’ propaganda, then be required to swear upon it as a requirement to further receive government grants is to be expected. It will be just another step in the process of establishing facts on the ground for the global war on terrorism, with the ‘Holocaust’ serving a useful function in weeding out those who are knowledgeable about the ‘Jewish problem’.

An article in The West Australian/Sydney Morning Herald on 29 June 1999 is indicative of Australia’s politically unbalanced and slavish subservience to matters Jewish at the expense of anything to do with national interest, never mind about matters German. The case is still worse in the USA where jesters label the nation JEWSA and New York Jew York. The capital of the USA is Tel Aviv.

Helping Kosovo was Sir Peter’s last wish

By Tony Stephens

Peter Abeles, the Hunagrian Jew who suffered at the hands of the Nazis but survived to flourish in Australia, hoped on his deathbed to lend a hand in war-torn Kosovo. Sir Peter’s background in Europe and his rise to prominence as an international transport boss were facts familiar to mourners at his funeral yesterday. But his grief over Kosovo was revealed in an emotional eulogy by former prime minister Bob Hawke. Mr Hawke offered other insights into his friend’s character and beliefs.

For example, Sir Peter was far from alone in concluding that communism had failed. However, it remains unusual for a corporate leader to admit that free market forces have not got it right either. “We have to make it work better,” Sir Peter had told Mr Hawke. “ We have to be more compassionate.” He died on Friday, aged 75, after battling cancer. Learning if his incurable illness, Sir Peter had patted his substantial stomach and said: “You know, Bob, I thought I’d go with a heart attack and not this.”

Captains of industry and several politicians and former politicians, mainly from the Labor side, joined Lady Kitty Abeles, daughters Michelle and Roberta and stepdaughter Yvonne at the Chevra Kadisha Memorial Hall in Woollahra, eastern Sydney. Opposition Leader Kim Beazley joined Mr Hawke in carrying the coffin from the hall. Other mourners included businessmen David Mortimer, John Elliott, peter Weiss and Lachlan Murdoch. Rabbi Selwyn Franklin, of the Central Synagogue, said part of being human was living a dignified existence and rising above the status of the brute.

Mr Hawke said Sir Peter had seen his people murdered by nazi oppressors and Australia’s fair-go system was like oxygen to his lungs. “He never acquired our accent but he acquired our spirit,” Mr Hawke said. Sir Peter began life in Australia as a door-to-door salesman but his phenomenal achievements made him a great Australian. TNT, the company he controlled, became the world’s second biggest transport business in the 1980s, operating in 50 countries with 55,000 employees.

Mr Hawke said Sir Peter was a colossus of a man – warm, generous, erudite, brilliant, humorous and with a Rolls-Royce of a mind. He had hoped to go to Kosovo to “bring some sanity to the tragic scene”.

My worry with the Howard government’s initiative to bring the emerging Australian Muslim voice into view is that these well-meaning Muslim voices will most likely accept the dogma that is driving such endeavours – a propagation of the Holocaust mythology.

This serves to protect Jewish behaviour from a close critical scrutiny, especially in regards to the process of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine of its people. In time such expressed thoughts may well be considered to be inciting hatred, be antisemitic, if not outright racist, and will then become legally actionable. Already the remnant of the international political left has protested at being labeled ‘antisemite’ for opposing the Zionist state’s existence. To date we are still free to think through the Palestinian tragedy without such mental work attracting legal sanctions, but this freedom is already curtailed in the US where the president has set up a committee that annually reviews global antisemitism, whatever that term may mean, and recently ‘hate’ legislation has been prepared that will possibly eliminate the 1st Amendment.

 

1.2 A vital clarification detour – establishing War Crimes Legislation

Such global mechanism of exercising political control is nothing new for Australia either. In order to introduce the mentality that drove the establishing of the International Military Tribunal/Nürnberg War Crimes Tribunal, IMT after World War II,  Australian politicians introduced the War Crimes Amendment Bill, passed by parliament on 20 December 1988 – while most parliamentarians were either not in attendance or were asleep –  which the High Court endorsed on 3 September 1991.  

This set the stage for Australia to conduct its own persecution of those already delivered for judgment through the media. For example, in December 1986, two years before the legislation was enacted, the Adelaide Advertiser had already introduced its readers to Ivan Polyukhovich who was alleged to have committed war crimes in Ukraine– the killing, of course, of Jews!

A frenzy of activity ensued and the need to enact appropriate legislation was the cry coming from Jewish Australians. After the first war crimes suspect was found, two more were found, again in Adelaide - Mikolay Berezowsky and Heinrich Wagner. Then two years after the 1993  High Court decision it was all over when a jury found Ivan Polyukhovich not guilty. Magistrate David Gurry had ruled there was not enough evidence to put Berezovsky on trial, and the Director of Public Prosecution dropped the case against Wagner on health-grounds.

For the first time in my life I had felt strongly enough to make my own placard and protest against an obvious injustice being perpetrated on behalf of world Jewry. I had joined 89-year-old Sir Walter Crocker in a protest outside the Adelaide Magistrates’ Court when the committal proceedings began against Polyukhovich on 28 October 1991. Sir Walter knew the score on the Jewish problem because he was at the UN when the partition of Palestine was implemented. He personally knew Count Folke Bernadotte and shared with him the view that the Palestinian people should also have their state.

Sir Walter reflected upon the matter in a direct way. This is what he wrote in his 1981 autobiography: Travelling Back. The Memoirs of Sir Walter Crocker, ISBN 0333 33721 2:

“The creation of Israel resulted from the efforts of the Zionists, unforgettable to those who saw them on the spot, endlessly clever, uninhibited, self-confident. Their efforts resulted in what they called the Miracle of Lake Success because the UN was seated in New York, where two or three million Jews were living, the most nationalistic as well as the richest and most powerful racial-cultural concentration in the world. They dominated the mass media. The existence, let alone the rights, of the Arab majority, the two-thirds, in Palestine were completely ignored and as far as possible concealed. Driven from their homes, still unsettled thirty years later, they produced a harvest of hate which keeps the Middle East a supreme danger, one which might well trigger off the third , which would be the last, World War.

At the time Israel was being imposed on Palestine, 1945-8, opposition to the Zionists, whatever justice or realism might suggest, was reduced to extreme feebleness because of what the Nazis had done to the Jews. This situation persisted for years. To oppose Zionist imperialism was easily, and too often, misrepresented as anti-Semitism and favouring Nazism. This was when the number of six million Jews in the Nazi holocaust took shape, a figure now being questioned. Whatever the true figure might be, propaganda, exaggerations and confusions compounded the Palestine problem almost beyond remedy. The mental reactions and revulsions produced by the Nazis were such in America, Britain and other allied countries, and throughout most of the world, that the Palestine Arabs had no hope of getting a hearing at the UN in 1946-48.

Created in this way Israel has been bedeviled by two great failures – first, the failure to make amends to the displaced Arabs, and, second, the failure of the US and USSR to guarantee specific frontiers. Instead of defusing a dangerous situation these countries worsened it by pouring in arms year after year. At every American election candidates, with an eye on the Jewish vote, promise more arms and more aid to Israel.

Those who have kept in touch with Israel since its creation, and with the Middle East, will have had their early doubts tragically confirmed. The Jews as a race have shown more remarkable gifts perhaps than any branch of the human family, and unlike the Attic Greeks, they have also shown a gift for surviving. But as regards Israel, they have gone on showing a failure to understanding how the displaced Palestinians feel, or that they have rights, or the likely fruits of Israel’s policies; the more disappointing because the biggest contribution of the Jews was moral sensibility, as in their prophets. To draw attention to facts obvious to those who know the place is to run into a wall of impenetrable subjectivity and to arouse the old cat-call of being anti-Semitic. I have myself been subjected to much of this.

What is astounding is that it took the Arabs thirty years, until the ‘Seventies, to see what a weapon they held over America and the West, and over most members of the UN, in their oil supplies. The short-sightedness of the West, especially of America, as regards this weapon is equally astounding.”  (P166-7)

I had many long conversations with Sir Walter, who informed me in detail how he and the other Australian, Sir Raphael Cilento, worked closely with Count Folke Bernadotte at the UN Secretariat during the time Israel was set up. As he stated:

"...the widespread, almost worldwide , hatred for Germany in those years, the war trials at Munich and the movie and other accounts sharpened the hatred, engendered potent sympathy for the Jews. The Zionist claims and aims for turning Palestine into a Jewish state benefited greatly as a result. To oppose the Zionists became equated to anti-Semitism and anti-Semitism was equated to Hitler and Nazism. A very telling syllogism at that time.

Further still, the UN Secretariat itself was not only predominantly American in composition and outlook but the Jews in it (not all of whom were Zionists) amounted to about fifteen per cent of the staff, in some sections more, not a few being highly placed too.

Finally, as regards the time, 1948 was an election year in the United States. it was thought that the election would be close run. Both Republicans and Democrats therefore were taking no chances with any tactically significant sectional interests, least of all with the Jewish vote. Both parties made competing promises about Palestine.

It is with such knowledge that I firmly believe that the 911 tragedy was clearly an “insider job”. I say this especially in view of the fact that four days prior to this catastrophe the UN conference at Durban, South Africa, on ‘Racism, Xenophobia and related matters’ , ended in uproar when the Zionist plans had unraveled and Israel stood condemned as a Zionist, terrorist, racist, European colonial entity.

At the end of this commentary I have appended Joseph Bellinger’s comment on Count Bernadotte, which to some extent clarifies the role played by Jewry in this whole matter.

The 911 incident dramatically and effectively reversed this condemnation, turning the Third World into “failed states’ and the Muslim world into “terrorists’. Only Israel profited from that orchestrated 911 tragedy. It is also an example of the US government turning upon its own people – as when sows eat their own young ones in stressful situations. The stress imposed upon the US citizens comes from the Zionists, but that does not enable citizens to play the victim of Zionist pressure. Remember, don’t blame the Jews, but blame those that bend to their pressure! Had George W Bush and his Christian Zionists withstood Jewish pressure, then 911 would not have been allowed to happen.

 

1.3 Nothing new - media generated persecution

Just as the Australian War Crimes Trials were first publicized by the local paper, and then used to enact legislation before a sleepy parliament, our own matter – Adelaide Institute – was similarly first aired in the local paper. On 10 October 1995, the local Adelaide Advertiser presented a front-page feature headed: ‘Adelaide the base for extremists’. Penelope Debelle then states, among other things,:

The Adelaide Institute, formerly known as Truth Missions, which distributes material claiming the Holocaust never happened.

“We are aware of an upsurge in this sort of activity in the past two or three years,” the president of the Jewish Community Council of SA, Mr Normal Schueler, said yesterday. “It may be because they have got away with it.” But he said community attitudes had hardened and people were no longer willing to remain passive over the “growing aggression” of right-wing groups.

The federal Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Minister, Senator Bolkus, said every State had a group of people with unacceptable ideas. “But a number of individuals have taken it a few steps further,” he said. “They are not a growing group in numbers or influence but they are here and they are a sore on the system.”…The new anti-Jewish group, the Adelaide Institute, is headed by Dr Fredrick Toben, who operates via a Norwood post office box address. The 51-year old German-born academic and schoolteacher moved from western Victoria to Adelaide last year…The Anti-semitic Holocaust-denial group run by Fredrick Toben …has sent unsolicited, grossly offensive anti-Jewish material through the post. Tried unsuccessfully last year to show a Holocaust-denial video on Adelaide community television.

 

This media exposure rang warning bells for me and so we took the initiative to gain world publicity and connected to the Internet on 1 May 1996, as a form of protection.

Then on 5 July 1996, the Courier Mail, Brisbane, ran a definitive story on page 7:

 

Jews trace cyberspace ‘hatred’ to Australia

The Federal Government is investigating two controversial Australian-based anti-semitic Internet sites after an alert from international Nazi-hunters, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre. The centre, renowned for its dogged pursuits of hundreds of Nazi war criminals, detected the controversial sites of far-right groups into cyberspace. After locating the sites earlier this year, the centre wrote to the Australian Embassy in Washington calling on the Attorney-General to investigate if the site breaches any local laws.

The sites, one calling itself the Adelaide Institute and the other the Al-Moharer Al-Australi, target Jewish people. Information downloaded from the Adelaide Institute says: “We are a group of individuals who are looking at the Jewish Nazi holocaust. We are worried about the fact that to date it has been impossible to reconstruct a homicidal gas chamber.” Al-Moharer Al-Australi says it “wants to challenge all forms of New World Order conditioning and thought control”.

Wiesenthal Centre associate dean Abraham Cooper, speaking from Los Angeles headquarters, says many “hate” groups around the world had taken to the Net in the past 18 months to reach a potential audience of 40 million. Rabbi Cooper said there were about 100 Web sites around the world promoting “hatred and mayhem”. It is an unprecedented but powerful tool that not only can be used for good but also be used for evil,” he said. “Our experience has been that the authorities don’t even understand the technology that well.”

Rabbi Cooper said there had been numerous cases in the United States where “very bright” students had down-loaded bomb-making recipes off the Net. One science teacher in Miami “was about one second away from blowing up both himself and his school,” he said. The centre, which uses the Web to promote its own cause, has set up a cyberwatch programme “not because we are opposed to computers but because we’re committed to human rights”.

Adelaide Institute director Fredrick Toben said last night: “We would welcome any investigation. But we would also like them to investigate Rabbi Cooper and the tradition that he comes from, namely from the Babylonian Talmud which is the ethical base that he operates on. It is sued by a certain member of the Jewish community as a guide and the Babylonian Talmud is full of filth and hatred so let him (the Rabbi) cast the first stone.”

A spokesman for the federal Attorney-General Daryl Williams, confirmed the office had received the letter and claims were being investigated.

Queensland Jewish Board of Deputies Laurie Rosenblum said he regularly received complaints from Queenslanders about material on the Internet. He said there was urgent need to censor the Net. “The problem is that you have got this technology where some extremist organisation can print out stuff and transpose it and then hand it out or publish it in a newsletter,” he said.

The Australian Broadcasting Authority is expected to release its guidelines control of the Internet today.

 

The rest has become history that ended in the Federal Court of Australia where both Mrs Olga Scully and I received a gag order that prevents us from discussing historical matters.

As far as Internet censorship is concerned, is it not sad that complaining and playing the victim has mutated many individuals’ moral and intellectual courage. If one finds offensive material, is it not time to get away from the culture of complaint and initiate action – just press the delete button, or switch off! When I see a tasteless film on TV, I change channels or switch off. I do not even bother to complain about the matter to the station, something media outlets readily encourage.        

Geoff Muirden has coined the acronym EPO for describing individuals who forever play the victim, thus never maturing emotionally or intellectually. EPO stands for Eternally Persecuted One.                 

 

1.4 A direct challenge

In April 1997 I visited Rabbi Abraham Cooper and challenged him on his statements, and it brought about a strange reaction from him. After cordially conversing about the importance of asking questions and seeking answers, he suddenly asked me: “Do you question the gassings?”

I replied that of course I do because I need to know how the murder weapon – the homicidal gas chambers – worked. That was the end of our conversation and he terminated the interview, leading me out of his office downstairs to the exit door, remarking about me to one of his associates, I think it was Rabbi Marvin Hier: “He’s honest, that man is honest!”

A final word about a World War II legacy: The proceedings before the US military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay, directly copied from the IMT, may now also be modified. How this will affect Australian David Hicks’ appearance before it is another matter because as a convert to Islam he has little sympathy flowing his way from key Australian political figures, such as Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer.

 

2. Now to Joseph Bellinger’s best seller: Himmlers Tod. Freitod oder Mord? Die letzten Tage des Reichsführers-SS.

This book is written in German, so anyone wishing to read it will need to learn German, or wait until the English edition appears, hopefully soon.

 

2.1 Form - the external/visual presentation

This hard-cover book has no dust jacket, and so its 382 pages are augmented by some additional pages of information. The back cover features a photograph of Heinrich Himmer’s corpse at Lüneburg together with a paragraph on the author’s hypothesis that Himmler could not have committed suicide by biting on a cyanide capsule.

A small photograph and paragraph introduce the reader to the author of the book, 56-year-old New York-born Joseph Bellinger.

A double spread that makes up the inside back cover features the schematic structure – Aufbau – of the German police, something of interest for those who find our current democratic system to be rather full of obfuscations when it comes to taking responsibility for some initiated government action. Interestingly, recently, after the Katrina New Orleans tragedy, President George W Bush stressed that ultimately he was personally responsible for any delay in getting aid to residents.

The double-spread on the inside front cover has a useful map of Germany where Himmler’s final 34 days and 11 stops are depicted, from 20 April at Hitler’s Birthday celebrations in the Führer bunker, Berlin, to his death on 23 May 1945 at Lüneburg.

Publication by ARNDT-Verlag, Postfach 3603, D-24035 Kiel, Germany. Printed in Austria. ISBN 3-88741-072-6, and further publication data can be obtained from the Deutschen Nationalbibliographie – www.dnb.ddb.de

The author dedicates the book to his son, Wick.

In the middle of the book is a 16-page black-white/colour photograph section that features some never-before seen images of Himmler. That Himmler was beaten up is obvious from the photograph showing his broken nose. Most recently we have had such torture procedures confirmed – photographs of US torture at Abu Graib, Iraq, or reports from Australian Mamdouh Habib after his release from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The longest torture since World War Two is, of course, what Jews have done/are still doing to the Palestinians. There is little doubt about the horrors that befell Germans and their Axis allies as they faced the prospect of unconditional surrender in 1945.

The contents page is at the end of the book, at page 382, where 23 chapters are listed, together with a Postscript, Bibliography and Index of names, places and subject matter. In the latter we find such things as Abwehr, Juden, Royal Dental Museum, to Zyanid.

The Bibliography lists 164 authors and sources, and each of the 23 chapters is extensively referenced, altogether a total of over a thousand footnotes. Interestingly, good use is made of the Internet as a source of information, and a number of URLs are given that lead the reader to websites with additional/confirming information.

Bellinger mentions Irving’s books on Churchill and on Dresden, and it will be interesting to see how Irving’s own book on Himmler will tackle the issue, especially in light of Irving agreeing with Martin Allen’s finding of documents –that prove the Himmler murder – were indeed forgeries, something Bellinger questions and leaves open until the results of the police investigation into the issue of the alleged forgeries has been fully published. Bellinger suspects that these documents may have slipped through the control net, then had to be de-activated by placing copies of the originals in their place – a typical example of how official British history is written.

Understandably, in order to get past German censorship, Bellinger makes no reference to the two classics on the ‘Holocaust’: Professor Arthur Butz’s 1977 published The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, and Dr Wilhelm Stäglich’s 1979 published Der Auschwitz Mythos. Legende order Wirklichkeit. It is particularly the latter’s book that sent a chilling message through German academia, when in 1983 the University of Göttingen revoked Judge Stäglich’s doctor title on account of his book discrediting academic standards. That it did indeed! From then on it was official that most German World War Two history is beyond critical analysis and a sad and pathetic conformity has spread throughout German universities – no, throughout German life – where critical voices are ruthlessly suppressed. But I am reminded of what Wilhelm Stäglich said to me in 1997 – if a hundred German judges and a thousand academic historians would only have the courage to be honest and truthful, and not fear for their livelihood, the whole ‘Holocaust’ edifice would crumble.

Echoes of this kind of censorship hit New Zealand’s academic world when Jewish groups demanded Dr Joel Hayward have his 1993 MA degree replaced with a BA because its thesis supported Revisionist arguments. Canterbury University profusely apologized to Zealand’s Jews but refused to downgrade Hayward’s MA because Hayward had not been dishonest or lied about his work.  Still, New Zealand’s Jews have not let go of Hayward, this in spite of his abject public recanting, and he emigrated from New Zealand to  Britain.

If we bear this in mind, that in Germany, and in many of the so-called western democracies, 60 years after the event, it is still a criminal matter to present a balanced view of the war years, and that archives still lock up documents stamped with ‘secret’, or ‘never to be released’, then the writing of history appears to be a mugs game.

Let’s now find out if Joseph Bellinger is a mug, or has been mugged, or succeeds in shedding new light on an old controversy.

 

2.2 Content – the internal/thought presentation

Bellinger begins his story in classic style by introducing in his first chapter a mystery, embedded within an image of untold suffering as Germans begin to re-establish some form of social order. Anyone who is following the harrowing and tragic accounts of the Iraqi people’s suffering in present Iraq, will find Bellinger’s narrative riveting as he relates how the social order, ‘law and order’, has totally broken down and bands of desperados control the streets and countryside.  Civilians and occupation personnel are regularly killed or injured as the fight for survival intensifies. Within this environment the British command in London, responding to a rumour, send Major Norman Whittaker on an extraordinary mission to Lüneburg, there to dig up, seven months after the event, a corpse. He finds it, which counters the rumour that the ‘Werwolf’ organisation had stolen Himmler’s corpse to accord him an honourable burial. The British establishment was pleased with Whittaker’s mission because it did not need any more problems. The Jews, clamouring for their state in Palestine, caused enough trouble as the British forces attempted to stem the tide of illegal Jews forcing their way into the British mandate.

Three years earlier, the US special envoy, Allen Welsh Dulles set up his office in Switzerland with the aim of making contact with the German resistance. He hoped to divide the Wehrmacht from the NSDAP and the SS, and for that he needed to cultivate Police chief and Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler with the ultimate goal of assassinating Adolf Hitler. Dulles did have contacts to the German aristocracy, but felt it was Himmler who would be the lynch pin for bringing a regime change about in Germany.

Already in 1940 the British psychological propaganda mission began its activity under Sefton Delmer, who had an English father and an Austrian mother. In his office he had a sign taken from Germany: ‘Juden sind hier unerwünscht’ – Jews are not welcomed here.

This reminds me of Mannheim’s state prosecutor and keen ‘Nazi-hunter’, Hans-Heiko Klein who sported a swastika on his office wall in the form of a stop-sign.

Delmer churned out material that aimed to sow discontent and division within the German military command and within the general population. Any imaginable trick would do – even to forge a copy of the Völkischer Beobachter wherein it stated that Mrs Heß and son had been sent to a mental institution, a copy of which he then handed to Rudolf Heß who had been imprisoned in England since May 1941. A further example of Delmer’s aim to divide Hitler and Himmler was the production of a postage stamp that featured Himmler’s profile instead of Hitler’s. He fed these to envoys in neutral countries, hoping thereby to generate discord, but it did not have the desired effect. Character assassination was Delmer’s specialty, and his subversive activities knew no limits – and to this day it seems that some of his war-time propaganda is still accepted as factual. Interestingly, at the end of the war the British war effort did not see the need to preserve for posterity material generated by its special operations dirty tricks disinformation units.

In our own time, after the 1991 Kuwait war fiasco, the world saw pictures of a horrible US force in action, something that would favour the peace activists. This changed when journalists in the 2003 Iraq war became ‘embedded’, and so almost total image control of the horrors that is war was achieved. The ‘Coalition of the Willing’ that invaded Iraq did so with the world media watching every move – but each image sent around the world had been vetted to generate some kind of effect that would make the invasion palatable and legitimate, which it is not. Further, Hollywood had officially been invited by President Bush to assist in this war. That some Arab-speaking television stations screened horror scenes from the war enabled the world to gain images that would have otherwise remained hidden.

There is an American, Captain Eric May, who is in hot pursuit of the Bush lies about Iraq. He claims the Battle for Baghdad was a total cover-up because the actual US soldier death toll has been withheld. This act of deception offends against the age-old custom of according a soldier his final honours upon returning home in a coffin. That the Bush regime continues to offend against this tradition to this day indicates with what distain it treats its fallen soldiers.  To make matters worse, the entire US media has fallen in line with this attitude, and it is only through the Internet that the real picture emerges.

During World War II, such biased media concentration was not available to the British and US propaganda units, and assassination teams that would physically liquidate individuals within the German political/military hierarchy, could operate for longer periods of time. The Israelis have been doing this to the Palestinians for decades. Recently two British SAS soldiers, dressed as Arabs, on covert operations in Basra, Iraq, were detained by the Iraqi police. They were accused of shooting at policemen, and it is now assumed that such units acre also controlled by Mossad in an attempt to destabilize Iraq as a cohesive political unit, and let it fracture into its three parts: Shiite in the south, Sunni in the centre and Kurds in the north of Iraq.

Bellinger notes that it still isn’t known who originally suggested that the top NS–leaders be executed after capture, but the impulse most likely came from No 10 Downing Street where at that time Winston Churchill resided. This undeclared policy of extra-judicial killings hardened after east European governments in exile spread horror stories about what the German occupation forces were doing with their people on the European mainland.

The primary proponent advocating these murders – summary executions - was Hugh Dalton who encouraged the people in occupied countries to compose lists of names of those who had perpetrated ‘crimes’ against them, with the aim of exacting revenge after the war ended. Churchill comes across as the sinister driving force among the three Allied leaders, although Stalin set the stage with summary executions and show trials.

By 1942 it was clear that the Allie leadership supported the policy of liquidating the leading personalities of the Third Reich, only failing to agree on the method how this was to be done. The Moscow Declaration of 1 November 1943 stated that ‘German criminals’ would be extradited to the countries where they committed crimes. The Soviet Union even offered to produce conclusive evidence should that be needed to sentence someone to death, something the SU perfected in its own show trials during and after the war.

At the end of 1943 three Germans were sentenced to death for having killed thousands of Soviet citizens in gas wagons. Soviet master propagandists erred critically when they attempted to blame the Katyn Massacre on the German Armed Forces, though to this day at the Washington Holocaust Memorial Museum there is a sign that claims Germans were responsible for this massacre. By June 1944 the Allies had compiled a list of German suspects slated for execution shortly after capture.

Influence from Henry Morgenthau, of the US treasury, who vehemently hated Hitler and the Germans, turned this elimination of the German political and military elite into one of eliminating Germans as a people.  And one way of doing this was by enacting retro-active laws, i.e. to criminalize that which was not a criminal act before, but under allied occupation was deemed to be a criminal act, such as actions against Jews prior to the outbreak of war in 1939.

When in spring 1945 Eisenhower invited a British parliamentary delegation to visit liberated concentration camps – Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, Nordhausen and Dachau – who then returned with their  horror reports, the British public felt that men such as Himmler did not deserve any kind of trial.

It was no coincidence that on 8 August 1945 Britain finally moved away from conducting judicial murders and agreed to judicial procedures for Nazi leaders, that is, by the Americans, after the deaths of Hitler and Goebbels and three months after Himmler had been killed. Göring, of course, was already under arrest.

This above point makes it understandable why Hitler and Goebbels opted for suicide – Hitler had taken on the International financial establishment and would pay the ultimate price for it - death. He was not the first one who had done this, nor would he be the last. Many Christians revere Christ for this very reason of daring to stand up against usury.

It was after France capitulated in June 1940 that Churchill sets the course for a total war with Germany, which was meant to set Europe ablaze. He did this by forming the Special Operations Executive (SOE) and various other subordinate units, for example the MO–Moral Branch. One of their planned assassinations that did succeed was that of Reinhard Heydrich. Interestingly, there were other operations that even the British Air Force objected to. So much for the Moral Branch.

Bellinger cites example after example, which confirms his view that the 40 German peace negotiations would inevitably fail because the Allies did not wish to have peace – and in fact demanded an unconditional surrender’. It was much like the US attitude towards Iraq before the March 2003 invasion. It replicated an Allies’ stance of strength, so some think. Whatever the Iraqis did as the US increased its demand upon it, Iraq could not succeed in averting the Anglo-American-Zionist invasion of their country. The pretext was delivered by Colin Powell on 5 March 2003, and it is act of deception that now fuels the anti-war movement to declare the Iraq war is illegal. The Iraq invasion pattern is similar to that used by the Allies during World War II: Iraq responds to all allegations, but the US maintained its course and WMDs remain the reason for the invasion, never mind that this pretext was proven to be wrong before the invasion began in March 2003.

Likewise, Winston Churchill, in perfected cant, addressed parliament on 2 August 1944 and distanced himself from any plans to assassinate enemy leaders. This reminds me of how the American evangelist Roberts recently called on the US to assassinate President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela because Chavez refuses to bow to the US. Later on his Internet website Roberts apologized for having made such a statement, but an apology is too late because such incitement will have the desired effect within the population.

By 1941 both Britain and the Soviet Union were looking towards the USA for support against Germany. And in the US the Jew, Bernard Baruch, was already siding with Britain against Germany. The Soviet Union exploited the Jewish matter and already in 1941 propagated the story that Germany had already killed millions of Jews. Stalin’s propagandist Ilja Ehrenburg connected the Jewish element and claimed that Hitler hated the Jews and he appealed to World Jewry, as a Russian writer and as a Jew”  - and one can hear Talmudic exhortations to vengeance in his speeches…

In the US the America First Committee objected to US involvement – its leaders, e.g. Charles Lindbergh were viciously smeared by Roosevelt – a parallel is noticeable in the post 911 Bush Iraq-invasion war on terrorism, and how its opponents are smeared, for example the Washington Cindy Sheehan-led protest on 24 September 2005.

Chapter VII is headed ‘Himmler’s Achilles heel’, which portrays the intrigues surrounding Himmler and his effort to have the anti-German propaganda, especially against his SS, toned down if not switched off, by him agreeing to exchange Jews for goods.

The Allies’ plans to try Germany’s political elite for war crimes was well known to Himmler and so he was not averse to individuals suggesting he make contact with the Americans via Sweden – vice president of Sweden’s Red Cross, Count Folke Bernadotte. However, Himmler’s loyalty to Hitler prevented him from taking things further.

 

3.  Conclusion and Postscript 

Bellinger continues his detailed narrative, referencing each important matter. I shall end this commentary by skipping to the end of the book.  In the final chapters Bellinger supports his thesis in meticulous detail: ‘Das Ende Heinrich Himmlers’, ‘Die Autopsie’,  ‘Das Geheimnis’, ‘Nach der Schlacht’.

Here the reader learns the names, the places and the events that led to British intelligence officers killing the feared Heinrich Himmler. Bellinger answers all the what, how, when, where and why questions. In particular the Allies feared that a Himmler alive would not be the end of the Werwolf organisation.  

In the ‘Postscript’ Bellinger discusses the sensational material unearthed in the London Public Record Office by English historian, Martin Allen. It is  not sensational for Bellinger because this material merely supports his thesis that Himmler was killed by the British. Even if it turns out to be forged material, Bellinger’s thesis stands independently of such material because he has proved the evidentiary fact of murder and also provided the motive – as well elaborated on the consequences flowing from those acts not only for Germany but for most of Eastern Europe.

Scotland Yard detectives are still investigating how anyone could have come into the London (Kew) Public Record Office, take original documents out, have them copied, then return to re-insert them.

Bellinger rightly asks: In whose interest is it to negate the thesis that British Intelligence, with Churchill’s’ knowledge kept on stringing along German leaders into believing that Britain was interested in a negotiated peace?

Of related interest is the storm still brewing over Martin Allen’s own book Himmler’s Secret War, published in May 2005. There is also Richard Ingrams, the son of Leonard Ingrams the man who, according to Martin Allen, killed Himmler. Ingrams protests profusely about his father’s implicit involvement in Martin’s thesis: “a disgrace and a vicious slur on my father” – Telegraph, 1 August 2005.

Allen supports Bellinger’s thesis that the plot was hatched by two senior Foreign Officers, John Wheeler-Bennett and Sir Robert Bruce Lockhart. Churchill had set up the dirty tricks unit, Special Operations Executive (SOE) that was supposed to “set Europe ablaze”. Its head, Earl of Selborne, supported the assassination of Germany’s political leaders. This British dirty-tricks tradition is evident in the current troubles in Iraq.

While the German peace attempts with Britain never ended, it is remarkable to note the details of the Seven Point Peace Plan of autumn 1940, conveyed through the Papal Nuncio in Madrid to Sir Samuel Hall. This plan virtually gave the US all it wanted, including Germany paying for reparations. But Churchill did not want peace because he knew Great Britain could not win the European war but that if the war could be prolonged, Britain and its Allies would win the world war. Hence the Fictional Peace Faction was formed to deceive Hitler in entering into peace negotiations. During 1940-41 Hitler and Hess were targeted, then in 1942-44 it was Himmler ‘s turn. All this, it was hoped, would unbalance Hitler’s war strategy.

The above infers a vital matter for Revisionists: it is the British, and not the Americans, who still control the Auschwitz gassing story. Also, it explains why the British killed Rudolf Hess. His release, as the Soviet Union was prepared to agree to, would open up the scene within Britain where the pro-Hitler groups have effectively been silenced and hidden and ‘protected’ from general view. But not only!  I dare venture to say that the British are also proxying for Jewish and international capitalist interests which both have an interest in keeping the lid on the ‘Holocaust’ thereby further neutralizing Germany’s bid for political normalcy to return, rather than being an occupied country sixty years after the event.

In a private conversation with me, historian Joseph Bellinger stated:

Men like Himmler had been earmarked for elimination by the British government quite early in the game and they set him up like a house of cards and betrayed him in the end, and silenced him for good. 

From personal legal experience I know that Bellinger’s thesis is based on sound common sense. The British never intended to allow a man like Heinrich Himmler the opportunity to present his case in a public trial. We see how Serbian Slobodan Milosevic is being treated before that Soros-sponsored military tribunal at Den Hague – with contempt for any semblance of judicial integrity. Fortunately for him, the world media has fractured into mainstream and alternate – the latter gives us information closer to truth than the former’s attempt at suppressing it.  

This book is a MUST book for all those who seek historical truth.

 

4. Joseph Bellinger: Clarification of the role played by Count Folke Bernadotte

One matter that did not appear in the book was the role played by Count Folke Bernadotte who together with Sir Walter Crocker, et al, wished to help the Palestinians establish their own country/territory. All this was cut short with his assassination.

Three years after the war in Europe had officially ended, Count Bernadotte was once again thrust into the public limelight due to his appointment as United Nations mediator to the troubled middle east.  His task of easing tensions and averting hostilities between Arabs and Jews was in effect doomed by the fortunes of fate from the onset of his mission, despite his noblest intentions.

According to the account given by James C McDonald, America’s first ambassador to Israel, Bernadotte’s suggestions regarding the partition of Jerusalem and the territories which formed part of the Negev desert had aroused the ire of Jews who had survived the conflict in Europe.  Refused sanctuary by countless nations during the course of the Second World War, these remnants of long established European Jewish communities vowed to never again be placed in the position where they would be subjected to the whims of other nations.  Determined to forge a nation of their own through the sweat of their brow and the blood of their dead, the Israelis viewed any attempt to reapportion territory in the middle east as a threat to their national existence, as seen from the perspective of Ambassador McDonald:

“In Israel great bitterness was being expressed over Count Bernadotte’s suggestion that the Jews give up part of the Negev - the great southern desert of Palestine, which had been awarded them in the partition solution-for part of the Galilee, and that Jerusalem be placed under the rule of King Abdullah of Jordan.  Even as I was aboard ship this last suggestion had precipitated a crisis.  My third day out of New York, on July 26th, the Israel Government announced that New Jerusalem had now become an Israel-occupied territory under a Jewish Military Governor.  This was obviously the answer to Bernadotte. [1]

As America’s first Ambassador to Israel, McDonald felt it was in his interest to arrange for a meeting as soon as possible with Count Bernadotte, in order to assess his personality and capabilities.  Thus, McDonald’s assessment of Bernadotte’s character is of interest:

“As we discussed various matters, I could not help but feel that Bernadotte, speaking here with such charm and cheerfulness, was in truth a tragic figure.  He was working with forces beyond his control, and whose violence he underestimated; with all his nobility of character...he had blundered fatally in suggesting, even tentatively, that Jerusalem become an Arab capital.  Internationalization of the ancient Jewish capital was bad enough; but to turn it over to Abdullah, to make it Moslem-as an “award for Arab aggression against Israel,” as the Jews saw it - this was so offensive to the Israelis as to be incredible.  It had destroyed the Israelis last hope in the Mediator.” [2] 

For his part, Bernadotte felt that he had every reason to feel moderately satisfied with what had been accomplished in the short interval following his arrival in the mid-east as a special UN mediator. The Count was particularly proud of the fact that he had been able to secure a cease fire agreement between the Arabs and the Israelis on 9 June, 1948.  Unfortunately the truce lasted no longer than two weeks, after it was charged that Israelis had used the terms and benefits of the truce to their own advantage by smuggling arms out of ports and into the hands of the Israeli defense forces. On the other hand, the Israelis were expecting to be attacked by the hostile Arab nations at any moment.  Distrustful of the Count’s motives, extremists in the Israeli underground launched a series of attacks aimed at the character of Bernadotte himself.

Articles appeared in the Zionist press which alleged that Bernadotte’s negotiations with Heinrich Himmler were in fact of dubious substance and less than noble.  In turn, Bernadotte complained that “the Jewish Press made very violent attacks on me” after having read sly innuendoes suggesting that he was a crypto-Nazi.  On this point Bernadotte confided to his diary, “It was unjust to cast aspersions on me, my work having been the means of saving the lives of about 10,000 Jews.”

Nonetheless Bernadotte’s protests were all to no avail.  Charges and counter-charges had poisoned the air to such a degree that any meaningful dialogue or attempts at rapprochement were impossible.  Whether by sinister design or simply as a result of an irresponsible wagging tongue, rumors soon surfaced which accused the Count of being a British Agent - the exact same charge which Kaltenbrunner had once leveled at him during the course of his negotiations with Himmler. The animosity and ill-will which these and similar rumors engendered were duly recorded with alarm by James McDonald in his official diary, wherein he wrote:

“Tenseness was vividly brought home...when John J. McDonald (no relation to James) called upon me.  He was greatly disturbed.  He had been in a Jerusalem cafe’ when a group of terrorists[1][3] came up to him, threatened him openly and warned him that the United States “would not be permitted to replace Britain and that this would soon be made unmistakably clear.”  He also reported that there had been open threats made in Jerusalem against Bernadotte as an allegedly British agent.  Cummings, who had been frequenting the Sternist haunts with his “girl friend” also had disquieting news for me.  Something was going on, he said. Somehow he had the impression that preparations were being made for a violent blow somewhere.” [3]

McDonald’s fears for Bernadotte’s safety increased palpably after a conversation which took place on 4 September, 1948 with Barley Crum, a member of the Anglo-American Committee. McDonald later confided in his diary, “At teatime Barley Crum and I talked for more than an hour about his recent meeting with the man who is said to be the new leader of the Sternists....According to Bart, the new Sternist is a man in his thirties, a combination of mystic and fanatic, insensitivity to reason, convinced that the United States is now replacing Great Britain as a potential oppressor of Israel, and that only through direct action can the United States and the world be convinced this will not be tolerated....When Bart referred to the tragedy of Lord Moyne, the British Minister-Resident in Cairo who was assassinated by two Sternists youths in 1944, and the particularly unpleasant effects upon world opinion because Lord Moyne had been friendly to the Zionist aspirations, the Sternist leader replied, “:It made it all the more telling-a demonstration when the victim is a friend.” [4] 

Thirteen days later, McDonald’s worst fears were confirmed in one of the most tragic events of the post-war period.  On the day in question, Count Bernadotte was traveling in a convoy of three cars en route to the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. 

While passing through the Stern controlled section of Jerusalem known as the Rahavia, their convoy was suddenly passed by a Jeep occupied by four men wearing Israeli army uniforms.  The passing vehicle raced ahead of them and lurched to a stop next to a narrow strip of road which was partially blocked by a mound of debris.  When the vehicles escorting Bernadotte ground to a halt, two men jumped out of the jeep whilst two remained behind.  Significantly, the driver remained behind the wheel of the vehicle, with the engine still running.

However, no one in Bernadotte’s convoy appeared to be apprehensive, due to the fact that security checks in the region were a matter of routine.  That illusion was soon dispelled when one of the two men suddenly opened fire on the tires of the lead vehicle.  Quickly peering into the vehicle, the man raced ahead to view the occupants of the accompanying vehicles.  Obviously, he was looking for someone in particular.  As one of the assassins nervously peered into the vehicle containing Count Bernadotte and Colonel Andre Serat, he opened fire, striking both victims in the chest.   Serat, an official French observer sent to Jerusalem on behalf of the United Nations, died instantly, while Bernadotte lingered on for a few minutes, and then expired.  Having completed their mission, the two assassins turned and fled.  None of the passengers in Bernadotte’s convoy had been armed.  It shall undoubtedly remain one of the strange quirks of history that Bernadotte was able to walk out of the inferno of Nazi Germany unscathed only to perish in Daniel’s Lion Den.

Immediately after having been informed of the shooting, McDonald raced over under heavy security to the house of Ben Gurion’s advisor, Moshe Sharrett. McDonald described the dramatic scene as follows:

“We met the Foreign Minister with Reuven Shiloah, Ben Gurion’s advisor; Sharett, as if he had seen a ghost, was ashen gray and seemed to have aged a decade in the twenty-four hours since I had last seen him in the same room, a carefree host..  Sharett began, choking with emotion as he spoke.  It was impossible for him adequately to express his Government’s and his own horror at what had happened.....The Government was acting swiftly, Sharett went on.  “We have ordered the immediate arrest of all members of the Sternists, with instructions to shoot in case of resistance,” he said....We are setting up the most rigid search for the assassins and their accomplices, and we shall execute justice at the moment guilt is proved.” [5] 

Unfortunately, by the time guilt was proved, the punishment which had been promised turned out to be a mockery of justice.  Two men had been murdered, and two men had been apprehended, charged, and convicted.  When the case finally came before the Israeli Courts, the two men convicted of the crime were sentenced to eight and five years imprisonment, respectively. Within hours of the verdict, however, the two men had been released from custody and escorted in triumph to a magnificent banquet where they were accorded a hero’s welcome.

Perhaps the most enduring indignity of all consisted in the sardonic fact that the coffin bearing the bullet-ridden corpse of Folke Bernadotte was returned to his family on the occasion of his wife’s birthday.


 [1] McDonald, James G., “My Mission in Israel,” Simon and Schuster, 1951, p. 21.

 [2] Ibid., p. 67.

 [3] The described terrorists were suspected at the time of belonging to either the Irgun or Stern gangs.

 [4] Ibid., p. 68.

 [5] Ibid., p. 70

 [6] Ibid., p. 76.

___________________________________________

"Durch Himmler's Tod blieben wichtige Antworten aus"

The Big Lie

Top of Page | Home Page

©-free 2005 Adelaide Institute