Hartogs' report

[Thomas Graves]

What is utterly remarkable about Greg Parker's thousands of posts here and elsewhere attempting to criticize Harvey and Lee is that, by his own admission, HE HAS NEVER READ THE BOOK!

He has no idea what John Armstrong wrote about Renatus Hartogs or anyone or anything else!

Can we please get past the ridiculous assertion that one has to read every word in H&L in order to express an opinion on any given subject? Greg Parker or anyone else can go to the book and look through the index and read everything Armstrong wrote about Hartogs for example and then be fully qualified to discuss Armstrong's theory on that particular issue. Why is that concept so difficult for the H&L people to grasp?

Let me quote from an EF poster named Lee Farley who said it best:

"One of the tactics generally fired at you from the H&L supporters, in an effort to dismiss you, is to challenge whether you have read the book. First of all - - you CANNOT READ this book in the conventional sense of reading a book. It is not a page turner. It is a reference book that contains a thinly held together narrative of nonsense."

Should we suppose Lee Farley now has the last word re H&L? C'mon Parnell... The lone nut camp has made a career of late criticizing an independent JFK assassination researcher who sponsored his own researcher (time and money) privately published his own work and distributed his own work... That about right?

Actually, I don't blame you for reaching to the stars. Just imagine, nutters now looking through the "looking glass." After 50 years of defending the undefendable, 'the 1964 WCR,' you guys certainly need a change of scenery... Tis the last generation of LHO did it all by his lonesome crowd, right? But ya still need to make 'no conspiracy here, ma' hay somewhere, somehow, right... lmao!

Dear Mr. Healey,

I'm obviously not speaking for Tracy Parnell here, but do you think everyone who is a CTer and happens to disagree with Armstrong's premises, interpretations, and/or conclusions, is a "Lone Nutter"?

--Tommy

[David G. Healy]

What is utterly remarkable about Greg Parker's thousands of posts here and elsewhere attempting to criticize Harvey and Lee is that, by his own admission, HE HAS NEVER READ THE BOOK!

He has no idea what John Armstrong wrote about Renatus Hartogs or anyone or anything else!

Can we please get past the ridiculous assertion that one has to read every word in H&L in order to express an opinion on any given subject? Greg Parker or anyone else can go to the book and look through the index and read everything Armstrong wrote about Hartogs for example and then be fully qualified to discuss Armstrong's theory on that particular issue. Why is that concept so difficult for the H&L people to grasp?

Let me quote from an EF poster named Lee Farley who said it best:

"One of the tactics generally fired at you from the H&L supporters, in an effort to dismiss you, is to challenge whether you have read the book. First of all - - you CANNOT READ this book in the conventional sense of reading a book. It is not a page turner. It is a reference book that contains a thinly held together narrative of nonsense."

Should we suppose Lee Farley now has the last word re H&L? C'mon Parnell... The lone nut camp has made a career of late criticizing an independent JFK assassination researcher who sponsored his own researcher (time and money) privately published his own work and distributed his own work... That about right?

Actually, I don't blame you for reaching to the stars. Just imagine, nutters now looking through the "looking glass." After 50 years of defending the undefendable, 'the 1964 WCR,' you guys certainly need a change of scenery... Tis the last generation of LHO did it all by his lonesome crowd, right? But ya still need to make 'no conspiracy here, ma' hay somewhere, somehow, right... lmao!

Dear Mr. Healey,

I'm obviously not speaking for Tracy Parnell here, but do you think everyone who is a CTer and happens to disagree with Armstrong's premises, interpretations, and/or conclusions, is a "Lone Nutter"?

--Tommy

thank you for assuming this post was not directed to you, it wasn't. Let me fill you in on something most who have been at this for a while KNOW. Without DOUBT! Those that claim CT status need go no further than the claim, they will not be chastised for what they know or don't know. If some professed CT's need further convincing about anything, so be it, feel free to do whatever toots their boot! I could care less.

For me, reading the entire 1964 WC 26 volumes and the WC abridged report did not make me a CT, concluding the Zapruder film may have been altered did not make me a CT. It's was a visceral gut reaction that made me a CT. And I'm still not convinced LHO of whatever stripe was NOT involved in the assassination (knowingly or unknowingly). Shorthand, the WCR did not convince of his guilt.

You are what you are Tom, but if you can't spell my last name right and I suspect you've had trouble with that spelling for a long while, years in fact. And that of course, has nothing to do with H&L!

[Thomas Graves]

What is utterly remarkable about Greg Parker's thousands of posts here and elsewhere attempting to criticize Harvey and Lee is that, by his own admission, HE HAS NEVER READ THE BOOK!

He has no idea what John Armstrong wrote about Renatus Hartogs or anyone or anything else!

Can we please get past the ridiculous assertion that one has to read every word in H&L in order to express an opinion on any given subject? Greg Parker or anyone else can go to the book and look through the index and read everything Armstrong wrote about Hartogs for example and then be fully qualified to discuss Armstrong's theory on that particular issue. Why is that concept so difficult for the H&L people to grasp?

Let me quote from an EF poster named Lee Farley who said it best:

"One of the tactics generally fired at you from the H&L supporters, in an effort to dismiss you, is to challenge whether you have read the book. First of all - - you CANNOT READ this book in the conventional sense of reading a book. It is not a page turner. It is a reference book that contains a thinly held together narrative of nonsense."

Should we suppose Lee Farley now has the last word re H&L? C'mon Parnell... The lone nut camp has made a career of late criticizing an independent JFK assassination researcher who sponsored his own researcher (time and money) privately published his own work and distributed his own work... That about right?

Actually, I don't blame you for reaching to the stars. Just imagine, nutters now looking through the "looking glass." After 50 years of defending the undefendable, 'the 1964 WCR,' you guys certainly need a change of scenery... Tis the last generation of LHO did it all by his lonesome crowd, right? But ya still need to make 'no conspiracy here, ma' hay somewhere, somehow, right... lmao!

Dear Mr. Healey,

I'm obviously not speaking for Tracy Parnell here, but do you think everyone who is a CTer and happens to disagree with Armstrong's premises, interpretations, and/or conclusions, is a "Lone Nutter"?

--Tommy

thank you for assuming this post was not directed to you, it wasn't. Let me fill you in on something most who have been at this for a while KNOW. Without DOUBT! Those that claim CT status need go no further than the claim, they will not be chastised for what they know or don't know. If some professed CT's need further convincing about anything, so be it, feel free to do whatever toots their boot! I could care less.

For me, reading the entire 1964 WC 26 volumes and the WC abridged report did not make me a CT, concluding the Zapruder film may have been altered did not make me a CT. It's was a visceral gut reaction that made me a CT. And I'm still not convinced LHO of whatever stripe was NOT involved in the assassination (knowingly or unknowingly). Shorthand, the WCR did not convince of his guilt.

You are what you are Tom, but if you can't spell my last name right and I suspect you've had trouble with that spelling for a long while, years in fact. And that of course, has nothing to do with H&L!

Dear Mr. Healy,

I apologize for spelling your name incorrectly. It was unintentional I assure you.

"That" spelling? What do you mean by "that" spelling?

Am I the first person to misspell your name?

Thank you for letting me know it's okay to be a CTer but not be a devotee of H&L.

It just seems to me that you think everyone who disagrees with you on the assassination is a "lone nutter,"

--Tommy

[W. Tracy Parnell]

What is utterly remarkable about Greg Parker's thousands of posts here and elsewhere attempting to criticize Harvey and Lee is that, by his own admission, HE HAS NEVER READ THE BOOK!

He has no idea what John Armstrong wrote about Renatus Hartogs or anyone or anything else!

Can we please get past the ridiculous assertion that one has to read every word in H&L in order to express an opinion on any given subject? Greg Parker or anyone else can go to the book and look through the index and read everything Armstrong wrote about Hartogs for example and then be fully qualified to discuss Armstrong's theory on that particular issue. Why is that concept so difficult for the H&L people to grasp?

Let me quote from an EF poster named Lee Farley who said it best:

"One of the tactics generally fired at you from the H&L supporters, in an effort to dismiss you, is to challenge whether you have read the book. First of all - - you CANNOT READ this book in the conventional sense of reading a book. It is not a page turner. It is a reference book that contains a thinly held together narrative of nonsense."

Should we suppose Lee Farley now has the last word re H&L? C'mon Parnell... The lone nut camp has made a career of late criticizing an independent JFK assassination researcher who sponsored his own researcher (time and money) privately published his own work and distributed his own work... That about right?

Actually, if you check forums like McAdams and Duncan Macrae where there are quite a few LNs, they care very little about Armstrong and pay scant attention to him and his theory, at least in recent years. I have received the most reaction with my critical pieces at forums such as this where CTs predominate.

[Jim Hargrove]

The day Jack Ruby shot and killed "Lee Harvey Oswald," America and the world began to realize that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy. It became a visceral understanding, and no amount of investigatory tap-dancing has changed that simple fact in more than half a century.

Whatever WC defenders such as W. Tracy Parnell or the others here say to the contrary is irrelevant.

Anyone who makes a career out of trying to debunk Harvey and Lee without bothering to read the source of it all--the 1,000+ page book with nearly a thousand pages of documents and photos on the CD--seems interested only, imo, in suppressing the work rather than first, at least, understanding it.

Once more....

What is utterly remarkable about Greg Parker's thousands of posts here and elsewhere attempting to criticize Harvey and Lee is that, by his own admission, HE HAS NEVER READ THE BOOK! He has no idea what John Armstrong wrote about Renatus Hartogs or anyone or anything else!

Let the chorus of Parker Defenders now ring forth, but this hardly seems to be the behavior of a real researcher!

Edited September 14, 2015 by Jim Hargrove

[David G. Healy]

What is utterly remarkable about Greg Parker's thousands of posts here and elsewhere attempting to criticize Harvey and Lee is that, by his own admission, HE HAS NEVER READ THE BOOK!

He has no idea what John Armstrong wrote about Renatus Hartogs or anyone or anything else!

Can we please get past the ridiculous assertion that one has to read every word in H&L in order to express an opinion on any given subject? Greg Parker or anyone else can go to the book and look through the index and read everything Armstrong wrote about Hartogs for example and then be fully qualified to discuss Armstrong's theory on that particular issue. Why is that concept so difficult for the H&L people to grasp?

Let me quote from an EF poster named Lee Farley who said it best:

"One of the tactics generally fired at you from the H&L supporters, in an effort to dismiss you, is to challenge whether you have read the book. First of all - - you CANNOT READ this book in the conventional sense of reading a book. It is not a page turner. It is a reference book that contains a thinly held together narrative of nonsense."

Should we suppose Lee Farley now has the last word re H&L? C'mon Parnell... The lone nut camp has made a career of late criticizing an independent JFK assassination researcher who sponsored his own researcher (time and money) privately published his own work and distributed his own work... That about right?

Actually, if you check forums like McAdams and Duncan Macrae where there are quite a few LNs, they care very little about Armstrong and pay scant attention to him and his theory, at least in recent years. I have received the most reaction with my critical pieces at forums such as this where CTs predominate.

of course those lone nut board members/participants care, they simply do not have the wherewithal to counter in-depth research nor the resources such as Armstrong had? Time will tell what Greg's team and you, for that matter, turn up! Why the effort concerning the 2 Oswald's continues to puzzles me.

Re Greg and his investigative team, they have made their intentions clear (as well as published their findings), clean up case evidence and get the JFK's murder into a court of law.

Your intentions re H&L, please?

There is a huge vacuum on the lone nut side of the equation these days. The best lone nuts can come up with these days can be found at the AMAZON forum:

http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_jump?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdPage=2&cdThread=Tx3S6UAIF5802TL#CustomerDiscussionsLPIT

And it isn't pretty. It's clear on that forum, lone nuts have much to do to support the 1964 WCR/SBT/LHO did it all by his lonesome and its findings.... simply follow Ben Holmes and his CT friends...

[Robert Prudhomme]

The H & L website states

In April, 1953 Dr. Renatus Hartogs interviewed (HARVEY) Oswald at the Youth House and described him as thin, malnourished, and reminiscent of children he had seen in concentration camps in Europe. http://harveyandlee.net/School/School.htm

The same webpage follows that claim with a

As this claim is not cited, could someone please provide the citation?

The same page follows with the Bronx Zoo photo taken just prior to Youth House. That kid is not malnourished and iirc, Hartogs actually described Oswald as "well built".

So... I really would love to know where the (non) quote, non cited statement from the H & L site comes from.

Anyone?

And you slag everyone else on this forum for cluttering up the front page with irrelevant crap?

[Greg Parker]

The H & L website states

In April, 1953 Dr. Renatus Hartogs interviewed (HARVEY) Oswald at the Youth House and described him as thin, malnourished, and reminiscent of children he had seen in concentration camps in Europe. http://harveyandlee.net/School/School.htm

The same webpage follows that claim with a

As this claim is not cited, could someone please provide the citation?

The same page follows with the Bronx Zoo photo taken just prior to Youth House. That kid is not malnourished and iirc, Hartogs actually described Oswald as "well built".

So... I really would love to know where the (non) quote, non cited statement from the H & L site comes from.

Anyone?

And you slag everyone else on this forum for cluttering up the front page with irrelevant crap?

Pointing out mis and disinformation is not irrelevant.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

What is utterly remarkable about Greg Parker's thousands of posts here and elsewhere attempting to criticize Harvey and Lee is that, by his own admission, HE HAS NEVER READ THE BOOK!

He has no idea what John Armstrong wrote about Renatus Hartogs or anyone or anything else!

Can we please get past the ridiculous assertion that one has to read every word in H&L in order to express an opinion on any given subject? Greg Parker or anyone else can go to the book and look through the index and read everything Armstrong wrote about Hartogs for example and then be fully qualified to discuss Armstrong's theory on that particular issue. Why is that concept so difficult for the H&L people to grasp?

Let me quote from an EF poster named Lee Farley who said it best:

"One of the tactics generally fired at you from the H&L supporters, in an effort to dismiss you, is to challenge whether you have read the book. First of all - - you CANNOT READ this book in the conventional sense of reading a book. It is not a page turner. It is a reference book that contains a thinly held together narrative of nonsense."

Should we suppose Lee Farley now has the last word re H&L? C'mon Parnell... The lone nut camp has made a career of late criticizing an independent JFK assassination researcher who sponsored his own researcher (time and money) privately published his own work and distributed his own work... That about right?

Actually, if you check forums like McAdams and Duncan Macrae where there are quite a few LNs, they care very little about Armstrong and pay scant attention to him and his theory, at least in recent years. I have received the most reaction with my critical pieces at forums such as this where CTs predominate.

Your intentions re H&L, please?

Simply to convince people that the theory is incorrect so they can focus their research efforts elsewhere.

[Jon G. Tidd]

I don't believe the CIA or its employees planned or executed the plan to kill JFK. That would have been treason, and I don't think CIA officers in those days committed treason. Cover-up is a different matter. Entirely. For reasons that are centrally important but unknown till today.

On the other hand, I put nothing, absolutely nothing, past the CIA in the period 1960-1973, the period of my high school, college, and military experience. Drug running in Viet Nam. You name it. Yes, I know. CIA officers from the time period protest, "I never saw that."

Harvey & Lee: I believe the individual known to history as Lee Harvey Oswald, as he is known, is a composite.

Was the CIA unwilling to create, for its own purposes, such a composite?

I don't know. I do know that one who asserts, "No!" is naive.

[Greg Parker]

I don't believe the CIA or its employees planned or executed the plan to kill JFK. That would have been treason, and I don't think CIA officers in those days committed treason.

On the other hand, I put nothing, absolutely nothing, past the CIA in the period 1960-1973

Was the CIA unwilling to create, for its own purposes, such a composite? I don't know. I do know that one who asserts, "No!" is naive.

------------------------------------

I don't believe the CIA or its employees planned to kill JFK. Some employees may have played a role (at arms length) in the execution of the plan to kill JFK. They transcended the concept of "treason" as it would be understood by the average person.

I put nothing past the CIA in the period 1947 to present day.

Was the CIA unwilling to create, for its own purposes, a composite as described in the book "Harvey & Lee"? Yes, for the same reason it would be unwilling to contemplate any number of schemes that defy all intelligence protocols, and that required a set of improbabilities to unfold for over a twenty year period, which in this case, included, but was not limited to, finding the right two babies/boys, testing the entire family of both as to likelihood of getting on board, maintaining secrecy, the ability to follow directions, and being able to prolong the deception for a lifetime, being able to ensure that no other agency - domestic or foreign - would ever suspect what you're doing - and most importantly - having more than just a vague notion that this operation would one serve some specific purpose commensurate with the huge risks in undertaking it. As with anything in life - there is a risk to reward ratio. This fails on that alone -- with a massive risk set in motion for a nebulous reward, it would require the CIA to resemble the Keystone Kops. They were anything but.

What the CIA and their counterparts did do was create legends, backstopping them with a phony paper trail (fake licenses, fake rental receipts, pocket litter etc) and take over the identities of real people - usually deceased. But unless you're talking about the FBI, this was done in TARGET countries - not your own.

In the case of an unwitting asset now under arrest of course, things like pocket litter and ID cards would have to be planted and rental records faked after the asset was eliminated.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Chris Newton]

I don't believe the CIA or its employees planned or executed the plan to kill JFK. That would have been treason...

I don't believe the CIA or its employees planned to kill JFK. Some employees may have played a role (at arms length) in the execution of the plan to kill JFK.

How could the CIA have "come clean" at any time in the last 50 years if rogue (or worse yet, sanctioned) agents had been involved in the assassination? What would that have looked like and how could that play out?

Would that be a press release: "We regret to inform the Justice Department that according to our secret files, agents of the CIA acting in conjunction with [fill in the blanks] planned and executed..."?

The ramifications of a coup being revealed... I don't see how, even 50 years later, it would be possible. It would be a national crisis unlike anything since the Civil War.

The CIA's actions since 1963 are exactly what I'd expect even after the deaths of all the "Super Patriots" that "transcended the concept of treason" and are no longer around to be brought to justice. Why else would they continue to stall and obstruct?

Edited September 16, 2015 by Chris Newton

[Jim Hargrove]

I don't believe the CIA or its employees planned or executed the plan to kill JFK. That would have been treason, and I don't think CIA officers in those days committed treason. Cover-up is a different matter. Entirely. For reasons that are centrally important but unknown till today.

On the other hand, I put nothing, absolutely nothing, past the CIA in the period 1960-1973, the period of my high school, college, and military experience. Drug running in Viet Nam. You name it. Yes, I know. CIA officers from the time period protest, "I never saw that."

Harvey & Lee: I believe the individual known to history as Lee Harvey Oswald, as he is known, is a composite.

Was the CIA unwilling to create, for its own purposes, such a composite?

I don't know. I do know that one who asserts, "No!" is naive.

* Sen. Richard Schweiker said, "We do know Oswald had intelligence connections. Everywhere you look with him, there're fingerprints of intelligence."

* Victor Marchetti was the former Executive Assistant to the Deputy Director of the CIA. Marchetti said, "The more I have learned, the more concerned I have become that the government was involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy."

* CIA Agent Donald Norton said, "Oswald was with the CIA, and if he did it then you better believe the whole CIA was involved."

* Former CIA agent Joseph Newbrough said, "Oswald was an agent for the CIA and acting under orders."

* CIA accountant James B. Wilcott said Oswald received "a full-time salary for agent work for doing CIA operational work."

* CIA Agent John Garrett Underhill told friends, just before he died, "Oswald is a patsy. They set him up. They've killed the President. I've been listening and hearing things. I couldn't believe they'd get away with it, but they did."

* CIA Agent William Gaudet said, "The man who probably knows as much as anybody alive on all of this... is... I still think is Howard Hunt"----CIA Agent and Watergate burglar E. Howard Hunt.

* CIA employee Donald Deneslya read reports of a CIA agent who had worked at a radio factory in Minsk and returned to the US with a Russian wife and child--that agent could only have been Oswald.

* Richard Sprague, chief counsel to the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations said, "If he had it to do over again, he would begin his investigation of the Kennedy assassination by probing 'Oswald's ties to the Central Intelligence Agency."

* CIA officer David Phillips provided the Warren Commission with information that Oswald was at the Russian and Cuban embassies in Mexico City, then later admitted that the information he had provided was false.

* HSCA counsel Robert Tanenbaum said “Lee Harvey Oswald was a contract employee of the CIA and the FBI.”

* Marvin Watson, an adviser to President Lyndon Johnson, said that Johnson had told him that he was convinced that there was a plot in connection with the assassination. Watson said the President felt the CIA had something to do with this plot.

[Chris Newton]

Hey Jim,

I think the point that some are trying to make is that it's probable that:

LHO was impersonated.

LHO was an intelligence asset or agent.

LHO was wittingly or unwittingly involved in a plot to assassinate JFK.

And that any or all the statements above can be true without buying into a 10 year covert program by the CIA (or by Angleton, who I assume is the only one capable).

Of your list above I can only quibble with a few comments but for the most part you seem to be preaching to the choir (on this forum anyway).

edit changed 20 to 10 to make Gaal happy

Edited September 17, 2015 by Chris Newton

[Steven Gaal]

I don't believe the CIA or its employees planned or executed the plan to kill JFK. That would have been treason, and I don't think CIA officers in those days committed treason.

On the other hand, I put nothing, absolutely nothing, past the CIA in the period 1960-1973

Was the CIA unwilling to create, for its own purposes, such a composite? I don't know. I do know that one who asserts, "No!" is naive.

------------------------------------

I don't believe the CIA or its employees planned to kill JFK. Some employees may have played a role (at arms length) in the execution of the plan to kill JFK. They transcended the concept of "treason" as it would be understood by the average person.

I put nothing past the CIA in the period 1947 to present day.

Was the CIA unwilling to create, for its own purposes, a composite as described in the book "Harvey & Lee"? Yes, for the same reason it would be unwilling to contemplate any number of schemes that defy all intelligence protocols, and that required a set of improbabilities to unfold for over a twenty year period, which in this case, included, but was not limited to, finding the right two babies/boys, testing the entire family of both as to likelihood of getting on board, maintaining secrecy, the ability to follow directions, and being able to prolong the deception for a lifetime, being able to ensure that no other agency - domestic or foreign - would ever suspect what you're doing - and most importantly - having more than just a vague notion that this operation would one serve some specific purpose commensurate with the huge risks in undertaking it. As with anything in life - there is a risk to reward ratio. This fails on that alone -- with a massive risk set in motion for a nebulous reward, it would require the CIA to resemble the Keystone Kops. They were anything but.

What the CIA and their counterparts did do was create legends, backstopping them with a phony paper trail (fake licenses, fake rental receipts, pocket litter etc) and take over the identities of real people - usually deceased. But unless you're talking about the FBI, this was done in TARGET countries - not your own.

In the case of an unwitting asset now under arrest of course, things like pocket litter and ID cards would have to be planted and rental records faked after the asset was eliminated.

What the CIA and their counterparts did do was create legends, backstopping them with a phony paper trail (fake licenses, fake rental receipts, pocket litter etc) and take over the identities of real people - usually deceased. But unless you're talking about the FBI, this was done in TARGET countries - not your own.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

GOLLY SCHOLAR PARKER STRIKES AGAIN !!!!!!!!!!!!!! ,gaal

How Thousands Of Nazis Were 'Rewarded' With Life In The U.S.

November 05, 2014 3:09 PM ET

=======================================================

Listen to the Story

Fresh Air

39:25

• Playlist
• Download
• Embed
  EmbedClose embed modal<iframe src="http://www.npr.org/player/embed/361427276/361812069"width="100%" height="290" frameborder="0" scrolling="no">
• Transcript

The Nazis Next Door

How America Became a Safe Haven for Hitler's Men

by Eric Lichtblau

===========================================================

Purchase Featured Book Title The Nazis Next Door Subtitle How America Became a Safe Haven for Hitler's Men Author Eric Lichtblau

Your purchase helps support NPR Programming. How?

In the early '70s, New York Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman received a confidential tip that American immigration authorities knew of dozens of former Nazis — some implicated in serious war crimes — who were living in the U.S.

Holtzman looked into it and discovered that it was true, and that the formerly named Immigration and Naturalization Service wasn't doing much about it.

But that was just the tip of the iceberg, according to investigative reporter Eric Lichtblau.

In his new book, The Nazis Next Door, Lichtblau reports that thousands of Nazis managed to settle in the United States after World War II, often with the direct assistance of American intelligence officials who saw them as potential spies and informants in the Cold War against the Soviet Union.

Lichtblau says there were whole networks of spy groups around the world made up of Nazis — and they entered the U.S., one by one.

"They sort of had put in their service," Lichtblau tells Fresh Air's Dave Davies. "This was their 'reward' ... for their spy service ... coming to the United States and being able to live out their lives basically with anonymity and no scrutiny."

Most Americans knew little about the Nazis among them. And then in 1979, media reports and congressional interest finally spurred the creation of a Nazi-hunting unit with the Justice Department.

That prompted the first wave of Nazi-hunting, Lichtblau says.

"You had teams of lawyers and investigators and historians at the Justice Department who began ... looking at hundreds and hundreds of names of suspected Nazis and Nazi collaborators who were living all around the country, in Queens, in Baltimore, in Florida and Chicago," he says.

And, in some cases, the CIA had scrubbed the Nazis' files, Lichtblau says.

"They actively cleansed their records," Lichtblau says. "They realized that guys who had been involved at senior levels of Nazi atrocities would not pass through immigration at the INS — and they basically removed a lot of the Nazi material from their files."

i

Eric Lichtblau is an investigative reporter for The New York Times. In 2006, he won a Pulitzer Prize with James Risen for their stories on the National Security Agency's secret surveillance of American citizens. Sonia Suter/Courtesy of Houghton Mifflin hide caption

itoggle caption Sonia Suter/Courtesy of Houghton Mifflin

Eric Lichtblau is an investigative reporter for The New York Times. In 2006, he won a Pulitzer Prize with James Risen for their stories on the National Security Agency's secret surveillance of American citizens.

Sonia Suter/Courtesy of Houghton Mifflin

Interview Highlights

On the treatment of the Jews after liberation

Even after the liberation of the camps, they were still prisoners. They were kept under armed guard; they were kept behind barbed wire; they were bunked with Nazi POWs. And in some cases, believe it or not, the Nazis still lorded over them while the Allies ruled the camp.

When I started researching the book, this was a book about the Nazis who fled to America. I really had no intention of looking at the survivors — it seemed sort of irrelevant to what I was doing.

And then the more I got into it, and the more horrified I was by the conditions that the survivors lived in — where you had thousands and thousands of people dying even after the liberation, of disease, of malnutrition. I realized it was relevant to the story because as easy as it was for the Nazis to get into America, it was just as horribly difficult for the Jews and the other survivors to get out of the camps.

It took them months, and in some cases a couple of years, to get out of these displaced-person camps. It made me realize that the liberation that I had learned about years ago was in some sense sort of a mockery.

On Nazis running the camps even after the liberation

[u.S. Army] Gen. [George] Patton believed that the Nazis were best suited to run these camps. In fact, he openly defied orders from then Gen. [Dwight] Eisenhower, who was in charge of the European forces after the war.

Patton was in charge of the displaced persons camps. Patton had sort of an odd fondness almost for the Nazi prisoners, believe it or not. He believed that they [were] the ones in the best position to efficiently run the camps — and he gave them supervisory approval to basically lord over the Jews and the other survivors.

On Nazis and Nazi collaborators getting visas to the United States

In the early months, and first few years after the war, beginning in mid-1945, [there were] only a very limited number of immigration visas to get into the United States.

There were many, many thousands of Nazi collaborators who got visas to the United States while the survivors did not — even though they had been, for instance, the head of a Nazi concentration camp.

Eric Lichtblau

Of all the [Holocaust] survivors in the camps, only a few thousand came in in [the] first year or so. To get a visa was a precious commodity, and there were immigration policymakers in Washington who were on record saying that they didn't think the Jews should be let in because they were "lazy people" or "entitled people" and they didn't want them in.

But there were many, many thousands of Nazi collaborators who got visas to the United States while the survivors did not — even though they had been, for instance, the head of a Nazi concentration camp, the warden at a camp, or the secret police chief in Lithuania who signed the death warrants for people. ...

The bulk of the people who got into the United States — some were from Germany itself, some in fact were senior officers in the Nazi party under Hitler — but more were the Nazi collaborators.

On U.S. intelligence using Nazis as spies

There were upwards of a thousand Nazis who were used by U.S. intelligence after the war by the CIA, the FBI, the military and other U.S. intelligence agencies — both in Europe as well as inside the United States, in Latin America, in the Middle East, even a few in Australia. And these were seen as basically cold warriors who served as spies, informants and in other intelligence roles.

On whether it was an official policy to bring in Nazis as spies

I think it was ad hoc. It was not a formal policy approved by the White House or even [Director Allen] Dulles at the CIA to say, "We are going to actively recruit Nazis, their pasts be damned."

There's no document that I found which gives blanket authority for that. But it grew sort of organically because you had whole networks of Nazi spy groups in Europe ... as well as the Middle East and Latin America, and often these guys made it into the United States sort of one by one.

There's very little evidence that [the Nazis] had much to do with each other once they got to the United States.

On the remaining classified documents

There are still documents that remain classified today about the CIA's relationship with Nazi figures in the '40s and '50s and into the '60s. A lot of these documents have become declassified just in the last 10 or 15 years. ... There are documents that may open up whole new chapters that still remain classified that I'd love to see.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Steven Gaal