Jump to content
The Education Forum

Winston Churchill and the death of Prince George, Duke of Kent


Recommended Posts

On Mobile Gas vans Sid, see: http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/gas...mbers_vans.html

Delightful contraptions that housed a handful of "undesirables" who were driven around on an "outing" but didn't return on an "ining" due to the fact that the vans exhaust fumes were fed back into the rear compartment and the occupants gassed to death.

In case you hadn’t picked up on it Sid is our friendly neighborhood Holocaust denier (and Hitler apologist). There was no genocide he insists just some unfortunate deaths due to disease despite the best efforts of the humanitarian staffs at the concentration camps. Auschwitz had a swimming pool. The Shoah was just a hoax to build sympathy for the creation of a Jewish state.

I assume he was “playing dumb” about the vans.

And in the interest of balance, it should also be noted that Len is our friendly neighborhood apologist for Israel and defender of official inquiries.

Think there was something fishy about the 9/11 enquiry? Forget it--Len's on the case and assures us that everything is above board and AOK.

Think the Zapruder film may have been altered? Stop being so damned stupid!

Think there's a bias towards Israel in the western media? Crazy talk--and you must be anti-Semitic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 338
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On Mobile Gas vans Sid, see: http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/gas...mbers_vans.html

Delightful contraptions that housed a handful of "undesirables" who were driven around on an "outing" but didn't return on an "ining" due to the fact that the vans exhaust fumes were fed back into the rear compartment and the occupants gassed to death.

Note that SS-Obersturmbannführer Walter Rauff, a cheeky chappie, was one of the SS who was helped to escape down the Vatican SMOM organised, American and British sponsored Ratlines. He and thousands of other cheekie chappies, like Treblinka death camp commandant Franz Stangl, were likewise led to freedom.

It's good to know that justice is not only done, but is seen to be done, don't you think...

David

Sorry to butt in John, but I get a sudden flush and come over all verbal about atrocities like this. Must be my old age showing.

No worries, David.

In case you hadn't picked up on it Sid is our friendly neighborhood Holocaust denier (and Hitler apologist). There was no genocide he insists just some unfortunate deaths due to disease despite the best efforts of the humanitarian staffs at the concentration camps. Auschwitz had a swimming pool. The Shoah was just a hoax to build sympathy for the creation of a Jewish state.

I assume he was 'playing dumb' about the vans.

Obviously so, Len.

Holocaust deniers have a stock set of topics.

It doesn't matter to them whether gas vans, gas chambers. or crematoria actually existed or not.

The fact that they are such horrific examples of mans inhumanity to man, they are, by neceessity, simply factors that must be dealt with in a process of rehabilitating Supremacist ideoliogies like Falangism, Nazism, Fascism and other flavours of 'Ubermenchen' ideologies.

Therefore legitimising them by arguing about whether the Holocaust deniers have 'an argument' that cast doubt on those aspects of such psychopathy merely serves the purpose of aiding the deception of future generations about the true nature of these deviations.

Therefore these seemingly infantile questions by Sid can be regarded as answered and on my part there is no intention to engage in a discussion about those matters.

___________

I actually don't believe Sid is so stupid that he doesn't know what I refer to with regards to 'White Armies'. Possibly merely contemptuous and deliberately infantile in an attempt to bring 'red herrings' on to the agenda so that neo-nazi propaganda can be spread.

However, as the White Army issue it is a subject matter some may not be familiar with, one needs to look back to the days following 'the little (part-jewish) corporal's' (self-hating) formative years and at the few years when Lenin was alive and the few years when Trotsky, as his 'heir apparent', still maintained a dominant influence in the world revolution.

Follownig the Bolchevics ending the slaughter that was WWI, came a surge of revolutionary activity througout the entire world. The allied western nations still controlled by the 'dictatorship of the Bourgeoise' formed alliances with the disposessed Russian Feudal Aristorcracy, and its emerging Capitalist class, in order to bring about a counter revolution in Russia against the 'dictatorship of the Proletariat', while suppressing progressive revolutions in their own nations.

This led to the formation of the 'White Army'. It was financed and formed by elements of most major westen nations, including Britain and the USA.

Trotsky was appointed to organise the defence of the October Revolution against this counter-revolution, and the Army he mustered was referred to as the 'Red Army'. (this is a reference to Red Flag which was intiallty the bloodsoaked sheets that wrapped the dead of the Paris Commune and were raised in revolt as the Flag representing that revolution.)

A devastating war followed, though ultimately, under Trotskys leadership, the 'Red Army' prevailed.

At the same time Germany itslelf was in the throes of revolution. This was the environment in which the anti-communist Nazi Party was formed.

Stalin continued the counter-revolution, to some extent, by isolating and slaughtering opponents, and ultimately succeeding in having Trotsky (as the last of the old CPUSSR leadership) killed in Mexico at the outbreak of WWII. Nevertheless a generation of Russians knew what they had won, and meanwhile the war for the ears of the western proletariat became a war between Trotskyism and Stalinism.

For many decades, loyal revolutionaries were deceived into following the Comnunist party directives (disseminated popularly through its papers like 'The Worker'). Nevertheless, many saw through this, and people like Cannon in the USA, kept alive the essence of Marxism, ultimately in the SWP, through its paper, 'the Militant'.

Also a significant element of politically aware sailors of the world spread the 'word'. Therein likely the significance of the merchant marine in the JFK lore, (and also the backyard photos. Oswald was a confirmed supporter of the Minute Men and had his own version of their program for heightening tensions to bring about a 'New Order'). (Therein also the necessity of the WC conclusions and the support of them in order to avert a US Civil War, and the nuclear first strike actions option to be taken by the USA as a result. Kruschhev had a few years previously declared the intent to support revolution where it may occur. Therein the percieved central role of Cuba and Vietnam to the assassination)

Naturally, the monied classes supported (what has become known as) Fascism, and, partly, its appeal to the uneducated worker elements was the promise of all round law and order in a society in turmoil.

Further, isolating distinct elements of society (in this instance a traditional grouping, like communists, gypsies, Jews, the disabled, 'the impure') allowed the dispossession and redistribution of their propertiy and also served to fulfill the old paradigm of divide and rule.

A state of terror grew where many, as beneficiearies, turned a blind eye. Concurrently, Goebble type propaganda fed the base natures of people of a society in terror.

A series of evente including The Reichstag fire, OP Hummingbird or 'The Night of the Long Knives', 'The Reich Crystal Night' (Reichskristallnacht), and a gradual systematic separation of citizens in schools, and other official institutions, into the accepted and the unaccepted led through a series of stages to the acceptance by the 'accepted' the inhumane treatment of the unaccepted, and a witting acceptance of doubt to the contrary, rumours, that swung in favour of: 'it can't be true, look, the trains are on time'.

Thus, Hitler and his camp seized power and set about rearming Germany. This included the testing of arms and training of German Soldiers in the Franco led war, overseen by significant US Intel elements, against the popularly elected Republicans in Spain, and its significant 'international brigades'.

Then, sanctioned annexations led to the Greater Germany, the mythical Aryan Nation, Nordic superiority, slave labor and an industrial base, which then allowed the resumption of the failed 'White Army' actions: WWII.

The 'Allies' (who should really be regarded as just another aspect of the Axis forces) allowed the thrust into the USSR, and merely played along on the sidelines, making profits and maneuvering for position. However, as the truth, or the dialectic logic of Marxism, could not be denied (and never will be, despite Religio-Hegelianism and people like Karl Popper) Hitlers counter-revolution failed. (as the above tables show, at a huge cost to the Soviets.)

This forms a basis of the answer to the 'White Army' question.

The other 'questions' have been dealt with.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And in the interest of balance, it should also be noted that Len is our friendly neighborhood apologist for Israel and defender of official inquiries.

So Mark do you really think the positions you ascribe to me are equivalent to denying the brutal murder of 10 – 12 million innocent civilians and attempted genocide of 2 ethnic groups?

As for me being an “apologist for Israel” you’ve leveled that charge at me before and should know by now it isn’t accurate I have criticized that state for it invasions of Lebanon and Gaza among other misdeeds. AFAICR I have only defended Israel against four “charges”:

- It attacked the Liberty knowing it was an American ship; you have failed to respond to numerous points I’ve made on that thread.

- J.J. Angleton betrayed his country for Israel – I’ve seen no evidence to support this theory other than the placement of a cardboard “plaque” in his “honor” next to a garbage dump.

- A group of Mossad agents had foreknowledge of and/or were part of the 9/11 attacks.

- It and other Jews were responsible for the assassination of JFK – the “evidence” is underwhelming.

There are appropriate threads for addressing the above topics. As for me being a “defender of official inquiries” that’s simply more ‘straw’. I’ve said more than once that I believe that:

-the JFK and MLK jr. assassinations were the results of conspiracies,

-I have questions about the 9/11 C. Report

-The Bush administration knew Iraq didn’t have WMD’s or significant ties to al-Queda before the invasion

-Poppa Bush and Reagan made a deal with the Iranians not to release the hostages till after the election.

Think there was something fishy about the 9/11 enquiry? Forget it--Len's on the case and assures us that everything is above board and AOK.

No I said that the 9/11 C. did a lot of CYA for the Clinton and Bush administrations and that the latter lied about events before and after the attacks and that LIHOP is a possibility. I don’t believe theories that the WTC towers were brought down by demolition charges and that NORAD/the USAF stood down etc hold any water and I have the near unanimous backing of qualified experts and witnesses.

Think the Zapruder film may have been altered? Stop being so damned stupid!

Yes I think such theories are nonsense and most JFK researchers seem to agree. The “alterationists” have yet to find one qualified expert to back their position, several have refuted it.

Think there's a bias towards Israel in the western media? Crazy talk--and you must be anti-Semitic.

LOL and it seems to irk you when I call you “the strawman from Oz”. I don’t suppose you can cite where I have said anything along those lines?

PS – Edited to add – I glad you finally acknowledge that your buddy is a Holocaust denier, you humorously tried to deny this after he admitted to it.

2nd edit - typo

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And in the interest of balance, it should also be noted that Len is our friendly neighborhood apologist for Israel and defender of official inquiries.

So Mark do you really think the positions you ascribe to me are equivalent to denying the brutal murder of 10 – 12 million innocent civilians and attempted genocide of 2 ethnic groups?

As for me being an “apologist for Israel” you’ve leveled that charge at me before and should know by now it isn’t accurate I have criticized that state for it invasions of Lebanon and Gaza among other misdeeds. AFAICR I have only defended Israel against four “charges”:

- It attacked the Liberty knowing it was an American ship; you have failed to respond to numerous points I’ve made on that thread.

Bollocks. Those who read that thread may decide for themselves which were the key issues in that argument. Far from 'failing to respond to numerous points', I merely refused to become embroiled in the argument on your terms, which often involves drowning the thread in a sea of details, many of which upon scrutiny usually prove less than convincing in support of your position, tangential to the debate or are simply irrelevant. Arguing on your terms means going around and around and around. Anyway, I let you have the last word, didn't I?

- J.J. Angleton betrayed his country for Israel – I’ve seen no evidence to support this theory other than the placement of a cardboard “plaque” in his “honor” next to a garbage dump.

I have.

- A group of Mossad agents had foreknowledge of and/or were part of the 9/11 attacks.

- It and other Jews were responsible for the assassination of JFK – the “evidence” is underwhelming.

There are appropriate threads for addressing the above topics. As for me being a “defender of official inquiries” that’s simply more ‘straw’. I’ve said more than once that I believe that:

-the JFK and MLK jr. assassinations were the results of conspiracies,

-I have questions about the 9/11 C. Report

-The Bush administration knew Iraq didn’t have WMD’s or significant ties to al-Queda before the invasion

-Poppa Bush and Reagan made a deal with the Iranians not to release the hostages till after the election.

Think there was something fishy about the 9/11 enquiry? Forget it--Len's on the case and assures us that everything is above board and AOK.

No I said that the 9/11 C. did a lot of CYA for the Clinton and Bush administrations and that the latter lied about events before and after the attacks and that LIHOP is a possibility. I don’t believe theories that the WTC towers were brought down by demolition charges and that NORAD/the USAF stood down etc hold any water and I have the near unanimous backing of qualified experts and witnesses.

Think the Zapruder film may have been altered? Stop being so damned stupid!

Yes I think such theories are nonsense and most JFK researchers seem to agree. The “alterationists” have yet to find one qualified expert to back their position, several have refuted it.

LOL and it seems to irk you when I call you “the strawman from Oz”. I don’t suppose you can cite where I have said anything along those lines?

Is there a media bias in favor of Israel? I didn't catch your answer.

PS – Edited to add – I glad you finally acknowledge that your buddy is a Holocaust denier, you humorously tried to deny this after he admitted to it.

I acknowledge no such thing. My intrusion into this thread was in response to your belittling Sid with this distasteful label, which you seem to do on a regular basis. I actually thought Sid was asking perfectly reasonable questions, although I admit to being far from an expert on the subject matter of this thread. Attaching labels, especially one as odious as this, serves to deny the recipient credibility and a legitimate voice in the debate. This happens in the mainstream media but shouldn't happen here, imo. You can always debate the issues without throwing the labels around.

2nd edit - typo

Edited by Mark Stapleton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote: “…you have failed to respond to numerous points I’ve made on [the Liberty] thread.”

Mark replied: Bollocks. Those who read that thread may decide for themselves which were the key issues in that argument. Far from 'failing to respond to numerous points', I merely refused to become embroiled in the argument on your terms, which often involves drowning the thread in a sea of details, many of which upon scrutiny usually prove less than convincing in support of your position, tangential to the debate or are simply irrelevant. Arguing on your terms means going around and around and around. Anyway, I let you have the last word, didn't I?

Yes I’m quite comfortable in letting the lurkers decide for themselves based on the evidence presented. As for the arguments going round and round that seem more due to you bringing up points that were already addressed. You didn’t ‘let me have the last word’ as much as you had no reasonable replies to my points.

Mark wrote: Think there's a bias towards Israel in the western media? Crazy talk--and you must be anti-Semitic.

I replied: LOL and it seems to irk you when I call you “the strawman from Oz”. I don’t suppose you can cite where I have said anything along those lines?

Mark’s response: Is there a media bias in favor of Israel? I didn't catch your answer.

I didn’t have anything to answer because you hadn’t asked a question. Instead as is your custom you resorted to a strawman and I replied to that

I think some media outlets are biased in favor of Israel others aren’t some are biased against Israel. I don’t think it is anti-Semitic to suggest that Jewish owned media is biased towards Israel but sometimes it not what you say but how you say it.

My intrusion into this thread was in response to your belittling Sid with this distasteful label…Attaching labels, especially one as odious as this, serves to deny the recipient credibility and a legitimate voice in the debate.

You think the label is “distasteful” and “odious” I think the position is “distasteful” and “odious”. If the latter weren’t “odious” why would the latter? Sid although he likes to play with semantics is pretty open about his position.

I acknowledge no such thing.

Since he does the question is moot, you must be in denial.

I actually thought Sid was asking perfectly reasonable questions, although I admit to being far from an expert on the subject matter of this thread.

Sid claims to be knowledgeable about the Holocaust, if this is true he should have know about the vans, if he isn’t knowledgeable about the subject he has no business challenging the accepted history of the event agreed upon by all contemporary observers and every historian except one who has looked into it. As I indicated I thought and still think he knew about the vans but was being disingenuous.

EDIT - typo fixed see below,

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Duke of Kent and Hess also knew about Churchill’s willingness to give up Poland to Hitler. How could they be kept quiet after the war was finished?

Good question regarding Hess, just how was he kept quite for 4 decades? If you believe he was killed along with the Duke explain how they convinced a double to spend 40 years in prison and how that double managed to fool Hess's wife and son and other relatives as well as some of his Nazi colleagues including Speer.

John I was wondering if you could get back to me on this point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My apologies for being absent from the forum for several days. My last two posts were not intended to be lobbed into the thread - then abandoned. Indeed, I had intended to post something following John Simkin's latest, fascinating post. But real life got in the way of my good intentions.

Anyhow, I notice that my absence hasn't prevented John Dolva and Len Colby from carrying on a discussion that reflects their usual high standard of literacy and intellectual integrity. :angry:

Len, as I am only a bear of medium size brain, I think I'll just focus on just one of your paragraphs.

Sid claims to be knowledgeable about the Holocaust, if this is true he should have know about the vans, if he isn’t knowledgeable about the subject he has no business challenging the accepted history of the event agreed upon by all contemporary observers and every historian except one who has looked into it. As I indicated I thought and still stink he knew about the vans but was being disingenuous.

First, I will be tiresome and ask Len for a reference that backs up his assertion that I claim to be "knowledgeable about the Holocaust". I don't think you can find one, Len, because I'm not aware of ever having made such a statement. A retraction would therefore be nice.

Second, "if this is true... blah blah" merits only the response "it isn't true".

Third, I'll pass on debating the "mobile gas van" issue. It's tangential to the thread and IMO it's not fair to John Simkin's work on Churchill and the Duke of Kent assassination that it become entangled with a brawl over such a tangential issue.

If you'd like to start a thread about it, please do.

You may also like to start a thread to discuss the proposition that non-experts have "no business challenging the accepted history of the event agreed upon by all contemporary observers and every historian except one who has looked into it". I'd definitely like to join you in debate on that thread.

Finally, you wrote: "As I indicated I thought and still stink he knew about the vans but was being disingenuous."

I'm sorry you still stink Len.

Turning now to John Dolva and his interesting prose...

John, the reason that I asked you to explain "The White Armies had failed, and Hitler, and his backers, real enemy were the Bolschevics." is because I couldn't understand what on earth you meant by the statement.

That may be because:

(1) the sentence was not properly proof-read;

(2) you were making a point I genuinely don't understand;

(3) what you wrote is rubbish;

(4) a combination of the above

In any event, your lengthy reply has helped firm up my view on which of those alternatives is most probable.

Here is your additional explanation once again, for the historical record:

...as the White Army issue it is a subject matter some may not be familiar with, one needs to look back to the days following 'the little (part-jewish) corporal's' (self-hating) formative years and at the few years when Lenin was alive and the few years when Trotsky, as his 'heir apparent', still maintained a dominant influence in the world revolution.

Follownig the Bolchevics ending the slaughter that was WWI, came a surge of revolutionary activity througout the entire world. The allied western nations still controlled by the 'dictatorship of the Bourgeoise' formed alliances with the disposessed Russian Feudal Aristorcracy, and its emerging Capitalist class, in order to bring about a counter revolution in Russia against the 'dictatorship of the Proletariat', while suppressing progressive revolutions in their own nations.

This led to the formation of the 'White Army'. It was financed and formed by elements of most major westen nations, including Britain and the USA.

Trotsky was appointed to organise the defence of the October Revolution against this counter-revolution, and the Army he mustered was referred to as the 'Red Army'. (this is a reference to Red Flag which was intiallty the bloodsoaked sheets that wrapped the dead of the Paris Commune and were raised in revolt as the Flag representing that revolution.)

A devastating war followed, though ultimately, under Trotskys leadership, the 'Red Army' prevailed.

At the same time Germany itslelf was in the throes of revolution. This was the environment in which the anti-communist Nazi Party was formed.

Stalin continued the counter-revolution, to some extent, by isolating and slaughtering opponents, and ultimately succeeding in having Trotsky (as the last of the old CPUSSR leadership) killed in Mexico at the outbreak of WWII. Nevertheless a generation of Russians knew what they had won, and meanwhile the war for the ears of the western proletariat became a war between Trotskyism and Stalinism.

For many decades, loyal revolutionaries were deceived into following the Comnunist party directives (disseminated popularly through its papers like 'The Worker'). Nevertheless, many saw through this, and people like Cannon in the USA, kept alive the essence of Marxism, ultimately in the SWP, through its paper, 'the Militant'.

Also a significant element of politically aware sailors of the world spread the 'word'. Therein likely the significance of the merchant marine in the JFK lore, (and also the backyard photos. Oswald was a confirmed supporter of the Minute Men and had his own version of their program for heightening tensions to bring about a 'New Order'). (Therein also the necessity of the WC conclusions and the support of them in order to avert a US Civil War, and the nuclear first strike actions option to be taken by the USA as a result. Kruschhev had a few years previously declared the intent to support revolution where it may occur. Therein the percieved central role of Cuba and Vietnam to the assassination)

Naturally, the monied classes supported (what has become known as) Fascism, and, partly, its appeal to the uneducated worker elements was the promise of all round law and order in a society in turmoil.

Further, isolating distinct elements of society (in this instance a traditional grouping, like communists, gypsies, Jews, the disabled, 'the impure') allowed the dispossession and redistribution of their propertiy and also served to fulfill the old paradigm of divide and rule.

A state of terror grew where many, as beneficiearies, turned a blind eye. Concurrently, Goebble type propaganda fed the base natures of people of a society in terror.

A series of evente including The Reichstag fire, OP Hummingbird or 'The Night of the Long Knives', 'The Reich Crystal Night' (Reichskristallnacht), and a gradual systematic separation of citizens in schools, and other official institutions, into the accepted and the unaccepted led through a series of stages to the acceptance by the 'accepted' the inhumane treatment of the unaccepted, and a witting acceptance of doubt to the contrary, rumours, that swung in favour of: 'it can't be true, look, the trains are on time'.

Thus, Hitler and his camp seized power and set about rearming Germany. This included the testing of arms and training of German Soldiers in the Franco led war, overseen by significant US Intel elements, against the popularly elected Republicans in Spain, and its significant 'international brigades'.

Then, sanctioned annexations led to the Greater Germany, the mythical Aryan Nation, Nordic superiority, slave labor and an industrial base, which then allowed the resumption of the failed 'White Army' actions: WWII.

The 'Allies' (who should really be regarded as just another aspect of the Axis forces) allowed the thrust into the USSR, and merely played along on the sidelines, making profits and maneuvering for position. However, as the truth, or the dialectic logic of Marxism, could not be denied (and never will be, despite Religio-Hegelianism and people like Karl Popper) Hitlers counter-revolution failed. (as the above tables show, at a huge cost to the Soviets.)

This forms a basis of the answer to the 'White Army' question.

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am only a bear of medium size brain,

Something I won’t dispute

I think I'll just focus on just one of your paragraphs.
Sid claims to be knowledgeable about the Holocaust, if this is true he should have know about the vans, if he isn’t knowledgeable about the subject he has no business challenging the accepted history of the event agreed upon by all contemporary observers and every historian except one who has looked into it. As I indicated I thought and still stink he knew about the vans but was being disingenuous.

First, I will be tiresome and ask Len for a reference that backs up his assertion that I claim to be "knowledgeable about the Holocaust". I don't think you can find one, Len, because I'm not aware of ever having made such a statement. A retraction would therefore be nice.

I don’t think you ever said “I am a Holocaust expert” or anything along those lines but you have written several lengthy posts on the subject in which you said things like the following:

“Now, one might wonder why the Red Cross, which had access to concentration camps such as Auschwitz, apparently never reported on this genocidal frenzy at the time. One might wonder about the logistics and the seeming lack of forensic evidence for mass killings on that scale. One may wonder about the apparent gap, in the archival records, which I understand have failed to turn up any evidence of direct orders from the Fuhrer to carry out the mass gassing of Jews.”

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=69738 (post # 38)

That and other statements you made certainly sound like they came from a person who though himself knowledgeable on the subject but perhaps I am mistaken you made such extra ordinary statements about a subject in which you didn’t claim to be know much about. No retraction is warranted.

It is interesting to remember that you had your points debunked by Owen (post # 45). You indicated you would try to refute him but never did.

Third, I'll pass on debating the "mobile gas van" issue. It's tangential to the thread and IMO it's not fair to John Simkin's work on Churchill and the Duke of Kent assassination that it become entangled with a brawl over such a tangential issue.

Funny this coming from the guy who brought up the theory that Hitler might have gotten syphilis from a Jewish prostitute on this thread (post# 192 on pg. 13), was that any less “tangential”? I’m not especially interested in the van issue as much as your feigned ignorance of the subject.

EDIT - reference in bold added

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

German Generaloberst Edward Dietl and the Finnish Fieldmarshal Mannerheim were close.

Manerheim is held as a hero by the Finnish people. He was partly responsible for the protection of the Finnish Jews, and also for the protecton of 'the line of life' that sustained the Soviets during the worst of the siege of Leningrad. His position was against the destruction of the USSR.

Finland was a unique case in that it fought not only the Red army, but also later the Germans in Lappland.

The arrangement that Mannerheim and other Finnish notables negotiated with Hitler included the protection of all Finnish Citizens. This led to the unusual situation of the Germans having to observe Synagogue rituals in the Finnish army Camps.

My mother's father (Eero) was a close friend of Dietl.

He (Eero) was an editor of a newspaper in the area Dietl served and had learnt German in Germany before the war, while studying Music. (Particularly the Violin. A french 1800's violin, now in the possession of a Perth Concert Violinist.)

Dietl and Eero used to meet monthly in a restaurant for a meal and to talk, and Dietl told Eero of aspects of the Holocaust and other issues that he only told him because he trusted Eero with his life.

My mother also met Dietl during a holiday job in a book shop. She remembers a beatuiful, tall man with kind eyes.

Monthly, editors throughout Finland met in Helsinki to be briefed on what was not censored.

In early 1944 Dietl told Eero that he had been given a weeks holiday. Eero said he could meet Dietl at his destination, and for the first time in their relationship Dietl pointedly refused to allow this or disclose his destination. Shortly after, Eero heard that the small plane that Dietl had been assigned blew up in the air and crashed, killing Dietl and the pilot.

Within not much more than a year after this, at the end of the war, Eero was free to tell my mother that Dietl knew he was going to be killed as a result of Dietl's position on a number of Nazi policies, not least the treatment of 'undesirables'.

Hard evidence?

Goodness knows. OP Clausewitz was extensive.

The statement by Eero that Hitler had Dietl assassinated was in my mothers Fathers mind a certainty.

_________________

My mother took Violin lessons from a Polish Jew in Helsinki, whose family was trapped in Poland. One day he 'disappeared'. My mothers last memory of him is seeing him rushing down a street looking very worried. Many people disappeared during this time so it was not unusual.

_________________

My Father's Mother was a leading Nazi in her home town in Norway, and my Father studied in Berlin and later in the War served in the 'AOK Norwegen' German army group in northern Finland, and spent a year in jail in Norway after the war as a 'Quisling', or collaborator. (some wonderful family heirlooms stem from this period as he was a very accomplished wood carver. One remarkable thing is a set of spoons one representing his mother, the other his father (his Father BTW did not join the Norwegian Nazi party) and a long chain carved entirely out of one piece of wood joining the two spoons)

I have spoken personally with people he went to school with, one of them a (now) retired Police Inspector.

One of my fathers greatest satisfactions, in his later life, was a visit to Hitlers "Eagles Nest"** and to urinate* on it.

His stories of life in German Educational establishments were not pretty. Not only were there the usual 'undesirables', that were the victims of the Holocaust and the Einsatzgruppen thugs, but also my Father (and mother) as typical Nordic Aryans, a' la Nazism, also experienced the dehumanising experiences that rewarded brutality and looked with disdain at signs of humanity.

the question is: do I believe Sid and other Holocaust Deniers or do I believe my Mother and Father?

God rest their souls and all the victims of Hitlers psychopathic puppets of the last bastion of capitalism: Fascism. I pray for the souls of the perpetrators too, that they may find absolution.

*this is a particular insult in the area. (We once visited Hungary in the sixties and because we couldn't make ourselves understood (language) and we needed a toilet, my father asked a policeman by sign language, he quickly unholstered his machine gun and it was a tense moment till he understood what we wanted and gave the appropriate directions.)

** http://www.letsgo-europe.com/Germany/eagles_nest/

"Hitler's "Eagle's Nest" was designed and built for Adolf Hilter's 50th Birthday by his personal secretary and Head of the Nazi Party Chancellery Martin Bormann. The monument is called "Kehlsteinhaus" in German because of it was originally intended to be a "Teahouse" for the head of the Third Reich. This mountain-top hideaway played a prominent role as the main unit objective in HBO's critically acclaimed mini-series "Band of Brothers."

The allied bombing and battles of World War II left building intact and today the Eagle's Nest remains in its original state. In the years after the war, the Eagle's Nest and the surrounding area of Berchtesgaden remained a part of US Armed Forces property in southeastern Germany."

Generaloberst Edward Dietl

http://www.artehistoria.jcyl.es/batallas/thumb/BTD14598.jpg

_________________

Sid all of your four points probably have an aspect of truth, though the third point less so.

Offhand I can see one 'proof reading' sample. Possibly if it had said 'Hitlers' rather than 'Hitler', the sentence would have made more immediate sense to you.

____________________

EDIT:: Dietl's adjutant was introduced to my mother as "Walter", and he was likely the Pilot of the plane. My Mother was young, her Father was very upset and told her little else, but indicated he knew details including possibly the perps. Likely the details died with him.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Part 14

The reason that Winston Churchill was unable to take the credit for the highly successful strategy of persuading Hitler to invade the Soviet Union after the war was that he was forced to order the deaths of certain people involved in this story.

Churchill knew that people like the Duke of Hamilton and other members of the far right were not able to reveal their role in these events. However, there were people who had a great deal of independence who would have posed a considerable threat to Churchill’s reputation after the war.

One man who was particularly dangerous was General Władysław Sikorski. In 1907 he joined the underground Polish Socialist Party. He was also a successful soldier and during the First World War emerged as a leading general of the Polish Army. In 1920 he was the commander who halted the advance of the Red Army towards Warsaw.

In April 1921 Sikorski became commander-in-chief of the Polish Armed Forces, and became chief of the Polish General Staff. From December 18, 1922, to May 26, 1923, Sikorski served as Prime Minister and also as Minister of Internal Affairs.

Sikorski was a committed democrat and was a leading opponent to Józef Piłsudski's May coup d'état in 1926, which was supported by most of the military. In 1928 he was dismissed by Piłsudski from public service and he went to live in France. In exile he wrote a great deal about the dangers of German rearmament and the possible disastrous effects of appeasement.

When Poland was invaded by Germany in September 1939, Sikorski became the leader of the Polish government-in-exile. Sikorski and his government moved to London and were able to evacuate many Polish troops to Britain. After the signing of a Polish-British Military Agreement on August 5, 1940, they proceeded to build up and train the Polish Armed Forces. Experienced Polish pilots took part in the Battle of Britain, where the Polish 303 Fighter Squadron achieved the highest number of kills of any Allied squadron. After the creation of the pro-German Vichy government in France and the ensuing split of French forces, the Polish Army in the United Kingdom and the Middle East became the second largest Allied army after that of the United Kingdom.

Sikorski’s main concern was the fate of Poland after the war. He believed that if the Poles stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Britain, Poland would get their freedom and independence after the liberation of his country.

Sikorski made some important contacts from within the Churchill administration in order to keep informed about the British government’s true intentions. This included Sir Stafford Cripps, Churchill’s ambassador to the Soviet Union. Cripps was a left-wing senior member of the Labour Party. A Marxist, in the 1930s he advocated a united front against the rise of fascism in Europe. He was a strong supporter of the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. In 1937 he urged that the Labour Party, the Socialist League, the ILP and the Communist Party of Great Britain, join forces against right-wing forces in the UK. In 1939 he was expelled from the Labour Party for continuing to urge the left unite against fascism.

When Churchill became prime minister in May 1940 he made every attempt to form a broad coalition. This included appointing Cripps as his ambassador to the Soviet Union. Cripps was therefore an important source of information about Churchill was up to.

However, it was Sikorski’s other close friend that was to prove troublesome to Churchill – the Duke of Kent. The two men became close after Sikorski was invited to the Duke’s home, Pitliver House, in November 1939. Sikorski had been in close contact with the Polish nobility since 1937. (Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior, Double Standards, page 281). The two men met official ten times during the next three years. (Nicholas Bethell, Sunday Times, 3rd November, 1972) It is understandable why Sikorski should develop a close friendship with the Duke of Kent. He was the respectable leader of the far right in the UK. He was the king’s official representative. He also had close links to all the major figures on the right, including the Duke of Hamilton, Samuel Hoare, the Duke of Buccleuch and Sir Archibald Ramsay.

The Duke of Kent kept Sikorski informed about Churchill’s secret negotiations with Hitler. Sikorski was horrified that Churchill was willing to do a deal with Hitler, especially as part of the deal involved Hitler retaining Poland. Nor was he happy about Germany invading the Soviet Union. If Germany won this war they would remain occupiers of Poland. If the Soviet Union won, they would occupy Poland.

Sikorski came up with a plan that would enable Poland to achieve its independence from the superpowers in Europe. This plan was revealed in a Foreign Office document released in 1972. This document states that Sikorski offered the Duke of Kent the Polish throne. (Nicholas Bethell, Sunday Times, 3rd November, 1972) Churchill was horrified when he discovered what Sikorski had done. It had now become very difficult for him to do a deal with Hitler over Poland. These Foreign Office documents show that Churchill made strenuous efforts to persuade the Duke of Kent to reject this offer. He also advised/ordered the Duke of Kent to cease to be patron to several Polish charities as this positions might eventually “become an embarrassment” to him and the royal family. (Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior, Double Standards, page 281)

One now can understand both General Sikorski and the Duke of Kent wanted a deal done with Hitler that involved Germany bringing an end to the occupation of western Poland. Hitler would then be free to liberate eastern Poland from the Soviet Union. This hope was dashed when Hitler launched an attack on the Soviet Union before an agreement with Britain was finalized.

When Germany failed to defeat the Soviet Union by the end of 1941, the outcome of the war became less certain. On 26th January 1942, Stafford Cripps told Sikorski that Stalin planned to annex Germany’s East Prussia to Poland in the west, but also to considerably push westward Poland’s eastern frontier.

Sikorski’s only chance of taking control of an independent Poland was for the UK and the US to liberate the country from German and Soviet control.

It now became clear that Stalin would try to occupy Poland after the war. This created problems for Churchill who had urged war in 1939 as a result of the German and Soviet invasion of Poland. When Churchill made it known to Stalin that it would not be acceptable for the Soviets to occupy Poland, he was informed that he knew about the Churchill-Hitler peace negotiations in 1940-41 (this information had come via Philby’s spy network).

The Duke of Kent and Hess also knew about Churchill’s willingness to give up Poland to Hitler. How could they be kept quiet after the war was finished?

On 13th April, 1943, the Germans announced the discovery of the bodies of 4,000 Polish officers who had been murdered by the Soviets and buried in Katyn Forest, near Smolensk, Russia. Stalin claimed that the atrocity had been carried out by the Germans. When Sikorski refused to accept the Soviet explanation and requested an investigation by the International Red Cross the Soviets accused the government-in-exile of cooperating with Nazi Germany and broke off diplomatic relations on April 26. (Janusz Zawodny, Death in the Forest: The Story of the Katyn Forest Massacre, 1962).

Sikorski still had one card still to play. He also knew about the 1940-41 peace negotiations between Hitler and Churchill. Could he blackmail Churchill into resisting the demands of Stalin after the war?

On 4th July, 1943, General Sikorski was on a Liberator that refuelled in Gibraltar. Within minutes of taking off the plane crashed into the sea. There was only one survivor, the pilot, Flight Lieutenant Edward Prchal. He survived because he was wearing a life-jacket that he had put on before the aircraft had taken off. According to the official inquiry the elevator controls had jammed. Summer Welles, the US Under-Secretary of State, went on record as saying he believed Sikorski had been assassinated. Sikorski’s widow claimed that her husband had been assassinated on the orders of Winston Churchill. (David Irving, Accident, 1967, page 168)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John your post above is essentially or entirely a repeat of (your) post # 209 on page 14, my replies (210 & 214 on pgs 14 –5) have gone essentially unanswered.

To sum them (my posts) up:

· Many of your claims are not documented,

· Irving contradicted your claim that Prchal was wearing his life vest when he took off,

· The idea that Hess was killed in the Duke`s plane crash is extremely unlikely for a number of reasons including the fact that he had contact with relatives, including his wife, and other ex-Nazi’s, including Speer, in Spandau after the War.

Edit - typo

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part 15

I have argued that it is possible that Winston Churchill ordered the deaths of the General Sikorski and the Duke of Kent to cover-up peace negotiations with Hitler in 1940 and 1941. It was not in the interests of other neo-Nazis such as the Duke of Hamilton, Samuel Hoare, the Duke of Buccleuch, Sir Archibald Ramsay to reveal their role in these activities after the war had finished. The aristocracy and the Tory establishment went along with the myth that Britain had fought the Second World War on behalf of freedom and democracy. Not that the British public was fooled and Churchill was ousted from power when the Tory Party suffered a landslide defeat in the 1945 General Election.

The main problem for Churchill and his co-conspirators was Rudolf Hess. He was the one German involved in these negotiations who was still alive after the war. According to Dr Hugh Thomas, who physically examined the man claiming to be Hess in Berlin in 1973, the prisoner was an imposter (Prisoner Number 7). Thomas argues his case in two books, The Murder of Rudolf Hess (1979) and Rudolf Hess: A Tale of Two Murders (1988). The most convincing aspect of his argument is that the prisoner he examined did not bear the scars from the First World War.

In June 1916 Hess suffered gunshot wounds to his body, left hand and arm. As doctors will tell you, scars might fade with time, but they never disappear. Yet a total of 58 doctors examined Hess after 1941 and not one mentioned these scars. The most detailed medical examination of Hess was carried out by Dr. Ben Hurewitz in Nuremberg in 1945. Even though Hurewitz listed every wart and blemish on the prisoner’s body, including a quarter-inch wart on his chest and a very faint half-inch-long scar on one of his fingers, there is no mention of the war wounds he received in 1916. (J. R. Rees, The Case of Rudolf Hess, 1947, page 136)

Nor did Hurewitz, or the other 57 doctors, mention the scar on the back of his head that was caused during a fight with communists in the early 1920s. (Hugh Thomas, A Tale of Two Murders, 1988, page 15)

It has been argued that Hess had made up this First World War injury as part of the Nazi propaganda campaign during the 1920s. However, Dr Thomas was able to find Hess’ medical records at the Berlin Documents Centre. It clearly states that Hess was “severely wounded in the storming of the Ungureana” in June 1916. It clearly states that a rifle bullet hit his left lung and that he spent four months in various hospitals, followed by a further six week’s convalescent leave. (Hugh Thomas, A Tale of Two Murders, 1988, pages 27-29)

We also know that Hess wrote a letter to his parents while recovering from hospital where he described the injury as “a clean through-shot, in under the left shoulder, out of the back.” (quoted in Peter Padfield’s Hess: The Führer’s Disciple, 1995, page 9)

In 1989, BBC journalist, Roy McHardy, found a more detailed medical file of Hess’s 1916 war wound in the Bavarian State Archives. (Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior, Double Standards, 2001, page 358) It includes details of his final examination before being released from hospital. “Three fingers above the left armpit, a pea-sized, bluish-coloured, non-reactive scar from an entry wound. On the back, at the height of the fourtb dorsal vertebra, two fingers from the spine, a non-reactive exit gunshot wound the size of a cherry stone.” (Military Doctors Certificate, dated 12 December, 1917)

When Hess died in 1987, there were two post-mortem examination. The official one by Professor J. Malcolm Cameron and an independent autopsy carried out on behalf of the Hess family. Neither report mentioned the scars caused by the 1916 gunshot wounds. However, they did find the scars caused by the so-called 1945 suicide attempt. This only shows that the man identified as Hess in 1945 was the person who died in 1987. When Thomas interviewed Cameron he admitted that as far as he was concerned, the scars from the 1916 shooting did not exist (Hugh Thomas, A Tale of Two Murders, 1988, page 192)

Hess was examined many times by British doctors between 1945 and 1987. Not one mentioned the scars caused by the 1916 shooting. (Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior, Double Standards, 2001, page 361)

In August 1988, Dr. David Owen raised the question about the missing scar. The Foreign Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe wrongly said that Cameron had noted the scar in his report. When Cameron denied this, the Foreign Office issued a statement in November 1988 to say that there was “a fibrous, irregular, roughly circular old scar typical of an exit wound…. in a posterior position on the left side of the chest”. The government failed to explain why this was not put in either of the original autopsy reports. (Duff Hart-Davies, Reign of Silence at the Foreign Office, Independent, 11th August, 1988)

However, Duff Hart-Davies, a journalist working for “The Independent” newspaper, found a high-level source within the Foreign Office who claimed that they made strenuous efforts to find the missing scars at the time of the death of Prisoner Number 7. However, they were unable to do so. When Dr. David Owen asked the question in the House of Commons a year later they were forced to try again. This time they were able to find the missing scar. (Duff Hart-Davies, The Curious Case of the Reappearing Scar, Independent, 10th November, 1988) It seems very strange that doctors could not find these scars between 1945 and 1987 but could find them over a year after his death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason that Winston Churchill was unable to take the credit for the highly successful strategy of persuading Hitler to invade the Soviet Union after the war was that he was forced to order the deaths of certain people involved in this story.
I have argued that it is possible that Winston Churchill ordered the deaths of the General Sikorski and the Duke of Kent to cover-up peace negotiations with Hitler in 1940 and 1941.

That’s quite circular John, according to you Churchill

1) kept his negotiations with Hitler secret to cover up the murders of Hess, the Duke and Sikorski but he also

2) killed them to cover-up his “highly successful strategy of persuading Hitler to invade the Soviet Union”

You have also failed to produce ANY evidence that Sikorski was killed or if he was the British were responsible other than vague motive, nor have you produced convincing evidence that the Duke or Hess were killed.

Sikorski made some important contacts from within the Churchill administration in order to keep informed about the British government’s true intentions. This included Sir Stafford Cripps, Churchill’s ambassador to the Soviet Union. Cripps was a left-wing senior member of the Labour Party. A Marxist, in the 1930s he advocated a united front against the rise of fascism in Europe.

[…]

However, it was Sikorski’s other close friend that was to prove troublesome to Churchill – the Duke of Kent.

That was quite a balancing act he pulled off simultaneously maintaining close friendships and conniving with both a pro-Soviet Marxist and a pro-Nazi Fascist both of whom were in positions of influence.

The Duke of Kent kept Sikorski informed about Churchill’s secret negotiations with Hitler.

Citation?

The main problem for Churchill and his co-conspirators was Rudolf Hess. He was the one German involved in these negotiations who was still alive after the war. According to Dr Hugh Thomas, who physically examined the man claiming to be Hess in Berlin in 1973, the prisoner was an imposter (Prisoner Number 7). Thomas argues his case in two books, The Murder of Rudolf Hess (1979) and Rudolf Hess: A Tale of Two Murders (1988). The most convincing aspect of his argument is that the prisoner he examined did not bear the scars from the First World War.

In June 1916 Hess suffered gunshot wounds to his body, left hand and arm. As doctors will tell you, scars might fade with time, but they never disappear. Yet a total of 58 doctors examined Hess after 1941 and not one mentioned these scars. The most detailed medical examination of Hess was carried out by Dr. Ben Hurewitz in Nuremberg in 1945. Even though Hurewitz listed every wart and blemish on the prisoner’s body, including a quarter-inch wart on his chest and a very faint half-inch-long scar on one of his fingers, there is no mention of the war wounds he received in 1916. (J. R. Rees, The Case of Rudolf Hess, 1947, page 136)

[…]

However, Duff Hart-Davies, a journalist working for “The Independent” newspaper, found a high-level source within the Foreign Office who claimed that they made strenuous efforts to find the missing scars at the time of the death of Prisoner Number 7. However, they were unable to do so. When Dr. David Owen asked the question in the House of Commons a year later they were forced to try again. This time they were able to find the missing scar. (Duff Hart-Davies, The Curious Case of the Reappearing Scar, Independent, 10th November, 1988) It seems very strange that doctors could not find these scars between 1945 and 1987 but could find them over a year after his death.

John at first glance you present a good case that the man who died in Spandau wasn’t Hess but then again McAdams, Bugliosi, Myers, Posner et. al. present strong cases that LHO acting alone killed JFK and someone could put together a convincing series of posts citing them and other LN’s claiming that was the case. That of course would not go over well on this forum because dozens of people knowledgeable about the assassination are members. If however they were posted to a forum where people knew as little about the Kennedy Assassination as people here do about Hess most members would be convinced. I don’t mean to imply you are Posner like but am not so sure about your sources most of which seem to be mass market books where making a buck is often more of a priority than getting to the truth and little effort is made to scrutinize the authors’ claims. There are similar books out there that opine that the Nazca lines were landing strips for ET’s and speculate about the location of Atlantis others are based on solid research, they run the gamut.

The missing scars issue is interesting but inconclusive, while it’s true that “they never disappear” I know from personal experience they come very close to doing so. I acquired several between the ages of 12 and 23 all of which were still clearly visible when I was 30, now I’m 42 and I can only find the faint traces of some of them because I know where to look and of course am very familiar with my body.

When I was 12 I fractured my femur and had to get bone traction, a metal pin went from one side of my tibia to the other, later my thigh was slit from one end to the other down to the bone (femur) twice to put it then remove a metal plate, two blood filtering tubes (in and out) were put in my leg. The scar from the cut is faded but still visible but anybody but me would have a very hard time locating the scars from the traction pin or blood filtering tubes and they have diameters much bigger than ‘peas’ or ‘cherry stones’.

I never took any steps to make them less visible, WebMD and the American Academy of Dermatology however list several methods for doing so some of which obviously weren’t available 1916 – 41 (lasers) others probably were (surgery, abrasion, pressure bandages)*. Even if he hadn’t treated them I wouldn’t be surprised if Hess’ “pea” and “cherry stone” sized scars were:

1) missed by a doctor 29 years later (1945) who was not looking for them or

2) missed by a doctor 71 years later (1987) who was not looking for them on Hess’ 93 year-old wrinkled and presumably blemished corpse

3) not found 57 years later (1973) by a doctor examining his 79 year-old wrinkled and presumably blemished body looking in the wrong place for much bigger ones.

According to one of your main sources the book Double Standards “…the scarring was less extensive than he (Thomas) surmised and the wounds were in different places.” True according to the authors Dr. Thomas insisted to them he would have found them any way but that was the recollection of a possibly elderly doctor nearly 30 years after the fact who had written two books based in large part on the supposedly missing scars and thus quite unlikely to admit error. http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0751532207...316#reader-link (pgs. 358 – 9)

* http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-tre...nts/guide/scars , http://www.aad.org/public/Publications/pam...WhatisaScar.htm

According to a personal AOL page of unknown reliability reviewing one of Thomas’ books “Later, Professor Eisenmenger may have found, according to Hess' son, 'two insipid old scars' from an earlier gunshot wound”* a forum post attributes the same Eisenmenger quote to “Peter Padfield’s book”** ("Hess, The Fuhrer’s Disciple" one of your ‘sources’). According to the same review:

...in 1979 Charles Gabel, the Pastor and Prison Chaplain of Spandau, was told by Hess that two English doctors had visited him recently, looking for the scars. They had found them, entry and exit, but they were not very visible.

Thomas' theory as with all Doppelganger theories associated with Hess does not stand up to scrutiny. Hess laughed about them with Gabel and discussed the various substitution theories.
*

You could rightly say the page is not a reliable source but a very similar account can be found in Double Standards (pg. 362) on the previous page Hess’ son is quoted as saying his father told him he could see the scar.

* http://members.aol.com/LeonardIngrams/doppelganger.html

** http://www.1914-1918.invisionzone.com/foru...php/t60227.html

If you are going to keep pushing the “Hess was an imposter” theory you have to deal with the contrary evidence, mainly that 1945 – 87 he had contact with relatives including his wife and sister as well as fellow Nazis who were also locked up a Spadau none of whom said anything along these lines even though the “doppelganger” theory was 1st proposed over 8 years before his death. At least two of them Speer and Hess’ own son wrote about their encounters with him.

According to Double Standards he had contact with several of his Nazi buddies including Goring , “Prof. Gen. Karl Hausofer his old political mentor and ‘second father’” who he had known for decades as well as Ernst Bohle, one of his main assistants at the time of the Nuremburg Trials. Though he claimed not to recognize them no mention is made of them saying they didn’t think Hess was really Hess (1). On the other hand with one exception the authors who suggest Hess wasn’t Hess never met him or examined him. According to Double Standards again he appeared in newsreels (2) and was photographed (3) during the Nuremberg trials amazing that the Allies would have allowed this or that no one noticed a difference (if he was an imposter)though the book claims “he was a shadow of his former self” (4). I imagine if the 1945 looked noticeably from the 1941 one someone (such as the authors of Double Standards would have done a side by side by now.

1) Which would be very surprising if any of them did since the authors back the ‘doppelganger’ theory http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0751532207...316#reader-link (pg. 5 part of the “Excerpt”)

2) ibid pg. 2

3) ibid pg. 5

4) ibid

Another thing you omitted from your version is that Dr. Thomas seems to have theorized that Hess was shot down before reaching Britain and that the man arrested in Scotland in 1941 was a double*. The authors of Double Standards quote him as saying he found a 1941 medical exam (presumably carried out shortly after his capture in May) which makes no mention of any scars either (ibid pgs 357 & 359). If this is true it is of course a major hole in your theory that Hess was killed in the crash of the Duke’s plane and replaced with an unscarred double over a year later in August 1942.

* http://members.aol.com/LeonardIngrams/doppelganger.html , http://www.trashfiction.co.uk/hess.html

I have question about your cited sources. You cite the ones listed below (in order of appearance), have you actually read all of them or did you extract the others from Double Standards and Thomas’ books?

Hugh Thomas, The Murder of Rudolf Hess (1979)

------ Rudolf Hess: A Tale of Two Murders (1988)

J. R. Rees, The Case of Rudolf Hess, 1947

Peter Padfield’s Hess: The Führer’s Disciple, 1995

Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior, Double Standards, 2001

Military Doctors Certificate, dated 12 December, 1917

Duff Hart-Davies, Reign of Silence at the Foreign Office, Independent, 11th August, 1988

-------, The Curious Case of the Reappearing Scar, Independent, 10th November, 1988

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have question about your cited sources. You cite the ones listed below (in order of appearance), have you actually read all of them or did you extract the others from Double Standards and Thomas’ books?

Hugh Thomas, The Murder of Rudolf Hess (1979)

------ Rudolf Hess: A Tale of Two Murders (1988)

J. R. Rees, The Case of Rudolf Hess, 1947

Peter Padfield’s Hess: The Führer’s Disciple, 1995

Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior, Double Standards, 2001

Military Doctors Certificate, dated 12 December, 1917

Duff Hart-Davies, Reign of Silence at the Foreign Office, Independent, 11th August, 1988

-------, The Curious Case of the Reappearing Scar, Independent, 10th November, 1988

I am not writing a book about this subject so I have not been to London to consult the actual documents that I have quoted. However, I am still of the generation that buys and reads books and have a fairly large collection at my disposal. I am also a member of the University of Sussex Library and I am allowed to borrow up to ten books at a time.

So far I have used the following books in my research:

Own Collection

Lord Allenbrooke, War Diaries, 2001

Martin Allen, The Hitler Deception, 2003

Anthony Cave Brown, Bodyguard of Lies, 1976

Alan Bullock, Hitler, 1952

Winston Churchill, The Second World War, 1948

Martin Gilbert, Second World War, 1989

Richard Griffiths, Fellow Travellers of the Right, 1980

Josef Goebbels, The Goebbels Diaries, 1982

John Harris, Hess: The British Conspiracy, 1999

Liddell Hart, The Other Side of the Hill, 1948

R. V. Jones, Most Secret War, 1978

Ian Kershaw, Hitler, 1998

Ian Kershaw, The Hitler Myth, 1987

Roy Nesbit, Flight of Rudolf Hess, 2002

Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich, 1970

A. J. P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World war, 1961

A. J. Taylor, Beaverbrook, 1972

Hugh Thomas, The Murder of Rudolf Hess, 1979

Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior, Double Standards, 2001

Peter Padfield, Hess: The Führer’s Disciple, 1995

Richard Milton, Best of Enemies: Britain and Germany, 2007

Nigel West, MI5: 1909-1945, 1981

F. W. Winterbottom, The Nazi Connection, 1978

University of Sussex

John Charmley, Duff Cooper, 1986

Duff Cooper, Old Men Forget, 1954

James Douglas-Hamilton, Motive for a Mission, 1971

Hugh Dalton, The Second World Diary, 1986

Anthony Eden, The Eden Memoirs, 1962

M. R. D. Foot, An Outline History of the SOE, 1984

James Lestor, Rudolf Hess: The Uninvited Envoy, 1962

Roger Manvell, Hess: A Biography, 1971

Clive Ponting, 1940: Myth and Reality, 1990

J. R. Rees, The Case of Rudolf Hess, 1947

Hugh Thomas, A Tale of Two Murders, 1988

Philip Zeigler, King Edward VIII, 1990

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...