Is this site "mourningtheancient" a legitimate source of interviews?

[Waldgänger]

http://www.mourningtheancient.com/inter.htm

On this strange site, under the "World War Two" section, there are interviews with some rather famous people (Himmler's daughter Gudrun, Leni Riefenstahl, Karl Wolff, et. al.) as well as many interviews with very minor people, Gauleiters, Waffen-SS members, all claimed to have taken place from about 1980-1990.

I have tried to find the interviews with the more famous subjects by searching online using excerpts from the site, but this website is the only source I can find for any of them. The interviewer never seems to be mentioned even once, though from the responses of some interviewees, it seems the interviewer was a young American male.

Example, a claimed interview with Otto Remer:

Otto: I want to be clear with you. Jews and others were put into many camps from 1933 to 1945, and at the end of the war, many ended up dying in these camps. However, there was no German policy to purposely kill these inmates based on their race or religion. The story goes that we hated them so much, since they were so successful and we were jealous of them, that we rounded them up and when we couldn’t get them out of Europe we gassed them. I saw the movies the Allies made us watch, I heard the stories they would freely tell on the radio, and read the books they write. They say our hatred was so great, that God poured out his anger on the German people as the righteous Allies destroyed us for raising our hand against Gods chosen people. It makes the allied cause seem very just and righteous.

I say use your thinking cap, examine the testimonies with an open mind; ask yourself if it is possible. Some Jews were put into camps yes, just as Japanese were put into camps in America, because they were viewed as a threat. We viewed the Jewish problem as being very serious, they assassinated many of our diplomats, papers they owned encouraged disobedience and we reacted against them. For every action, there is a reaction. When war started, more were rounded up and sent to camps, to be moved east, from where they came. We used them for very important labor, with the men off serving, there were large needs for workers, and they provided it. So why kill people who could help create what you need.

Another, with a supposed Dirlewanger Brigade member, Halle, 1989:

Karl: No military unit is perfect, there will always be men who break down and do things they should not do. The Allies were worse than we were. I asked you not to push me on this issue as in my own country I can go to jail for telling a different story than what my government said happened. I will tell you that the truth is not told about us. A comrade was just discovered not too long ago and Poland wants him tried, another gave an interview in the 60s saying the claims made against us were false and was arrested and thrown in jail. Another member was an elected official and was removed from office and sued when he said we followed the rules of war. Therefore, we cannot speak the truth for fear about our future.

Some of the interviews are with people so obscure that I wonder why anyone would make them up. On the other hand, I can find none of these anywhere, be it on right-wing sites or revisionist ones, and some of the people supposedly interviewed here (such as Hedwig Potthast, Himmler's secretary/lover) explicitly refused to speak of the alleged war crimes of the era in public.

The website that hosts the archive does not seem to be run by the same person who apparently did the interviews 30-40 years ago. Has anyone else read from this archive? Any thoughts on its provenance?

[Otium]

No. It's not.

Unless there is actual proof these interviews were conducted, preferably video/audio proof - which surely there would be considering the purported nature of these alleged "interviews" - then you shouldn't be trusting a word said in these.

I remember reading a few of the alleged interviews, the one with Himmler's daughter and Leni Riefenstahl both of which - particularly the latter - seemed contrived. The way Riefenstahl is quoted is completely unnatural and suspicious, it reads like a propaganda piece in which she is solely saying what it is the person conducting the interview would've wanted her to say.

[Waldgänger]

No. It's not.

Unless there is actual proof these interviews were conducted, preferably video/audio proof - which surely there would be considering the purported nature of these alleged "interviews" - then you shouldn't be trusting a word said in these.

Indeed, having been reminded of this natural rule, I feel silly for even posting this.

I remember reading a few of the alleged interviews, the one with Himmler's daughter and Leni Riefenstahl both of which - particularly the latter - seemed contrived. The way Riefenstahl is quoted is completely unnatural and suspicious, it reads like a propaganda piece in which she is solely saying what it is the person conducting the interview would've wanted her to say.

I did begin to notice a pattern of certain sayings and turns of phrase that appeared in texts of interviews with very different people, which suggested one author rather than many informal speakers.

One must be honest and rigorous, even with statements that seem to help one's own case, if they are suspicious. Thanks for your response and experience with this site, Otium.

[Otium]

Indeed, having been reminded of this natural rule, I feel silly for even posting this.

Nah, it's not silly at all. People will find this site and think it's legitimate, so it's good to have a discussion open about it.

I did begin to notice a pattern of certain sayings and turns of phrase that appeared in texts of interviews with very different people, which suggested one author rather than many informal speakers.

Yes exactly. Some of these interviews, I will agree, do seem to have been conducted with suitably vague people. This might be interpreted as a point towards their authenticity - because like you said, why bother? Or it might be taken as an attempt to poison the well by inventing remarks made by an anonymous person with only the word of whoever wrote and uploaded the interviews as assurance of it's authenticity. This isn't enough.

The interview conducted with Remer seems more authentic, because there is at least some biographical information and a photograph of the alleged intervewier. Still, I'd push to see some audo-visual proof. Like with all these interviews.

Where the interviewer is anonymous, a big red flag appears to me. More proof is needed.

If you want a source for some authentic interviews - mostly conducted in the 1990s, see the book edited by Wieland Giebel entitled: 'Hitler: Die Interviews von Karl Höffkes mit Zeitzeugen'.

Of course, one could also enquire as to the numerous interviews conducted by the American historian John Toland or the notes of interviews taken by Daivd Irving.

Granted none of these are conducted by sympathetic people, which would be an interesting contrast because it might free the interviewee of some hesitations, but unfortunately until authenticated, these are mostly all we have.

[Waldgänger]

Nah, it's not silly at all. People will find this site and think it's legitimate, so it's good to have a discussion open about it.

Very true, so it is!

Yes exactly. Some of these interviews, I will agree, do seem to have been conducted with suitably vague people. This might be interpreted as a point towards their authenticity - because like you said, why bother? Or it might be taken as an attempt to poison the well by inventing remarks made by an anonymous person with only the word of whoever wrote and uploaded the interviews as assurance of it's authenticity. This isn't enough.

The interview conducted with Remer seems more authentic, because there is at least some biographical information and a photograph of the alleged intervewier. Still, I'd push to see some audo-visual proof. Like with all these interviews.

Where the interviewer is anonymous, a big red flag appears to me. More proof is needed.

If you want a source for some authentic interviews - mostly conducted in the 1990s, see the book edited by Wieland Giebel entitled: 'Hitler: Die Interviews von Karl Höffkes mit Zeitzeugen'.

9783957231536-1.jpg

Of course, one could also enquire as to the numerous interviews conducted by the American historian John Toland or the notes of interviews taken by Daivd Irving.

Granted none of these are conducted by sympathetic people, which would be an interesting contrast because it might free the interviewee of some hesitations, but unfortunately until authenticated, these are mostly all we have.

Thank you so much. I don't have any non-Jewish interviews about this period of history and it's always rewarding to find any.