Silencing Himmler / What were they afraid he would say?

[elvistheelf]

Pure supposition on Bergmann's part! I thought that "revisionists" were supposed to base their views on hard evidence. One could equally well argue that he handed himself in because he thought that the British would want to have him because of his knowledge of the Nazi system. Alternatively, in his delusion, he might have thought that they would need his help against the Soviets. As a third option, he might have thought that his actions against the Jews were perfectly acceptable and would be understood by the British. Remember, this is the man who tried to negotiate peace with the British.

Elvis

[Hannover]

Elvis said:

I thought that "revisionists" were supposed to base their views on hard evidence

You bet. Himmler turned himself in and was murdered; as hard as it gets.

Elvis said:

One could equally well argue that he handed himself in because he thought that the British would want to have him because of his knowledge of the Nazi system.

Possible, but anyone could explain the 'Nazi system', the chain of command was no secret.

and:

Alternatively, in his delusion, he might have thought that they would need his help against the Soviets.

Possible. Nothing 'delusional' about it. Other prominent Germans were certainly utilized for their information about the Soviets; that possibility does not negate Bergmann's points.

and:

As a third option, he might have thought that his actions against the Jews were perfectly acceptable and would be understood by the British. Remember, this is the man who tried to negotiate peace with the British.

Huh? The British were promoting the propaganda against the SS & Himmler.
What actions against Jews? Gas chambers? 6,000,000? Elvis has no evidence for such assertions and has not provided any.

- Hannover

[Ajax]

In all seriousness I think we do need to entertain the possibility that Himmler might have been slightly potty. Here was a man who had a pretty well-known penchant for the bizarre, and who might have though more of himself as a likely diplomat than was the case in reality.

However, this does not change the fact that the story of him being interrogated and eating a sandwich - while at the same time holding a not exactly small vial of poison in his mouth - is more than ridiculous. And even if the Reichsführer were living in cloud cuckoo land it doesn't change the fact that his death was highly suspicious, even before these new documents came to light. The fact is that all of the available evidence - both circumstantial and documentary - point to his being murdered.

As Hannover rightly points out, the evidence is as hard as it can get.

[Hannover]

If Himmler was so 'delusional' or bizarre, it would have served the Allies interests to put him on trial and make a spectacle of him. So why didn't they?

- Hannover

[Turpitz]

Pure supposition on Bergmann's part! I thought that "revisionists" were supposed to base their views on hard evidence.

Face the facts that the tables have turned 180 degrees and once again the dirty lies have been exposed. For years Himmler supposedly committed suicide because of his guilt, now it has transpired he was silenced for fear of what he might reveal. Just what did the mass murdering, alcoholic Churchill and his Zionist friends not want the world to know? As for evidence, it is another piece of the vile jigsaw and you have some neck coming out with sentences like that, when they cannot produce a shred of evidence for the nonsense industry.

One could equally well argue that he handed himself in because he thought that the British would want to have him because of his knowledge of the Nazi system. Alternatively, in his delusion, he might have thought that they would need his help against the Soviets. As a third option, he might have thought that his actions against the Jews were perfectly acceptable and would be understood by the British. Remember, this is the man who tried to negotiate peace with the British.

Who cares about any of this hypothetical waffle; he was silenced and they have been caught lying again…So what’s new?


The problems facing the allies when they "liberated" Germany are the exact same problems facing them today as they "liberate" the Iraqi peoples, I mean in order for their lies to bear fruit they had to eliminate certain individuals in one form or another. Now you can bet your life Saddam will never make it to court (if it's really him they have) because he is capable of telling the world what really went on as well, he will either end up in solitary for the rest of his life (Hess) or succumb to a mysterious and fatal demise (Himmler).

As Faurisson spoke “The lies are the same and the liars are the same.”

[Ajax]

If Himmler was so 'delusional' or bizarre, it would have served the Allies interests to put him on trial and make a spectacle of him. So why didn't they?

I think 'delusional' is the wrong word - I simply think that he thought he was more influential than he really was, and that this had gone to his head somewhat.

My feeling is that if the Allies had put Himmler in the dock, complete with all his visions of diplomatic grandeur, they would have rujn the risk of looking like idiots. Himmler lacked the charm and wit of a Goering or honesty of a Doenitz - he was more like Hess, with whom the Allies almost succeeded in making fools of themselves by dragging him into the court, given that he had lost all sense of proportion long since.

The point is that if Himmler had been tried, there would have been one of two outcomes - he would have either sorted his head out and disputed the 'Holocau$t' claims on the one hand; on the other hand if he still believed he could negotiate his way out, the nasty, evil, clinical leader of the SS and orchestrator of the alleged 'extermination' programme would have looked like a charmless buffoon incapable of running fifty metres, let along a massive organisation made up of millions of people.

Either way the prosecution would have been up the spout, and so the best course of action was to do away with him.

[Hannover]

Ajax:

on the other hand if he still believed he could negotiate his way out, the nasty, evil, clinical leader of the SS and orchestrator of the alleged 'extermination' programme would have looked like a charmless buffoon incapable of running fifty metres, let along a massive organisation made up of millions of people.

I don't buy it Ajax. That is the precise reason they would have wanted to try him, IF they weren't afraid he'd blow the 'gas chambers' lies to smithereens.

In general though, I don't buy your assessment of Himmler. He in fact did run a massive organization which consisted of the best fighting men on the planet and it's industrial achievements were mighty.

- Hannover

[Ajax]

I don't buy it Ajax. That is the precise reason they would have wanted to try him, IF they weren't afraid he'd blow the 'gas chambers' lies to smithereens.

Maybe... We'll never really know though - the spooks who interrogated him saw to that. What's clear is that we are both sure that Himmler's being around was a potential stick in the spokes.

[In general though, I don't buy your assessment of Himmler. He in fact did run a massive organization which consisted of the best fighting men on the planet and it's industrial achievements were mighty.

How much of it was Himmler's doing, though? As far as the Waffen-SS is concerned, the real building was done by the likes of Dietrich, Hausser, Steiner and Gille - men who were familiar with the acting out of the warrior code on the field as opposed to paper. Himmler was more concerned with homeopathic remedies and breeding programmes - although he was must have been a pretty good delegator to keep the entire house in order. As far as industrial achievements were concerned, Himmler's staff were the key motivators. Without committed workaholics like Heydrich, Pohl and the like, Himmler's wider plans for the SS organisation would have started to buckle far earlier than they did.

I am really looking forward to Irving's up and coming biography.

[comrade seinfeld]

The man, obviously, was rife with secrets that 'didn't want to come out'. Irving, however, suggests it was Churchill's negotiation for peace with Himmler that brought about his demise -

Irving (same article)

Quite so: Britain's secret agents had secretly and criminally liquidated one of the most wanted men in history, for whose proper public trial and punishment the blood of millions of his victims cried out: and for no other visible reason than to conceal that for a few days toward the end of the war, Churchill had negotiated with him on peace terms.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Himmler/death/PRO_docs_story.html

Well, I would not claim that Himmler was killed (and I assume that everyone accepts the Irving thesis that he was murdered) because he would have been able to refute the exterminationist thesis (in a more effective manner than Goering was able to, as Himmler was supposed to have been directing the "Holocaust"), since I don't think that the notion of a "Holocaust" in the exterminationist sense played a great part in the thinking of the Allied authorities at the time; however, although Irving does not mention it, it is quite possible a serious factor would be that, in accordance with a revisionist perspective, it was desirable that Himmler be eliminated, since he could have exposed Allied atrocity propaganda.

As it is, assuming that it is correct that Himmler was killed for relatively trivial political reasons, surely all sincere exterminationists must be enraged that Himmler was not able to testify at Nuremburg. Himmler was a complete fanatic (the underlings that Himmler commanded running the alleged death camps would have said anything to save their skins), and, assuming that the "Holocaust" exterminationist thesis is correct, he would have sought to justify what he was resonsible for as a Nazi, and so there would have been no thought of "Holocaust" revisionism. Moreover, in terms of inductive evidence, Himmler's murder would certainly buttress the revisionist perspective, since, if the Allied authorities thought so little of Himmler as valuable ideological capital, then it would have been the case that they had little inkling of an exterminationist thesis.

[neocon]

What worries me is the involvement of those "black propaganda" dudes
like Bruce-Lockhart and Delmer.

They plastered Auschwitz with "you are being gassed" leaflets
in 1944, a year before Himmler's death and created the atrocity
propaganda story in the first place. The story was created around
Himmler and his SS-elite wearing shiny black leather boots.
so Selfton should have been afraid of what Himmler would say
to his little storyline in the IMT trial. I guess he would have LOL'ed...

Tony Blair's "black propaganda" specialists created the monster
Saddam Hussein and faked "proof" of his mass destruction arsenal
it's just that "debunking" was rather difficult in 1945 since the
Deutsche Reichspost did not offer flatline dsl connectivity back then
and Al Jazeera was not available on any satellite...

[Ratatosk]

since I don't think that the notion of a "Holocaust" in the exterminationist sense played a great part in the thinking of the Allied authorities at the time

What? This was on top of their agenda. They were working at full speed to set up the Nuremberg trials. Himmler would have been impossible for them on the witness stand.

...and, assuming that the "Holocaust" exterminationist thesis is correct, he would have sought to justify what he was resonsible for as a Nazi, and so there would have been no thought of "Holocaust" revisionism.

Very strange logic. Of course, he would have sought to justify what he was responsible for, but not only as a Nazi.
The word Nazi got its connotations and meaning for the general public in these very trials

[Carto's Cutlass Supreme]

Nice post Neocon,

What do we know about the PWE? or Psychological Warfare Department in Britain? It was probably top secret. Do we even know who ran it?
---------
Hi Seinfield,
No offense, but I find your posts hard to read sometimes. Such as this passage here:

Moreover, in terms of inductive evidence, Himmler's murder would certainly buttress the revisionist perspective, since, if the Allied authorities thought so little of Himmler as valuable ideological capital, then it would have been the case that they had little inkling of an exterminationist thesis.

They had little inkling of an exterminationist thesis? I don't know what this means? And thought so little of Himmler as "ideological capital"? I don't know what that means either? The idea is that they killed him because they were afraid he'd talk and say there was no holocaust.

"Inductive evidence." I don't even know what that is. How is that different from just "evidence."

[onemanshowmcd]

In 6 months time some conformist historian such as Christopher Browning or the like will be credited with the discovery of these documents, such as has happened with other revisionist discoveries. Some convoluted excuse, such as, lethally injected while trying to escape will be given as the reason for his murder.

BTW, doesn't Yad Vashem hold part of the Himmler diaries? Have they ever published them? If not, why?

[Turpitz]

Isn't the journaille's silence on this matter deafening?

[Hotzenplotz]

As for Himmler's self-assessment, I remember that in the recent German movie The Downfall about the last days of the third Reich Himmler claims confidently that the Allies would need him and his SS-organisation after the war in order to control the country. I don't know where the makers got the idea but allegedly the movie has been researched meticulously.

Of course, if there really had been an extermination programme going on, Himmler couldn't possibly have believed he'd be needed after the war (unless pathologically insane). Just a movie, but perhaps someone will run into a document corroborating Himmler's confidence and remembers this thread.