Proven Forgeries

[Dan B]

I'd like your opinion on this: Have revisionists been able to prove any WWII or trial documents as being forged by the Allied inteligence services (or whoever may have made such forgeries)? If so, which one(s)?

[Reinhard]

One proven forgery is the letter which allegedly was sent together with the (in my opinion also faked or at least falsified) Wannsee - protocol.

Today, only one copy of that letter is available (although the exterminationists claim that there originally have been 30 copies of the "Wannsee-protocol", but only one of them has "survived" - the 16th copy. But this 16th copy exists today in two different versions, written by two different typewriters!), addressed to undersecretary of state Luther at the Foreign Office.

This letter also exists in two different versions, written by two different typewriters as well: one with "SS"-runes, one without them. The single letters of the two typewriters are also clearly different.

Version 1 has been published by Jewish document thief and faker Robert M.W. Kempner in his book Eichmann und Komplizen, Europa-Verlag, Zürich - Stuttgart - Wien 1961, p. 150:





Version 2 is in the archives of the German Foreign Office [Polit. Archiv des Ausw. Amtes, Akten Inland II g, Bd. 177, Bl. 165]:





The crucial point is the handwritten note on the letter and Heydrich's signature:

Both have in stereoscopic examination of the two letters proved to be absolutely identical, i.e. not only written in the same handwriting, but to be absolutely exact copies of each other.
http://www.vho.org/VffG/1999/1/Leser1.html (scroll down to the last letter)

So, there are two possibilities: Either one is a copy of the other or both are copies from a third - unknown - original.

[PotPie]

I don't think there is a revisionist consensus on the so-called Einsatzgruppen Papers, but what little I've read of them in the hardcover book version that I own, I would say there is at least definitely some tampering.

For example, the nonsensical paragraph in report 111, in which "Jews in general" appears to have been inserted at the end of a long paragraph which states that anything but Jews in general were killed. It reads,

These were the motives for the executions carried out by the Kommandos: Political officials, looters and saboteurs, active Communists and political representatives, Jews who gained their release from prison camps by false statements, agents and informers of the NKVD [National Commissariat for Internal Affairs], persons who, by false depositions and influencing witnesses, were instrumental in the deportation of ethnic Germans, Jewish sadism and revengefulness, undesirable elements, partisans, Politruks, dangers of plague and epidemics, members of Russian bands, armed insurgents - provisioning of Russian bands, rebels and agitators, drifting juveniles, Jews in general.

Clearly as you can see here, "Jews in general" added at the end contradicts the entire flow of the paragraph. Jews who gained their release by false statement, Jewish sadism and revengefulness, etc.... Why write these things if "Jews in general" were being wiped out? The statement "Jews in general" completely contradicts everything that surrounds it, not only in previous paragraphs but the following one which refers to the existence of a Jewish camp.

http://www.einsatzgruppenarchives.com/osr111.html

[Reinhard]

Another faked document is the alleged murder-order of Gestapo-chief Müller for Georg Elser, who had attempted to assassinate Hitler on Nov 8th 1939.

This fake "document" was first published by former MI6-agent S. Payne-Best in his memoirs The Venlo Incident, London 1950.

It is obviously fake:

No register-number of the letter
Handwritten remark Geheime Reichssache instead of a stamp (I think the chief of the Gestapo should have had one)
Number of copies missing (a "must be" for "Geheime Reichssachen")
Wrong register-number of the receiving office ("Geheime Reichssachen" had a separate registry)
Wrong spelling of "tötlich" on page 2 (I think the secretary of the chief of Gestapo knew how to write that word correctly)
English style of language in the whole document (e.g. not less than nine times "ich bitte..." ("I ask..."). No German officer would have given orders in that way)
English syntax of one sentence (second paragraph on page 2)
The letter allegedly should be destroyed after receiving and carrying out the orders. It obviously wasn't, for Payne-Best could print it in his memoirs.
Rank and position in typewritten letters under the signature are missing.
Müller's girl friend is said to have identified the signature as from her friend Heinrich Müller. I don't have any real Müller-documents for comparing at the time.

Page 2:

[David Baker]

Speaking of "Einzatsgruppen", I was embroiled in a rather heated debate with a Jewish 'expert' on the Holocaust when he asked me about that organization. I had read something in the IHR on that very subject, but I had forgotten the specifics. The 'expert' then dismissed my knowledge of the Holocaust as meager, and unworthy of his time. What I had read was basically an outline of a wartime operation, which was initiated after hostilities had commenced. People forget that war is about killing, and BOTH sides of a conflict field teams that target enemy agents, strongholds, and saboteur hideouts. This is a WAR story, not a Holocaust exhibit! When pressed to provide names of Jewish gassing victims, he politely (....) refused that request. I will say it again: The entire Jewish "Holocaust" is comprised of nothing more than a visceral, histrionic reaction by Jews against any attempt to verify it.

[Hektor]

Are you only looking for faked or falsified documents on paper? Or would you also be interested in misrepresentations, omissions or other faked/falsified artifacts including pictures?

[jnovitz]

Mattogno presents a similar example to the Wannsee conference in his PDF on Belzec regarding a deportation.

If you look in Donald Bloxham's Genocide on Trial: War Crimes Trials and the Formation of Holocaust History and Memory, in the index for Oskar Hofmann, you will find a footnote that discusses his testimony at the RuSHA trial where he said that the Wannsee Protocol was largely genuine but had certain sections interpolated.

I would suggest, therefore, that the Klempner version is the genuine one, it appears to have the darker handwriting and underlining, which was reproduced in toto in order to interpolate material on later pages. Presumably in 1961 it was not so easy to access the archived version of the file (and all those numbers stamped on the 2nd version were from Allied archivists). Since there were no textual differences between the two version Klempner saw no problems in reproducing the first page of the original version.
This assumes that some persons or organisations did actually retain original versions, which are kept outside official archives.

Thats my speculation anyway

[Hans]

One proven forgery is the letter which allegedly was sent together with the (in my opinion also faked or at least falsified) Wannsee - protocol. Today, only one copy of that letter is available (although the exterminationists claim that there originally have been 30 copies of the "Wannsee-protocol",but only one of them has "survived" - the 16th copy. But this 16th copy exists today in two different versions, written by two different typewriters!), addressed to undersecretary of state Luther at the Foreign Office.

This is an old Revisionist canard. I believe those arguments were verbalized in the late 80s and early 90s by German Revisionists. Unfortunately, they do not stand any critical assessment. The documents published by Kempner are obviously a poorly edited mixture of facsimiles, transcription and collages of facsimiles and transcription. They are not necessarily fully accurate facsimiles of the original files and it is a misconception to take them as such. Note that they at least do provide accurate text of the original documents - in other words, the content was not falsified.

In reality, there is only one version of the 16th copy of the protocol of the Wannsee conference and likewise there is only one letter sent to Luther. Kempner of course did rely on those originals, either by using a facsimile or a transcription. Photographs of these original files can be found here:

http://www.ghwk.de/deut/Dokumente/proto-1.pdf etc.

http://www.ghwk.de/deut/Dokumente/luther-versand-farbe-jpg.pdf

[Reinhard]

The documents published by Kempner are obviously a poorly edited mixture of facsimiles, transcription and collages of facsimiles and transcription. They are not necessarily fully accurate facsimiles of the original files and it is a misconception to take them as such.

What a rubbish. Why should the liar Kempner have troubled with fabricating "collages of facsimiles", if he simply could have used the genuine copy in the archives of the German Foreign Office?

Instead of doing that, he wrote a new letter and took great effort to copy the handwritten remarks, the stamps and the signature on that new typewritten letter. And he didn't tell his readers that this letter shown in his book was a falsification by himself, but tried to leave the impression that it was the original letter signed by Heydrich.

Whom are you trying to deceit with that silly story?

And that the so-called "Wannsee-Protocol" is a fabrication or at least falsification is obvious to every non-brainwashed critial reader as well.

[Hans]

I would suggest, therefore, that the Klempner version is the genuine one, it appears to have the darker handwriting and underlining, which was reproduced in toto in order to interpolate material on later pages. Presumably in 1961 it was not so easy to access the archived version of the file (and all those numbers stamped on the 2nd version were from Allied archivists). Since there were no textual differences between the two version Klempner saw no problems in reproducing the first page of the original version.
This assumes that some persons or organisations did actually retain original versions, which are kept outside official archives.

Thats my speculation anyway

And I would suggest that you try to show that "the Klempner version" does exist at all as file in an archive. THEN - and only then - there is a reason to discuss them. But as long as this exercise is not fullfilled they are just poorly edited stuff based on and derived from the original files from the Politische Archiv of the German foreign office.

If you look in Donald Bloxham's Genocide on Trial: War Crimes Trials and the Formation of Holocaust History and Memory, in the index for Oskar Hofmann, you will find a footnote that discusses his testimony at the RuSHA trial where he said that the Wannsee Protocol was largely genuine but had certain sections interpolated.

Interesting, so in some cases statements at those trials are reliable for Revisionist, whereas in others not. The criteria to decide between both follows is apparently this Revisionist dogma: if a statement from a post-war trial supports any aspect of the extermination of the Jews, than it is - per definition - not reliable and does not present evidence. If a statement however does rise doubt to any aspect of the extermination of the Jews, than it is - per definition - reliable and can be quoted as evidence. Very convinient here is that the Revisionist idea can only win, totally independently from the actual content and circumstances of a trial!

[Hans]

What a rubbish. Why should the liar Kempner have troubled with fabricating "collages of facsimiles", if he simply could have used the genuine copy in the archives of the German Foreign Office?

I don't know WHY Kempner has done such poor editing of the documents, but we know that he has done it.

Instead of doing that, he wrote a new letter and took great effort to copy the handwritten remarks, the stamps and the signature on that new typewritten letter.

He did not write a new letter. He has just taken a facsimile of the original and has "collaged" the archivial reference away. Even in the 60s this should not take more than few minutes to do. Maybe he thought this was an post-war artefact or whatever and thought to actually restore the quality of the document.

And he didn't tell his readers that this letter shown in his book was a falsification by himself, but tried to leave the impression, it was the original letter signed by Heydrich.

Indeed, this is was very careless and in fact rather stupid to do. Kempner surely shouldn't get honoured for this poor and very confusing publishing of the Wannsee protocol.

Whom are you trying to deceit with that silly story?

I'm just stating the facts.

If I understand you correctly, you do believe that Kempner's confusing mixture of documents exists as an actual set of file in some archive representing the original source. Then, the same what I said to jnovitz, goes for you: please tell and show us where this is supposed to be. Till then, the ONLY original file of the Wannsee Protocol is stored in the Political Archive of the German Foreign Office in Berlin.

[Reinhard]

He did not write a new letter. He has just taken a facsimile of the original and has "collaged" the archivial reference away. Even in the 60s this should not take more than few minutes to do.

Of course he did write a new letter. He has not taken a facsimile of the original. Have you noticed the different types of the typewriter? I presume not.
This is a completely different typewriter used by Kempner.
Kempner's typewriter didn't have a type for the SS-runes ("...sich dieserhalb mit meinem zuständigen Referenten, dem SS-Obersturmbannführer Eichmann, ins Benehmen zu setzen...").

Moreover, the handwritten "6" at "6. März 1942" is clearly different in the two versions.

Maybe he thought this was an post-war artefact or whatever and thought to actually restore the quality of the document.

Yes, this was an post-war artefact, but other than you think.

Once again the completely silly procedure of Kempner:

- He has a copy of the "original" "document" in his hands (were should he have had the handwritten remarks and the stamps from otherwise?)
- He doesn't use this "original document", but decides to write a new one instead of it
- He copies the handwritten remarks, the stamps and Heydrich's signature from the "original document" on his forgery
- He doesn't tell his readers of this manipulation, but leaves the impression the "facsimile" shown in his book was the "original document" (which he must have had in his hands, because where should he have had the handwritten remarks, the stamps and the signature from?)

This silly procedure makes absolutely no sense, given the fact that he simply could have taken a facsimile from the "original document", which he must have had in his hands.


Of course, there is another possibility:

The handwritten remark, the stamps and the signature were taken from a third real original, which is unknown to us.

This possibility is the only one, which makes sense:

The content of that real original document didn't fit into Kempner's and his "Hintermänner's" plans. So they wrote a new letter and copied the handwritten remarks, the stamps and the signature on it.


After all, Kempner claims to have found the alleged "Wannsee-protocol" (and gives two different versions of the "finding" of that "protocol": one in his book Ankläger einer Epoche, Ullstein, Frankfurt-Berlin-Wien, pp. 310 ff. and another in an interview with West-German Broadcasting sender WDR, broadcasted on 20 January 1992 - see for more details: Roland Bohlinger/Johannes P. Ney Gutachten zur Echtheit des sogenannten Wannsee-Protokolls und der dazugehörenden Schriftstücke, Viöl ²1994, pp. 32 - 37 http://vho.org/D/Wannsee/Gutachten/

Till then, the ONLY original file of the Wannsee Protocol is stored in the Political Archive of the German Foreign Office in Berlin.

That obsure "protocol" lacks of:

- The name and the signature of the man who took down the "protocol"
- Description of date, time and location of the conference
- Distribution list (Verteiler)

Moreover, the most important participant of that "conference", Heydrich, is missing in the list of participants. That he is mentioned in the text of the "protocol" later on of course does not explain that he was omitted in the list of participants.

We know for sure that Heydrich was at Prague on January 20th, 1942 at 5 p.m. (17:00) at the swearing of the new government of the Protectorate Bohemia and Moravia [Günther Deschner, Reinhard Heydrich. Statthalter der totalen Macht, Bechtle, Esslingen ³1992, p. 248 (sources provided by Deschner are: Amtsblatt des Protektorats Böhmen und Mähren, Januar 1942, pp. 557 - 561; Detlef Brandes, Die Tschechen unter deutschem Protektorat, Teil 1: Besatzungspolitik, Kollaboration und Widerstand im Protektorat Böhmen und Mähren bis Heydrichs Tod 1939 - 1942, Oldenburg 1969, p. 220)]

We know that, according to the flimsy "invitation", the conference is said to have begun exactly at noon (12 o'clock), "with subsequent breakfast" ("mit anschließendem Frühstück" [!]):



Apart from that ridiculous sentence (who would call a snack at 2 or 2:30 p.m. a "Frühstück" in German?), Heydrich couldn't have made it to Prague until 5 p.m. by car or by train. Possibly he could have made it by plane, but that depends on the weather conditions.
Why should Heydrich have made two appointments within five hours several hundred kilometers apart, when he couldn't know how the weather was going to be in the middle of a very cold winter?

If you look in Donald Bloxham's Genocide on Trial: War Crimes Trials and the Formation of Holocaust History and Memory, in the index for Oskar Hofmann, you will find a footnote that discusses his testimony at the RuSHA trial where he said that the Wannsee Protocol was largely genuine but had certain sections interpolated.

That is what also Bohlinger and Ney are presuming. There is a clear stylistic rupture in the "protocol". The language of that alleged "protocol" is in very poor German style, but on page 10 (last paragraph) begins a text, which is written in good German and which deals with the treatment of the "Mischlinge". This text ends on page 13 at the second last paragraph.

Moreover, in this part of the text, the usual German form of listing:

a)
b)
c)

is used, in contrast to the rest of the protocol, where British or American forms of listing are used:

a/
b/
c/

This is another important point in this strange "protocol": Why has the author of that "document" changed his way of making listings within this "document"?

So, there may have been a meeting on or around January 20th, 1942, possibly at the location at the Wannsee, but the topic of that conference seems to have been different from that Kempner and company are trying to tell us.

[jnovitz]

The documents (stamped version) may not have been available to Klempner

From the National Archives website

. The Documents of Auswärtiges Amt in Britain
A tripartite team of historians representing the Western Allied Powers (WAP) examined the collection with a view to selecting the most important documents for publication in a series which was later given the title 'Documents on German Foreign Policy 1918-1945'. An agreement to film, study and publish AA documents for the period from 1918 to 1945 had been entered into by the United States and Britain in June 1946 and acceded to by France in April 1947, thus setting up the German War Documents Project (GWDP). The microfilming of the documents, initially for intelligence purposes, had been started by American and British experts as early as 1945 and was continued under the direction of the tripartite team as a part of the GWDP.

When a new German state, the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), constituted itself from western Länder with the support of the WAP in May 1949, the question of returning the AA records to Germany assumed practical significance. But it took the WAP several years to reach a decision and agreement with the FRG on repatriation and subsequent use of the records. The transfer of the original documents back to Germany did not commence until 1956. They were housed in the re-established Political Archive of AA in Bonn. The photocopies and microfilms of approximately one million documents, which cover the most important files and more than an estimated 60% of the total records of AA for the period from 1920 to 1945 captured by the American and British armies, remained with the Foreign Office in London and were eventually deposited in the Public Record Office, now The National Archives (TNA).

It can take some time before documents are returned to being available to the public. Does the Klempner book give an archival holding for his reproduction?

[jnovitz]

Would you have the link to the original article in VHO these reproductions appeared?

[Reinhard]

The documents (stamped version) may not have been available to Klempner

Where did he have the handwritten remarks, the stamps and Heydrich's signature from then?

Kempner as a member of the persecution at the Nuremberg trials of course had access to the documents.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Germany/Kempner/index.html

Moreover the way the Western Allies handled the German documents gave them every possibility to mainpulate them (falsify, fake, let certain documents dissapear).

General (rtd) of the post-war German army Dr. Franz Uhle-Wettler has written in an essay:

The German files have for many years remained in the hands of the victors. The problem caused by that fact is nowhere discussed, therefore some detailed comments are necessary.

It can be proved that the British have cleaned their own archives already in third-rate - third-rate ! - affairs. For instance after World War I everything was removed what could have obstructed the planned praising of the British Commander in Chief in France, Field Marshal Haig. [Dennis Winter: Haig's command - A reassessment, New York 1991; M. Howard in: London Review of Books, 25 April 1991, p. 5]

Also files concerning the killing of a German U-boat-crew (Baralong-case 1915) and dealing with the invention of German war crimes in Belgium have been "cleaned" [P. Buitenhuis: The Great War of Words - Literature as Propaganda 1914 and after, London 1989, pp. 27 ff.]

The manipulation of files has been continued after 1945. Only one example: Files have been destroyed which would have made clear how the handing over of the Wlassov-cossacks including the German instruction personnel and those of the old Belarusians, who never were subjects of the Soviet Union, and had had another nationality for years to Stalin had come about. [N. Tolstoy, Victims of Yalta, London 1978]

Also many of those files, which would have made clear why the Allies rejected peace feelers of the German resistance or let them unanswered have been destroyed. [U. Schlie, Das Ausland und der deutsche Widerstand, in: Militärgeschichtliche Mitteilungen 1/1993, p. 165]

If the British were dealing in such a way with their own files already in third-rate affairs, it's a legitimate question how they dealt with the captured German files, especially when those files concerned first-rate affairs.

Indeed, files dealing with the killing of German castaways in World War II have been destroyed even according to the statements of the British Foreign Office. [A. de Zayas, Die Wehrmacht-Untersuchungsstelle. Unveröffentlichte Akten über alliierte Völkerrechtsverletzungen im Zweiten Weltkrieg, München 1979, pp. 32 f., 377 ff.]

The German documents concerning peace feelers to the Allies in winter 1939/40 "went missing when they were in Allied hands after the war" [C. Ponting Myth and reality 1940, London 1990, pp. 117 f.]
Of course, they didn't "go" missing, for they had no legs. Somebody must have had his hands in.

Already in the Nuremberg trials the persecution is said to have presented German "documents" which weren't accepted even from the "judges" there. [W. Post, Unternehmen Barbarossa. Deutsche und sowjetische Angriffspläne 1940/41, Hamburg 1995, pp. 338 f., footnote 44 and 84; p. 345, footnote 126]

During the Nuremberg follow-up trials Generalarzt Prof. Dr. Rose has been sentenced due to fake documents [G. Meyer: Review of: Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle (Hrsg.): Der Fall Rose, in: Militärgeschichtliche Mitteilungen 2/1989]

Moreover, in war criminals tribunals the victors have made selective use of German documents in a remarkable way and later returned them only selected. [H. Richter, General Lanz, Zervas und die britischen Verbindungsoffiziere, in Militärgeschichtliche Mitteilungen 1/1989, pp. 111 ff.]

Even the Research Institute for Military History of the German [post-war] Bundeswehr - often criticized because of its Political Correctness - accuses the Munich Institute of Contemporary History to declare a speech of the Chief of Staff, General Halder, which had been faked by the Alliies, as being genuine. [Klaus Meyer, Eine authentische Halder-Ansprache? Textkritische Anmerkungen zu einem Dokumentenfund im früheren sowjetischen Sonderarchiv, in: Militärgeschichtliche Mitteilungen 2/1999, p. 471]

The famous and notorious "Hoßbach-Protocol" has been labeled the "most famous" and controversial document of the time of national-socialism, because discovery-history and state of the document are enigmatic; manipulation is at least possible. [Jonathan Wright and Paul Stafford: Hitler, Britain and the Hossbach - memorandum, in: Militärgeschichtliche Mitteilungen 2/1987, pp. 77 ff.]

[...]

It can be presumed that In all these activities most probably not office clerks or secretaries will have done the job, but more important forces with more important motives have had their hands in. And nobody knows, what else these people have manipulated.

By the way: If in an civil court case the files of one party had been for decades in possession of the other party, presumably every judge is going to rule that it was necessary to clarify the state of the files of the disadvantaged party. But a systematical examination of the fate of the German files regarding their completeness and possible "amendments" is unthinkable in the political climate of the Federal Republic of Germany.

There are only lucky findings, which presumably don't reveal the whole problem.

Source: Gen. (rtd.) Dr. Franz Uhle-Wettler, Die Ursachen des Rußlandfeldzuges 1941, manuscript of a speech held some years ago; was online for some time, but seems now to have been removed from the internet]

As to Robert M.W. Kempner's Wannsee - "documents":

It's the same problem with the alleged first invitation of Nov. 29th, 1941 from Heydrich to Dr. Luther for that strange conference:

Kempner again takes very much trouble and time to produce a fake version, instead of using the "original", which he must have had in his hands, for he photomechanically copied the handwritten remarks and stamps on his forgery:

Kempners version in his book Eichmann und Komplizen [Europa-Verlag, Zürich-Stuttgart-Wien 1961, pp. 127 f.] also - exactly as his version of the letter allegedly sent together with the "Wannsee-protocol" - is written with another typewriter with no SS-runes on the types and different types (look e.g. at the "F" from both different typewriters), but strangely enough has the exactly identical handwritten remarks on it as the version in the files of the German Foreign Office:

Page 1, Kempner's version:





Page 2, Kempner's version:





Here is the version in the Files of the German Foreign Office [Akten des Auswärtigen Amtes, Inland II g, Bd. 177, Bl. 188, K210419 & K210420]:

Page 1:





Page 2:




In Kempner's version the text is placed more to the left side of the letter:



Moreover the word "Bitte" (please) in the printed letterhead in the line under the space for filling in the register-number of the letter (in German: "Bitte in der Anwort vorstehendes Geschäftszeichen und Datum angeben" - "Please quote above register-number and date in your answer") and the faintly visible stamp "Geheim" ("secret") are missing. And traces of retouching can be spotted (pink circles):





Here is the version from the files of the German Foreign Office:





Again, as in the alleged letter I have presented in my first posting, the handwritten remarks on page 1 of the letter are completely identical, but the letter is written with another typewriter and the word "Bitte" in the printed letterhead as well as the faintly visible stamp "Geheim" on the top of the letter are missing only in Kempner's version.


On page 2 of the invitation the street of the location for the meeting has been altered in handwriting (Kempner claims this was Eichmann's handwriting). This handwritten remark is slightly different in Kempner's version to that in the files of the German Foreign Office (note also the different types of the two typewriters, e.g. for "F", "1", "K"):

Would you have the link to the original article in VHO these reproductions appeared?

The link is:

http://vho.org/D/Wannsee/Gutachten/ (in German language)