Interview with author Joseph BELLINGER
Conducted by HMT
Hello, Mr. Bellinger, may we commence with the most
typical question possible: could you please introduce yourself swiftly to our
readership?
Certainly. I am an American freelance writer,
investigative reporter and independent researcher. I am a relative newcomer to
historical revisionism. I have written as a freelance journalist for various
independent newspapers and book publishers here in the States, followed by
on-line publication of historical revisionist material. Much of my earlier work
in this field was written under various pseudonyms. I do, however, have one
unpublished manuscript relating to theology and another unfinished manuscript
dealing with Nuremberg.
You have recently published your book Himmlers Tod:
Freitod oder Mord? at Arndt Publishing, which quickly became controversial. As
we have seen it is the result of a long search. How were you driven to this
rather peculiar subject? Will it remain a legal book in Germany?
The Himmler book was based almost entirely upon a set
of coincidental circumstances, in that, while browsing through photographs of
the Reichsfuehrer's corpse some ten years ago, I noticed irregularities which
appeared to be inconsistent with the published accounts of his death. I then
compared these photos with those of Hermann Goering and also with other victims
of cyanide poisoning which I examined in various forensic textbooks and the
differences seemed rather startling. At that time I did not regard this
preliminary inquiry to be conclusive evidence by any means, but I suspected
that I might be on to something and decided to take the research to the next
level. At this point I still had no definite plans to write a book on the
subject, but decided to go on a "fishing expedition" and see what
might come out of it. The research was still in the most elementary stages, but
over time the convergence of evidence finally paid off and convinced me that
Himmler's death, along with other high-ranking officials in the Third Reich,
was the result of a deliberate decision to assassinate him within hours of
capture and identification, and that the trail of responsibility led directly
back to the SOE, the PWE, and 10 Downing Street.
By 1996 I had assembled a dossier full of information
all relating to Himmler's alleged 'suicide' and had established written contact
with sources in Germany and England who provided me with further information.
On or about the same time, I wrote to David Irving and set my thesis out for
his consideration, and he replied in a positive vein, and there the matter
remained until one day I received an invitation from David Irving to speak on
the subject of Himmler's death at the first "Real History Conference"
in Cincinnati, Ohio, which led to the signing of an interim, provisionary
agreement to author a book detailing the true circumstances of Himmler's death.
The timing couldn't have been more fortuitous, because
by the time I set out to write a complete manuscript, new files pertaining to
Himmler's capture and death had just been released by the archives in England
and the United States and I availed myself of this material in the creation of
the manuscript. Thus, I completed the original manuscript within one year of
being commissioned to write it, but as circumstances turned out, Mr. Irving did
not fulfill his promise to edit or publish and the book entered into a stage of
limbo, although I continued to update the material from time to time with newly
released information. A subsequent publisher in America indicated some interest
in publishing the book but those plans also fell through. Finally, I was
contacted by the good people at Arndt Publishing in Germany, who indicated that
they were interested in publishing my manuscript. Once again, the timing could
not have been more perfect, because by then additional information of a most
remarkable nature had been released or published revealing more details of the
curious circumstances of Heinrich Himmler's death, and all the most updated
information up until July 2005 was appended to the manuscript. This information
included details of interviews with participants or characters in the drama
which had hitherto been unpublished. These witnesses were unavailable to other
researchers simply due to the fact that they had since died. Finally, the book
had to be translated into German, and this assignment was undertaken by the
remarkably gifted Mr. Juergen Graf, whom I assisted as best I could whenever a
question arose as to American or British idiomatic expressions. Assembling rare
and unique photographs completed our work and the rest is history, as they say.
As to whether the book will remain legal in Germany, I see no reason why it
would not be.
The official version that the captured Reichsführer SS
only spent 15 minutes in captivity before breaking a cyanide capsule has indeed
large discrepancies. Could you name us just a few anomalies? Doesn't this bring
us too much near the fictional what-if scenarios, given the little evidence
after 60 years, or am I wrong?
In actuality, the Reichsfuehrer spent an entire day
and night in captivity before finally arriving at the decision to turn himself
in to the British at the holding camp at Westertimke. However,, within 15
minutes of his arrival at 31a Uelzenerstrasse, Lueneberg, for
"interrogation," the Reichsfuehrer was dead. We must bear in mind
that we are not talking about just one murder here, but two, and possibly more,
for just days before the Reichsfuehrer passed into eternity, another high
ranking SS General and associate of Heinrich Himmler's met a similar fate at
the hands of the same interrogators who 'processed' the Reichsfuerher-SS. The
man I am referring to is SS General and Werwolf commander Adolf Pruetzmann, who
was likewise said to have committed 'suicide' by swallowing a cyanide capsule
hidden in a cigarette lighter! Pruetzmann had been traveling in the company of
the Reichsfuehrer SS and the rest of his retinue, and had been sent ahead on a
"scouting expedition" during the course of which he was captured and
dispatched to 31a Ulezenerstrasse for "processing and interrogation."
This is perhaps the most significant anomaly to speak
of, if we exclude the rather preposterous claim that Himmler had concealed in
his tooth or sulcus, a cyanide capsule which he bit into in an attempt to elude
justice. Further anomalies abound throughout the story. Although all the allied
accounts insist that not a hair on Himmler's head was harmed during the course
of his 15 minute 'processing,' the facts as I uncovered them reveal a much
different and sinister story - that Himmler was in fact brutally mishandled
before his death. Thus, the idea that there is somehow a paucity of facts which
prove Himmler was murdered is untenable. In fact, just the opposite is true '
all the most updated information conclusively shows that Himmler was murdered,
which deflates the entire proposition which would relegate the circumstances of
his death to the "fictional what-if-scenario." The extra judicial
killing of Heinrich Himmler was a crime, and as is the case with all crimes or
unsolved mysteries, the discovery of new and relevant facts are enough to
reopen a legitimate enquiry which may ultimately reveal the true chain of
events which establish the fact of murder, along with the motive. In Himmler's
case we finally have both murder and motive clearly established. For example, I
might cite Mark Furhman's excellent book, "Murder in Greenwich" as a
point in fact. Furhman's fine investigative reporting led to the arrest and
conviction of Michael Skakel in a murder case which had eluded the police for
more than twenty-five years!
This brings us to another subject of debate on
post-WW2: the leering Jewish murder squads who roamed around Western Germany
until 1948. Is there any proof that the Himmler murder fits in with these
murderous goons?
In this instance, no. Presently there is no proof of
any Jewish involvement in Heinrich Himmler's assassination. In fact, I owe a
debt of gratitude to former Israeli President Chaim Herzog for his candid
description of Himmler's initial treatment at the hands of Colonel Michael
Murphy. At the time, Herzog was a young Captain serving in British intelligence
who participated in the liberation of Belsen Concentration Camp and was later
transferred for duty at the holding camp at Westertimke. Mr. Herzog was present
at the time Heinrich Himmler revealed his identity to the senior British
officer at the camp. As it turns out, Herzog's account of what transpired is
accorded respectful treatment in my book. However, it needs to be pointed out
that a number of men who accompanied Colonel Murphy in transporting Heinrich
Himmler to Lueneberg have yet to be fully identified, and may have played a
part in his mistreatment before his arrival at Uelzenerstrasse.
Furthermore: what if Himmler were indeed murdered in
May 1945 instead of at Nuremberg one year later: what would have been the
difference? What were the British motivations? Is this the reason why Himmler
was discharged from service, to be replaced by Wolff?
The difference here is that it was never intended that
Himmler should be present in the dock at Nuremberg, if he should happen to fall
into the hands of the British. Prime Minister Churchill was the most outspoken
and passionate advocate of eliminating men like Himmler within hours of capture
and identification. The rather ineffectual Ernst Kaltenbrunner was chosen as an
ersatz substitute for the Reichsfuehrer-SS. Kaltenbrunner had recently
undergone a "stroke" after being mistreated by his British
interrogators and cut a very poor figure on the witness stand. In fact, a
number of Nuremberg defendants were already deemed disgraced or insignificant
men by the allies. Thus, Hans Fritzsche was chosen as a substitute for Josef
Goebbels, but Hermann Goering's masterful, spirited and superb defense on the
witness stand took the allies by complete surprise as they had seriously
misjudged the man's character, intelligence and determination.
The psychological warfare experts apparently thought
that by ridding the world of Himmler and men like Pruetzmann, they would be
fulfilling a necessary service for their American allies, who repeatedly
expressed grave alarm over the prospect of carrying on a protracted partisan
war with the feared Werwolf Movement. The evidence and available documentation
indicates that the PWE had determined upon a program of
"re-educating" / re-indoctrinating German society in combination with
completely reorganizing Germany's social and cultural milieu, and to most effectively
achieve that end, deemed it expedient to create a "reverse
stab-in-the-back" legend which would lay the blame for Germany's defeat
solely on "cowardly" men like Himmler and Pruetzmann, who would be
saddled by allied propagandists with 'leaving their men in the lurch' to answer
for all their alleged crimes. This strategy was in striking contrast to the
claims circulated in post-World War I Germany that Jews were responsible for
"stabbing Germany in the back" and subsequently establishing a
"traitor republic" dominated by leftists and Marxists of various
persuasions.
In response to your question concerning General Wolff,
there seems to be a bit of confusion here. Himmler was relieved of all his
offices by Adolf Hitler based upon misleading information he had received in
regard to Himmler's alleged 'peace negotiations' with the British. In fact,
Himmler was cleverly manipulated and used as a pawn in the masterful British
plan to drive a wedge between the SS and the German Army. This was part of
Sefton Delmer's game, and he was a brilliant propagandist. One must give credit
where credit is due. In Martin Allen's book, which has recently attracted so
much attention, the claim is made that Himmler was killed because his
negotiations with the British was an embarrassment to them, and that they
sought to prevent their American allies from learning of their behind the
scenes machinations. With all due respect to Mr Allen, the theory is
unconvincing and not in accord with the true facts, for the Americans themselves
had been negotiating with Himmler's emissaries for years through Allen Dulles
in Switzerland and Italy. Himmler, in fact, had opposed General Wolff's peace
overtures to the allies and ordered him to report to Hitler in person. Himmler
was astonished to learn from Wolff that Hitler had given his unofficial
blessing to his initiatives as long as it would somehow benefit German
interests. Himmler was replaced as RF-SS by Karl Hanke, who was later killed by
the Czechs in July 1945.
However apart from the controversial matter whether
Himmler was murdered or not, we see an analogous book by Martin Allen shred to
pieces, because some archive dossiers were alleged fakes. Is this plausible?
How does this coincide with your work?
I have already addressed Mr. Allen's thesis to a
certain extent above, but the forgery business deserves special comment.
Although critics are careful in how they say it, the implication being made to
date is that Mr. Allen is suspected of forgery in the matter of the newly
surfaced documents which definitely prove that Himmler was murdered by order of
the highest authorities in the British government in 1945. Although Mr. Allen's
thesis as to the motive behind Himmler's murder is untenable in my opinion, we
certainly agree on the fact that a homicide was committed. To date, Mr. Allen
has yet to withdraw his book from the market, opting to wait and see when or if
the authorities at Kew will ever get around to naming or charging the culprit
they suspect of planting spurious documents relating to Himmler's death at the
Public Records Office. Personally speaking, I think this is a wise decision on
the part of Mr. Allen, simply because there is no intelligent reason as to
"why" the culprit should not be positively identified and charged.
The officials at the PRO are professionals and keep meticulous records as to
who visits the archives as well as which documents are requested for perusal.
If it should turn out that no culprit is publicly identified and charged, this
would be sufficient cause for further investigation and perhaps a complete
reassessment as to the authenticity of the documents in question. However, I
did not initially rely on these particular documents to prove my case, seeing
that they were just released recently, but I did have time to include them in
the manuscript at the very last moment, along with a proviso attached, until
this matter is conclusively settled once and for all.
"Small H" as the Allied conquerors called
him, once a mighty man, then subject to investigation and torture, no longer a
mighty intellectual, but a skinny body, the brain removed and his genitalia
mordicus exposed. Do you have any sympathy or empathy for the subject of your
book, or even his fate?
In spite of his extensive and widely feared power and
authority, Heinrich Himmler's life and death assumes tragic dimensions for
multiple reasons too complex to address in this interview. The unjust
persecution of Himmler's family by the allies after the war struck me as
particularly cruel and malevolent, and this is a subject to which I devote
considerable space at the conclusion of my book. Himmler's death was a poorly
concealed crime waiting to be solved - an act of assassination which clamored
for exposure from beyond the grave. If I had not broken the taboo of silence,
someone else would have; it was only a matter of time. In presenting a human
face to all the participants in this drama, I have sought to humanize them
instead of treating the characters as one dimensional figures cut in stone,
much like the gargoyles of Victor Hugo's "Hunchback of Notre Dame."
In essence, "Himmler's Tod" is in essence as much a human-interest
story as it is a crime drama and responsible historical reporting.
Are you active in any of the revisionist outlets,
since we previously saw your name smeared by Nizkor? How do you view the future
of revisionism evolving with the mass repression of state and synagogue?
Those who deem it necessary to resort to smear betray
a fundamental weakness and defect in one's character, an insecurity and lack of
confidence in one's ability to intelligently defend one's own position. Smear
is the weak man's palliative. It is a puerile form of emotional catharsis but
an extremely poor substitute for rational, reasonable dialogue and debate.
Historical revisionism, on the other hand, is a
legitimate field of scholarly inquiry and should not be limited to select
groups or individuals who happen to support a particular interpretation or
point of view. The door to open inquiry and discussion should always be an
option, and no human being should be made to fear for his or her future simply
because their conclusions might happen to differ from the mainstream. Today the
"uniqueness of the Holocaust" appears to have digressed from its role
as an historical event to the point where its only "unique" attribute
consists in the fact that it is the "only" field of historical
inquiry, which has rudely slammed the door shut on anything other than
repetitive mainstream asseverations. Thus, in many respects, the Holocaust
appears to have now transcended the area of purely human inquiry and entered
into the realm of the theological or arcane in nature, in which only the
"initiated" are accorded the "privilege" of expressing
their opinion. It is the only historical event, which has required special
punitive laws to punish and prosecute those who, like Savonarola, should dare
to express an opinion contrary to the accepted regimen. It is the only field of
historical enquiry which can wreck lives, ruin careers, and tear families
apart. Thus, there is something intrinsically antidemocratic and vindictive in
the present "uniqueness" which the Holocaust has unfortunately come
to represent, academically speaking.
What are your future projects?
In the near future I suspect I shall be somewhat
occupied promoting the Himmler book and hopefully arranging for editions to be
published in other countries and languages, but insofar as the distant future
is concerned, I do indeed hold on reserve a number of projects for which I am
hoping to interest a suitable publisher.
Any closing remarks to our audience?
Simply to wish your readers the very best, and
encourage them to hold dear their individual freedoms and to insist upon,
uphold and defend our basic human right to responsible freedom of expression
without fear of persecution.
No comments:
Post a Comment