HIMMLER'S DEATH KEEPS GETTING MORE AND MORE MYSTERIOUS
Having taught courses on the history of World War II several times, my curiosity was inevitably piqued when English historian Martin Allen turned up documents which seemed to prove that the British had had Himmler murdered, contracting the familiar story that he had committed suicide by swallowing a cyanide capsule. The documents Allen unearthed in the Political Warfare Executive (PWE) papers at the British national archives at Kew in the autumn of 2003 and which he used in his book Himmler's Secret War published in May 2004 not only provided proof that the British had had Himmler murdered, they also furnished a motive, which was to prevent him from being interrogated by the Americans and from being tried at Nuremberg.
At first the documents were generally accepted as authentic, and the question at issue was whether the motive made sense. In this interview on the BBC's Today programme, Himmler biographer Peter Padfield rejected the motive indicated by the documents and suggested that there had to be some other reason. 'There is something else here that we don't know about,' he said - adding, correctly (before the BBC interviewer suddenly cut him off), that there is another fascinating question, which is 'why the documents have been released.'
All these matters might now seem irrelevant, given that four out of the five documents referring to the Himmler assassination plan have 'conclusively' been exposed as forgeries by forensic specialist Dr. Audrey Giles, who considers the remaining item suspect as well. (SOURCE: here You can listen to an interview with Allen about the revelations here.)
Although historian David Irving, who is currently writing a book on Himmler, seems reluctant to accept that the documents are fakes - he seems to suspect that Dr. Giles's expertise has been called upon in order to discredit genuine documents - I see no reason to dispute Dr Giles' conclusions. Indeed, accepting that they are fakes seems to me to open up a take on Himmler's exit from history which I think much more likely than that the British had him killed.
Our first clue is the outstanding quality of the fakes themselves, which fooled not only Martin Allen but most other historians. As Irving observes, most forgeries are 'clumsy and ignorant.' The Himmler documents, on the other hand, appear to be the work of 'a singularly well-informed forger' - someone who is not only extremely knowlegeable about the history of the period but also someone who enjoys excellent access to the Public Records Office today. In short, we are looking at an inside job.
The question asked by Padfield - why the documents should suddenly have come to light at this time - now has to be modified slightly: Why was there a sudden need to generate a new version of the Himmler story at this time? Irving professes to be incapable of conceiving of a rationale for faking the documents: 'We could not and cannot discern any motive for forging such high-quality documents and planting them in the files for years.' But he is being uncharacteristically obtuse here. For a reason there is, and it would explain very well why the documents were first noticed in the archives by a BBC researcher in 2002 and made available to Allen the following year.
This is the appearance in 2001 of a major book on the subject, The Strange Death of Heinrich Himmler (aka The Unlikely Death of Heinrich Himmler) by Hugh Thomas. It is not hard to posit a direct connection between the publication of Thomas's book in 2001 and the subsequent appearance of a new version of the story which utterly negates Thomas's thesis, which is that the Himmler who died in British custody on the night of May 23, 1945, was not the real Himmler but a double. If, as Irving says he has been told, the documents were first noticed in 2002, then there is good reason to attribute the sudden appearance of the documents to the publication of Thomas's book.
Since it is unlikely that Thomas's book would require a refutation if it was as far-fetched as many people think it is, my own conclusion is that it was right on the money and steps were promptly taken to discredit it. Having read the book a few times now, I find myself increasingly persuaded that the man who died in British hands was not the infamous Nazi leader. Although Thomas has accepted at face value a number of anecdotes connected with Himmler's alleged demise which verge on the preposterous, his basic argument seems sound enough. But while Thomas seems to invite his readers to draw the conclusion that the British were duped by a clever intrigue thought up by Himmler to make it look as though he had been captured, the conclusion I drew from Thomas's book is rather more sinister, which is that the British actually allowed Himmler to escape.
Clearly, if the British authorities were so alarmed by Thomas's book that they were obliged to plant documents in the national archives stating bluntly that the PWE had had Himmler murdered, then their efforts can only have been motivated by the need to hide an even darker secret. That we are not being told the truth about Himmler's disappearance three weeks after the war ended is readily apparent from a little known piece of information which is pertinent to the case. According to David Irving, an intelligence museum in Copenhagen displays the black eyepatch Himmler was wearing at the time he was (allegedly) captured by British authorities. The eyepatch is in Danish hands, Irving learned from the museum description, because it 'was handed over to a Danish intelligence officer while he was assisting the British in questioning Himmler.'
Yet nowhere in the official story of Himmler's demise is there the slightest hint of the participation of a Danish intelligence officer. What this suggests is the possibility that a Danish intelligence officer played a part in an intrigue by which Himmler escaped, presumably through Denmark and Sweden. Although Irving does not name the individual involved, it is most likely to have been Guenther Toepke, a high-ranking pro-Nazi Danish intelligence officer who, for reasons known only to the Danish authorities, remained at the head of Danish intelligence for several years after the war, enabling him to facilitate the flight of numerous Nazi war criminals to Argentina.
If Danish intelligence was involved in a plot to help Himmler escape, it may explain something else mysterious which happened in 1945, which is why in August that year the British handed over Dr Carl Vaernet - a Danish SS doctor suspected of war crimes who they had detained since May 1945 at the Alsgade Skole prisoner-of-war camp in Copenhagen - to the Danish authorities, who promptly facilitated his escape through Sweden. (Dr. Vaernet soon made it to Argentina, where he died in 1965.) Although British gay rights activist Peter Tatchell has made efforts to obtain an explanation for the Danish government's complicity in Dr. Vaernet's escape, he has encountered a wall of silence. Sixty years later, it is hard to see why the Danes should be stonewalling about this matter, unless a truly dreadful secret lay underneath it which the truth about Dr. Vaernet would threaten to expose. I wonder whether the British decision to release Dr. Vaernet was not 1) a quid pro quo for Danish assistance in facilitating the escape of a certain Heinrich Himmler? or 2) a quid pro quo for Dr. Vaernet's assistance in facilitating Himmler's escape?
I would also be most interested in knowing which day in May 1945 Dr. Vaernet fell into British hands, and in precisely what circumstances.
At first the documents were generally accepted as authentic, and the question at issue was whether the motive made sense. In this interview on the BBC's Today programme, Himmler biographer Peter Padfield rejected the motive indicated by the documents and suggested that there had to be some other reason. 'There is something else here that we don't know about,' he said - adding, correctly (before the BBC interviewer suddenly cut him off), that there is another fascinating question, which is 'why the documents have been released.'
All these matters might now seem irrelevant, given that four out of the five documents referring to the Himmler assassination plan have 'conclusively' been exposed as forgeries by forensic specialist Dr. Audrey Giles, who considers the remaining item suspect as well. (SOURCE: here You can listen to an interview with Allen about the revelations here.)
Although historian David Irving, who is currently writing a book on Himmler, seems reluctant to accept that the documents are fakes - he seems to suspect that Dr. Giles's expertise has been called upon in order to discredit genuine documents - I see no reason to dispute Dr Giles' conclusions. Indeed, accepting that they are fakes seems to me to open up a take on Himmler's exit from history which I think much more likely than that the British had him killed.
Our first clue is the outstanding quality of the fakes themselves, which fooled not only Martin Allen but most other historians. As Irving observes, most forgeries are 'clumsy and ignorant.' The Himmler documents, on the other hand, appear to be the work of 'a singularly well-informed forger' - someone who is not only extremely knowlegeable about the history of the period but also someone who enjoys excellent access to the Public Records Office today. In short, we are looking at an inside job.
The question asked by Padfield - why the documents should suddenly have come to light at this time - now has to be modified slightly: Why was there a sudden need to generate a new version of the Himmler story at this time? Irving professes to be incapable of conceiving of a rationale for faking the documents: 'We could not and cannot discern any motive for forging such high-quality documents and planting them in the files for years.' But he is being uncharacteristically obtuse here. For a reason there is, and it would explain very well why the documents were first noticed in the archives by a BBC researcher in 2002 and made available to Allen the following year.
This is the appearance in 2001 of a major book on the subject, The Strange Death of Heinrich Himmler (aka The Unlikely Death of Heinrich Himmler) by Hugh Thomas. It is not hard to posit a direct connection between the publication of Thomas's book in 2001 and the subsequent appearance of a new version of the story which utterly negates Thomas's thesis, which is that the Himmler who died in British custody on the night of May 23, 1945, was not the real Himmler but a double. If, as Irving says he has been told, the documents were first noticed in 2002, then there is good reason to attribute the sudden appearance of the documents to the publication of Thomas's book.
Since it is unlikely that Thomas's book would require a refutation if it was as far-fetched as many people think it is, my own conclusion is that it was right on the money and steps were promptly taken to discredit it. Having read the book a few times now, I find myself increasingly persuaded that the man who died in British hands was not the infamous Nazi leader. Although Thomas has accepted at face value a number of anecdotes connected with Himmler's alleged demise which verge on the preposterous, his basic argument seems sound enough. But while Thomas seems to invite his readers to draw the conclusion that the British were duped by a clever intrigue thought up by Himmler to make it look as though he had been captured, the conclusion I drew from Thomas's book is rather more sinister, which is that the British actually allowed Himmler to escape.
Clearly, if the British authorities were so alarmed by Thomas's book that they were obliged to plant documents in the national archives stating bluntly that the PWE had had Himmler murdered, then their efforts can only have been motivated by the need to hide an even darker secret. That we are not being told the truth about Himmler's disappearance three weeks after the war ended is readily apparent from a little known piece of information which is pertinent to the case. According to David Irving, an intelligence museum in Copenhagen displays the black eyepatch Himmler was wearing at the time he was (allegedly) captured by British authorities. The eyepatch is in Danish hands, Irving learned from the museum description, because it 'was handed over to a Danish intelligence officer while he was assisting the British in questioning Himmler.'
Yet nowhere in the official story of Himmler's demise is there the slightest hint of the participation of a Danish intelligence officer. What this suggests is the possibility that a Danish intelligence officer played a part in an intrigue by which Himmler escaped, presumably through Denmark and Sweden. Although Irving does not name the individual involved, it is most likely to have been Guenther Toepke, a high-ranking pro-Nazi Danish intelligence officer who, for reasons known only to the Danish authorities, remained at the head of Danish intelligence for several years after the war, enabling him to facilitate the flight of numerous Nazi war criminals to Argentina.
If Danish intelligence was involved in a plot to help Himmler escape, it may explain something else mysterious which happened in 1945, which is why in August that year the British handed over Dr Carl Vaernet - a Danish SS doctor suspected of war crimes who they had detained since May 1945 at the Alsgade Skole prisoner-of-war camp in Copenhagen - to the Danish authorities, who promptly facilitated his escape through Sweden. (Dr. Vaernet soon made it to Argentina, where he died in 1965.) Although British gay rights activist Peter Tatchell has made efforts to obtain an explanation for the Danish government's complicity in Dr. Vaernet's escape, he has encountered a wall of silence. Sixty years later, it is hard to see why the Danes should be stonewalling about this matter, unless a truly dreadful secret lay underneath it which the truth about Dr. Vaernet would threaten to expose. I wonder whether the British decision to release Dr. Vaernet was not 1) a quid pro quo for Danish assistance in facilitating the escape of a certain Heinrich Himmler? or 2) a quid pro quo for Dr. Vaernet's assistance in facilitating Himmler's escape?
I would also be most interested in knowing which day in May 1945 Dr. Vaernet fell into British hands, and in precisely what circumstances.
