Adolf Hitler Research Society

AHRS Adler

This essay is part of an ongoing study by AHRS.

This unpublished essay is the sole intellectual property of AHRS. None of the original ideas contained herein may be reproduced in full or in part without attributing the credit to AHRS. This pertains especially to AHRS’s further development and validation of the Kilzer theory concerning the Red Orchestra and Martin Bormann.

Was the Role of the “Rote Kapelle” Decisive?

The role of Communist subversion in the fall of the Third Reich is, beyond a doubt, the most important one of the entire war. According to Historian Louis Kilzer (2000) Martin Bormann proved to be as detrimental to the Wehrmacht as some fifty Soviet divisions. It was Martin Bormann, known only as “Werther” to his fellow Red spies in Switzerland, who had betrayed not only Adolf Hitler and the German people, but who had also played a decisive role in at least some of the criminal liquidations of peoples in the eastern region during the war. The evidence clearly indicates that all of this was done without Hitler’s knowledge, though Kilzer would still like to believe, or at least suggest, that Hitler was the executor of the “cleansing” of Jews and Slavs in Eastern Europe. This analysis will prove otherwise. It will also demonstrate the pivotal role that just one Red Jewess played in bringing down the German empire.

According to Kilzer (2000):

Sometimes, Werther not only gave Moscow the highest secrets of the Reich but went on to tell the Center how best to interpret them: “As of 15 September Manstein’s army group can be regarded as beaten. In the period since 15 August it has lost half its equipment and heavy guns and 40 percent of its strength or a total of some 250,000 men.”

Werther’s service was unrelenting. On September 24, he reported: “Wehrmacht high command has decided to pull its eastern front supply organization back to and behind the ‘eastern rampart.’ This partially fortified line is the so-called tank-buster line planned in January.” The next day, he told the Center “In giving up Smolensk the Germans have lost their strongest focus of resistance on the Soviet-German front since Orel…”

Werther continued his services in October, telling Moscow: “The Germans are reckoning with very big war-material losses in the Vitebsk region. They have only the road to Polotsk for moving out their heavy stuff” (p. 212-213).

Response to Critics of Kilzer’s Bormann-Werther Hypothesis

Several respondents of the Kilzer hypothesis appear to be quite skeptical as to whether such a “zealous” Nazi as Martin Bormann could possibly be a Soviet plant. The most critical question these respondents are failing to ask is the following: Was Martin Bormann really the “zealous” Nazi he has been portrayed to have been? Upon a close examination of Jochen von Lang’s The Secretary, Richard Steigmann-Gall’s The Holy Reich, Bryan Rigg’s Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers, Bormann’s Hitler’s Table Talk, and Bormann’s own The Bormann Letters, a more critical inquirer would be sure to question that  assumption.

Martin Bormann continuously defied Hitler, especially with regards to Jewish and Mischling clemency applications and the Church Question. Furthermore, we know almost beyond a reasonable doubt that Bormann had altered portions of Hitler’s “table talks.” We also know beyond a doubt that Bormann held certain views which were in complete or nearly complete agreement with those of Marxist-Communism. Lastly, it does seem to be a bit odd that Bormann, who supposedly “loved” Hitler so very much and wanted only to “serve” him, was grappling for the chance at being his successor. It is also quite odd that Hitler’s good, obedient servant deliberately sowed the seeds of virulent hostility and tension between his fellow Nazis. It also seems odd that none of his letters to his wife convey even the slightest concern for fellow Nazis or for the couples’ potentially bleak future; indeed, it is almost as though he is sure of his own safety and security upon war’s end.

It may well be true that Bormann switched sides late—perhaps he played the “good Nazi” for awhile—but to try and claim that several individuals compiled the highly sensitive information which “Werther” passed on is highly questionable. You mean to say that not one of these people was caught or had snitched on one of the others? That is highly unlikely. It would have been much safer to employ just one spy—perhaps with his own personal informed or uninformed aid (i.e., Koeppen, Picker, Heim)—who was respectable enough to have climbed to the top and have donned the Party uniform. Bormann fit this role.

According to Historian Gilles Perrault (1969) uniformed Nazi officials were almost never suspected of espionage or any illegal activity for that matter. Such was the case with the Luftwaffe defector Harro Schulze-Boysen. Furthermore, it is very likely that the chosen spy would have been an ever-present yet nearly unnoticeable sort of character. Spies never want to draw attention to themselves, either in their appearance or actions. Bormann fits this characterization to the tee.

It is possible that the stenographers and/or other Nazi officials in OKW passed the most sensitive of military information to the Center under the code name Werther, but that scenario is improbable. All of the other Red Orchestra pseudonyms represented just a single spy, so why would Werther be any different? Yes, perhaps it was designed to throw off counterespionage agents just in case, but again, it deviates from the pattern established by every other sector of the Red Orchestra.

At this point, it is extremely important to mention that Historian Richard Steigmann-Gall (2003) has revealed that Martin Bormann never really appeared to be engaged with Nazi ideology so much as his own personal power politics of “divide and rule”. He reviled and battled with Christians, devout Nazis, longtime Party members and Nordic cultists alike. He never appears to have gone to great lengths, if any, to quell the Communist underground. In fact, he was sleeping with a known member. Von Lang’s account is riddled with Bormann’s hateful and slanderous remarks about the German Volk and its leadership. This all seems very odd for a man who might call himself a Nazi by any measure. Indeed, both Steigmann-Gall and Von Lang cannot evade discussing the fact that Bormann caused so much dissension between the various Nazi officials that many of them, including Speer and Goering, gave up entirely on even attempting to communicate with Hitler. The damage he did to Rosenberg and other respectable officials is truly astounding. Would a truly committed servant of Hitler’s do such things? Would a true Nazi work toward dissension within a wartime government or do everything in his power to try and unite it and keep it intact? It certainly does beg the question.

Jochen von Lang has not neglected to mention the many instances of Bormann decrees, withholdings, and orders that were in direct violation of Hitler’s orders or wishes; most of these orders and decrees inflicted great damage upon either Hitler himself or the image of the Reich. Why would an ardent ‘Hitler lover’ do such a thing? Bormann’s utter condemnation of Christianity and the Church are in agreement with Marxist ideology not Hitlerian ideology. He was so staunch in his views opposing Christianity that he actually took the time to edit or remove Hitler’s pro-Christian statements. That is odd behavior indeed. Why did it bother him so, especially when those statements were said by his “master” and Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler? Highly suspect indeed! Bormann was able to get Heinrich Lohse fired and had driven Gauleiter Josef Buerckel, “by Nazi standards one of the most deserving Party comrades,” to his death (Von Lang, p. 253). Oddly enough, Bormann’s view of women as birthing factories was also in stark contrast with Hitler’s and most other Nazis’ views of women and motherhood. As mentioned by von Lang (1979), Bormann had even admitted that he would love to have multiple wives.

As if the previous evidence was not enough to make even the most brutal of Nazis revile the man, Bormann remarkably believed in throwing German troops away as though they were a dime a dozen. According to Nicolaus von Below, Hitler had refused to even consider German kamikaze actions because he was concerned for keeping as many German troops alive as possible (p. 183). Hitler would minimize troop risks at all costs.

Bormann expressed repugnance and downright hatred for Poles and Jews. Additionally, he was of the opinion that “Slavs were slaves” and he challenged the opinions and recommendations of lenient Nazi officials as high up and respectable as Josef Goebbels on issues such as this. Oddly, Hitler expressed utter condemnation and outright disgust at how the Soviets had gunned-down hundreds of Polish officers in the Katyn Massacre [it is now known that there were tens-of-thousands of victims] (Von Below, p. 170). Hitler had actually expressed so much concern for this atrocity that he ordered that a medical commission of the Foreign Office be dispatched to investigate the brevity of this mass-scale war crime. Hitler’s expressed attitude and his actions indicate that he did not at all share Bormann’s views of Slavs and Poles.

Goebbels had written a report arguing that Slavs were to be won over and treated very well by the German occupiers. Rosenberg had actually been willing to “open the east to the Christian doctrine.” He wished to erect schools and re-open clergy services to the eastern peoples. Goebbels demanded that “a better future” be a guarantee to these people; yet, no word of any of these awesome plans ever reached Hitler’s desk. According to von Lang (1979) “Whatever news of such intentions reached headquarters Bormann carefully kept away from Hitler, and wherever that seemed too difficult he played off one author’s memorandum against another: Himmler was against the clergy; the military against any plan of giving arms to the vanquished; and when it came to granting special privileges to the Ukrainians he needed only to call upon Goering or Gauleiter Koch, whom Hitler regarded highly” (p. 207).

Just what kind of committed Nazi and Hitler servant was Bormann? Von Lang’s evidence goes far beyond the realm of self-serving; this was blatant sabotage against the Reich. There is no other way to interpret Bormann’s destructive and sabotaging behavior if he was truly committed to his leader and the Nazi cause. Self-serving individuals certainly do not aim to bring down the very system that serves their interests; nay, they try their best to keep the machine intact so that they continue to benefit from it. Bormann was clearly destroying the machine that fed him.

In Bormann’s final letter to his wife, 2 April 1945, he assures her that “we’ll go to death proudly and with our heads high” (Bormann, Letters, p. 198)! In reality, Bormann slipped out of the bunker like a complete coward, not even showing any emotion regarding the death of his beloved “master” Hitler, and had made a run for it under retreating military cover. He was more than likely accidentally killed by a stray bullet from enemy fire. Obviously, he was not considering dying a hero’s death. He ran like a sissy and who knows whether he would have simply left his “wife” behind. Needless to say, Bormann was sleeping with a known Communist, among others. Oddly enough, this particular mistress was a member of the German Communist underground (Kilzer, p. 264). It is very doubtful that a truly committed Nazi—for example, Reinhard Heydrich—would have been sleeping with a Communist woman who may even have been Jewish, as evidenced by her “-berg” surname. It is also highly questionable that a truly committed Nazi would be engaging in orgies and sleeping with numerous mistresses as Bormann had done.

Last but certainly not least, it is certainly damning that not only had Bormann reserved a Swiss retreat for himself for vacations, but he had listed among his contacts a certain “Rösler.” Isn’t it odd though, that Rudolf Roessler was one of the higher-ups within the Lucy Ring of the Red Orchestra operating in Switzerland? Yes, there is only one “s” in the name listed by Bormann, but there is no first name to accompany this listing. Furthermore, Bormann may have deliberately misspelled the name to throw off any possible suspicions raised by potential counterespionage officials.

Essentially, if Bormann was not Werther then he was at least part of the Werther network. Perhaps there were other contributors of information, but it is very unlikely that Bormann was not involved in some way or other.

“Hitler’s” Table Talk?

Upon discovering just how subversive and overbearing a role Bormann had played behind Hitler’s back, and considering the huge discrepancies between Hitler’s alleged “table talks” when compared to like sources, as well as the duplicity of Hitler’s own character in Bormann’s recorded record, one must seriously call into question just how genuine these stenographic recordings really are. Historian David Irving has revealed after much investigation and insight that the 1945 table talks are at least partially fraudulent (Irving, 1998).

According to Irving,

The document, first published in French in 1959, and in English in 1961 as Hitler’s Last Testament, or Hitlers politisches Testament…with an Introduction by Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper, is a fake.

[  ] Its owner, Swiss lawyer-activist François Genoud, now dead, first showed it to [me] at a meeting at the Hotel d’Angleterre in Geneva (witnessed also by Dr Elke Fröhlich of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte) in 1971. At that time it was about fifty pages of typescript, typed on a small-face non-German typewriter on American-size legal paper.

What was very surprising was that Genoud was willing to let German editor Professor Eduard Baumgarten work only from a French text, which he insisted must be retranslated into German.

[I] continued to press Genoud, expressing to him strong doubts (after discussions with Hitler’s private staff, especially Konteradmiral Karl-Jesco von Puttkamer, Hitler’s naval adjutant to the very end, who stated that he had never seen Hitler’s secretary Martin Bormann taking down such notes in 1945).

There was a further difficulty. Mr Irving had a transcript of the 1945 diary, now in Moscow, of Bormann; he also had a facsimile of the register of all the guests at Hitler’s February 1945 meals, kept by Hitler’s manservant Heinz Linge. These unquestionably genuine documents showed that Bormann was not present at several of the meals during which the ‘testament’ showed he had apparently taken notes; sometimes he was not even in Berlin.

In 1979, Genoud phoned Mr Irving at his Paris hotel, and said: ‘I have a gift for you.’ He handed him a package. It contained a copy of the complete typescript of the Testament. The package gift from Genoud raised a new problem. Every page was heavily amended and expanded in somebody’s hand-writing. Mr Irving, astonished, asked Genoud whose was the writing. Genoud admitted it was his own. Later still, he admitted in conversation with Mr Irving that the entire typescript was his own confection, saying: ‘But it is just what Hitler would have said, isn’t it?’

This assessment is quite valuable for three specific reasons.

The first is that this same man, François Genoud, is the very man who had possession of the unpublished 1941-1944 table talks, which were stenographically recorded by two of Bormann’s associates—a Soviet spy named Werner Koeppen and the probably well meaning Heinrich Heim (Kilzer, p. 128).

Secondly, for a very short span–that is between the months of March and August 1942–Henry Picker replaced Heinrich Heim and his notes stand in contrast with those of Heim and Koeppen. As noted by Herrell, this may suggest that his notes were not subject to Bormann’s “alterations,” especially with regards to Hitler’s views of Christianity, as recorded on April 4, 1942, and women (Herrell, p. 152; Bormann, Table-Talk, p. 393-394; 494-495). For instance, on this particular day Hitler specifically targeted the “terrorism” within Christianity, which he believed had been falsely introduced by Jewry. On April 7, 1942 he addressed the problems associated with funding the churches, which appeared to do little in the actual service of the German people, and, the petty intriguers such as Pastor Martin Niemöller (Bormann, Table-Talk, p. 409-413). On April 9, 1942, he returned to his general theme of anti-dogma and anti-churchism as he discussed the tortures of the churches. He lamented the “pessimism” taught by the church, as well as the crucifixions, rapes and quarterings-to-death committed by the churches “with indescribable torture” of Europe’s past (Bormann, Table-Talk, p. 418-420). On May 20, 1942, Hitler discussed the importance of providing women with respectable work and a living wage. In this same conversation, he did not fail to rail against the Jewish theater owners and brothel owners who cheated their female workers of their fair earnings (Bormann, Table-Talk, p. 494-495).

All of these views of Hitler’s are in contrast with other recorded views of Hitler’s in other recorded conversations, both before and after Picker took his notes. Thus, Herrell may be correct in his conclusion that Bormann did not have a chance to edit Picker’s notes as thoroughly as those of Heim or Koeppen, if he had indeed edited them in the first place. To be quite honest, the derivations in Picker’s notes are so subtle that they may not even be significant enough to comparatively analyze in the first place.

As suggested by both Irving’s (1998) discovery of the fraudulent qualities of one of Genoud’s Bormann manuscripts and Historian V.S. Herrell’s (2004) revelations as to the Bormann-inspired sections of the original transcript as regards Hitler’s Christian views, what is obvious is that the table talks are not all Hitler’s ideas (Irving, 1998; Herrell,152-153). Henry Picker had even stated that “no confidence can be placed in Bormann’s editing of [the manuscript].” According to Herrell (2004), Picker “also spoke of ‘Bormann’s alterations…’” (p. 153). What is absolutely clear is that some or parts of the written records are actually Bormann’s material. It might also be important to mention at this point that Genoud had peddled in numerous fraudulent Nazi documents after the war (Herrell, p. 152). As aforementioned, one of those was published under the title The Hitler-Bormann Documents.

Thirdly, Irving has argued that Bormann “was not even in Berlin” at certain times in 1945 (Irving, 1998). There is in fact a gap in Bormann’s letters to his wife between January 5 and January 28, 1945 (Bormann, Letters, p. 161-163). This may be a period of time in which Bormann left Berlin. There is another significant gap between February 26 and April 2, 1945 (Bormann, Letters, p. 194-196). His final letter to his wife was dated April 2, 1945, which may indicate that he was busy preparing to escape, perhaps to the Soviet Union, and did not have time for informal trivialities any longer (Bormann, Letters, p. 197). The final table talk recording was taken on November 29, 1944 (Bormann, Table-Talk, p. 721).

Knowing that Genoud admitted to writing the 1945 table talks, we can dismiss those out of hand. Moving further along, the translation discrepancies between the three genuine versions of the table talks are also quite problematic. The only available English-language edition of Hitler’s words was translated directly from the French-language copy owned by Genoud (Herrell, p. 153). The German version is different from the English-language translation in many ways, which has been confirmed by Historians Herrell and Richard Carrier (Herrell, p. 153-159). Omissions and alterations are obvious when one compares the two versions of the recorded text (Herrell, p. 156-157).

According to Herrell (2004),

Here is just one of the oft quoted English-language edition passages:

If my presence on earth is providential, I owe it to a superior will. But I owe nothing to the Church that traffics in the salvation of souls, and I find it really too cruel. I admit that one cannot impose one’s will by force, but I have a horror of people who enjoy inflicting sufferings on others’ bodies and tyranny upon others’ souls.

Our epoch will certainly see an end to the disease of Christianity. It will last another hundred years, two hundred perhaps. My regret will be that I couldn’t, like whoever the prophet was, behold the promised land from afar. We are entering into a conception of the world that will be a sunny era, an era of tolerance. Man must be put in a position to develop freely the talents that God has given him.

What is important above all is that we should prevent a greater lie from replacing the lie that is disappearing. The world of Judeo-Bolshevism must collapse.

As quoted by Herrell, the German text states,

I am here due to a higher power, if I am necessary for anything. Leave aside that she is too cruel for me, the beatifying church! I have never found pleasure in maltreating others, even if I know it isn’t possible to stand your ground in the world without force. Life is only given to those who fight for it the hardest. It is the law of life: Defend yourself!

The time in which we live indicates the collapse of this idea. It can still take 100 or 200 years. I am sorry that, like Moses, I can only see the Promised Land from a distance.

We are growing into a sunny, really tolerant worldview: Man shall be able to develop his God-given talents. We must only prevent a new, even greater lie from arising: that of the Jewish-Bolshevist world. That’s what I must destroy (p. 154-155).

The following sentence contained in the German version was simply omitted from Genoud’s French-English translation: “What man has over the animals, possibly the most marvelous proof of his superiority, is that he has understood there must be a Creative Power” (p. 156)! According to Carrier, the sentence “I shall never personally come to terms with the Christian lie” does not even exist in the German version. It was added either by Bormann or by Genoud (p. 156). Bormann may have added it to make Hitler, whom he seems to have admired greatly, appear anti-Christian in light of his own Communist views or, Genoud may have added it to paint a malevolent portrait of Hitler for his own self-serving agenda. Lastly, I will mention that the sentence “Christianity is an invention of sick brains” does not exist in the German version either. It only exists in Genoud’s French-English translation (Herrell, p. 157). The importance and relevance of these alterations will become very relevant later in this analysis, especially when we come across references to “extermination” in the table talk.

The Case for Extermination: Only with Faulty Inductive Reasoning

Along these lines, Historian Louis Kilzer has had to admit that “Hitler was the prime mover, but even his actions were muddied by the lack of clear-cut written orders for genocide. …There is no rational basis to doubt Hitler’s true intentions. From his writings, his table talk, and even his speeches, it is clear he intended a bad end for the Jews of Europe” (p. 115). This inductive reasoning, which cannot be supported by circumstantial, factual, or forensic evidence, is highly questionable, to say the least. Should a person be tried and convicted for masterminding a murder without any evidence? One would hope not. Kilzer’s reliance upon the table talk for clues as to Hitler’s desire to exterminate Jews now seems irresponsible in light of our assessment of that document. I might also mention that Hitler’s letters and notes do not even remotely suggest the extermination of Jewry; secondly, his speeches were subject to alteration after the fact. Historian Mark Weber has argued that a few of his speeches are forgeries (Mark Weber, Personal Communication, April 29, 2005). Let us also use common sense in this case. Are we really expected to believe that Hitler openly discussed “exterminating” Jewry in his public speeches which could have easily gotten into the hands of a hostile and war-hungry foreign press? One would certainly hope not, especially when we have been told over and over again that this was an ultra-secret covert operation that was not even committed to paper—in order to secure its ultra secrecy.

The truth is that Hitler wished to forcibly repatriate Jewry. In the context of 1930s and 1940s Europe, this was not a crime against humanity. In our present-day context, forcibly repatriating a foreign or minority people is considered a crime against humanity. Israel is guilty of this crime today, in fact. More to the point, Kilzer has at least admitted that Hitler’s intention had been the repatriation of European Jewry to Madagascar “or other destinations”; perhaps to Russia, once Russia had been defeated (p. 115).

Last but not least, Kilzer has argued that “the Nuremberg prosecutors said, Bormann wrote that the plan involved the ‘enslavement and annihilation of the population of these territories [Crimea, Baku, and Volga districts]. Goering and Keitel later said that they did not hear those specific words from Hitler” (p. 118). So, Kilzer has concluded, without any evidence I might add, that “Bormann became the point man for the Holocaust” (p. 118). This whole assessment is flawed for two reasons, without even getting into the forensics of the matter.

Firstly, Kilzer has assumed that Bormann was talking specifically about Jews here. The actual document that Kilzer has cited here does not even mention Jews. The target of this document, if it is indeed genuine to begin with, is Ukrainians and other Eastern European peoples.  Secondly, no historian can simply assume that what Bormann wrote or ordered, Hitler had ordered. This becomes especially significant when we take into account the evidence presented by Historians Bryan Mark Rigg and Jochen von Lang, which clearly exonerates Hitler on numerous occasions. I might also make mention again of Bormann’s suspected Soviet ties, as well as his oft  flagrant disregard of many of Hitler’s wishes and orders. This, in turn, brings up a fascinating postulation. If there were limited-scale atrocities ordered against Eastern Europeans and Jews on Bormann’s orders, then those orders are ultimately the responsibility of a traitor, not a Nazi. Bormann does not even have to be a Soviet spy at this point to solidify this position; he need only be a traitor against Hitler. What better way to destroy Hitler than to order atrocities in his name? This same line of reasoning may be applied to Hans Oster, Heinrich Mueller, and Heinz Pannwitz as well. All three were suspected traitors against the Reich. There is no written law indicating that traitors must be humanitarians is there? Indeed, in this case we must assume, without any hard evidence at all, that Hitler was the “mastermind” and “murderer” and that the “traitors” against him were the “humanitarians” and “good guys,” who, apparently, were just looking out for Jewish interests. According to Rigg’s analysis, Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers, this assumption could not be further from the truth (Clark, 2006).

One may also be inclined to argue that Bormann may well have ordered particular atrocities in Hitler’s name of his own volition simply because he was inclined to do so. Perhaps he had really believed in the inferiority of certain white ethnic groups, such as Gypsies, Slavs, or Jews, and had thus done everything in his own personal power to exact a toll upon these peoples’ populations in the eastern region. The war certainly would have provided a convenient cover for unlawful atrocities. Remarkably, for all of the ‘scholarly’ literature that has been churned out over these past 62 years, not one source has postulated the ideas put forth in these few paragraphs. It is truly astounding at how apathetic and uncritical most Westerners have become when it comes to investigating events of the past.

Redux: More Fraudulent Hitler Sources

Numerous fraudulent and Soviet-inspired works on Hitler exist so thorough source evaluation is critical when studying Hitler. This will come up again later in this analysis, but, for now, let us briefly discuss just a few of the fraudulent sources.

Anything written about Hitler by Hans Bernard Gisevius is very suspect because, according to Kilzer, the Soviet spy Rudolf Roessler named him off as one of his sources (p. 273; Herrell, p. 163). One cannot possibly accept a Soviet spy who worked for the Rote Kapelle as a reliable source on Hitler.

Konrad Heiden was a Jewish journalist who had claimed that there was proof of Hitler’s bizarre personal life being safeguarded by the Reich Treasurer. This alleged evidence was never found and it is suspected that Heiden was a liar like Otto Strasser (Sayer & Botting, p. 48, 59-60). Nothing from either Gregor or Otto Strasser can be accepted as truthful because both of them had a vendetta against Hitler (Ibid., p. 59). There is also contrary evidence to what they have alleged against him, especially as regards the death of Geli Raubal (Ibid., p. 60).

Ernst Hanfstaengl cannot be believed because he had a falling out with Hitler. Furthermore, all of his various analyses of Hitler are based upon Freudian psychoanalysis which has been entirely debunked (p. 14-16, 51, 58). Dr. Kurt Krueger cannot be believed because, in all probability, he never even existed. Whoever wrote the Krueger “diaries” obviously had a vendetta against Hitler; they may have even been written by someone Hitler knew for awhile (Ibid., p. 16). Sayer and Botting have addressed that some historians believe that I Was Hitler’s Doctor was actually written by Ernst Hanfstaengl. Remarkably, Krueger’s recollections read very much like the fraudulent Diary of Eva Braun which was written by a Jewish con-artist named Luis Trenker.

Any statements or documents that were employed either by the American OSS or Josef Stalin cannot be trusted for obvious reasons. Though this kind of evidence may contain granules of truth it is not even worth considering when there are so many reliable sources and statements available for analysis, many of which are stenographically recorded primary accounts.

Historian V.S. Herrell (2004) has noted that other completely or partially fraudulent sources include and are not limited to: Erich Kordt, Fritz Wiedemann, Carl Jakob Burkhardt’s diary, Hermann Rauschning, Fritz Thyssen, Albert Zoller, Christa Schroeder’s diary, the diaries of Wilhelm Canaris, all of Eva Braun’s diaries, the diary of Felix Kersten, Count Galeazzo Ciano’s diaries and Karl Koller’s diary (p. 163-164). These sources have been subjected to relentless examination and cross-referencing by genuine historians that have actually taken an interest in historical truthfulness and accuracy. The recollections of Heinrich Mueller published as Gestapo Mueller are fraudulent. They were scrutinized by a few historians at the Institute for Historical Review and found to be fraudulent (Historian Friedrich Berg, Personal Communication, May 15, 2007).

Stalin’s Spy in Hitler’s Midst: “Werther”

Bormann operated freely within Hitler’s inner circle, leaking top secret information to the Lucy Ring of the Red Orchestra, from June 1941 to October 1944 (Kilzer, p. 276). The recorded table talks in Genoud’s possession begin on July 5, 1941 (Bormann, Table-Talk, p. 3). Remarkably, Jewish-controlled Hollywood played a large part in the funding of the Soviet’s “Lucy net” (Kilzer, p. 92). Bormann recruited a fellow Red spy by the name of Werner Koeppen, along with Heinrich Heim, to secretly record everything Hitler said in private. Bormann’s emphasis to Heim was that he maintain the absolute secrecy of the recordings and never mention anything to the Fuehrer himself. It may be that Heim distrusted Bormann because he omitted recording Hitler’s specific military plans for security reasons, but Koeppen did not (Kilzer, p. 103-104). Koeppen had been recording Hitler’s words secretly even before Heim was recruited. Heim was told that the recordings were merely for posterity in order to preserve the words of the Fuehrer (Kilzer, p. 103). The recordings began at the Wolf’s Lair (Kilzer, p. 104).

Oddly enough, Historian Robert Stephan (2004) has concluded:

Soviet sources state unequivocally that radio games contributed to the Soviet victories at Kursk, Stalingrad, and the Belorussian offensive in 1944 (codenamed Operation Bagration). One history opined that the information transmitted in these types of counterintelligence operations basically satisfied the Germans and deterred them from trying to establish parallel agent networks (p. 104).

Additionally, the American CIA had concluded that the German funkspiel, or radio game, had actually “turned sharply against the Germans…Moscow profited much more than did Berlin” (Kilzer, p. 148). This is certainly odd given the training and experience of the Gestapo agents involved in cracking the Red Orchestra case; unless, of course, a few of those Gestapo agents were “turned.” Seeing as how Pannwitz willingly stayed in Berlin up to the final moments of the war, and had willingly boarded a secret plane to Moscow, we may reasonably assume that he was working for Stalin for a decent period of time. He obviously felt comfortable enough to fly straight into the hands of a man known to have murdered his own loyal agents, including Jews, on an unprecedented scale. In fact, the renowned Jewish spymaster, Leopold Trepper, was held in Lubianka prison until Stalin’s death in 1957 (Kilzer, p. 288). Thus, Pannwitz’s suffering in Stalin’s hands cannot be attributed to his lack of loyalty or his supposed commitment to Hitler as a ‘true’ Gestapo agent. Almost every one of Stalin’s spies suffered a terrible fate upon reentry into Russia. Heinz Pannwitz was actually one of the lucky ones, as he was treated quite well at Lubianka. He retired in relative comfort in Stuttgart, Germany, which brings us to another pertinent question that must be asked. Why wasn’t he hanged as a war criminal? Why wasn’t he hunted down by the Wiesenthal “Nazi hunters” after he was set free? Well, because he was working for the Allies on the side of the Soviet Union. That is one logical and reasonable answer to this vexing postulation.

For those who may still believe that Pannwitz was a committed Nazi, I would recommend studying the far-reaching qualities of the Soviet intelligence organization much more intensively. Please recall that a top level Luftwaffe officer, Harro Schulze-Boysen; a Grand Admiral, Wilhelm Canaris; and, the head of Hitler’s military intelligence organization, Hans Oster, had been brazenly working against him, for either the British or the Soviets.

As far as the gravity of the problem of the Red Orchestra was concerned, Hitler himself summed it up quite accurately:

They found out with this Rote Kapelle [Red Orchestra] that one rat had been in there since 1933 who had a permanent connection abroad. I have to say that our enemies succeeded in one thing: even with the dissolution of the control commissions they had already installed a control mechanism in all the state apparatus, the party apparatus, and everywhere in the public apparatus, economy, and administration. …These people were also in the police force. In 1933 the police suffered from the fact that they consisted primarily of National Socialists with good will but very minimal knowledge of criminal investigation. They hadn’t been trained in criminal investigation” (Stephan, p. 197).

Hitler greatly lamented the fact that the Soviets clearly had the Germans on one thing; intelligence.

Marxism: The Jewish Theory in Practice

The following excerpts should suffice as to what Marxism became, in practice, shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution:

“To eliminate a breeding ground for what he saw as mistaken ideas and weaknesses, Stalin would order thousands of Bolsheviks and their families deported to northern Siberia. …

“Tomsky, the good Bolshevik that he was, was opposed to individual terror. He had chosen to kill himself with his pistol rather than to kill Stalin.

“The prosecutor, Vishinsky closed his speech for the prosecution saying, “I demand that these mad dogs be shot, every last one of them.” On August 25, Zinoviev, Kamenev and the fourteen others were shot. And Trotsky was sentenced to death in absentia. …

“From Germany came Dr. Goebbels’ expert analysis of the trial. The Bolshevik government, he explained, was a Jewish business.

“Then the head of the NKVD, Yagoda, was replaced by someone who would take a harder approach to the fight against counter-revolution. This was Nikolai Yezhov, a Bolshevik from before the revolution, a former industrial worker, a former Secretary of the Central Committee, and someone who enjoyed a reputation as an agreeable and conscientious man. The greatest terror came during Yezhov’s rule over the NKVD, and people in the Soviet Union would call the Great Terror Yezhovshchina (the times of Yezhov). Yezhov began his new reign by rooting out NKVD commissars that he saw as not fit to serve under him. In 1937, it is estimated, around 3,000 of them were shot. [Yezhov was probably a Jew.] …

“In all, about 35,000 military officers had been shot or imprisoned. …

“It was a general rule, claim some historians, for Stalin to eliminate those who knew too much. Molotov was to describe it differently. Late in his life, Molotov believed that Stalin would be rehabilitated. He denied that Stalin was behind Kirov’s murder, and he blamed others for what he called excesses. He claimed that Stalin knew little about the purges – although Stalin signed death warrants sometimes numbering more than a thousand a day, in the presence of Molotov.

“Counts of the number of people who were purged vary. The Russian historian Roy Medvedev has written of reliable Soviet records indicating 1,116 having been sentenced to death in 1936, and 353,680 in 1937. The decline in 1938, it is estimated, may have brought the number of executed to 200,000 or 300,000. Stalin’s opponents in the Party had been effectively silenced. Of the 1,966 delegates to the 17th Party Congress – the Party Congress of 1934 that had threatened Stalin’s position within the Party – 1,108 had been shot as enemies of the people.

A few old Bolsheviks would survive Siberia, but hardly any of Trotsky’s old supporters would. Nor would Trotsky’s family, or Trotsky” (Smitha, 1998).

Hitler’s Response to Marxism: Gestapo, Abwehr and Mass Persecution

This was, and remains, typical of Jewish rule and Jewish power play. Germany wanted no part in this mad cycle of murder and death. Hence, the Gestapo and Abwehr were formed and consolidated to root out and either deport or eliminate the Jewish Problem. Many would argue that “innocent” Jews were victims of this Nazi discrimination and elimination. This is probably true to a certain extent. However, everyday Jews from all walks of life proved to be devastating to the Eastern campaign and the German war machine in general. The Red Orchestra, in fact, played a decisive and significant role in quite a few of Germany’s losses, especially at both Stalingrad and Kursk. Regular old Jews leaked top secret information to Stalin, which would serve to put Stalin on the offensive and Hitler on the run. Thus, from a Utilitarian perspective, had Hitler ignored the Jewish Problem and sabotage, he undoubtedly would have been remembered as one of the single most inept leaders in history. Not even Communist-sympathizing historians like Gilles Perrault, Heinz Hoehne, or V.E. Tarrant can argue against this basic premise. They may argue that Hitler went too far in his persecution of Jewry, or they may believe in the so-called “Holocaust,” but they cannot possibly argue against the indisputable fact that Hitler was justified in his measures against Jewry considering the threat of the Red Orchestra and other Communist and pro-Soviet agitators and revolutionaries. All three of their respective thesis agendas suggest this much.

The Red Orchestra was almost solely a Jewish-Soviet espionage and counter-espionage spy ring. Regular old Jews from every walk of life—including butchers, shopkeepers, businessmen, criminals, mothers, prostitutes, dancers, writers, and actresses, just to mention a few—worked as spies against the Reich. This is one of the reasons why “innocent” Jews were interned in camps, forced to work, or eliminated as enemies of the German state. They were a very real threat to the German state and the war effort. Thus, their alleged “innocence” is nullified in this respect.

Redux 1941: Was Stalin to Blame for Instigating War on the European Continent?

According to reporter Tom Segev, new inquiry into the responsibility for the Second World War has revealed some rather interesting, aside from disturbing, results. Segev has concluded, in the following report, that Stalin was responsible for the Second World War. I had come to the same conclusion, though with greater reserve (Clark, 2007). I would actually be more inclined to argue that Hitler and Stalin preempted one another simultaneously. To be fair, both sides had legitimate grievances one against the other, depending on which worldview one ascribed to at the time. Neither side was “evil” or “guilty.” On the contrary, both sides, in their own respect, were justified and correct in their actions. In other words, both sides were typically human in their actions. In light of all the evidence, it appears that Roosevelt and Churchill were far more belligerent and unjustified in their respective actions than either Germany or Russia, in fact. Thus, Roosevelt and Churchill ought to bear far more responsibility for World War II than either of the European continental powers. Neither of these aggressive Anglo nation-states had a legitimate grievance against either Hitler or Stalin. I would even disagree that the so-called “threat” of the International Soviet Comintern—to the Anglo establishment, as well as “democracy”—was a legitimate cause for aggression against Stalin. One must realize that Stalin disagreed with Comintern policies and had actually become more of a pan-Slavist than a Marxist internationalist. This is discussed in detail by both Historians John Lukacs and Gilles Perrault.

Segev has reported the following:

MISCHA Shauli sat at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., completely beside himself. It had been years since the first time he heard about the existence of a document said to prove that Stalin, not Hitler, bore the main responsibility for World War II, and for years he had searched for it with all his skills as a professional detective.

Shauli’s last position was as Commander Shauli, Representative of the Israel Police in Russia. Previous to that he had been head of the police fraud investigation unit for the Southern District.

A few years ago Shauli read “Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War” by Bogdan Rozen. Rozen, who now lives in England, wrote it under the pseudonym of Viktor Suvorov. Shauli, impressed by the book, translated it into Hebrew and saw to its publication here.

From out of the sea of details, a coherent thesis emerges: Stalin dragged Hitler into war to force Europe into chaos and facilitate a communist revolution on the continent. According to Shauli, there is evidence to back up this theory, including a speech by Stalin himself as well as a report obtained by the U.S. Consulate in Prague. The report has been mentioned here and there over the years, but it has never been published, because no one knows where it is today.

Shauli, 59, believed that the definitive evidence was out there, hiding somewhere. He believed, and did not give up, repeatedly setting out to find it, going as far as Washington. No one is happier than he is today: The document is in his possession, and now the history of World War II may have to be rewritten: It was Stalin’s fault [emphasis added].

The document, from October 1939, consists of three pages in English that purportedly reflect a dialogue in Moscow between a delegation from Czechoslovakia and a senior Soviet Foreign Ministry official. The Czechs tried to find out why the U.S.S.R. had signed the nonaggression treaty with Nazi Germany, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939. A few days later the Germans invaded Poland, and World War II began.

The Soviet official, Alexandrov by name, explained to the Czech delegation that had the Soviet Union signed an agreement with the West, Hitler would not have dared to launch a war, and without that war there would have been no possibility of imposing communism in Europe. He also listed the benefits to the Soviet Union of the pact with Nazi Germany, and of the war.

The veracity of the document must be proved, and even if it turns out to be genuine, its significance is worthy of debate. Mischa Shauli is continuing his investigation. No, he said this week, he does not fear that shifting responsibility for the war from Hitler to Stalin “acquits” Hitler; he is responsible for other crimes (2007).

The Tide Changes: The Red Army Victories

Even though Stalingrad was not necessarily of much strategic value, it still had to be taken at some point in order to cut any potential infantry gateway to Hitler’s southern forces heading towards the oil fields, which is discussed by Historian V.E. Tarrant. I would label the disaster at Stalingrad the result of “poor judgment” before I would label it “insanity.”

I would have to disagree with most Jewish historians that Hitler was “insane.” In that case, so was Napoleon. I might just as easily claim that Stalin was also “insane,” because he is now known to have wished for an offensive war against Germany–the known most powerful military force in the world at the time—according to the latest evidence (Segev, 2007). Furthermore, General Halder had informed his American interrogators after the war that “Hitler [had been] alarmed by reports of an offensive buildup of Soviet forces” (Kilzer, p. 80). As Kilzer has confirmed, “If Stalin moved against Romania [which had vast oil supplies], he could strangle the Reich” (p. 80).

In my own view, dismissing generals or leaders as “insane”, or even “evil,” does little to enhance our collective knowledge as to the motives and decisions that those leaders made in their time. Even in Hitler’s case, for every allegedly “insane” decision he made, he had also made a rational or conservative one. Moreover, Manstein agreed with Hitler’s decision to hold Stalingrad. The complicated details of that battle have been largely ignored because of historians’ overwhelming inability to look past Hitler’s alleged “insanity.” I think Historian Louis Kilzer sums that battle up best.

He has stated:

The most important message came from a Soviet spy named Richard Sorge. …Japan would secure her oil in Southeast Asia, a move that would bring her to war with America and Great Britain. She would not have the strength to attack Russia also.

Stalin now knew two things [thanks to his excellent espionage forces]: He would not face an attack from Japan this winter, and the Germans were totally unprepared for the appearance of a strategic reserve (p. 111).

So, Hitler miscalculated…badly.

Basically, while Stalin was learning and acting on this information, the Germans were trying to avoid a “rout” (p. 113), which would have cost more lives than strategic and sustainable withdrawals. Because of the complicated and precarious circumstances leading up to and surrounding the battle for Stalingrad, even Kilzer has had to admit that Hitler had little choice but to commit General Paulus’s troops to a sacrificial “last stand” (p. 106-107, 126-127, 139). Kilzer goes further in that he suggests that the disaster was not entirely of Hitler’s making, which has been affirmed by Historian A.V. Schaerffenberg (Kilzer, p. 139; Schaerffenberg, p. 100-104).

Remarkable to some, Kilzer has concluded, “It is now largely accepted that December 1941 was Hitler’s greatest moment as a military man, coming oddly not as a conqueror, but as a defender. He held the army together, pulling back German troops in an orderly fashion and with a strong rear guard; in so doing, he left the Germans in control of the battlefield when the thaw came in 1942″ (p. 113-114).

As pointed out in this assessment, from the strategic and operational standpoint Hitler does not come across as “insane” in any way, shape, or form. In fact, had he withdrawn, more Germans would have died. This is a reminder that oftentimes taboo subject matter must be confronted in order to reconstruct a more historically objective picture from which we can all learn.

To be fair, Stalin himself had improved tremendously by about the year 1943, but not without the assistance of his renowned espionage and counter-espionage networks working feverishly behind German lines. As Kilzer has pointed out, Stalin attained victories once he allowed Zhukov more freedom to make his own decisions. So, getting past the Stalin taboo is also important because we can learn a great deal from the battles of Stalingrad and Kursk, both of which were won by the USSR.

I might also add that dismissing the German losses and setbacks beginning with Stalingrad as the misfortunate results of Hitler’s “insanity” prevents historians from seeing the more realistic picture. That would be, in spite of everything, that the Red Army was an incredible military force and had proven that it could adapt to German tactics at a remarkable rate by the latter half of the war. The role of the Red Orchestra must be taken into account, but the tenacity and outright courageousness of the Red Army in the face of the Wehrmacht cannot be relegated to insignificant at this point in the war. The Soviet Union won not because of Hitler’s mistakes or insanity; rather, it won because it proved to be a more capable and well-prepared military by this time, especially with regards to espionage. Stalin had also relinquished his reins on Zhukov by this time, so, perhaps it was a mistake for Hitler to have remained such a micromanager up until this point. Then again, Hitler did not have as capable and daring a field commander as Zhukov–who was as much ferocious as he was capable.

What were the primary factors that enabled the initiative on the Eastern front to pass from Hitler to Stalin in 1941-1942? The answers to this question cannot be obtained if we do not investigate thoroughly as to every possible explanation. In this case, “insane” does not cut it.

Conditional Conclusion

Now that we know that at least parts of the table talk may have been altered by a very probable Soviet spy, can we still trust this document? The answer is obvious; of course we can’t. We are now compelled to not only go back to the original German-language edition for accuracy, but more importantly than that we must begin to examine this record with a discerning eye. Chances are large portions of it have been altered or influenced by Bormann. There may even be subtle indicators as to his motives or agenda embedded within this document. Now is the time to start combing for clues within the table talk itself.

©2009. Adolf Hitler Research Society. All Rights Reserved.