Searching for the Truth

By Germar Rudolf

[This article is a slightly adapted translation of a German
article that appeared in the German historical journal Vierteljahreshefte für freie
Geschichtsforschung, issue 6(3) (2002), pp.
269-283. It was preceeded by an article by historian
Mark Weber, and a retort by Gregory
Douglas.]

Introduction

The reader has probably noticed that both Mark Weber's
review and Gregory
Douglas' response to the review are filled with ad hominem attacks.
It is not unusual to dispense with footnotes in reviewing books, as Weber
does, but it is unusual to attack an author's person instead of his thesis and
to accuse him of falsification. It is extremely important to prove such
charges before printing them in a scientific journal such as the Journal of
Historical Review because, if they can not be proven, the author leaves
himself open to charges of criminal libel. The fact that Weber has not yet
been sued, in which case he would have to prove his charges or face
prosecution himself, is due primarily to the fortuitous circumstance that both
he and Douglas are nearly destitute. Douglas lacks the resources to press
charges and Weber would be unable to pay damages.

As the readers of the German periodical "Vierteljahreshefte für freie
Geschichtsforschung" (Quarterly for Free Historical Research)
are well aware, the results of such courtroom conflicts are not necessarily
the truth. Here we are concerned not with legalistic matters, but with
establishing the actual facts of the case.

Douglas has written a great deal about the Third Reich and
other contemporary subjects in recent years and will presumably continue to do
so in the future, so it is appropriate for us to carefully evaluate the
credibility of the man and his work.

The British historian David Irving has levied criticisms on
his website which are even more serious than Weber's. Since these are
distributed haphazardly over numerous publications, we can not reproduce them
here in their entirety. The interested reader will have to avail himself of
the Internet in order to access the unorganized sources. Because of the
severity of Irvings charges, we will objectively analyze some of them.

The Background to the Heinrich Müller
Revelations

In 1994, Dr. Sudholt of the Druffel Publishing House received
a manuscript from the American writer G. Douglas, which purportedly was the
protocol of an interrogation of former Gestapo chief Heinrich Müller, prepared
by the Americans in Switzerland in 1948, and now commented by G. Douglas.
According to this protocol, Müller had fled from Berlin to Switzerland at
war's end. When the Cold War got underway, he offered the USA his assistance
against the Communists, which they gladly accepted.

In 1994, having made my debut as a Revisionist writer with my
Expert Report[1] and the book
Vorlesungen zur Zeitgeschichte[2] (Lectures on
Contemporary History), I was preparing to publish the anthology Grundlagen
zur Zeitgeschichte (Engl. title: Dissecting the Holocaust),[3]
and had acquired the reputation of an expert on the "Holocaust." How quickly
one is promoted to "Expert" in this field! For these reasons, Dr. Sudholt,
during my first visit to his office, asked me to examine Douglas' recently
submitted manuscript. He wanted to know whether Müller's statements about
concentration camps and the "Final Solution" were compatible with my
observations as a Revisionist. He wanted to avoid harming the Revisionist
cause in case it should subsequently develop that Müller's statements disputed
known facts.

After reading the passages which Dr. Sudhold had marked, I
said that in my opinion Heinrich Müller's testimony on Auschwitz coincided
with revisionist findings that there had been neither homicidal gas chambers
nor mass murder there. Müller's testimony is particularly relevant because
Auschwitz was under the jurisdiction of the Gestapo, which maintained a branch
office in the camp. He claimed to know exactly what did and what did not go on
there. Concerning the so-called Aktion Reinhardt camps, however, his
testimony is very vague. These camps lay outside the borders of the Reich and
thus came under jurisdiction of the SS. He was familiar with investigations by
SS judges of irregularities in eastern camps and assumed that massacres had
taken place in the Globocnik camps, specifically Treblinka, Sobibor and
Belzec. From his testimony, however, it was clear that his knowledge of these
camps was based on rumors and third party accounts which he heard after the
war. He probably had been influenced by the pronouncements of the Nuremberg
Tribunal, as were most big shots in the Third Reich.

I told Dr. Sudholt that I had no misgivings about Müller's
testimony because he had no first hand knowledge about the eastern camps,
therefore his testimony could not dispute the findings of revisionist
research. To approach the question from another angle: If the alleged
massacres had really taken place, the chief of the Gestapo would certainly
have been one of the first to gather concrete information.

Peter Stahl under the pseudonym "Freiherr von
Mollendorf" released in 1969 in his own publishing house, the brochures
Fakes & Frauds of the Third Reich (click on picture to
enlarge)

Dr. Sudholt went on to say that the author's American
publishers had declined to publish the book. They were afraid of legal action
by the US Government since the documents which Douglas proposed to publish
came directly from a person involved in the secret services and had not been
declassified by the US Government. For this reason, the book was first
published in Germany in 1995.[4]

In mid 1996, Steffen Werner's highly unfavorable review of
the first volume of Gestapo Müller appeared in Staatsbriefen,[5]
which has since ceased publication. Werner concentrated his attack on the
technical impossibility of the airplane flight from Berlin to Switzerland as
described by Müller, one argument being that Müller could not have flown to
the Swiss border in a Fiseler Storch airplane because of its limited
range. He overlooks the possibility that the Fiseler could have
extended its range with auxiliary fuel tanks, but this is not the place for a
critique of Werner's review.[6]

In 1996, Druffel released Volume II of the Müller
interrogation along with additional commentary.[7] The first
volume soon appeared in English, to be soon followed by two additional volumes
of excerpts from the Müller interrogations, followed by a volume of excerpts
from the diary which Müller allegedly kept in the USA.[8]

Because of their revisionist contents, the German editions of
these books were confiscated and burned in 1996 and 1997, resp., on orders of
the Starnberg District Court.[9]

About the Gregory Douglas

During our first conversation in 1994, Dr. Sudholt informed
me that Gregory Douglas was the pseudonym of an American writer with
connections to American secret services; early in 2001, Mr. Douglas contacted
me by telephone in the US. He said he had gotten my number from the Washington
revisionist Andrew Gray, since deceased, and that Gray had described me as a
rising star and new leader in the Revisionist movement. Mr. Douglas obviously
felt a great need to talk to someone. Since I was entirely alone and a good
listener, he called me more and more frequently, until he was calling every
day and expounding on God, the world, and his action packed life. Some of his
tales were truly wild and far-fetched, concerning his dealings with high
ranking dignitaries and the underground, in which he always emerged as the
hero. Since his lengthy tales helped familiarize me with American colloquial
language, I let him talk as much as he wanted. Thanks to my sheeplike patience
and his need to talk endlessly, Douglas developed so much confidence in me
that he invited me to his home, where he revealed some of his most intimate
secrets.[10]

Let me summarize what I learned about him.

After we had become well acquainted, Douglas confessed to me
that his real name was Peter Stahl, and he showed me his identification
papers. He said he often used the name of his illegitimate son, however. In
1993, this son had begun writing newspaper articles about Gestapo-Müller. This
had inspired him (Stahl) to publish the articles in book form. His son had
signed the contract with the US publisher and had also received the
royalties.

He said that he himself had been born in Germany in 1933.
Because of hard times in Germany his parents emigrated to the US in 1934; but
finding conditions in the US even worse than in Germany, they gave him up for
adoption. Eventually, he was adopted by a German American family. As a young
man he researched his parentage and learned that his mother maiden name was
Müller and that here family roots went back to the German-French region of
Alsace.

Stahl was strongly influenced by his adoptive grandfather, a
staunch German nationalist; and since early childhood, Stahl had a strong
interest in everything that had to do with Germany and the Third Reich. The
defeat of Germany in WWII did not dampen his enthusiasm. In his youth, he
began collecting and dealing in National Socialist memorabilia, with which he
soon developed an intimate familiarity. This trade became lucrative, as there
was a huge market for NS memorabilia from the fifties to the seventies. He
progressed from Hitler paintings to other art and sculpture, becoming an
artist and art dealer along the way.

In 1963, his predilection for all things German and his
admiration for the Third Reich brought him in contact with a German war
veteran who introduced himself as a fighter pilot and later confided that he
had been a member of the Führer's honor squadron
(Führer-Begleitstaffel). After some time, this pilot introduced Stahl
to a friend who later revealed his real identity: Gestapo-Chef Heinrich
Müller. A great surprise developed from the discussion of Stahl's family
background, as it turns out that Heinrich Müller's family originates from the
region of Alsace, had a sister with exactly the same name as Stahl's mother,
who happened to have emigrated to the U.S. in the year given by Stahl. A
comparison of Stahl's family documents with those in the possession of
Heinrich Müller reveals that Stahl is indeed Müller's nephew.

Of course, this story sounds rather unlikely, and any attempt
to do research into the family background of Heinrich Müller and his alleged
sister failed due to German privacy laws which barred me from receiving any
information. If only Stahl would publicly offer some proof of the statements
which he has made to his friends, his credibility would be greatly enhanced;
but he seems unconcerned about credibility.

Two of the extensive brochures produced by Stahl on
various aspects of the Wehrmacht (click on picture to
enlarge)

The Stanford Daily, Thursday, May 1, 1979 (click on
picture to the enlarged full version)

In the intervening twenty years until Müller's death in 1983,
a close friendship developed between Stahl and Müller, and they shared many
activities. Stahl garnered a great deal of information about the Third Reich
from his elderly friend who became the primary source of his knowledge of the
epoch.

This biographical data has been corroborated by Stahl's close
friends. In private, and in confidence, each and every one of them repeated
what Stahl had told me. So if Stahl has been lying, he has done so
consistently and without contradicting himself, for decades.

In 1969, Stahl published his first book, in two volumes,
under the pseudonym of Freiherr von Mollendorf.[11] In it, he
exposes the booming industry of counterfeiting NS memorabilia. It is
understandable that he used a pseudonym, because the book caused many
collections of NS memorabilia to lose their value overnight. It ruined a trade
carried on by dubious dealers worth millions of dollars; and many of the
injured parties hedged a grudge against the author. After publishing a number
of less controversial books and brochures about weapons, military units, and
memorabilia of WWII,[12] Stahl again
targeted counterfeiters and exposed more of their swindles in: The Crooked
Cross, A History of Counterfeit Third Reich Memorabilia. This time, for
safety's sake, he used the pseudonym Mike Hunt.

From his revelations in this book as well as his oral
reports, it is clear that Stahl had detailed knowledge about not only the
memorabilia market but the grey market in counterfeits as well. According to
his own admission, he was himself repeatedly engaged in the production and
delivery of counterfeit memorabilia. He professes to have always explicitly
stated that his creations were reproductions when selling them to dealers,
although he was aware that the dealers were selling them as genuine
memorabilia to collectors. This manufacture of replicas gave him intimate
knowledge of the huge trade in counterfeit memorabilia sold as genuine. He
believes himself less involved with counterfeiting than were the dealers,
however.

From Stahl's reports, dealings, and connections it becomes
quite clear that he also benefited from professional training as a secret
service agent. He admits to having worked at different times for the USA,
Germany, and Russia. The exact functions and occasions are not clear, however.
Although we can find little evidence of Stahl's activities as an agent, we
know from his own accounts (verified by third parties) that he has been active
for decades in the discovery of counterfeits, deceptions, and dealings in
stolen goods on the international market for memorabilia, art, and documents.
Three examples illustrate his activities in this field.

Auguste Rodin

Prof. Albert Elsen of Stanford University ranked as one of
the outstanding experts for the works of the French artist and sculptor
Auguste Rodin. It is well known in the art world that in 1954 the Rodin Museum
in Paris allowed a limited number of copies of Rodin sculptures to be cast.
Early in 1974, B. Gerard Cantor, an investment banker from Los Angeles, made a
gift of 158 of these sculptures for the creation of a Rodin sculpture garden
at Stanford University. In order to establish the tremendous value of these
"genuine" Rodin sculptures, he called upon Prof. Elsen, who appraised them at
three and a half million dollars. We assume that Mr. Cantor, in accordance
with the law and Prof. Elsen's evaluation, claimed the appraised value of the
gift as a deduction on his income tax return.

The affair would have interested no one except Mr. Cantor and
the IRS had it not been for George Schattle, who, towards the end of the
seventies, approached Prof. Elsen about appraising four genuine Rodins.
According to Schattle, they had come from Görings collection having been
seized as booty by the Wehrmacht during the Polish campaign. When Prof. Elsen
heard this, he demanded that Schattle surrender the sculptures to him so that
he could return them to their rightful owners in Poland, which Mr. Schattle
declined to do. Prof. Elsen then initiated a slander campaign against Schattle
and his art works, claiming that Schattle intended to sell counterfeit Rodin
sculptures. Schattle responded to this threat with a civil suit and contacted
Stahl, rushed to his aid and quickly solved the puzzle of possible Rodin
counterfeits. He did this by preparing, under the pseudonym Friedrich Hasek, a
manuscript which was never published. The title was Rodin: The Anatomy of a
Fraud, and its purpose was to provoke Prof. Elsen to an overreaction.
Stahl's tactic worked perfectly (see the attached newspaper article.)
Schattle's civil suit ended when Elsen conceded in face of the devastating
evidence produced by Stahl. Both parties agreed to an out of court settlement
whereby Prof. Elsen paid three million dollars damages and promised never to
resume complaints about Schattle and the authenticity of his sculptures.[13] Peter Stahl
informed numerous art magazines of his discoveries.[14]

The Berlin Document Center

Around the end of the Eighties, German officials discovered
an extensive theft of documents from the Berlin Document Center. Detlev
Mehlis, the attorney in charge of investigation, turned to Stahl for help in
finding the culprits, who were mostly US residents. Thanks to Stahl's
investigative work, it was possible to recover many of the stolen documents
and to arrest a large number of the thieves.[15]

The Hitler Diaries

The third example concerns Konrad Kujau's famous/infamous
"Hitler Diaries." Wolfgang Schultze was a dealer in NS memorabilia who lived
in Florida and had a Saxon accent. Since Stahl was in the same business, they
were acquainted with each other; and Schultze was well aware that Stahl
detailed knowledge on the subject of Hitler and the Third Reich. So one day,
Schultze asked Stahl whether he might be able to furnish him a daily log of
Hitler's activities in any given year. He claimed he needed the data for a
book project and would compensate Stahl with valuable memorabilia. Stahl
agreed, and after three months' work, including research in the literature of
the period as well as his own extensive knowledge, Stahl presented Schultze
with a daily log of Hitler's activities.

With time, Stahl became quite familiar with Schultze. He took
note of Schultze's Saxon accent as well as the fact that he nearly always paid
his debts with memorabilia from military districts in Middle Germany. Since it
was unlawful to export military property from the erstwhile communist German
Democratic Republic, he surmised that Schultze was acting with official
permission and raising funds for the GDR, which Schultze finally admitted in
the course of a conversation.

When Schultze evaded Stahl's further questions about when the
book to which he was contributing would be published, Stahl informed the Stasi
agent that the FBI would be very interested in a convertsation about him.
Thereupon Schultze admitted that Stahl's research had been translated by
another Stasi agent named Konrad Kujau, rewritten and then copied in Hitler's
handwriting into an old but unwritten diary which had then been sold to a
Texas millionaire named Billy F. Price for one million dollars.[16] As it later
turned out, this was a trial run for the subsequent sale of the "Hitler
Diaries" to the German weekly stern magazine. Under these
circumstances, Stahl rejected another offer from Schultze to research
additional years of Hitler's daily activities.

A few years later, when the scandal broke over the phony
Hitler diaries, Stahl remembered the affair with Schultze and then, after
mentioning the FBI again, got all the information he wanted: Schultze and
Kujau had indeed carried out the action under auspices of the Stasi in order
to raise money in West Germany for the communist government of East Germany.
They disclosed that the journalist for stern, Gerd Heidemann, had
collaborated with them since the beginning, receiving a share of the profits
along with a phony Göring uniform and phony Rosenthal china. Stahl released
this background information during an interview with a stern journalist
in Grass Valley, California, after the swindle had been made public. This
interview, which was extremely embarrassing for stern magazine, was
never published, but it served as the basis for convicting and sentencing
Kujau and Heidemann.[17]

Unlike the first two examples mentioned here, I did NOT
investigate Stahl's account of his role in exposing the Hitler diaries. Since
the case received wide coverage and is now familiar to all, and since the
culprits admitted their misdeeds in court as well as in numerous publications,
I simply assumed that Stahl himself did not have dirty hands in the affair. It
could be that he exaggerated the role which he played, in which case he is
guilty of nothing worse than bragging.

David Irving's Attacks on Gregory Douglas /
Peter Stahl

Background

Charles Hamilton, who died recently, was one a leading
experts on the subject of hand writings.[18] In 1997, he
published his last book, which was volume 2 of Leaders and Personalities of
the Third Reich.[19] In the
course of his research for this book, he researched original handwritten or
signed documents of leaders of the Third Reich. He obtained these by borrowing
or buying, and among those who supplied him with documents was British
historian David Irving.

Concerning his dealings with Irving, he reported the
following in a letter to Gregory Douglas:[20]

The Hamilton letter about David Irving (click on picture
to enlarge)

"Dear Gregory:

Like to take this opportunity of thanking you for the Christian Wirth
signature! This is a scarce one indeed!

The second volume should be out in a few months and I am now working on
the third. Since the German Army is one of your specialties, would appreciate
anything you might have in the way of signatures.

Just send these to Roger with a copy to me.

I thought I would keep you up to the mark on my problems with David
Irving.

He has been sending me quantities of Hitler, and other personalities,
papers for sale in my auctions. So far, until this month at least, no problems
but Irving is really terrible to deal with. No manners and very rude.

The last batch contained a number of Hitler documents. I
had to tell Irving that some were mechanically signed and he became very
abusive...as usual.

I had my suspicions about the origins of several of these and
found a circular from the former Soviet Archives about stolen Hitler papers.
Sure enough, one of these Irving pieces turned out to be stolen.

Well, as you know, I am careful about this so I did some
more digging and discovered that all of these Irving pieces had been taken
from various archives over the past few years.

I naturally informed Irving about this and he became extremely abusive,
telling me that he had no idea (hah!!) that they were stolen
(but all seem to have come from archives that he had visited) an then
absolutely demanding their immediate return.

When I told him that these pieces were being returned to their legal
owners, he really let fly at me! He demanded their return, threatened to
actually sue me for stealing his (stolen) documents! he also said that if I
ever mentioned his name in connection with all of this, he would also sue me
for defamation!

Of course he won't get them back and he will be damned lucky if he isn't
permanently 86'ed out of these archives. He has a bad reputation for selling
very, very dubious Nazi relics and now this!

I think I made a mistake when I told him off because I
said that Pete Stahl knew all about his diddlings and cons. I am
sure he now hates Stahl and will now turn on him!

I did blow it but perhaps he will realize that I can no
longer have any dealings with him. (J. Costello told me three years ago that
Irving was stuffing original papers into his briefcase at the NA.)

Thanks again for your courtesy and I promise not to put your
name into this sorry business.

Yours,
Bud"

According to Stahl, the trade in genuine and "questionable"
NS memorabilia and documents has for decades been an important source of
income for David Irving. Since Stahl himself was also active in the
memorabilia trade, he claims to know a great many details about Irving's
dealings. Irving, on the other hand, informed me recently by email that he has
never dealt in NS memorabilia. However, it is a fact that Charles Hamilton
(quoted above) is aware of Irving's bad reputation regarding NS documents and
memorabilia, and that Irving and Stahl have been acquainted at least since the
end of the seventies. The reason for this can only be that Irving has been
involved in the memorabilia trade, which includes documents. His involvement
would not be not surprising, since many historians, researchers, and authors
who specialize in this period use their access to such materials for
commercial gain. This is neither morally reprehensible nor a subject of debate
here.

Irving published his controversial book Hitler's War
in 1977.[21] The thesis
which Irving developed--that Hitler was unaware of a "Final Solution" in the
sense of mass extermination of Jews--brought massive attacks from established
historians. Since Irving apparently could find no documentary evidence for his
thesis, he finally turned to various experts, including Dr. Charles B.
Burdick, Dean of the Sociology Faculty of San Jose State University.[22] Dr. Burdick
was well acquainted with Stahl, as the latter had supplied him with numerous
contemporary documents of the Third Reich. Burdick arranged a meeting between
Stahl and Irving, at which time Irving requested Stahl's assistance in his
search for a document which would prove Hitler's ignorance of a genocidal
solution to the Jewish problem. Stahl describes the results of this meeting in
his own words:[23]

As Stahl was unable to report success in his searches of
several archives, Irving became ever more persistent and aggressive. In order
to be rid of the pesky Irving, Stahl's friend Michael Shea, who had spent
considerable time in Germany and had a rudimentary knowledge of German,
suggested they play a practical joke on Irving. Shea sat down and typed out in
broken German something which Himmler might conceivably have written to Pohl
and pasted Himmler's letterhead and signature on it. Since he had no idea of
Pohl's title or address, he simply left those blank.

Who would take such a document seriously? Irving did...
(click on picture to enlarge)

The reader can marvel at Shea's grotesque creation in the
reproduction to the right. For any one who knows German, it is immediately
obvious that this is a parody. Even Stahl, who has a very limited command of
German, was aware that it was a parody, and was unwilling to use Sheas's lousy
job. But since Irving stubbornly continued demanding results from Stahl, often
calling him at night, Stahl finally read the "document" to him over the
telephone in June of 1980. Irving wrote down what Stahl dictated over the
telephone. Not only was Irving filled with enthusiasm, he constantly urged the
reluctant Stahl to send him the original "document" or at least a high quality
copy. Stahl was amazed that Irving, who speaks fluent German, stubbornly
continued to insist on having the absurd document in spite of its grotesque
German. He played for time, hoping that Irvings fanaticism would finally give
way to reason and he would stop harassing him, but nothing helped. Irving
simply could not be dissuaded, however, and so, around the end of July 1980,
Stahl sent him the "document." Instead of the expected tantrum, Irving
telephoned to express his gratitude and then sent Stahl an autographed
photograph of Rommel.

The affair was still not over, however. After the first
volumes of Gestapo Müller appeared, Stahl was contacted by Thomas L.
Shutt II, a well known document collector of his acquaintance who promised to
send him a copy of an interesting document on concentration camps. When Stahl
received the "interesting document," he immediately recognized it as Sheas's
bizarre invention. In response to Stahl's query, Shutt revealed that he had
received the document as a gift from Irving, who praised it in glowing terms
as a very important document.[24]

At about the same time that Charles Hamilton responded to
threats made by Irving in counter-threatening with information he had from
Peter Stahl (see Hamilton's letter), Irving contacted the German publisher and
attempted to dissuade him from releasing the Gestapo- Müller books, charging
that Peter Stahl was a known counterfeiter.[25] In April of
1996, Irving wrote an unpublished letter to the editor of the London
Observer in which he repeated charges that Stahl was engaged in
counterfeiting. He posted this letter on his website.[26] Irving's
first entry in his diary branding Stahl a counterfeiter appears in 1997, as
published on Irving's website.[27] This was
followed by a similar accusation in his Action Report in 1998.[28]

Combined with similar attacks by Mark Weber of the Institute
for Historical Review (see below), these writings hampered to sales of Gregory
Douglas' new book on the Kennedy assassination,[29] which
initially enjoyed considerable success. The charges of falsification raised
against Douglas/Stahl caused conspiracy theorists, critics, and reviewers to
shy away from the book. In reaction to this smear campaign, Douglas/Stahl
launched their own websites in June 2002.[30] David
Irving reacted to them with a massive counterattack.[31]

An analysis of Irving's Charges

1. "Webbugs"

Irving's most striking attack on Douglas/Stahl was Irving's
oft repeated charge that Douglas' websites contained some kind of programs
such as JavaScript, ActiveX, Viruses, or Cookies which made it possible for
him to observe visitors to the websites and damage their computers. As someone
who is familiar with these technologies, I investigated it and found out that
Irving's claims are untrue. Douglas' websites are rather primitive and show no
evidence of any such programs. After I informed Irving that his allegations
were untrue, he changed his warning somewhat by making them even worse,
expanding his accusation to include other kinds of alleged observation. He
also extended the warning to include another website where Stahl had posted
materials, but which has no such observing techniques either.[32] Thus, it
must be concluded that Irving has deliberately spread malicious rumors in
order to discourage his website visitors from considering the opposing point
of view. In addition, Irving fails to provide links from his website to the
Douglas/Stahl website whereas Douglas/Stahl provide a great many links to
Irving's website, thus making it easy to compare arguments.

2. Pseudonyms

Prof. Frank Thayer,
University of New
Mexico

A charge which is frequently made against Stahl is that he
writes under various pseudonyms; and whoever has read this far is already
acquainted with several of these: Gregory Douglas, Freiherr von Mollendorf,
Mike Hunt, Friederich Hasek. We can also add names from the website where
articles as well as extracts from controversial documents have been published,
which allegedly came from the private files of Robert T. Crowley. Formerly an
assistant director of the CIA, Crowley died in October 2000. Stahl has
repeatedly stated that he possessed these documents and had posted them on his
website. The names appearing there are: Walter Storch,[33] Karl
Kolcheck,[34] George S.
MacAlister.[35] While
Irving does not count the first two names, he does list others which he says
are pseudonyms of Stahl's, but which have proven not to be so:[36] Robert T.
Crowley, Chris Crowles,[37] Frank
Thayer, Richard Mundhenk,[38] Aaron
Johnson,[39] Zack
Mehlis, Norwood Burch, Roger Steele,[40] and who
knows how many others. Irving seems to have included every name which ever
appeared in any connection with Peter Stahl as a pseudonym of his.

The name Roger Steele is particularly interesting
psychologically because this was a pseudonym of Gaylord Wessock, who formerly
supplied Stahl with NS memorabilia and was subsequently convicted of theft and
counterfeiting. It is conceivable that Irving's constantly reiterated charge
of counterfeiting derives from his assumption that Roger Steele is really
Peter Stahl. Stahl is, after all, the German word for Steel! However, Roger
Steele died on November 29, 1978.[41]

Rap Sheet of Gaylord Wessock alias Roger Steele (click
on picture to enlarge)

Death Certificate of Gaylord Wessock alias Roger Steele
(click on picture to enlarge)

Out of concern for security as well as privacy, Stahl has
carefully avoided using his real name since the eighties. Stahl never bothered
about where and under what names his articles appeared, and this led to such
blunders as publication of the same article under different names and first
person references to other pseudonyms, and so his practice of using pseudonyms
is as full of holes as a Swiss cheese.

But it is hard to see how one can blame a writer for using
pseudonyms when he deals with controversial subjects and expresses viewpoints
which are dangerous for him personally. The use of pseudonyms is quite common,
entirely legal, and morally unassailable. I myself have used around thirty
different pseudonyms in the past twenty years. My journal Vierteljahreshefte für freie
Geschichtsforschung fairly teems with authors who are not writing
under their own names; in fact, a Revisionists who uses his real name is the
exception rather than the norm. As readers of the Vierteljahreshefte für
freie Geschichtsforschung well know, there is a good and logical reason
for using pseudonyms, in view of the social and legal persecution to which
Revisionist writers are exposed. Until now, the only objections to my use of
pseudonyms have come from radical opponents of Revisionism. I find it very
distasteful that such attacks should come from the ranks of Revisionists and
be directed against a writer who is, to say the least, not an opponent of
Revisionism.

3. Forgery of the Himmler-Document

As we have noted above, in 1980, Stahl did indeed give Irving
a grotesque and bogus "document" as Irving had been demanding with annoying
persistence over a long period of time. Stahl's version of the story, related
above, is corroborated in its essentials by Irving's diary entries published
on his website.[42] Irving
corroborates also that Stahl dictated the document over the telephone. Irving
actually published his notes concerning what Stahl had dictated to him. The
body of what Irving jotted down is the same as in Stahl's "document" except
that Stahl's version did not contain Pohl's title and address, given in
Irving's diary as follows:

"SS Obergruppenführer und General der Waffen SS Oswald
Pohl,
SS Wirtschafts- und Verwaltungshauptamt
Berlin
Lichterfelde-West
Unter den Eichen 126-135.

Sehr geehrter Herr Obergruppenführer"

Stahl insists that he dictated the letter exactly as Shea had
typed it. The reason for the discrepancy between Stahl's statement and
Irving's diary entry will not be discussed here. It is very significant that
Irving's Internet diary entries make no mention of any attempt to investigate
the authenticity of this "document." Sure enough, his diary entries confirm
the exuberance mentioned by Stahl. Irving telephoned Prof. Joe Hobbs in
Raleigh, North Carolina, just five days later to announce the glad tidings of
the documentary discovery:

"June 21, 1980

(New Orleans)

[...]
7:25 pm Telephoned Professor Joe Hobbs at
Raleigh, North Carolina, and told him about the Peter Stahl document. He was
astonished, and full of admiration and congratulations. He compared it with
Copernicus and said that the difference was that I was living to see myself
vindicated in my lifetime. He added that a few days ago he had seen a picture
book on aerial warfare with several pages on the Dresden raids and drew the
conclusion that even if I had written only the Dresden book I would have
justified my writing activities for my lifetime. [...]"

According to Irving's diary, Stahl sent him the "document" in
mid July 1980. One can safely assume that Irving, at the very latest when he
received this hoax through the mail, must have realized that somebody was
pulling the wool over his eyes. In view of Irving's temperament, this surely
would have led to additional diary entries. However, Irving mentions nothing
at all about either receipt of the "document" or his reaction to it. For
seventeen years, he avoids mentioning the incident anywhere, until February 2,
1997, during a telephone conversation with Andrew Gray, when he mentions that
Stahl falsified his "Himmler Document." Has Irving withdrawn diary entries
which supported Stahl's statement that he was enthusiastic about receipt of
the "document" and sent him a photo of Rommel in return?[43]

All in all this affair casts a bad light on Irving as well as
on Stahl, who may not have been the creator of this parody, but he did
knowingly pass it on. This was such a miserable and grotesque hoax that no one
can seriously think that Shea or Stahl would have believed for an instant that
they could deceive a real historian who spoke perfect German. It was nothing
more than poking fun at David Irving; but alas, Irving threw himself upon the
sword. Obviously he was so obsessed with finding any document at all to
support his thesis that he was taken in by this absurd dictated "document" for
over a month, stubbornly persisting in the attempt to gain possession of it.
Since Irving speaks perfect German, there is no excuse for his behavior.
Furthermore he himself distributed the "document," or copies thereof. It is
clear that he sent it to at least one person: Thomas Shutt, who does not know
German and was taken in by the hoax. This absurdity - I can't make myself say
"counterfeit" because it is such an insult to all real counterfeits of the
world - was silently accepted by Irving for more than seventeen years. In the
final analysis, he in a sense provoked creation of this "document" and helped
with its distribution, with his pushy quest for evidence supporting his
thesis. As far as distribution of this nonsense is concerned, he is sitting in
the same boat with Shea and Stahl

The scientist molds his theses to fit the evidence, but in
this case, Irving attempted to force the evidence to conform to his thesis. At
last he has been convinced that it won't work, but now he is using the
incident to reflect unfavorably on others. This whole incident should be in a
cabaret theatre, not on Revisionist websites.

4. Other Accusations

Irving goes on to charge that documents used by Gregory
Douglas in his Gestapo-Müller book are falsified, also that police reports
exist stating that Peter Stahl is really named something else and that he has
been convicted of counterfeiting. I shall examine these charges in the next
section because Irving is basing his arguments on Weber, whose presentations
are more extensive and objective.

Directly and indirectly, Irving charges at various places
that Stahl was on the wrong side of the law in the matter of the Rodin
counterfeits; that Stahl stole documents from the Berlin Document Center, and
that Stahl forged the Hitler Diaries. But Irving is simply taking facts which
Stahl admits and turning them on their heads. He provides no proof whatsoever
for these accusations, just as he provides no proof for the lesser charges
which he makes and distributes over his entire website. He is engaging in
plain old character assassination.

Evaluation

David Irving has earned the reputation of suing everyone who
dares to say anything uncomplimentary about him. As a consequence, the matters
which we mention here in passing have never come to the surface. Since I have
no desire to expose myself to David Irving's malicious attacks and ruinous
lawsuits, I will abstain from evaluating his person as well as the nature of
his charges against Gregory Douglas/Peter Stahl. The facts will have to speak
for themselves.

Mark Webers Attacks on Gregory Douglas / Peter
Stahl

Introduction

In his critique of Weber's review,
Gregory Douglas presents his version of his dealings with Mark Weber, who in
his review does the same for his dealings with Douglas.

To this I would like to add the events which occurred in the
Spring of 2001. In our long telephone conversations, Stahl and I agreed that
the long, drawn-out legal battle between Willis Carto, the founder of the
"Legion for the Survival of Freedom" (LSF, cover organization of the Institute
for Historical Review, IHR) on the on hand and the LSF/IHR on the other hand,
was doing real damage to the Revisionist movement, and that we would do
everything in our power to put an end to it. I therefore attempted to bring
about an out of court resolution by acting as intermediary and engaging both
sides in a discussion. Douglas alias Stahl acted on behalf of Carto, with the
San Francisco lawyer Andrew Allen representing the LSF. Since, in the view of
the IHR, Carto had already torpedoed two out-of-court settlements, the LSF/IHR
harbored a great deal of skepticism about Carto's willingness to negotiate. At
any rate, the LSF over-reacted to Carto's proposal that Douglas should be
accepted as his confidential representative on the LSF board of directors. In
a press release published by the LSF during arbitration negotiations and in
connection with Carto's proposal, they referred to Gregory Douglas as "a
known criminal and document forger."[44] No attempt
at arbitration could be more effectively sabotaged, no declaration of war on
Douglas/Stahl could be more clearly expressed. In continuation of this war,
Mark Weber published his review of the Gestapo-Müller books[45]--six years
after their initial publication! In doing so, he used this periodical as a
vehicle to vent his personal animosities.

An Analysis of Weber's Charges

1. Pseudonyms

Weber is basically repeating Irving's charges, except with a
different assortment of names. With the exception of the name Gregory Douglas,
Weber does not provide evidence for his assertion. The statements made in the
section on Irving are valid here as well.

In several telephone conversations, Weber explained that the
objectionable aspects of Stahl's use of pseudonyms was not that he was
protecting his privacy, but that he also used them for public appearances and
to launch personal attacks on others, and those targeted were unable to defend
themselves against phony names.

I am unable to follow this alleged reprehensibility of using
pseudonyms at public appearances. Ultimately, pseudonyms still serve to
protect one's private sphere. However, the use of pseudonyms is obviously
pointless when the same person appears in public under numerous names and can
thus be easily identified. Such a practice may well be called dumb, but not
reprehensible.

The charge that Stahl initiated personal attacks under cover
of pseudonyms is valid, as shown by his sometimes tasteless, below-the-belt
attacks on Irving.[46] However,
they occurred only after Irving's attacks on Stahl had been published.

2. Criminal Records

Both Irving and Weber claim to have documents proving that
Stahl's real name is something different, and that he has a sizeable criminal
record. In spite of my repeated requests, both Irving and Weber declined to
furnish me with copies of these documents. It appears that these documents are
not records of convictions, but rather arrest records: that is, complaints
which led to his arrest. Stahl admitted to me that an arrest record might well
exist but said that he has never been charged with, or at least convicted for,
a felony. The charges on which he was arrested could not be substantiated.[47] Since the
release of such records without the consent of the subject is unlawful, Weber
and Irving would never be able to offer them as evidence. But they claim
nevertheless that the documents prove Stahl is a counterfeiter. This could be
proven true only if Stahl had been convicted of a felony, and it appears that
this is not the case.

In other words, Weber's and Irving's charges represent
unproven, apparently unprovable accusations. Stahl could charge them with
defamation if he were so minded. All three are chronically broke, however.
Stahl is unable to sue either Weber or Irving because he could never rake up
enough money for a trial. The same goes for Gregory Douglas, Stahl's son, who
is vilified in the same breath as his father. However, he has already won
several civil suits with corresponding monetary damages.

3. Gestapo Müller

Page 37 of Document No. XE 235539WJ, US Intelligence
Command, Ft. George Meade, Maryland 20755-5995 (click on picture to
enlarge)

Letter from Brigadier Gen. John Weckerling,
11.Sep.1950,
regarding Heinrich Müller, from the Crowley-Papers
(click on picture to enlarge)

Weber's argument that Gregory/Stahl are guilty of falsifying
documents centers on the Stahl's writings about Gestapo-Müller. He alleges the
Stahl concocted the story of Hitler's evacuation to Spain by way of Austria at
the end of WWII. Since Douglas deals intensively with the subject in his
response to Weber, I will spare myself the effort of repeating his
explanations. Let me reiterate as a supplement that Dr. Sudhold informed me in
1994 that Douglas' English publisher, Roger Bender, had initially declined to
publish the Gestapo Müller manuscript because he was afraid of possible legal
consequences in releasing secret US documents. This is confirmed by later
statements of Bender and Stahl. When Bender published the first article by
Douglas in his periodical, he avoided publishing the original document for
this reason. He expressed the wish that it did not contained an archive
marking of "Secret" whereupon the document was "manipulated" or altered to
remove the stamp. Later he acknowledged this as a mistake which he corrected
along with an explanation in a subsequent edition of his magazine. With this,
Weber's accusations of counterfeiting collapse.

Weber said by telephone that, as far as he was concerned, he
still considers in proven that Stahl had falsified the document. After the
first fake, when Douglas had noticed his mistake, he persuaded Bender to print
a second falsified and improved version with a phony explanation. Again, Weber
offers no proof of his accusation, however. After receiving Stahl's written
response to Weber's review, I invited Weber to write a retort, but he declined
to do so.

Weber's thesis is that Müller was never in the US. He
believes that the documents which Douglas quoted and reproduced in this regard
are counterfeit. In numerous telephone conversations and extensive email
correspondence I referred Weber to the following facts:

In 1997, the US Government declassified a great many documents of the
Secret Services. The documents concerning Müller can be ordered from the US
Intelligence Command, Ft. George Meade, Maryland 20755-5995, file no. XE
235539WJ. These records provide no specific information about whether Müller
was transferred to the USA in 1948 and employed by the CIA. However, one
particular document dated February 15, 1961, (see illustration) shows that
US officials ordered a halt to all efforts to locate him! This occurred when
the Federal German Central Office of the District Court in Ludwigsburg asked
specifically for his place of residence. When one considers the zeal with
which the USA usually prosecuted actual or alleged NS war criminals in those
days, this is quite significant. In his Gestapo Müller books, Douglas
reproduced some of these records, which had been released before 1997. He
also gave the reference and address where they could be ordered.[48]

In April of 1997, an article with the following content appeared in the
periodical Periscope, which is published by the Association of Former
Intelligence Officers:

You can obtain a copy of this article from the magazine, whose telephone
number is 1-703-790-0320

Page 4 of the April 1997 issue of Periscope,
the organ of the association of returned members of the Secret
Service. The article of interest to us is framed and in the left
column. (click on picture to
enlarge)

In his book The Secret History of the CIA, which appeared in
2001, the distinguished historian Joseph Trento affirms that the CIA
employed Müller after the War.[49] Since
Trento is himself a member of the above mentioned organization, we assume
that his book was written with official approval. Trento indicates that he
compiled his information from the papers of the former head of CIA assistant
deputy director Robert T. Cowley. Trento claims to have copies of all
Crowley's papers.
Stahl claims to have copies of several of Crowley's
documents, including a memorandum from Brigadier General John Weckerling
dated September 11, 1950, concerning "Former German Lt. General Heinrich
MUELLER," which he published on page 237, Band 4 of his Gestapo-Müller
Series (see illustration.).
This document corroborates the US Army
document of February 15, 1961. If junior officials were still allowed to
seek Müller's whereabouts in 1950, their attempts came to a halt with
instructions to drop all investigations in 1961. Apparently German officials
were getting too close.

Weber's reaction to these various independent attestations
that Müller had really been employed by the US Secret Services and flown to
the USA is indicative. Entrenched behind the position that what should not be
true can not be true, he refuses to discuss the matter. In Weber's eyes, it is
unthinkable that the media and first of all the Jewish lobby in the United
States would stay silent if there would only be a substantiated suspicion that
Müller was present in the USA after the war. However, Weber ignores that
Müller did not immigrate into the USA secretly, as did, for example, John
Demjanjuk or other alleged NS "war criminals", but that he was hired by the
U.S. government itself. To admit this would mean that the U.S. government was
either so unscrupulous as to make common cause with one of the worst "Nazis"
and biggest mass murderers of all times, or that they believed Müller's
statements and considered the "findings" of the International Military
Tribunal at Nuremberg to be propaganda. Hence, to turn the case of Gestapo
Müller into a scandal would not have made it just another "Nazi hunt", but
would be both a recognition of the correctness of revisionist findings as well
as a massive attack on the U.S. government itself, or in other words: an
attack of the Jews against themselves. It cannot therefore come to anybody's
surprise that the entire U.S. establishment would prefer to sweep the entire
affair under the carpet.

4. Hitler's alleged Flight to Spain

Douglas' remarks on the genesis of the two drafts of the
document concerning Hitler's alleged flight to Spain require critical
analysis.[50] In the
course of a conversation, Mark Weber informed me that he had spoken with
Douglas' publisher, Roger J. Bender. He said Bender disputed Douglas, saying
that he himself had not altered or manipulated the first published version,
but had received it from Douglas. In a letter written on 24 June 2002, twelve
years after the incident, Mr. Bender wrote me the following:

"It has been over ten years ago that I did those publications
so the memory may be a little vague. I do remember being a little concerned
using a document marked 'secret' and expressed this to the author. He then
came up with the clean version without markings."

After further telephone conversations in which I confronted
Bender and Douglas with each other's statements and directed their attention
to several contradictions, I was able to establish the following:

The version published as the second "original" version is the one
Douglas first gave to Bender, a short time before the first article was
printed. At first, Bender hesitated to print this version for fear that it
would be illegal to do so, as he informed the author. He asked someone to
change the document so that he would no longer need fear legal consequences.

Douglas then handed Bender a second copy after readers began to protest
the printing of the altered version. Thus Douglas always had access to the
original version. In the correction, made in coordination with Bender after
two editions, Douglas explained the process as follows:[51]

"This document, as published, was not an exact copy of the original
but had been retouched prior to printing to obliterate a number of tell-tale
post-war US intelligence stamps and frankings. In blanking out these marks,
the text was partially destroyed and had to be reconstructed by an
individual unfamiliar with German grammar. This caused a number of minor
errors to appear."

Let us assume that Douglas himself tried to remove the stamps and
markings and an accident occurred which damaged the text. This might have
led him to rewrite the entire text, then paste on a letterhead and
signature. This would make sense only if Douglas had foolishly altered his
original without making safety copies, or if he no longer had access to that
original. If he still had access to the original, he would simply have
discarded the ruined copy, made a new photocopy, and tried again to remove
the stamps and markings. Since he subsequently supplied Bender with an
unaltered copy of the original, both scenarios can be ruled out. Douglas did
not destroy his original, and he always had access to it. We can therefore
logically rule out the possibility that Douglas himself carried out these
alterations.

Bender points out that he certainly could not have changed the document
because he did not have a German typewriter; the same is true of Douglas as
well. Bender pointed out that in those days, the final typesetting and
pasting-up were done by the printer. He no longer remembered which printer
had done that job, however. The technology used by Bender's printers in
those days consisted of making the proper sized negatives of all
illustrations and documents and then mounting them on the pasting-up table.
Everything the author or publisher today does by computer, was then done by
the printer during the final layout. Thus it is quite likely that the
printer made the very mistake described above. During his attempt to
whiteout the undesired stamps, the printer's only available copy of the
document was damaged. He did have access to the technology to create a new
and unflawed print, however. If he was under dateline pressure and Douglas
did not deliver a new copy on time - the exact scenario which Douglas
described to me - then it is entirely plausible that he would resort to the
emergency solution of retyping.

Since Douglas' German is good (though not perfect), it is unlikely that
he would make such grammar mistakes. It is quite likely that a printer who
did not know German would make them, however.

Bender stated that after twelve years, he really did not know where the
altered version had come from. He says he did not consider it the original,
but rather an accurate rendition, even though the caption below the
illustration unfortunately says "Original." His statement that he had
received it from Douglas was not based on exact recollection but on an
assumption, since he, as publisher, always received documents and photos
from the authors.

This proves once again that, after many years have passed,
eyewitness testimony should be treated with skepticism.

If we assumes that Roger Bender did not conspire with Stahl
to cover a counterfeiting crime, then it can be said with certainty that in
the beginning there was an original of this document. The copy was then
created on orders of Roger Bender, regardless of who actually produced it.

Let us now move from the history of the documents to their
content, which Weber has so ridiculed. Our Internet research on the subject of
Hitler's fate at war's end quickly tells us that the official version of
suicide, cremation, discovery, and successful forensic identification by the
Russians is quite dubious. At any rate, alternative theories about Hitler's
fate are widespread and socially acceptable. They are more widespread and
acceptable than the revisionist ideas that homicidal gas chambers did not
exist, or that the Germans had no policy of genocide against the Jews, to
which Weber certainly subscribes. Everybody can carry out his own Internet
research, so I will concentrate on just one aspect of it, the autopsy of
Hitler's alleged remains which was performed by the Soviets. In 1994, four
French physicians undertook a critical analysis of the Soviet autopsy report
and concluded that the remains examined could not possibly have been those of
Hitler. The French team concluded that the Soviet physicians were obviously
under intense pressure from above to officially declare that the much desired
trophy of Hitler's body had really been captured.[52]

Historically it does not matter whether Hitler escaped to
Spain and died after a few reclusive years, or whether he died in the ruins of
Berlin. Such a thesis is less radical and revolutionary than the idea that
there was no mass extermination of Jews during the Third Reich.[53] And yet,
Weber and Irving both ridicule Douglas' thesis just as opponents of
revisionism ridicule revisionist ideas and ignore every argument that
conflicts with their own view. I'll bet any amount that Weber would never
allow a discussion of arguments for and against Hitler's escape to Spain in
"his" magazine. It may well be true that Mark Weber is correct in his belief
that Hitler did not escape. I too incline to that opinion. But a scientist,
and above all a Revisionist, must know that truth can only be determined when
all existing theses are open to criticism and new theses are tested on the
public podium. Weber's self-appointed role as censor is incompatible with the
role of a Revisionist historian and publisher.

5. Stahl's Contact with Gestapo Müller and Crowley

Weber considers it extremely unlikely that Gestapo Müller, if
he had really lived incognito in the USA, would have developed contact with
such an insignificant person as Stahl and developed such an intimate
relationship. Weber also finds it unbelievable that a Top Man of the CIA such
as Crowley would share intimate secrets with Stahl and furnish him with
sensitive documents. Similarities in language, style, choice of subject
matter, point of view and cynicism between Stahl's writings and Müller's
alleged statements in his interrogation and diary is another sign to Weber
that Stahl invented it all.

Weber would have a good point if Stahl had really been a
nobody to Müller and Crowley, but this was not the case, if one follows
Stahl's statements. Stahl's activities show that he and Müller were cut from
the same mould. And together with Col. Critchfield, who is still alive, Müller
worked for Crowley under the CIA. If Weber had not antagonized Stahl, he might
have made contacts with Stahl's close friends, who from their personal
knowledge affirmed to me the long years of friendship between Müller and
Stahl, as well as Stahl's extensive contacts with Crowley. Without my
requesting it, and possibly because I did not insist on evidence at the
beginning (to tell the truth, I was not very interested at the beginning)
these contacts and conversations became accessible to me.

I agree with Mark Weber and other historians that it is a
great pity that it was Peter Stahl who came into possession of so much
information and so many important documents. Because of his incompetence and
unwillingness to proceed in scientific manner, and to cultivate a scientific
ethos regarding truth, accuracy and provability, the works published by Stahl
will always have a questionable reputation.

Evaluation

In my opinion it is no coincidence that Mark Weber and David
Irving in tandem and using the same dirty weapons, are leading the campaign
against Douglas / Stahl.

In several telephone conversations, Weber explained to me
that the proven fact that Douglas had disseminated untruths on several
occasions caused him to disbelieve everything that Douglas says or writes.
However, his comprehensive rejections according to the motto "falsus in
uno, falsus in omnibus" (wrong about one thing, wrong about everything) is
scientifically invalid. As a revisionist, Weber knows that an eyewitness to
the "Holocaust" spreads not only lies, he also makes honest mistakes, and a
grain of truth can be found in his testimony. True revisionism does not
totally reject a contribution as false because of one inaccuracy. The
revisionist task is to seek the grain of truth and distinguish between it and
the mistakes, distortions, exaggerations, and deliberate lies; and this holds
true for the works of Gregory Douglas alias Peter Stahl.

My Own Critique of Gregory Douglas / Peter
Stahl

Stahl's eternal game of hiding behind infinite pseudonyms is
getting ridiculous. If he can bring himself to publish all his writings under
the name of Gregory Douglas and stay on the trail he has blazed for himself,
it will be a very welcome development. It is simply ridiculous for him to try
to hide behind the narrow back of his son when he cannot resist constantly
identifying himself.

His unchecked need to communicate is disadvantageous insofar
as any secret shared with him will remain secret for about two hours. On the
other hand, this is also an advantage insofar as one easily gets to the bottom
of all his little intrigues. If one listens patiently to him, one soon learns
that he does not adhere strictly to the facts with his endless tales. It is
only a matter of time until he entangles himself in his own contradictions.
After a few such incidents, I became quite critical of what he said and began
insisting on documentary evidence for his statements, at least insofar as they
were historically relevant or necessary for credibility's sake. Especially
concerning his historical information on Gestapo Müller, I considered it
important to obtain the relevant documents from the source which he cited
rather than from him personally.

Stahl did not have the privilege of academic training, and he
has never published anything in a scientific style. The publishers of his
Gestapo books likewise had no experience in publishing scientific historical
works, with the result that the books are unprofessional. For example, no
sources are listed for Stahl's myriad assertions, and the summary
bibliographies are of little value. If these works are to become
scientifically credible they must be completely reworked.

Stahl's typical method of operation: He somehow got Page
Nine of a document on Hitler's whereabouts from the US National
Archives, but then lost his references. Now the skeptical researcher can
go and busily search uncounted millions of documents... (click on
picture to enlarge)

Irving has criticized Stahl for promising to provide
documents and then failing to do so, and I am partially in agreement with him.
However, the reason is not, as Irving assumes, that Stahl does not have the
documents. The reason is that his apartment is a complete mess and his garage,
where he keeps his books and documents, is best described as a rubbish heap.
He simply, literally dumps all his documents and books onto a single huge
pile. I have visited Stahl's home several times over the last 18 months and
repeatedly urged him to straighten out the mess, so he can find his documents.
At long last, I can report some progress. As I have encouraged him to write
down his immense historical and biographical information and to document them,
he is finally beginning to organize the mess and has begun finding
documents.

After struggling for months to persuade Stahl to use a
typewriter or computer, it is obvious to me that any accusation of his having
personally counterfeited anything is absurd. He might well know people who can
do such things, thanks to long established contacts from his days as a dealer
in documents and memorabilia. But he himself is so awkward in the use of paper
and writing materials of any kind that it drives me up a tree every time I try
to get even the simplest written text from him.

Furthermore, Irving is mistaken when he claims that Stahl has
a compulsion to be acknowledged as an author and historian; Irving is
describing himself when he asserts that. Unfortunately, Stahl's desire to be
taken seriously is sadly underdeveloped. He always approaches his subject with
the relaxed conviction of an eyewitness who knows that what he writes is true.
He could not care less whether anyone believes that Heinrich Müller was his
closest friend over a period of twenty years, or that he and his young friend
Aaron Johnson have salvaged Odilio Globocnik's treasure trove of gold in the
Weißensee in Austria.[54] He is not
interested in whether anyone believes that Müller and Globocnik were in the US
after the war. He was there, and he sold the gold and lived like a king for a
few years from the proceeds. And that's that. For Stahl, it is a total waste
of time to swap insults with arrogant ignoramuses like Weber or Irving who do
not even take the time to consult documents in the archives which he
referenced in his books.

Stahl casually reveals much to those whom he instinctively
trusts. This includes documents and material evidence, plus eyewitness
accounts of his trusted friends, who affirm everything he says. However, he
certainly does not share with those who insult him and call him a liar,
counterfeiter, swindler, etc.

Stahl has a terrible reputation for dealing ruthlessly with
those who make his life difficult. He has ways of ruining their economic and
social lives by means which are legal and yet very effective. As a trained
secret agent with many influential connections he has both the abilities and
opportunities to do this. He seems to derive real pleasure from carrying on
private feuds.

Postscript

The above article was written in early 2002. Several
important events happened afterwards, which are worthwhile reporting to shed
some light on the person and personality of Peter Stahl.

"Documents"

In early 2002, Stahl and I agreed upon publishing a book on
9/11, as he had received several information about detailed pre-knowledge of
the administration of 9/11. He claimed to have received a memorandum that the
US President had been informed in advance by German and French diplomatic
sources about the exact date, time, locations and targets of the attacks.
However, the memorandum he received had neither letter head nor signature or
anything. It was just a piece of paper and as such rather worthless. Of
course, as a future publisher I was not happy with proving an outrageous claim
(they knew and let it happen) with a meaningless piece of paper, so I asked
him to try to get something more from the same source from where he received
this document . At one day, while writing his manuscript, he asked me if I can
make a translation from English to French. I said I could, but that my French
is rather bad, thus it would be better to ask one of my friends. When asked
what he needed it for, he responded that he was thinking about making a
document which looks like a real one and which would support his claims. I
told him that under no circumstances I would want to be a part of this, and I
massively attacked him how he could even think along this line when at the
same time he tries to defend himself against accusation from David Irving and
Mark Weber that he forges documents? He replied that if I was unwilling to do
it for him, he will find somebody else. "Then find somebody else" I responded.
At the same time, I downgraded the 9/11 book project, as I figured that this
isn't going anywhere.

Several days later Stahl mailed me a version of what he
called a part of his manuscript for his 9/11 book. He urged me to read it,
which I did. Including many facts that Stahl had found in media reports and
enriched by his own thoughts and the claims of his alleged German memorandum,
it read like a report written by some German intelligence agency on their
findings of 9/11, without, however, spelling out who wrote it. Stahl called me
back, and after I asked him what this was meant to be, he told me that he
wanted me to translate that into German and make it look like a document from
the German intelligence agency BND, with letterhead, reference number,
names,  signature and rubber stamp. I told him

there is no way he can get me to forge a document

if he insists in me or anybody else doing this I will
immediately drop the project, as I will not go along with a book that
includes a forgery

nobody in his or my range could possibly forge such a
document in a way that it would not be immediately exposed as a forgery

he must be aware if he does this that he will destroy his
own reputation once and for all. He will be dead meat regarding any future
publication

He apparently changed his mind, as he later re-defined what
he wanted: He wants to use just the text of this report as a sample of
information of what the upcoming book will contain. His plan was not to turn
it into a document, but to leave it in the form of an essay. He wished to have
a anonymous mailing made to various news and political sources in Washington,
which includes the announcement of the book and a copy of this essay
summarizing the upcoming book's statements. Hence, it was to be a promotion
move to get attention for the book.

Under these circumstance -- no letter head, no names, no
signature, no stamps, nothing that would make it a document, no inclusion in
the upcoming book, no claim that this is a document, use only as an anonymous
promotional mailing -- I agreed to translate it.

Already during the process of translation (late May/early
June 2002), he circulated a copy of his English essay to some individuals at
The Barnes Review/American Free Press. It thus ended up at some
organization of the Republican Party, which contacted Stahl only a few days
later, asking about the 9/11 book (so his claims...). Hence, Stahl associated
with this essay already before it was even supposed to be released.

In June 2002, during the Barnes Review Conference, Peter
Stahl presented his "findings" about 9/11 during his speech to the audience.
During this speech, he pulled out my translation, claimed that it was an
original German document, which he claimed he had received from his friend,
the German public prosecutor Detlev Mehlis, and Stahl gave copies of this
document to interested people.

I subsequently canceled the 9/11 book project as well as all
other pending book projects I had with Peter Stahl, informed several people
that this was not a document and that they should stop distributing it. I also
made sure that The Barnes Review deleted Stahl's speech from their
website.

"Deals"

Since summer 2001, I was working with Peter Stahl on a book
project about the JFK assassination, which was published in early 2002 with
the title Regicide. The Official
Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Stahl claimed to have received
documents from the late Robert Crowley, once deputy Assistant Deputy Director
of Clandestine Operations for the CIA, who -- according to these documents --
was one of the organizers of this assassination. Crowley also was one of the
officers in the CIA who -- according to Stahl -- worked together with his
uncle Heinrich Müller in the late 1940s and early 1950s, which was Stahl's
door-opener to Crowley. Stahl gave me addresses and phone numbers of Crowley's
relatives, so I could verify that Stahl did indeed have a long history of
conversations with Mr. Crowley and that documents from Crowley's files were
indeed sent to Mr. Stahl. I also managed to verify that the basic story as
revealed by the the Crowley documents are in accordance with what one of the
foremost experts on the JFK-assassination has found out: Nigel Turner. I met
Turner in early summer 2002 in Huntsville, who told me that after having a
lengthy conversation with Stahl, he has come to the conclusion that Stahl
himself has a rather poor knowledge about the JFK-assassination and the era.
Stahl does not know more than what he took from the documents he claims to
have received from Crowley and a few popular books he refers to in
Regicide. Considering the facts that the documents published in
Regicide contain a lot of very detailed information about the official
responsibility and rank of many persons -- all being accurate -- Turner
considered it extremely unlikely that Mr. Stahl, with his poor knowledge of
the era and the events, could have manufactured them. According to Mr.
Turner's view, these documents are either genuine or were fabricated by
somebody who had in-depth knowledge of both the facts of the JFK-assassination
as well as about all the people referred to in the documents. Thus, only
Crowley or a similarly situated person could have fabricated those documents.
The question would be, however, why Crowley or somebody of his standing would
fabricate the documents which incriminate himself, the top personnel of CIA,
FBI, Joint Chief of Staff, NSA, and Lyndon B. Johnson and Gerald T. Ford, thus
kind of compromising the entire "system". Turner's conclusion was therefore
that the documents are most likely genuine, that is: the JFK riddle is solved.
He regrets, however, that these documents ended up and were published by such
a shady person as P. Stahl, which puts the entire book and the documents
contained in it in a twilight zone. But then again, he said, who would you
expect a shady person like Crowley -- the CIA's liaison to the Chicago mob --
to give the documents, if not to a person of his own liking.

Shortly before Regicide was released by a publishing
corporation that I and Mr. Stahl had established just for that purpose (Monte
Sano Media, Imprint of Historians Ending Borders), the book wholesale company
Ingram, which controls some 95% of America's book wholesale market, announced
that it will no longer deal with self-published authors and small publishers
offering less than 10 books. As a consequence of this, Monte Sano Media had to
contract with a distributor for the book that was a vendor to Ingram. Being a
new company in business, only one of the 20-some-odd distributors accepted by
Ingram contracted with Monte Sano Media, but this distributor announced its
insolvency only a few months later, refusing to pay more than 5% of the retail
price of the book to the publisher. Hence, a new distributor had to be found,
which Peter Stahl managed to organize himself, but because of this forth and
back, it took 7 months to get the book into the Ingram database, which is
equivalent with: to get the book into the market. Also, the promotion company
hired to market Regicide had no success in getting any media attention
for the book (they were not the most professional to begin with). An attempt
to have email mass mailing made for the books failed, as the company hired for
this ran into technical problems (spam blocking) and could (or would) not
deliver the emails. Since the storage costs for the book became a problem,
Stahl agreed to have the books stored in his garages. Facing all these
problems, sales were of course be extremely unsatisfactory. This story needs
to be told to make understandable what follows.

When Stahl receive a phone bill in summer 2002 over $5,000,
he demanded that I cover his phone bill. I told him that if he sent me a copy
of an itemized bill showing which calls were made for company purposes, I
would cover those costs. Apparently Stahl was unable to produce such an
itemized bill, and I in turn refused to pay such a horrendous amount. It later
turned out that the phone company had made a billing mistake and reduced the
amount to about 10% ($500). However, at that time Stahl thought that he
deserved to be reimbursed for his phone bill accumulated by his attempt to
find a new distributor. To regain his money, he suggested a book deal with a
friend of his who had agreed to buy a large amount of books worth some $10,000
wholesale price. We agreed upon sharing this amount 50/50. Eventually an order
with two checks of both some $5,000 came in for these books from a "Basilik
Press". Peter Stahl then demanded that I transfer his share right away. As
this deal was tricky, I insisted on making sure that the checks clear first
before doing so, but because I was about to move to Chicago the next day and
would no longer have access to my bank  for an electronic transfer (they
have no branch in Chicago), Stahl insisted that I mail him a check right away,
but he agreed upon not depositing it unless the "Basilik Press" checks had
cleared.

Stahl deposited my check the same day he received it in the
mail, so my account was debited with some $5,000 .

Both "Basilik Press" checks bounced over a week later, as
it turned out that the account which they were drawn upon could not be
found, thus I had a huge overdraft in my account..

Stahl refused to pay back the $5,000 dollars. Even after
the phone company corrected the faulty billing, relieving Stahl of a debt of
$4,500, he still refused to pay back the $5,000.

It turned out that there is neither a "Basilik Press" nor
an address as given on the checks or on the invoices.

Stahl changed his story. Now it was no longer a book deal
he made with good friends, but a deal arranged through some intermediate,
and he had no knowledge of who placed the order.

Stahl refused to name this intermediate.

Stahl tried to take over the corporation Historians Ending
Borders, but because of irregularities in establishing the corporation (he
had used a false name when incorporating it), a compromise is reached to
dissolve the corporation and hand over the books and assets to me.

While trying to inform the distributor handling
Regicide about the upcoming change of proprietorship of the
Regicide book, it turned out that Stahl had used a false name and a
different corporation to deal with this distributor. Upset by this news, the
distributor got in touch with Mr. Stahl

Stahl, upset that I had (unintentionally) revealed his use
of false names, badmouthed me by telling the distributor that I am a
criminal on the run, a neo-Nazi and a Holocaust denier, upon which the
distributor refused to deal with me.

When I asked Stahl to hand over the books as agreed upon,
it turned out that he had removed them from his garage to make them
inaccessible to me. He had to shipped them back, charging me with the costs.

It turned out that thousands of books are missing. As Stahl
admitted then, he had started selling the Regicide books stored in
his garage in his own name in summer 2002, keeping the money, but not
keeping any record of orders, sales, or payments, also refusing to account
for the money he earned with it.

In order to justify these sales, Stahl forged an email
allegedly written by me in which I allegedly state that I hand over the
property of the Regicide books to him. Since the header information
of this email is ridiculously fraudulent and incompatible with any emails I
send from my accounts, he had to concede that this was a failed attempt of
justification.

In February 2003, we reached a settlement. Several thousand
books he sold to The Barnes Review were shipped back to me. Stahl
covered the costs. All payments made by me to him -- including the
fraudulent $5,000 deal -- are considered advance royalty for all future
Regicide book sales. I received the copyright for Regicide,
turned over to me by a notarized statement signed both by P. Stahl and by
his illegitimate son Gregory Douglas Alford in my presence. (Stahl used his
son's first and middle names as pen name for the Regicide.) Since
Stahl still has the distributor contract for Regicide -- the company
Book Clearing House still refuses to deal with me -- we agreed that Stahl
would turn over any income from sales to this distributor minus a reasonable
fee.

Fall 2003: After over half a year of asking Stahl to
produce a statement about sales made to, and payments received from, the
distributor, he still had not produced a single piece of paper nor made any
payment to me. Excuses ranged from "got lost in the mail" to "did not
receive any payments" or "my friend takes care of book keeping."

Conclusion

If I learned something during these episodes, it is that
Stahl is absolutely inapt to a) technically make any proper document
forgeries, b) keep his mouth shut about them, c) spreading consistent stories
about his lies.

What ever he may publish in future, be aware that you cannot
trust the content of his writings for a second unless somebody has verified
it. I exhausted myself in verifying the Regicide sources and to make it
a high quality book, but after all what followed I can only warn everybody to
get anywhere close to him when it comes to either business or scholarly
writing and publishing. It isn't worth it.
Right now he prepares the
publication of a book on the Auschwitz death figures and the death toll of the
Einsatzgruppen. As he rejected any guidance and quality control by me,
it will be a poorly laid-out, poorly researched self-published book using
Stahl's own imprint " Morris Productions," his newest company name.

I report, you decide.

Notes

[1]

Edited by Rüdiger Kammerer and Armin Solms, Cromwell Press, London
1993; 2nd edition by Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings 2001 (www.vho.org/D/rga2). Engl.: The
Rudolf Report, Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings 2003 (www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr).

[2]

Under the pen name Ernst Gauss, Grabert, Tübingen 1993 (www.vho.org/D/vuez).

[3]

Under the pen name Ernst Gauss, Grabert, Tübingen 1995 (www.vho.org/D/gzz); Engl.: Theses
& Dissertations Press, Capshaw, AL, 2001 (www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth).

[4]

Online: www.vho.org/D/ggm1/index.html

[5]

"Die Gestapo-Müller-Fälschung" (The Gestapo-Müller forgery),
Staatsbriefe 7(5-6) (1996), pp. 68-71; online: http://www.vho.org/D/Staatsbriefe/Werner7_5-6.html

[6]

Gregory Douglas might to that himself eventually, cf. his website http://www.gregorydouglas.com/.

[7]

Online: www.vho.org/D/ggm2/index.html.

[8]

Gestapo Chief. The 1948 Interrogation of Heinrich Müller,
Bender Publishing, San Jose, CA, vol. 1-3 (1995, 1997, 1998); Müller
Journals. The Washington Years, vol. 1: 1948-1950, same location,
1999.

[9]

County Court Starnberg, ref. 11 Js 24942/96; County Court Starnberg,
ref. 11 Js 4458/97.

[10]

One of it is the fact that his apartment is very untidy. His
"library" and his "archive" is a garage, in which he has dumped(!) all
of his books, documents, letters. A huge pile of chaotic paper!

[11]

Fakes & Frauds Of The Third Reich, published by author,
1969. These two brochures circulated only under memorabilia dealers.

[12]

Basic Nazi Swords and Daggers (1969), The Afrikakorps
(1972), Kreta: the German invasion of Crete, 20.5.41-2.6.41
(1972), Kriegsmarine; uniforms, insignia, daggers & medals of the
German Navy, 1935-1945 (1972), A History of the Fallschirmjäger
troops, Uniforms and Insignia of the German Luftwaffe, und
Panzer. German Armor 1935-1945 (year unknown). Only those with a
year have an entry in the Library of Congress. They all are booklets and
brochures published by the author without ISBN numbers.

[13]

Cf. Stahl's article »Auguste Rodin: Anatomy of a Fraud«, www.peterstahl.com/douglas/Rodin.html;
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, 22.12.1978, ref.
405954.

[14]

According to Stahl, one of these letters were published as a letter
to the editor in the magazine The Connoisseur. My local library,
however, had only an incomplete collection of this periodical, so that I
am unable to confirm this. However, this event is confirmed by articles
published in local newspapers of Palo Alto and San Francisco (Palo
Alto Times, SF Chronicle), cf. the online article in note 13.
Besides, Rodin seems to have been a sought-after target for forgeries,
cf. Lillian Browse, »False castings of Rodin bronzes«, The
Burlington Magazine, 129 (12) (Dec. 1987), pp. 807f.; Sylvia
Hochfield, »Cast in doubt«, Art News, 88(2) (Feb. 1989),
pp. 108-115; P. Rowlands, »Foundering foundry«, Art News,
94(1) (Jan. 1995), p. 42.

[15]

Cf. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Jan. 10, 1988;
Süddeutsche Zeitung, Feb. 17, 1988; Berliner Morgenpost,
March 21, 1989; Die Welt, Feb. 28, 1988; New York Post,
March 5, 1989; Frankfurt Allgemeine Zeitung March 16, 1989.
English translations of these articles can be found online at: www.peterstahl.com/douglas/FourthReich.html.
Stahl's decisive role in locating both stolen art and thieves is
confirmed by Senior State Attorney Detlev Mehlis: StA beim
Kammergericht, Elssholzstr. 30-33, D-10781 Berlin-Schönefeld; phone:
030-21 78 27 01.

[16]

Author of the book Adolf Hitler als Maler und Zeichner,
Gallant, Zug/Switzerland, 1983. According to Stahl, this book, too,
includes several forgeries.

[17]

For this, see also Robert Harris, Selling Hitler, Pantheon
Books, New York 1986; Engl.: Adolf Hitler, the unknown artist,
publ. by author, Houston, Texas, 1984.

[18]

Some of his works: Collecting Autographs & Manuscripts,
Univ. of Oklahoma Pr., 1961; Big Name Hunting, Simon &
Schuster, 1973; The signature of America: a fresh look at famous
handwriting, Harper & Row, 1979; Great Forgers and Famous
Fakes, Crown Pub., 1980; Auction Madness, Dodd Mead,
1981; In Search of Shakespeare: A Reconnaissance into the Poet's
Life & Handwriting, Harcourt Brace, 1985; The Book of
Autographs, Simon & Schuster, 1987; The Hitler Diaries: Fakes
That Fooled the World, Univ. Press of Kentucky, 1991.

[19]

Bender Publishing, San Jose, California. This is the same publisher
as the one of the Gestapo Müller books.

[20]

Es the publisher of Hamilton, Roger Bender, told me, he received a
letter from Charles Hamilton with a similar content.

[21]

Hodder & Stoughton, London 1977.

[22]

Regarding his works on modern history compare, e.g.: Donald
S. Detwiler, Charles B. Burdick, Jürgen Rohwer (ed.) World War II
German military studies: a collection of 213 special reports on the
Second World War prepared by former officers of the Wehrmacht for the
United States Army, Garland Pub., New York 1979; Germany's
military strategy and Spain in World War II, Syracuse University
Press, Syracuse, NY, 1968.

[23]

Cf. http://www.peterstahl.com/

[24]

Cf. www.peterstahl.com/douglas/IrvingCP.html

[25]

June 22, 1995, cf. his diary online: www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/Peter_Stahl/diary_extracts.html

[26]

www.fpp.co.uk/docs/ReadersLetters/Observer230496.html

[27]

Feb. 15, 1997, www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/Peter_Stahl/diary_extracts.html

[28]

www.fpp.co.uk/ActionReport/AR14/RadDi3.html

[29]

G. Douglas, Regicide. The Official Assassination of John F.
Kennedy, Monte Sano Media, Huntsville, Alabama, 2002 http://www.montesanomedia.com/b/1-59148-297-6/wp.html.

[30]

http://www.gregorydouglas.com;%20www.peterstahl.com/

[31]

www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/Peter_Stahl/index.html

[32]

http://www.crow96.20m.com/

[33]

contact email of the website http://www.crow96.20m.com/

[34]

This name is given as the author of an article about, which is
almost identical with the one posted at http://www.gregorydouglas.com/,
but in this case, the author is G. Douglas.

[35]

This name was used for an article about the Rodin forgeries; it is
almost identical with the one posted at http://www.gregorydouglas.com/,
but in this case also, the author is G. Douglas.; cf. www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/Peter_Stahl/alias_McAlister.html

[36]

Crowley: cf. his obituary in Washington Post, Oct. 10, 2000,
p. B6; www.montesanomedia.com/b/1-59148-297-6/wp.html;
C. Crowles, A. Johnson, Z. Mehlis: I know these gentlemen myself; F.
Thayer: Prof. at the University of New Mexico, cf. www.nmsu.edu/~journali/faculty/thayer/index.html;
Norwood Burch: unknown; Richard Mundhenk: this is Richard Mundshenk, who
has been identified by Irving himself as a business partner of Roger
Benders, cf. www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/Peter_Stahl/data280299.html

[37]

www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/Peter_Stahl/JFK_Author.html

[38]

www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/Peter_Stahl/data280299.html

[39]

www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/hate/Peter110602.html

[40]

www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/RadDi/2002/100602.html

[41]

Cf. for this the criminal register and the death reproduced in this
article.

[42]

www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/Peter_Stahl/diary_extracts.html

[43]

Irving had promised Stahl this Rommel portrait on July 14, 1980, cf.
his diary entry, and Peter Stahl possesses it still today!

[44]

"Carto Proposes Document Forger for IHR Board of Directors",
homepage.mac.com/lsf/news/010530douglas.html

[45]

Mark Weber, "Not Quite the
Hitler Diaries", Journal for Historical Review 20(2)
(March/April 2001), p. 40. The date of this issue is deceptive. This
issue actually appeared in fall of 2001, because for many years already,
the individual JHR issues are appearing with long delays.

[46]

Cf. his article under the pen name Karl Kolcheck, note 34.

[47]

In a publication in preparation, Peter Stahl will himself tell us
about Robin-Hood-like, quite humoristic backgrounds of his arrests,
which, however, did not lead to an indictment or a conviction, but
finally to his release from custody. Because I do not want to jump
ahead, I will leave it with this remark.

[48]

Cf. his reference in vol. 1, 2nd edition 1999, p. 282;
see also more documents in vols. 3 & 4.

[49]

Random House, New York 2001, S. 29 and notes.

[50]

Published in The Military Advisor, 1(2), (spring 1990) p. 19
(manipulated version), and 2(1) (Winter 1990/91), p. 14.

[51]

G. Douglas, "Blood & Gold", The Military Advisor,
2(1) (Winter 1990/91), p. 13.

[52]

E. Laurier, V. Hedouin, D. Gosset, P.H. Muller, »Etude critique
médico-légale du rapport d'autopsie d'Hitler« (critical forensic
analysis of the autopsy report on Hitler), Journal de Medecine Legale
Droit, 37 (1) 1994, pp. 65ff.; to be ordered from CNRS, Fourniture
de documents, BP 310, F-54515 Vandœuvre Cedex.

[53]

At least not as long as one assumes, Hitler had continued the Third
Reich with his last loyal henchmen on Moon, Mars, in Antarctica or
inside of the Earth. But Douglas' point of view about Hitler's flight to
Spain has absolutely nothing in common with such fantastic-speculative,
if not paranoid theses.

[54]

Peter Stahl and Aaron Johnson, a relaxed young man, have both shown
me their photo album of this treasure hunt and told me about
independently from each other.