Germar Rudolf: Gestapo M=FCller: Searching for the = Truth

[This article is a slightly adapted translation of = a German=20 article that appeared in the German historical journal Vierteljahreshefte = f=FCr freie=20 Geschichtsforschung, issue 6(3) (2002), = pp.=20 269-283. It was preceeded by an article by = historian=20 Mark Weber, and a retort by = Gregory=20 Douglas.]

The reader has probably noticed that both Mark Weber's = review and Gregory=20 Douglas' response to the review are filled with ad hominem = attacks.=20 It is not unusual to dispense with footnotes in reviewing books, as = Weber=20 does, but it is unusual to attack an author's person instead of his = thesis and=20 to accuse him of falsification. It is extremely important to prove = such=20 charges before printing them in a scientific journal such as the = Journal of=20 Historical Review because, if they can not be proven, the author = leaves=20 himself open to charges of criminal libel. The fact that Weber has not = yet=20 been sued, in which case he would have to prove his charges or face=20 prosecution himself, is due primarily to the fortuitous circumstance = that both=20 he and Douglas are nearly destitute. Douglas lacks the resources to = press=20 charges and Weber would be unable to pay damages.

As the readers of the German periodical "Vierteljahreshefte f=FCr freie=20 Geschichtsforschung" (Quarterly for Free Historical = Research)=20 are well aware, the results of such courtroom conflicts are not = necessarily=20 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=20 other contemporary subjects in recent years and will presumably = continue to do=20 so in the future, so it is appropriate for us to carefully evaluate = the=20 credibility of the man and his work.

The British historian David Irving has levied = criticisms on=20 his website which are even more serious than Weber's. Since these are=20 distributed haphazardly over numerous publications, we can not = reproduce them=20 here in their entirety. The interested reader will have to avail = himself of=20 the Internet in order to access the unorganized sources. Because of = the=20 severity of Irvings charges, we will objectively analyze some of = them.

In 1994, Dr. Sudholt of the Druffel Publishing = House received=20 a manuscript from the American writer G. Douglas, which purportedly = was the=20 protocol of an interrogation of former Gestapo chief Heinrich = M=FCller, prepared=20 by the Americans in Switzerland in 1948, and now commented by G. = Douglas.=20 According to this protocol, M=FCller had fled from Berlin to = Switzerland at=20 war's end. When the Cold War got underway, he offered the USA his = assistance=20 against the Communists, which they gladly accepted.

In 1994, having made my debut as a Revisionist = writer with my=20 Expert Report[1] and = the book=20 Vorlesungen zur Zeitgeschichte[2] = (Lectures on=20 Contemporary History), I was preparing to publish the anthology = Grundlagen=20 zur Zeitgeschichte (Engl. title: Dissecting the = Holocaust),[3]=20 and had acquired the reputation of an expert on the "Holocaust." How = quickly=20 one is promoted to "Expert" in this field! For these reasons, Dr. = Sudholt,=20 during my first visit to his office, asked me to examine Douglas' = recently=20 submitted manuscript. He wanted to know whether M=FCller's statements = about=20 concentration camps and the "Final Solution" were compatible with my=20 observations as a Revisionist. He wanted to avoid harming the = Revisionist=20 cause in case it should subsequently develop that M=FCller's = statements disputed=20 known facts.

After reading the passages which Dr. Sudhold had = marked, I=20 said that in my opinion Heinrich M=FCller's testimony on Auschwitz = coincided=20 with revisionist findings that there had been neither homicidal gas = chambers=20 nor mass murder there. M=FCller's testimony is particularly relevant = because=20 Auschwitz was under the jurisdiction of the Gestapo, which maintained = a branch=20 office in the camp. He claimed to know exactly what did and what did = not go on=20 there. Concerning the so-called Aktion Reinhardt camps, = however, his=20 testimony is very vague. These camps lay outside the borders of the = Reich and=20 thus came under jurisdiction of the SS. He was familiar with = investigations by=20 SS judges of irregularities in eastern camps and assumed that = massacres had=20 taken place in the Globocnik camps, specifically Treblinka, Sobibor = and=20 Belzec. From his testimony, however, it was clear that his knowledge = of these=20 camps was based on rumors and third party accounts which he heard = after the=20 war. He probably had been influenced by the pronouncements of the = Nuremberg=20 Tribunal, as were most big shots in the Third Reich.

I told Dr. Sudholt that I had no misgivings about = M=FCller's=20 testimony because he had no first hand knowledge about the eastern = camps,=20 therefore his testimony could not dispute the findings of revisionist=20 research. To approach the question from another angle: If the alleged=20 massacres had really taken place, the chief of the Gestapo would = certainly=20 have been one of the first to gather concrete information.

Dr. Sudholt went on to say that the author's = American=20 publishers had declined to publish the book. They were afraid of legal = action=20 by the US Government since the documents which Douglas proposed to = publish=20 came directly from a person involved in the secret services and had = not been=20 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=20 the first volume of Gestapo M=FCller appeared in = Staatsbriefen,[5]=20 which has since ceased publication. Werner concentrated his attack on = the=20 technical impossibility of the airplane flight from Berlin to = Switzerland as=20 described by M=FCller, one argument being that M=FCller could not have = flown to=20 the Swiss border in a Fiseler Storch airplane because of its = limited=20 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=20 critique of Werner's review.[6]

In 1996, Druffel released Volume II of the M=FCller = interrogation along with additional commentary.[7] The = first=20 volume soon appeared in English, to be soon followed by two additional = volumes=20 of excerpts from the M=FCller interrogations, followed by a volume of = excerpts=20 from the diary which M=FCller allegedly kept in the USA.[8]

Because of their revisionist contents, the German = editions of=20 these books were confiscated and burned in 1996 and 1997, resp., on = orders of=20 the Starnberg District Court.[9]

During our first conversation in 1994, Dr. Sudholt = informed=20 me that Gregory Douglas was the pseudonym of an American writer with=20 connections to American secret services; early in 2001, Mr. Douglas = contacted=20 me by telephone in the US. He said he had gotten my number from the = Washington=20 revisionist Andrew Gray, since deceased, and that Gray had described = me as a=20 rising star and new leader in the Revisionist movement. Mr. Douglas = obviously=20 felt a great need to talk to someone. Since I was entirely alone and a = good=20 listener, he called me more and more frequently, until he was calling = every=20 day and expounding on God, the world, and his action packed life. Some = of his=20 tales were truly wild and far-fetched, concerning his dealings with = high=20 ranking dignitaries and the underground, in which he always emerged as = the=20 hero. Since his lengthy tales helped familiarize me with American = colloquial=20 language, I let him talk as much as he wanted. Thanks to my sheeplike = patience=20 and his need to talk endlessly, Douglas developed so much confidence = in me=20 that he invited me to his home, where he revealed some of his most = intimate=20 secrets.[10]

After we had become well acquainted, Douglas = confessed to me=20 that his real name was Peter Stahl, and he showed me his = identification=20 papers. He said he often used the name of his illegitimate son, = however. In=20 1993, this son had begun writing newspaper articles about = Gestapo-M=FCller. This=20 had inspired him (Stahl) to publish the articles in book form. His son = had=20 signed the contract with the US publisher and had also received the=20 royalties.

He said that he himself had been born in Germany in = 1933.=20 Because of hard times in Germany his parents emigrated to the US in = 1934; but=20 finding conditions in the US even worse than in Germany, they gave him = up for=20 adoption. Eventually, he was adopted by a German American family. As a = young=20 man he researched his parentage and learned that his mother maiden = name was=20 M=FCller and that here family roots went back to the German-French = region of=20 Alsace.

Stahl was strongly influenced by his adoptive = grandfather, a=20 staunch German nationalist; and since early childhood, Stahl had a = strong=20 interest in everything that had to do with Germany and the Third = Reich. The=20 defeat of Germany in WWII did not dampen his enthusiasm. In his youth, = he=20 began collecting and dealing in National Socialist memorabilia, with = which he=20 soon developed an intimate familiarity. This trade became lucrative, = as there=20 was a huge market for NS memorabilia from the fifties to the = seventies. He=20 progressed from Hitler paintings to other art and sculpture, becoming = an=20 artist and art dealer along the way.

In 1963, his predilection for all things German and = his=20 admiration for the Third Reich brought him in contact with a German = war=20 veteran who introduced himself as a fighter pilot and later confided = that he=20 had been a member of the F=FChrer's honor squadron=20 (F=FChrer-Begleitstaffel). After some time, this pilot = introduced Stahl=20 to a friend who later revealed his real identity: Gestapo-Chef = Heinrich=20 M=FCller. A great surprise developed from the discussion of Stahl's = family=20 background, as it turns out that Heinrich M=FCller's family originates = from the=20 region of Alsace, had a sister with exactly the same name as Stahl's = mother,=20 who happened to have emigrated to the U.S. in the year given by Stahl. = A=20 comparison of Stahl's family documents with those in the possession of = Heinrich M=FCller reveals that Stahl is indeed M=FCller's nephew.

Of course, this story sounds rather unlikely, and = any attempt=20 to do research into the family background of Heinrich M=FCller and his = alleged=20 sister failed due to German privacy laws which barred me from = receiving any=20 information. If only Stahl would publicly offer some proof of the = statements=20 which he has made to his friends, his credibility would be greatly = enhanced;=20 but he seems unconcerned about credibility.

In the intervening twenty years until M=FCller's = death in 1983,=20 a close friendship developed between Stahl and M=FCller, and they = shared many=20 activities. Stahl garnered a great deal of information about the Third = Reich=20 from his elderly friend who became the primary source of his knowledge = of the=20 epoch.

This biographical data has been corroborated by = Stahl's close=20 friends. In private, and in confidence, each and every one of them = repeated=20 what Stahl had told me. So if Stahl has been lying, he has done so=20 consistently and without contradicting himself, for decades.

In 1969, Stahl published his first book, in two = volumes,=20 under the pseudonym of Freiherr von Mollendorf.[11] = In it, he=20 exposes the booming industry of counterfeiting NS memorabilia. It is=20 understandable that he used a pseudonym, because the book caused many=20 collections of NS memorabilia to lose their value overnight. It ruined = a trade=20 carried on by dubious dealers worth millions of dollars; and many of = the=20 injured parties hedged a grudge against the author. After publishing a = number=20 of less controversial books and brochures about weapons, military = units, and=20 memorabilia of WWII,[12] = Stahl again=20 targeted counterfeiters and exposed more of their swindles in: The = Crooked=20 Cross, A History of Counterfeit Third Reich Memorabilia. This = time, for=20 safety's sake, he used the pseudonym Mike Hunt.

From his revelations in this book as well as his = oral=20 reports, it is clear that Stahl had detailed knowledge about not only = the=20 memorabilia market but the grey market in counterfeits as well. = According to=20 his own admission, he was himself repeatedly engaged in the production = and=20 delivery of counterfeit memorabilia. He professes to have always = explicitly=20 stated that his creations were reproductions when selling them to = dealers,=20 although he was aware that the dealers were selling them as genuine=20 memorabilia to collectors. This manufacture of replicas gave him = intimate=20 knowledge of the huge trade in counterfeit memorabilia sold as = genuine. He=20 believes himself less involved with counterfeiting than were the = dealers,=20 however.

From Stahl's reports, dealings, and connections it = becomes=20 quite clear that he also benefited from professional training as a = secret=20 service agent. He admits to having worked at different times for the = USA,=20 Germany, and Russia. The exact functions and occasions are not clear, = however.=20 Although we can find little evidence of Stahl's activities as an = agent, we=20 know from his own accounts (verified by third parties) that he has = been active=20 for decades in the discovery of counterfeits, deceptions, and dealings = in=20 stolen goods on the international market for memorabilia, art, and = documents.=20 Three examples illustrate his activities in this field.

Prof. Albert Elsen of Stanford University ranked as = one of=20 the outstanding experts for the works of the French artist and = sculptor=20 Auguste Rodin. It is well known in the art world that in 1954 the = Rodin Museum=20 in Paris allowed a limited number of copies of Rodin sculptures to be = cast.=20 Early in 1974, B. Gerard Cantor, an investment banker from Los = Angeles, made a=20 gift of 158 of these sculptures for the creation of a Rodin sculpture = garden=20 at Stanford University. In order to establish the tremendous value of = these=20 "genuine" Rodin sculptures, he called upon Prof. Elsen, who appraised = them at=20 three and a half million dollars. We assume that Mr. Cantor, in = accordance=20 with the law and Prof. Elsen's evaluation, claimed the appraised value = of the=20 gift as a deduction on his income tax return.

The affair would have interested no one except Mr. = Cantor and=20 the IRS had it not been for George Schattle, who, towards the end of = the=20 seventies, approached Prof. Elsen about appraising four genuine = Rodins.=20 According to Schattle, they had come from G=F6rings collection having = been=20 seized as booty by the Wehrmacht during the Polish campaign. When = Prof. Elsen=20 heard this, he demanded that Schattle surrender the sculptures to him = so that=20 he could return them to their rightful owners in Poland, which Mr. = Schattle=20 declined to do. Prof. Elsen then initiated a slander campaign against = Schattle=20 and his art works, claiming that Schattle intended to sell counterfeit = Rodin=20 sculptures. Schattle responded to this threat with a civil suit and = contacted=20 Stahl, rushed to his aid and quickly solved the puzzle of possible = Rodin=20 counterfeits. He did this by preparing, under the pseudonym Friedrich = Hasek, a=20 manuscript which was never published. The title was Rodin: The = Anatomy of a=20 Fraud, and its purpose was to provoke Prof. Elsen to an = overreaction.=20 Stahl's tactic worked perfectly (see the attached newspaper article.)=20 Schattle's civil suit ended when Elsen conceded in face of the = devastating=20 evidence produced by Stahl. Both parties agreed to an out of court = settlement=20 whereby Prof. Elsen paid three million dollars damages and promised = never to=20 resume complaints about Schattle and the authenticity of his = sculptures.[13] = Peter Stahl=20 informed numerous art magazines of his discoveries.[14]

Around the end of the Eighties, German officials = discovered=20 an extensive theft of documents from the Berlin Document Center. = Detlev=20 Mehlis, the attorney in charge of investigation, turned to Stahl for = help in=20 finding the culprits, who were mostly US residents. Thanks to Stahl's=20 investigative work, it was possible to recover many of the stolen = documents=20 and to arrest a large number of the thieves.[15]

The third example concerns Konrad Kujau's = famous/infamous=20 "Hitler Diaries." Wolfgang Schultze was a dealer in NS memorabilia who = lived=20 in Florida and had a Saxon accent. Since Stahl was in the same = business, they=20 were acquainted with each other; and Schultze was well aware that = Stahl=20 detailed knowledge on the subject of Hitler and the Third Reich. So = one day,=20 Schultze asked Stahl whether he might be able to furnish him a daily = log of=20 Hitler's activities in any given year. He claimed he needed the data = for a=20 book project and would compensate Stahl with valuable memorabilia. = Stahl=20 agreed, and after three months' work, including research in the = literature of=20 the period as well as his own extensive knowledge, Stahl presented = Schultze=20 with a daily log of Hitler's activities.

With time, Stahl became quite familiar with = Schultze. He took=20 note of Schultze's Saxon accent as well as the fact that he nearly = always paid=20 his debts with memorabilia from military districts in Middle Germany. = Since it=20 was unlawful to export military property from the erstwhile communist = German=20 Democratic Republic, he surmised that Schultze was acting with = official=20 permission and raising funds for the GDR, which Schultze finally = admitted in=20 the course of a conversation.

When Schultze evaded Stahl's further questions = about when the=20 book to which he was contributing would be published, Stahl informed = the Stasi=20 agent that the FBI would be very interested in a convertsation about = him.=20 Thereupon Schultze admitted that Stahl's research had been translated = by=20 another Stasi agent named Konrad Kujau, rewritten and then copied in = Hitler's=20 handwriting into an old but unwritten diary which had then been sold = to a=20 Texas millionaire named Billy F. Price for one million dollars.[16] = As it later=20 turned out, this was a trial run for the subsequent sale of the = "Hitler=20 Diaries" to the German weekly stern magazine. Under these=20 circumstances, Stahl rejected another offer from Schultze to research=20 additional years of Hitler's daily activities.

A few years later, when the scandal broke over the = phony=20 Hitler diaries, Stahl remembered the affair with Schultze and then, = after=20 mentioning the FBI again, got all the information he wanted: Schultze = and=20 Kujau had indeed carried out the action under auspices of the Stasi in = order=20 to raise money in West Germany for the communist government of East = Germany.=20 They disclosed that the journalist for stern, Gerd Heidemann, = had=20 collaborated with them since the beginning, receiving a share of the = profits=20 along with a phony G=F6ring uniform and phony Rosenthal china. Stahl = released=20 this background information during an interview with a stern = journalist=20 in Grass Valley, California, after the swindle had been made public. = This=20 interview, which was extremely embarrassing for stern magazine, = was=20 never published, but it served as the basis for convicting and = sentencing=20 Kujau and Heidemann.[17]

Unlike the first two examples mentioned here, I did = NOT=20 investigate Stahl's account of his role in exposing the Hitler = diaries. Since=20 the case received wide coverage and is now familiar to all, and since = the=20 culprits admitted their misdeeds in court as well as in numerous = publications,=20 I simply assumed that Stahl himself did not have dirty hands in the = affair. It=20 could be that he exaggerated the role which he played, in which case = he is=20 guilty of nothing worse than bragging.

Charles Hamilton, who died recently, was one a = leading=20 experts on the subject of hand writings.[18] = In 1997, he=20 published his last book, which was volume 2 of Leaders and = Personalities of=20 the Third Reich.[19] = In the=20 course of his research for this book, he researched original = handwritten or=20 signed documents of leaders of the Third Reich. He obtained these by = borrowing=20 or buying, and among those who supplied him with documents was British = historian David Irving.

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

According to Stahl, the trade in genuine and = "questionable"=20 NS memorabilia and documents has for decades been an important source = of=20 income for David Irving. Since Stahl himself was also active in the=20 memorabilia trade, he claims to know a great many details about = Irving's=20 dealings. Irving, on the other hand, informed me recently by email = that he has=20 never dealt in NS memorabilia. However, it is a fact that Charles = Hamilton=20 (quoted above) is aware of Irving's bad reputation regarding NS = documents and=20 memorabilia, and that Irving and Stahl have been acquainted at least = since the=20 end of the seventies. The reason for this can only be that Irving has = been=20 involved in the memorabilia trade, which includes documents. His = involvement=20 would not be not surprising, since many historians, researchers, and = authors=20 who specialize in this period use their access to such materials for=20 commercial gain. This is neither morally reprehensible nor a subject = of debate=20 here.

Irving published his controversial book Hitler's = War=20 in 1977.[21] = The thesis=20 which Irving developed--that Hitler was unaware of a "Final Solution" = in the=20 sense of mass extermination of Jews--brought massive attacks from = established=20 historians. Since Irving apparently could find no documentary evidence = for his=20 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=20 was well acquainted with Stahl, as the latter had supplied him with = numerous=20 contemporary documents of the Third Reich. Burdick arranged a meeting = between=20 Stahl and Irving, at which time Irving requested Stahl's assistance in = his=20 search for a document which would prove Hitler's ignorance of a = genocidal=20 solution to the Jewish problem. Stahl describes the results of this = meeting in=20 his own words:[23]

As Stahl was unable to report success in his = searches of=20 several archives, Irving became ever more persistent and aggressive. = In order=20 to be rid of the pesky Irving, Stahl's friend Michael Shea, who had = spent=20 considerable time in Germany and had a rudimentary knowledge of = German,=20 suggested they play a practical joke on Irving. Shea sat down and = typed out in=20 broken German something which Himmler might conceivably have written = to Pohl=20 and pasted Himmler's letterhead and signature on it. Since he had no = idea of=20 Pohl's title or address, he simply left those blank.

The reader can marvel at Shea's grotesque creation = in the=20 reproduction to the right. For any one who knows German, it is = immediately=20 obvious that this is a parody. Even Stahl, who has a very limited = command of=20 German, was aware that it was a parody, and was unwilling to use = Sheas's lousy=20 job. But since Irving stubbornly continued demanding results from = Stahl, often=20 calling him at night, Stahl finally read the "document" to him over = the=20 telephone in June of 1980. Irving wrote down what Stahl dictated over = the=20 telephone. Not only was Irving filled with enthusiasm, he constantly = urged the=20 reluctant Stahl to send him the original "document" or at least a high = quality=20 copy. Stahl was amazed that Irving, who speaks fluent German, = stubbornly=20 continued to insist on having the absurd document in spite of its = grotesque=20 German. He played for time, hoping that Irvings fanaticism would = finally give=20 way to reason and he would stop harassing him, but nothing helped. = Irving=20 simply could not be dissuaded, however, and so, around the end of July = 1980,=20 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=20 volumes of Gestapo M=FCller appeared, Stahl was contacted by = Thomas L.=20 Shutt II, a well known document collector of his acquaintance who = promised to=20 send him a copy of an interesting document on concentration camps. = When Stahl=20 received the "interesting document," he immediately recognized it as = Sheas's=20 bizarre invention. In response to Stahl's query, Shutt revealed that = he had=20 received the document as a gift from Irving, who praised it in glowing = terms=20 as a very important document.[24]

At about the same time that Charles Hamilton = responded to=20 threats made by Irving in counter-threatening with information he had = from=20 Peter Stahl (see Hamilton's letter), Irving contacted the German = publisher and=20 attempted to dissuade him from releasing the Gestapo- M=FCller books, = charging=20 that Peter Stahl was a known counterfeiter.[25] = In April of=20 1996, Irving wrote an unpublished letter to the editor of the London=20 Observer in which he repeated charges that Stahl was engaged in = counterfeiting. He posted this letter on his website.[26] = Irving's=20 first entry in his diary branding Stahl a counterfeiter appears in = 1997, as=20 published on Irving's website.[27] = This was=20 followed by a similar accusation in his Action Report in = 1998.[28]

Combined with similar attacks by Mark Weber of the = Institute=20 for Historical Review (see below), these writings hampered to sales of = Gregory=20 Douglas' new book on the Kennedy assassination,[29] = which=20 initially enjoyed considerable success. The charges of falsification = raised=20 against Douglas/Stahl caused conspiracy theorists, critics, and = reviewers to=20 shy away from the book. In reaction to this smear campaign, = Douglas/Stahl=20 launched their own websites in June 2002.[30] = David=20 Irving reacted to them with a massive counterattack.[31]

Irving's most striking attack on Douglas/Stahl was = Irving's=20 oft repeated charge that Douglas' websites contained some kind of = programs=20 such as JavaScript, ActiveX, Viruses, or Cookies which made it = possible for=20 him to observe visitors to the websites and damage their computers. As = someone=20 who is familiar with these technologies, I investigated it and found = out that=20 Irving's claims are untrue. Douglas' websites are rather primitive and = show no=20 evidence of any such programs. After I informed Irving that his = allegations=20 were untrue, he changed his warning somewhat by making them even = worse,=20 expanding his accusation to include other kinds of alleged = observation. He=20 also extended the warning to include another website where Stahl had = posted=20 materials, but which has no such observing techniques either.[32] = Thus, it=20 must be concluded that Irving has deliberately spread malicious rumors = in=20 order to discourage his website visitors from considering the opposing = point=20 of view. In addition, Irving fails to provide links from his website = to the=20 Douglas/Stahl website whereas Douglas/Stahl provide a great many links = to=20 Irving's website, thus making it easy to compare arguments.

A charge which is frequently made against Stahl is = that he=20 writes under various pseudonyms; and whoever has read this far is = already=20 acquainted with several of these: Gregory Douglas, Freiherr von = Mollendorf,=20 Mike Hunt, Friederich Hasek. We can also add names from the website = where=20 articles as well as extracts from controversial documents have been = published,=20 which allegedly came from the private files of Robert T. Crowley. = Formerly an=20 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=20 website. The names appearing there are: Walter Storch,[33] = Karl=20 Kolcheck,[34] = George S.=20 MacAlister.[35] = While=20 Irving does not count the first two names, he does list others which = he says=20 are pseudonyms of Stahl's, but which have proven not to be so:[36] = Robert T.=20 Crowley, Chris Crowles,[37] = Frank=20 Thayer, Richard Mundhenk,[38] = Aaron=20 Johnson,[39] = Zack=20 Mehlis, Norwood Burch, Roger Steele,[40] = and who=20 knows how many others. Irving seems to have included every name which = ever=20 appeared in any connection with Peter Stahl as a pseudonym of his.

The name Roger Steele is particularly interesting=20 psychologically because this was a pseudonym of Gaylord Wessock, who = formerly=20 supplied Stahl with NS memorabilia and was subsequently convicted of = theft and=20 counterfeiting. It is conceivable that Irving's constantly reiterated = charge=20 of counterfeiting derives from his assumption that Roger Steele is = really=20 Peter Stahl. Stahl is, after all, the German word for Steel! However, = Roger=20 Steele died on November 29, 1978.[41]

Out of concern for security as well as privacy, = Stahl has=20 carefully avoided using his real name since the eighties. Stahl never = bothered=20 about where and under what names his articles appeared, and this led = to such=20 blunders as publication of the same article under different names and = first=20 person references to other pseudonyms, and so his practice of using = pseudonyms=20 is as full of holes as a Swiss cheese.

But it is hard to see how one can blame a writer = for using=20 pseudonyms when he deals with controversial subjects and expresses = viewpoints=20 which are dangerous for him personally. The use of pseudonyms is quite = common,=20 entirely legal, and morally unassailable. I myself have used around = thirty=20 different pseudonyms in the past twenty years. My journal Vierteljahreshefte f=FCr freie=20 Geschichtsforschung fairly teems with authors who are not = writing=20 under their own names; in fact, a Revisionists who uses his real name = is the=20 exception rather than the norm. As readers of the = Vierteljahreshefte f=FCr=20 freie Geschichtsforschung well know, there is a good and logical = reason=20 for using pseudonyms, in view of the social and legal persecution to = which=20 Revisionist writers are exposed. Until now, the only objections to my = use of=20 pseudonyms have come from radical opponents of Revisionism. I find it = very=20 distasteful that such attacks should come from the ranks of = Revisionists and=20 be directed against a writer who is, to say the least, not an opponent = of=20 Revisionism.

As we have noted above, in 1980, Stahl did indeed = give Irving=20 a grotesque and bogus "document" as Irving had been demanding with = annoying=20 persistence over a long period of time. Stahl's version of the story, = related=20 above, is corroborated in its essentials by Irving's diary entries = published=20 on his website.[42] = Irving=20 corroborates also that Stahl dictated the document over the telephone. = Irving=20 actually published his notes concerning what Stahl had dictated to = him. The=20 body of what Irving jotted down is the same as in Stahl's "document" = except=20 that Stahl's version did not contain Pohl's title and address, given = in=20 Irving's diary as follows:

Stahl insists that he dictated the letter exactly = as Shea had=20 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=20 Irving's Internet diary entries make no mention of any attempt to = investigate=20 the authenticity of this "document." Sure enough, his diary entries = confirm=20 the exuberance mentioned by Stahl. Irving telephoned Prof. Joe Hobbs = in=20 Raleigh, North Carolina, just five days later to announce the glad = tidings of=20 the documentary discovery:

According to Irving's diary, Stahl sent him the = "document" in=20 mid July 1980. One can safely assume that Irving, at the very latest = when he=20 received this hoax through the mail, must have realized that somebody = was=20 pulling the wool over his eyes. In view of Irving's temperament, this = surely=20 would have led to additional diary entries. However, Irving mentions = nothing=20 at all about either receipt of the "document" or his reaction to it. = For=20 seventeen years, he avoids mentioning the incident anywhere, until = February 2,=20 1997, during a telephone conversation with Andrew Gray, when he = mentions that=20 Stahl falsified his "Himmler Document." Has Irving withdrawn diary = entries=20 which supported Stahl's statement that he was enthusiastic about = receipt of=20 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=20 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=20 can seriously think that Shea or Stahl would have believed for an = instant that=20 they could deceive a real historian who spoke perfect German. It was = nothing=20 more than poking fun at David Irving; but alas, Irving threw himself = upon the=20 sword. Obviously he was so obsessed with finding any document at all = to=20 support his thesis that he was taken in by this absurd dictated = "document" for=20 over a month, stubbornly persisting in the attempt to gain possession = of it.=20 Since Irving speaks perfect German, there is no excuse for his = behavior.=20 Furthermore he himself distributed the "document," or copies thereof. = It is=20 clear that he sent it to at least one person: Thomas Shutt, who does = not know=20 German and was taken in by the hoax. This absurdity - I can't make = myself say=20 "counterfeit" because it is such an insult to all real counterfeits of = the=20 world - was silently accepted by Irving for more than seventeen years. = In the=20 final analysis, he in a sense provoked creation of this "document" and = helped=20 with its distribution, with his pushy quest for evidence supporting = his=20 thesis. As far as distribution of this nonsense is concerned, he is = sitting in=20 the same boat with Shea and Stahl

The scientist molds his theses to fit the evidence, = but in=20 this case, Irving attempted to force the evidence to conform to his = thesis. At=20 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=20 cabaret theatre, not on Revisionist websites.

Irving goes on to charge that documents used by = Gregory=20 Douglas in his Gestapo-M=FCller book are falsified, also that police = reports=20 exist stating that Peter Stahl is really named something else and that = he has=20 been convicted of counterfeiting. I shall examine these charges in the = next=20 section because Irving is basing his arguments on Weber, whose = presentations=20 are more extensive and objective.

Directly and indirectly, Irving charges at various = places=20 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=20 that Stahl forged the Hitler Diaries. But Irving is simply taking = facts which=20 Stahl admits and turning them on their heads. He provides no proof = whatsoever=20 for these accusations, just as he provides no proof for the lesser = charges=20 which he makes and distributes over his entire website. He is engaging = in=20 plain old character assassination.

David Irving has earned the reputation of suing = everyone who=20 dares to say anything uncomplimentary about him. As a consequence, the = matters=20 which we mention here in passing have never come to the surface. Since = I have=20 no desire to expose myself to David Irving's malicious attacks and = ruinous=20 lawsuits, I will abstain from evaluating his person as well as the = nature of=20 his charges against Gregory Douglas/Peter Stahl. The facts will have = to speak=20 for themselves.

In his critique of = Weber's = review,=20 Gregory Douglas presents his version of his dealings with Mark Weber, = who in=20 his review does the same for his dealings with Douglas.

To this I would like to add the events which = occurred in the=20 Spring of 2001. In our long telephone conversations, Stahl and I = agreed that=20 the long, drawn-out legal battle between Willis Carto, the founder of = the=20 "Legion for the Survival of Freedom" (LSF, cover organization of the = Institute=20 for Historical Review, IHR) on the on hand and the LSF/IHR on the = other hand,=20 was doing real damage to the Revisionist movement, and that we would = do=20 everything in our power to put an end to it. I therefore attempted to = bring=20 about an out of court resolution by acting as intermediary and = engaging both=20 sides in a discussion. Douglas alias Stahl acted on behalf of Carto, = with the=20 San Francisco lawyer Andrew Allen representing the LSF. Since, in the = view of=20 the IHR, Carto had already torpedoed two out-of-court settlements, the = LSF/IHR=20 harbored a great deal of skepticism about Carto's willingness to = negotiate. At=20 any rate, the LSF over-reacted to Carto's proposal that Douglas should = be=20 accepted as his confidential representative on the LSF board of = directors. In=20 a press release published by the LSF during arbitration negotiations = and in=20 connection with Carto's proposal, they referred to Gregory Douglas as = "a=20 known criminal and document forger."[44] = No attempt=20 at arbitration could be more effectively sabotaged, no declaration of = war on=20 Douglas/Stahl could be more clearly expressed. In continuation of this = war,=20 Mark Weber published his review of the Gestapo-M=FCller books[45]--six= years=20 after their initial publication! In doing so, he used this periodical = as a=20 vehicle to vent his personal animosities.

Weber is basically repeating Irving's charges, = except with a=20 different assortment of names. With the exception of the name Gregory = Douglas,=20 Weber does not provide evidence for his assertion. The statements made = in the=20 section on Irving are valid here as well.

In several telephone conversations, Weber explained = that the=20 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=20 to launch personal attacks on others, and those targeted were unable = to defend=20 themselves against phony names.

I am unable to follow this alleged reprehensibility = of using=20 pseudonyms at public appearances. Ultimately, pseudonyms still serve = to=20 protect one's private sphere. However, the use of pseudonyms is = obviously=20 pointless when the same person appears in public under numerous names = and can=20 thus be easily identified. Such a practice may well be called dumb, = but not=20 reprehensible.

The charge that Stahl initiated personal attacks = under cover=20 of pseudonyms is valid, as shown by his sometimes tasteless, = below-the-belt=20 attacks on Irving.[46] = However,=20 they occurred only after Irving's attacks on Stahl had been = published.

Both Irving and Weber claim to have documents = proving that=20 Stahl's real name is something different, and that he has a sizeable = criminal=20 record. In spite of my repeated requests, both Irving and Weber = declined to=20 furnish me with copies of these documents. It appears that these = documents are=20 not records of convictions, but rather arrest records: that is, = complaints=20 which led to his arrest. Stahl admitted to me that an arrest record = might well=20 exist but said that he has never been charged with, or at least = convicted for,=20 a felony. The charges on which he was arrested could not be = substantiated.[47] = Since the=20 release of such records without the consent of the subject is = unlawful, Weber=20 and Irving would never be able to offer them as evidence. But they = claim=20 nevertheless that the documents prove Stahl is a counterfeiter. This = could be=20 proven true only if Stahl had been convicted of a felony, and it = appears that=20 this is not the case.

In other words, Weber's and Irving's charges = represent=20 unproven, apparently unprovable accusations. Stahl could charge them = with=20 defamation if he were so minded. All three are chronically broke, = however.=20 Stahl is unable to sue either Weber or Irving because he could never = rake up=20 enough money for a trial. The same goes for Gregory Douglas, Stahl's = son, who=20 is vilified in the same breath as his father. However, he has already = won=20 several civil suits with corresponding monetary damages.

Weber's argument that Gregory/Stahl are guilty of = falsifying=20 documents centers on the Stahl's writings about Gestapo-M=FCller. He = alleges the=20 Stahl concocted the story of Hitler's evacuation to Spain by way of = Austria at=20 the end of WWII. Since Douglas deals intensively with the subject in = his=20 response to Weber, I will spare myself the effort of repeating his=20 explanations. Let me reiterate as a supplement that Dr. Sudhold = informed me in=20 1994 that Douglas' English publisher, Roger Bender, had initially = declined to=20 publish the Gestapo M=FCller manuscript because he was afraid of = possible legal=20 consequences in releasing secret US documents. This is confirmed by = later=20 statements of Bender and Stahl. When Bender published the first = article by=20 Douglas in his periodical, he avoided publishing the original document = for=20 this reason. He expressed the wish that it did not contained an = archive=20 marking of "Secret" whereupon the document was "manipulated" or = altered to=20 remove the stamp. Later he acknowledged this as a mistake which he = corrected=20 along with an explanation in a subsequent edition of his magazine. = With this,=20 Weber's accusations of counterfeiting collapse.

Weber said by telephone that, as far as he was = concerned, he=20 still considers in proven that Stahl had falsified the document. After = the=20 first fake, when Douglas had noticed his mistake, he persuaded Bender = to print=20 a second falsified and improved version with a phony explanation. = Again, Weber=20 offers no proof of his accusation, however. After receiving Stahl's = written=20 response to Weber's review, I invited Weber to write a retort, but he = declined=20 to do so.

Weber's thesis is that M=FCller was never in the = US. He=20 believes that the documents which Douglas quoted and reproduced in = this regard=20 are counterfeit. In numerous telephone conversations and extensive = email=20 correspondence I referred Weber to the following facts:

Weber's reaction to these various independent = attestations=20 that M=FCller had really been employed by the US Secret Services and = flown to=20 the USA is indicative. Entrenched behind the position that what should = not be=20 true can not be true, he refuses to discuss the matter. In Weber's = eyes, it is=20 unthinkable that the media and first of all the Jewish lobby in the = United=20 States would stay silent if there would only be a substantiated = suspicion that=20 M=FCller was present in the USA after the war. However, Weber ignores = that=20 M=FCller did not immigrate into the USA secretly, as did, for example, = John=20 Demjanjuk or other alleged NS "war criminals", but that he was hired = by the=20 U.S. government itself. To admit this would mean that the U.S. = government was=20 either so unscrupulous as to make common cause with one of the worst = "Nazis"=20 and biggest mass murderers of all times, or that they believed = M=FCller's=20 statements and considered the "findings" of the International Military = Tribunal at Nuremberg to be propaganda. Hence, to turn the case of = Gestapo=20 M=FCller into a scandal would not have made it just another "Nazi = hunt", but=20 would be both a recognition of the correctness of revisionist findings = as well=20 as a massive attack on the U.S. government itself, or in other words: = an=20 attack of the Jews against themselves. It cannot therefore come to = anybody's=20 surprise that the entire U.S. establishment would prefer to sweep the = entire=20 affair under the carpet.

Douglas' remarks on the genesis of the two drafts = of the=20 document concerning Hitler's alleged flight to Spain require critical=20 analysis.[50] = In the=20 course of a conversation, Mark Weber informed me that he had spoken = with=20 Douglas' publisher, Roger J. Bender. He said Bender disputed Douglas, = saying=20 that he himself had not altered or manipulated the first published = version,=20 but had received it from Douglas. In a letter written on 24 June 2002, = twelve=20 years after the incident, Mr. Bender wrote me the following:

After further telephone conversations in which I = confronted=20 Bender and Douglas with each other's statements and directed their = attention=20 to several contradictions, I was able to establish the following:

This proves once again that, after many years have = passed,=20 eyewitness testimony should be treated with skepticism.

If we assumes that Roger Bender did not conspire = with Stahl=20 to cover a counterfeiting crime, then it can be said with certainty = that in=20 the beginning there was an original of this document. The copy was = then=20 created on orders of Roger Bender, regardless of who actually produced = it.

Let us now move from the history of the documents = to their=20 content, which Weber has so ridiculed. Our Internet research on the = subject of=20 Hitler's fate at war's end quickly tells us that the official version = of=20 suicide, cremation, discovery, and successful forensic identification = by the=20 Russians is quite dubious. At any rate, alternative theories about = Hitler's=20 fate are widespread and socially acceptable. They are more widespread = and=20 acceptable than the revisionist ideas that homicidal gas chambers did = not=20 exist, or that the Germans had no policy of genocide against the Jews, = to=20 which Weber certainly subscribes. Everybody can carry out his own = Internet=20 research, so I will concentrate on just one aspect of it, the autopsy = of=20 Hitler's alleged remains which was performed by the Soviets. In 1994, = four=20 French physicians undertook a critical analysis of the Soviet autopsy = report=20 and concluded that the remains examined could not possibly have been = those of=20 Hitler. The French team concluded that the Soviet physicians were = obviously=20 under intense pressure from above to officially declare that the much = desired=20 trophy of Hitler's body had really been captured.[52]

Historically it does not matter whether Hitler = escaped to=20 Spain and died after a few reclusive years, or whether he died in the = ruins of=20 Berlin. Such a thesis is less radical and revolutionary than the idea = that=20 there was no mass extermination of Jews during the Third Reich.[53] = And yet,=20 Weber and Irving both ridicule Douglas' thesis just as opponents of=20 revisionism ridicule revisionist ideas and ignore every argument that=20 conflicts with their own view. I'll bet any amount that Weber would = never=20 allow a discussion of arguments for and against Hitler's escape to = Spain in=20 "his" magazine. It may well be true that Mark Weber is correct in his = belief=20 that Hitler did not escape. I too incline to that opinion. But a = scientist,=20 and above all a Revisionist, must know that truth can only be = determined when=20 all existing theses are open to criticism and new theses are tested on = the=20 public podium. Weber's self-appointed role as censor is incompatible = with the=20 role of a Revisionist historian and publisher.

Weber considers it extremely unlikely that Gestapo = M=FCller, if=20 he had really lived incognito in the USA, would have developed contact = with=20 such an insignificant person as Stahl and developed such an intimate=20 relationship. Weber also finds it unbelievable that a Top Man of the = CIA such=20 as Crowley would share intimate secrets with Stahl and furnish him = with=20 sensitive documents. Similarities in language, style, choice of = subject=20 matter, point of view and cynicism between Stahl's writings and = M=FCller's=20 alleged statements in his interrogation and diary is another sign to = Weber=20 that Stahl invented it all.

Weber would have a good point if Stahl had really = been a=20 nobody to M=FCller and Crowley, but this was not the case, if one = follows=20 Stahl's statements. Stahl's activities show that he and M=FCller were = cut from=20 the same mould. And together with Col. Critchfield, who is still = alive, M=FCller=20 worked for Crowley under the CIA. If Weber had not antagonized Stahl, = he might=20 have made contacts with Stahl's close friends, who from their personal = knowledge affirmed to me the long years of friendship between M=FCller = and=20 Stahl, as well as Stahl's extensive contacts with Crowley. Without my=20 requesting it, and possibly because I did not insist on evidence at = the=20 beginning (to tell the truth, I was not very interested at the = beginning)=20 these contacts and conversations became accessible to me.

I agree with Mark Weber and other historians that = it is a=20 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=20 unwillingness to proceed in scientific manner, and to cultivate a = scientific=20 ethos regarding truth, accuracy and provability, the works published = by Stahl=20 will always have a questionable reputation.

In my opinion it is no coincidence that Mark Weber = and David=20 Irving in tandem and using the same dirty weapons, are leading the = campaign=20 against Douglas / Stahl.

In several telephone conversations, Weber explained = to me=20 that the proven fact that Douglas had disseminated untruths on several = occasions caused him to disbelieve everything that Douglas says or = writes.=20 However, his comprehensive rejections according to the motto = "falsus in=20 uno, falsus in omnibus" (wrong about one thing, wrong about = everything) is=20 scientifically invalid. As a revisionist, Weber knows that an = eyewitness to=20 the "Holocaust" spreads not only lies, he also makes honest mistakes, = and a=20 grain of truth can be found in his testimony. True revisionism does = not=20 totally reject a contribution as false because of one inaccuracy. The=20 revisionist task is to seek the grain of truth and distinguish between = it and=20 the mistakes, distortions, exaggerations, and deliberate lies; and = this holds=20 true for the works of Gregory Douglas alias Peter Stahl.

Stahl's eternal game of hiding behind infinite = pseudonyms is=20 getting ridiculous. If he can bring himself to publish all his = writings under=20 the name of Gregory Douglas and stay on the trail he has blazed for = himself,=20 it will be a very welcome development. It is simply ridiculous for him = to try=20 to hide behind the narrow back of his son when he cannot resist = constantly=20 identifying himself.

His unchecked need to communicate is = disadvantageous insofar=20 as any secret shared with him will remain secret for about two hours. = On the=20 other hand, this is also an advantage insofar as one easily gets to = the bottom=20 of all his little intrigues. If one listens patiently to him, one soon = learns=20 that he does not adhere strictly to the facts with his endless tales. = It is=20 only a matter of time until he entangles himself in his own = contradictions.=20 After a few such incidents, I became quite critical of what he said = and began=20 insisting on documentary evidence for his statements, at least insofar = as they=20 were historically relevant or necessary for credibility's sake. = Especially=20 concerning his historical information on Gestapo M=FCller, I = considered it=20 important to obtain the relevant documents from the source which he = cited=20 rather than from him personally.

Stahl did not have the privilege of academic = training, and he=20 has never published anything in a scientific style. The publishers of = his=20 Gestapo books likewise had no experience in publishing scientific = historical=20 works, with the result that the books are unprofessional. For example, = no=20 sources are listed for Stahl's myriad assertions, and the summary=20 bibliographies are of little value. If these works are to become=20 scientifically credible they must be completely reworked.

Irving has criticized Stahl for promising to = provide=20 documents and then failing to do so, and I am partially in agreement = with him.=20 However, the reason is not, as Irving assumes, that Stahl does not = have the=20 documents. The reason is that his apartment is a complete mess and his = garage,=20 where he keeps his books and documents, is best described as a rubbish = heap.=20 He simply, literally dumps all his documents and books onto a single = huge=20 pile. I have visited Stahl's home several times over the last 18 = months and=20 repeatedly urged him to straighten out the mess, so he can find his = documents.=20 At long last, I can report some progress. As I have encouraged him to = write=20 down his immense historical and biographical information and to = document them,=20 he is finally beginning to organize the mess and has begun finding=20 documents.

After struggling for months to persuade Stahl to = use a=20 typewriter or computer, it is obvious to me that any accusation of his = having=20 personally counterfeited anything is absurd. He might well know people = who can=20 do such things, thanks to long established contacts from his days as a = dealer=20 in documents and memorabilia. But he himself is so awkward in the use = of paper=20 and writing materials of any kind that it drives me up a tree every = time I try=20 to get even the simplest written text from him.

Furthermore, Irving is mistaken when he claims that = Stahl has=20 a compulsion to be acknowledged as an author and historian; Irving is=20 describing himself when he asserts that. Unfortunately, Stahl's desire = to be=20 taken seriously is sadly underdeveloped. He always approaches his = subject with=20 the relaxed conviction of an eyewitness who knows that what he writes = is true.=20 He could not care less whether anyone believes that Heinrich M=FCller = was his=20 closest friend over a period of twenty years, or that he and his young = friend=20 Aaron Johnson have salvaged Odilio Globocnik's treasure trove of gold = in the=20 Wei=DFensee in Austria.[54] = He is not=20 interested in whether anyone believes that M=FCller and Globocnik were = in the US=20 after the war. He was there, and he sold the gold and lived like a = king for a=20 few years from the proceeds. And that's that. For Stahl, it is a total = waste=20 of time to swap insults with arrogant ignoramuses like Weber or Irving = who do=20 not even take the time to consult documents in the archives which he=20 referenced in his books.

Stahl casually reveals much to those whom he = instinctively=20 trusts. This includes documents and material evidence, plus eyewitness = accounts of his trusted friends, who affirm everything he says. = However, he=20 certainly does not share with those who insult him and call him a = liar,=20 counterfeiter, swindler, etc.

Stahl has a terrible reputation for dealing = ruthlessly with=20 those who make his life difficult. He has ways of ruining their = economic and=20 social lives by means which are legal and yet very effective. As a = trained=20 secret agent with many influential connections he has both the = abilities and=20 opportunities to do this. He seems to derive real pleasure from = carrying on=20 private feuds.

Postscript

The above article was written in early 2002. = Several=20 important events happened afterwards, which are worthwhile reporting = to shed=20 some light on the person and personality of Peter Stahl.

"Documents"

In early 2002, Stahl and I agreed upon publishing a = book on=20 9/11, as he had received several information about detailed = pre-knowledge of=20 the administration of 9/11. He claimed to have received a memorandum = that the=20 US President had been informed in advance by German and French = diplomatic=20 sources about the exact date, time, locations and targets of the = attacks.=20 However, the memorandum he received had neither letter head nor = signature or=20 anything. It was just a piece of paper and as such rather worthless. = Of=20 course, as a future publisher I was not happy with proving an = outrageous claim=20 (they knew and let it happen) with a meaningless piece of paper, so I = asked=20 him to try to get something more from the same source from where he = received=20 this document . At one day, while writing his manuscript, he asked me = if I can=20 make a translation from English to French. I said I could, but that my = French=20 is rather bad, thus it would be better to ask one of my friends. When = asked=20 what he needed it for, he responded that he was thinking about making = a=20 document which looks like a real one and which would support his = claims. I=20 told him that under no circumstances I would want to be a part of = this, and I=20 massively attacked him how he could even think along this line when at = the=20 same time he tries to defend himself against accusation from David = Irving and=20 Mark Weber that he forges documents? He replied that if I was = unwilling to do=20 it for him, he will find somebody else. "Then find somebody else" I = responded.=20 At the same time, I downgraded the 9/11 book project, as I figured = that this=20 isn't going anywhere.

Several days later Stahl mailed me a version of = what he=20 called a part of his manuscript for his 9/11 book. He urged me to read = it,=20 which I did. Including many facts that Stahl had found in media = reports and=20 enriched by his own thoughts and the claims of his alleged German = memorandum,=20 it read like a report written by some German intelligence agency on = their=20 findings of 9/11, without, however, spelling out who wrote it. Stahl = called me=20 back, and after I asked him what this was meant to be, he told me that = he=20 wanted me to translate that into German and make it look like a = document from=20 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=20 immediately drop the project, as I will not go along with a book = that=20 includes a forgery
nobody in his or my range could possibly forge = such a=20 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=20 own reputation once and for all. He will be dead meat regarding any = future=20 publication

He apparently changed his mind, as he later = re-defined what=20 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=20 it into a document, but to leave it in the form of an essay. He wished = to have=20 a anonymous mailing made to various news and political sources in = Washington,=20 which includes the announcement of the book and a copy of this essay=20 summarizing the upcoming book's statements. Hence, it was to be a = promotion=20 move to get attention for the book.

Under these circumstance -- no letter head, no = names, no=20 signature, no stamps, nothing that would make it a document, no = inclusion in=20 the upcoming book, no claim that this is a document, use only as an = anonymous=20 promotional mailing -- I agreed to translate it.

Already during the process of translation (late = May/early=20 June 2002), he circulated a copy of his English essay to some = individuals at=20 The Barnes Review/American Free Press. It thus ended up at some = organization of the Republican Party, which contacted Stahl only a few = days=20 later, asking about the 9/11 book (so his claims...). Hence, Stahl = associated=20 with this essay already before it was even supposed to be = released.

In June 2002, during the Barnes Review Conference, = Peter=20 Stahl presented his "findings" about 9/11 during his speech to the = audience.=20 During this speech, he pulled out my translation, claimed that it was = an=20 original German document, which he claimed he had received from his = friend,=20 the German public prosecutor Detlev Mehlis, and Stahl gave copies of = this=20 document to interested people.

I subsequently canceled the 9/11 book project as = well as all=20 other pending book projects I had with Peter Stahl, informed several = people=20 that this was not a document and that they should stop distributing = it. I also=20 made sure that The Barnes Review deleted Stahl's speech from = their=20 website.

"Deals"

Since summer 2001, I was working with Peter Stahl = on a book=20 project about the JFK assassination, which was published in early 2002 = with=20 the title Regicide. The Official=20 Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Stahl claimed to have = received=20 documents from the late Robert Crowley, once deputy Assistant Deputy = Director=20 of Clandestine Operations for the CIA, who -- according to these = documents --=20 was one of the organizers of this assassination. Crowley also was one = of the=20 officers in the CIA who -- according to Stahl -- worked together with = his=20 uncle Heinrich M=FCller in the late 1940s and early 1950s, which was = Stahl's=20 door-opener to Crowley. Stahl gave me addresses and phone numbers of = Crowley's=20 relatives, so I could verify that Stahl did indeed have a long history = of=20 conversations with Mr. Crowley and that documents from Crowley's files = were=20 indeed sent to Mr. Stahl. I also managed to verify that the basic = story as=20 revealed by the the Crowley documents are in accordance with what one = of the=20 foremost experts on the JFK-assassination has found out: Nigel Turner. = I met=20 Turner in early summer 2002 in Huntsville, who told me that after = having a=20 lengthy conversation with Stahl, he has come to the conclusion that = Stahl=20 himself has a rather poor knowledge about the JFK-assassination and = the era.=20 Stahl does not know more than what he took from the documents he = claims to=20 have received from Crowley and a few popular books he refers to in=20 Regicide. Considering the facts that the documents published in = Regicide contain a lot of very detailed information about the = official=20 responsibility and rank of many persons -- all being accurate -- = Turner=20 considered it extremely unlikely that Mr. Stahl, with his poor = knowledge of=20 the era and the events, could have manufactured them. According to Mr. = Turner's view, these documents are either genuine or were fabricated = by=20 somebody who had in-depth knowledge of both the facts of the = JFK-assassination=20 as well as about all the people referred to in the documents. Thus, = only=20 Crowley or a similarly situated person could have fabricated those = documents.=20 The question would be, however, why Crowley or somebody of his = standing would=20 fabricate the documents which incriminate himself, the top personnel = of CIA,=20 FBI, Joint Chief of Staff, NSA, and Lyndon B. Johnson and Gerald T. = Ford, thus=20 kind of compromising the entire "system". Turner's conclusion was = therefore=20 that the documents are most likely genuine, that is: the JFK riddle is = solved.=20 He regrets, however, that these documents ended up and were published = by such=20 a shady person as P. Stahl, which puts the entire book and the = documents=20 contained in it in a twilight zone. But then again, he said, who would = you=20 expect a shady person like Crowley -- the CIA's liaison to the Chicago = mob --=20 to give the documents, if not to a person of his own liking.

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

When Stahl receive a phone bill in summer 2002 over = $5,000,=20 he demanded that I cover his phone bill. I told him that if he sent me = a copy=20 of an itemized bill showing which calls were made for company = purposes, I=20 would cover those costs. Apparently Stahl was unable to produce such = an=20 itemized bill, and I in turn refused to pay such a horrendous amount. = It later=20 turned out that the phone company had made a billing mistake and = reduced the=20 amount to about 10% ($500). However, at that time Stahl thought that = he=20 deserved to be reimbursed for his phone bill accumulated by his = attempt to=20 find a new distributor. To regain his money, he suggested a book deal = with a=20 friend of his who had agreed to buy a large amount of books worth some = $10,000=20 wholesale price. We agreed upon sharing this amount 50/50. Eventually = an order=20 with two checks of both some $5,000 came in for these books from a = "Basilik=20 Press". Peter Stahl then demanded that I transfer his share right = away. As=20 this deal was tricky, I insisted on making sure that the checks clear = first=20 before doing so, but because I was about to move to Chicago the next = day and=20 would no longer have access to my bank for an electronic = transfer (they=20 have no branch in Chicago), Stahl insisted that I mail him a check = right away,=20 but he agreed upon not depositing it unless the "Basilik Press" checks = had=20 cleared.

Stahl deposited my check the same day he received = it in the=20 mail, so my account was debited with some $5,000 .
Both "Basilik Press" checks bounced over a week = later, as=20 it turned out that the account which they were drawn upon could not = be=20 found, thus I had a huge overdraft in my account..
Stahl refused to pay back the $5,000 dollars. = Even after=20 the phone company corrected the faulty billing, relieving Stahl of a = debt of=20 $4,500, he still refused to pay back the $5,000.
It turned out that there is neither a "Basilik = Press" nor=20 an address as given on the checks or on the invoices.
Stahl changed his story. Now it was no longer a = book deal=20 he made with good friends, but a deal arranged through some = intermediate,=20 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=20 Borders, but because of irregularities in establishing the = corporation (he=20 had used a false name when incorporating it), a compromise is = reached to=20 dissolve the corporation and hand over the books and assets to me. =
While trying to inform the distributor handling=20 Regicide about the upcoming change of proprietorship of the=20 Regicide book, it turned out that Stahl had used a false name = and a=20 different corporation to deal with this distributor. Upset by this = news, the=20 distributor got in touch with Mr. Stahl
Stahl, upset that I had (unintentionally) = revealed his use=20 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=20 distributor refused to deal with me.
When I asked Stahl to hand over the books as = agreed upon,=20 it turned out that he had removed them from his garage to make them=20 inaccessible to me. He had to shipped them back, charging me with = the costs.=20
It turned out that thousands of books are = missing. As Stahl=20 admitted then, he had started selling the Regicide books = stored in=20 his garage in his own name in summer 2002, keeping the money, but = not=20 keeping any record of orders, sales, or payments, also refusing to = account=20 for the money he earned with it.
In order to justify these sales, Stahl forged an = email=20 allegedly written by me in which I allegedly state that I hand over = the=20 property of the Regicide books to him. Since the header = information=20 of this email is ridiculously fraudulent and incompatible with any = emails I=20 send from my accounts, he had to concede that this was a failed = attempt of=20 justification.
In February 2003, we reached a settlement. = Several thousand=20 books he sold to The Barnes Review were shipped back to me. = Stahl=20 covered the costs. All payments made by me to him -- including the=20 fraudulent $5,000 deal -- are considered advance royalty for all = future=20 Regicide book sales. I received the copyright for = Regicide,=20 turned over to me by a notarized statement signed both by P. Stahl = and by=20 his illegitimate son Gregory Douglas Alford in my presence. (Stahl = used his=20 son's first and middle names as pen name for the Regicide.) = Since=20 Stahl still has the distributor contract for Regicide -- the = company=20 Book Clearing House still refuses to deal with me -- we agreed that = Stahl=20 would turn over any income from sales to this distributor minus a = reasonable=20 fee.
Fall 2003: After over half a year of asking Stahl = to=20 produce a statement about sales made to, and payments received from, = the=20 distributor, he still had not produced a single piece of paper nor = made any=20 payment to me. Excuses ranged from "got lost in the mail" to "did = not=20 receive any payments" or "my friend takes care of book keeping."=20

Conclusion

If I learned something during these episodes, it is = that=20 Stahl is absolutely inapt to a) technically make any proper document=20 forgeries, b) keep his mouth shut about them, c) spreading consistent = stories=20 about his lies.

What ever he may publish in future, be aware that = you cannot=20 trust the content of his writings for a second unless somebody has = verified=20 it. I exhausted myself in verifying the Regicide sources and to = make it=20 a high quality book, but after all what followed I can only warn = everybody to=20 get anywhere close to him when it comes to either business or = scholarly=20 writing and publishing. It isn't worth it.
Right now he prepares = the=20 publication of a book on the Auschwitz death figures and the death = toll of the=20 Einsatzgruppen. As he rejected any guidance and quality control = by me,=20 it will be a poorly laid-out, poorly researched self-published book = using=20 Stahl's own imprint " Morris Productions," his newest company = name.

I report, you decide.

[1]	Edited by R=FCdiger Kammerer and Armin Solms, Cromwell Press, = London=20 1993; 2nd edition by Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings 2001 (www.vho.org/D/rga2). = Engl.: The=20 Rudolf Report, Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings 2003 (www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr).=20
[2]	Under the pen name Ernst Gauss, Grabert, T=FCbingen 1993 (www.vho.org/D/vuez).=20
[3]	Under the pen name Ernst Gauss, Grabert, T=FCbingen 1995 (www.vho.org/D/gzz); Engl.: = Theses=20 & Dissertations Press, Capshaw, AL, 2001 (www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth).=20
[4]	Online: www.vho.org/D/ggm1/index.ht= ml=20
[5]	"Die Gestapo-M=FCller-F=E4lschung" (The = Gestapo-M=FCller forgery),=20 Staatsbriefe 7(5-6) (1996), pp. 68-71; online: http://www.vh= o.org/D/Staatsbriefe/Werner7_5-6.html=20
[6]	Gregory Douglas might to that himself eventually, cf. his = website http://www.gregorydouglas.com/.=20
[7]	Online: www.vho.org/D/ggm2/index.ht= ml.=20
[8]	Gestapo Chief. The 1948 Interrogation of Heinrich = M=FCller,=20 Bender Publishing, San Jose, CA, vol. 1-3 (1995, 1997, 1998); = M=FCller=20 Journals. The Washington Years, vol. 1: 1948-1950, same = location,=20 1999.=20
[9]	County Court Starnberg, ref. 11 Js 24942/96; County Court = Starnberg,=20 ref. 11 Js 4458/97.=20
[10]	One of it is the fact that his apartment is very untidy. His=20 "library" and his "archive" is a garage, in which he has = dumped(!) all=20 of his books, documents, letters. A huge pile of chaotic paper!=20
[11]	Fakes & Frauds Of The Third Reich, published by = author,=20 1969. These two brochures circulated only under memorabilia = dealers.=20
[12]	Basic Nazi Swords and Daggers (1969), The = Afrikakorps=20 (1972), Kreta: the German invasion of Crete, = 20.5.41-2.6.41=20 (1972), Kriegsmarine; uniforms, insignia, daggers & = medals of the=20 German Navy, 1935-1945 (1972), A History of the = Fallschirmj=E4ger=20 troops, Uniforms and Insignia of the German = Luftwaffe, und=20 Panzer. German Armor 1935-1945 (year unknown). Only those = with a=20 year have an entry in the Library of Congress. They all are = booklets and=20 brochures published by the author without ISBN numbers.=20
[13]	Cf. Stahl's article =BBAuguste Rodin: Anatomy of a = Fraud=AB, www.peterstahl.com/= douglas/Rodin.html;=20 Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, 22.12.1978, = ref.=20 405954.=20
[14]	According to Stahl, one of these letters were published as a = letter=20 to the editor in the magazine The Connoisseur. My local = library,=20 however, had only an incomplete collection of this periodical, = so that I=20 am unable to confirm this. However, this event is confirmed by = articles=20 published in local newspapers of Palo Alto and San Francisco = (Palo=20 Alto Times, SF Chronicle), cf. the online article in = note 13.=20 Besides, Rodin seems to have been a sought-after target for = forgeries,=20 cf. Lillian Browse, =BBFalse castings of Rodin = bronzes=AB, The=20 Burlington Magazine, 129 (12) (Dec. 1987), pp. 807f.; Sylvia = Hochfield, =BBCast in doubt=AB, Art News, 88(2) = (Feb. 1989),=20 pp. 108-115; P. Rowlands, =BBFoundering foundry=AB, = Art News,=20 94(1) (Jan. 1995), p. 42.=20
[15]	Cf. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Jan. 10, 1988;=20 S=FCddeutsche Zeitung, Feb. 17, 1988; Berliner = Morgenpost,=20 March 21, 1989; Die Welt, Feb. 28, 1988; New York = Post,=20 March 5, 1989; Frankfurt Allgemeine Zeitung March 16, = 1989.=20 English translations of these articles can be found online at: = www.peterstah= l.com/douglas/FourthReich.html.=20 Stahl's decisive role in locating both stolen art and thieves is = confirmed by Senior State Attorney Detlev Mehlis: StA beim=20 Kammergericht, Elssholzstr. 30-33, D-10781 Berlin-Sch=F6nefeld; = phone:=20 030-21 78 27 01.=20
[16]	Author of the book Adolf Hitler als Maler und Zeichner, = Gallant, Zug/Switzerland, 1983. According to Stahl, this book, = too,=20 includes several forgeries.=20
[17]	For this, see also Robert Harris, Selling Hitler, = Pantheon=20 Books, New York 1986; Engl.: Adolf Hitler, the unknown = artist,=20 publ. by author, Houston, Texas, 1984.=20
[18]	Some of his works: Collecting Autographs & = Manuscripts,=20 Univ. of Oklahoma Pr., 1961; Big Name Hunting, Simon = &=20 Schuster, 1973; The signature of America: a fresh look at = famous=20 handwriting, Harper & Row, 1979; Great Forgers and = Famous=20 Fakes, Crown Pub., 1980; Auction Madness, Dodd Mead,=20 1981; In Search of Shakespeare: A Reconnaissance into = the Poet's=20 Life & Handwriting, Harcourt Brace, 1985; The Book of = Autographs, Simon & Schuster, 1987; The Hitler = Diaries: Fakes=20 That Fooled the World, Univ. Press of Kentucky, 1991.=20
[19]	Bender Publishing, San Jose, California. This is the same = publisher=20 as the one of the Gestapo M=FCller books.=20
[20]	Es the publisher of Hamilton, Roger Bender, told me, he = received a=20 letter from Charles Hamilton with a similar content.=20
[21]	Hodder & Stoughton, London 1977.=20
[22]	Regarding his works on modern history compare, e.g.: = Donald=20 S. Detwiler, Charles B. Burdick, J=FCrgen Rohwer (ed.) World = War II=20 German military studies: a collection of 213 special reports on = the=20 Second World War prepared by former officers of the Wehrmacht = for the=20 United States Army, Garland Pub., New York 1979; = Germany's=20 military strategy and Spain in World War II, Syracuse = University=20 Press, Syracuse, NY, 1968.=20
[23]	Cf. http://www.peterstahl.com/=20
[24]	Cf. www.peterstahl.c= om/douglas/IrvingCP.html=20
[25]	June 22, 1995, cf. his diary online: www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/Peter_Stahl/diary_extracts.html=20
[26]	www= .fpp.co.uk/docs/ReadersLetters/Observer230496.html=20
[27]	Feb. 15, 1997, www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/Peter_Stahl/diary_extracts.html=20
[28]	www.fpp.co.uk= /ActionReport/AR14/RadDi3.html=20
[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.=20
[30]	http://www.= gregorydouglas.com;%20www.peterstahl.com/=20
[31]	www.fpp.= co.uk/docs/Irving/Peter_Stahl/index.html=20
[32]	http://www.crow96.20m.com/=20
[33]	contact email of the website http://www.crow96.20m.com/=20
[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/,=20 but in this case, the author is G. Douglas.=20
[35]	This name was used for an article about the Rodin forgeries; = it is=20 almost identical with the one posted at http://www.gregorydouglas.com/,=20 but in this case also, the author is G. Douglas.; cf. www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/Peter_Stahl/alias_McAlister.html=20
[36]	Crowley: cf. his obituary in Washington Post, Oct. 10, = 2000,=20 p. B6; www.montes= anomedia.com/b/1-59148-297-6/wp.html;=20 C. Crowles, A. Johnson, Z. Mehlis: I know these gentlemen = myself; F.=20 Thayer: Prof. at the University of New Mexico, cf. www.nmsu= .edu/~journali/faculty/thayer/index.html;=20 Norwood Burch: unknown; Richard Mundhenk: this is Richard = Mundshenk, who=20 has been identified by Irving himself as a business partner of = Roger=20 Benders, cf. www= .fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/Peter_Stahl/data280299.html=20
[37]	www= .fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/Peter_Stahl/JFK_Author.html=20
[38]	www= .fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/Peter_Stahl/data280299.html=20
[39]	www.fpp.co.uk= /Letters/hate/Peter110602.html=20
[40]	www.fpp.= co.uk/docs/Irving/RadDi/2002/100602.html=20
[41]	Cf. for this the criminal register and the death reproduced in = this=20 article.=20
[42]	www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/Peter_Stahl/diary_extracts.html=20
[43]	Irving had promised Stahl this Rommel portrait on July 14, = 1980, cf.=20 his diary entry, and Peter Stahl possesses it still today!=20
[44]	"Carto Proposes Document Forger for IHR Board of = Directors",=20 homepage.mac= .com/lsf/news/010530douglas.html=20
[45]	Mark Weber, "Not = Quite the=20 Hitler Diaries", Journal for Historical Review = 20(2)=20 (March/April 2001), p. 40. The date of this issue is deceptive. = This=20 issue actually appeared in fall of 2001, because for many years = already,=20 the individual JHR issues are appearing with long delays. =
[46]	Cf. his article under the pen name Karl Kolcheck, note 34.=20
[47]	In a publication in preparation, Peter Stahl will himself tell = us=20 about Robin-Hood-like, quite humoristic backgrounds of his = arrests,=20 which, however, did not lead to an indictment or a conviction, = but=20 finally to his release from custody. Because I do not want to = jump=20 ahead, I will leave it with this remark.=20
[48]	Cf. his reference in vol. 1, 2^nd edition 1999, p. = 282;=20 see also more documents in vols. 3 & 4.=20
[49]	Random House, New York 2001, S. 29 and notes.=20
[50]	Published in The Military Advisor, 1(2), (spring 1990) = p. 19=20 (manipulated version), and 2(1) (Winter 1990/91), p. 14.=20
[51]	G. Douglas, "Blood & Gold", The Military = Advisor,=20 2(1) (Winter 1990/91), p. 13.=20
[52]	E. Laurier, V. Hedouin, D. Gosset, P.H. Muller, =BBEtude = critique=20 m=E9dico-l=E9gale du rapport d'autopsie d'Hitler=AB = (critical forensic=20 analysis of the autopsy report on Hitler), Journal de = Medecine Legale=20 Droit, 37 (1) 1994, pp. 65ff.; to be ordered from CNRS, = Fourniture=20 de documents, BP 310, F-54515 Vand=9Cuvre Cedex.=20
[53]	At least not as long as one assumes, Hitler had continued the = Third=20 Reich with his last loyal henchmen on Moon, Mars, in Antarctica = or=20 inside of the Earth. But Douglas' point of view about Hitler's = flight to=20 Spain has absolutely nothing in common with such = fantastic-speculative,=20 if not paranoid theses.=20
[54]	Peter Stahl and Aaron Johnson, a relaxed young man, have both = shown=20 me their photo album of this treasure hunt and told me about=20 independently from each other.


Two of the extensive brochures produced by = Stahl on=20 various aspects of the Wehrmacht (click on picture to=20 enlarge)

The Stanford Daily, Thursday, May 1, 1979 = (click on=20 picture to the enlarged full = version)


The Hamilton letter about David Irving (click = on picture=20 to enlarge)


Who would take such a document seriously? = Irving did...=20 (click on picture to = enlarge)


Rap Sheet of Gaylord Wessock alias Roger = Steele (click=20 on picture to enlarge)	Death Certificate of Gaylord Wessock alias = Roger Steele=20 (click on picture to = enlarge)


Page 37 of Document No. XE 235539WJ, US = Intelligence=20 Command, Ft. George Meade, Maryland 20755-5995 (click on picture = to=20 enlarge)	Letter from Brigadier Gen. John Weckerling,=20 11.Sep.1950, regarding Heinrich M=FCller, from the = Crowley-Papers=20 (click on picture to = enlarge)