Grey Wolf - The Escape of Adolf Hitler

[projectgreywolf]

Dear Michael (and J),
I completely understand how you might immediately term this as "inane rubbish." Five years ago that was exactly my reaction. As J has pointed out I really am Gerrard Williams, an Ex Reuter(s) Television Duty Editor, I also worked at AAP many years ago and have worked in senior desk positions for the BBC, APTN (The Associated Press' Television arm) and Sky News in London. I've also covered both Iraq conflicts, the war in Bosnia, Rwanda, the fall of the Soviet Union, the South East Asian Tsunami and many other stories. It has been a long career. Without giving anything away from the book I can say that everything within it has been properly sourced and we made nothing up.
As a start can I post this from our publisher's, Sterling, in the USA, which is at the front of the book.

From Sterling Publishing:


When we were first presented with the idea for Grey Wolf: The Escape of Adolph Hitler, our initial reaction was to dismiss it as just another conspiracy theory. Everyone knows that Hitler and Eva Braun took their lives in the bunker to escape the humiliation and certain execution that awaited them. However, we agreed to give it serious consideration due to the stellar reputations of the authors, Simon Dunstan and Gerrard Williams. We were also encouraged by the recent independent discovery that the remains recovered at the bunker were not those of Hitler or Eva Braun. Upon reading the proposal and challenging the authors over a period of several months, we were convinced that they had raised serious questions that called the conventional wisdom into question, and therefore decided to publish the book.
The authors have spent the last 5 years researching this subject, and have traveled the globe, interviewing eye witnesses, unearthing documents, and piecing together a mountain of evidence that has convinced them of a fact almost too horrible to contemplate; that Adolph Hitler escaped punishment and lived out his life in domestic tranquility in Patagonia until his death in 1962.
This prospect is so despicable that we contemplated not publishing the book out of concern for those who would be offended by the mere prospect of Hitler’s escape, whether or not they found the argument credible. However, after much consideration, and a lengthy editorial process during which the authors were challenged to support their facts, we believe it is possible they may have uncovered the truth behind one of the greatest deceptions in history.
This book raises many intriguing questions, but it does not conclusively settle the issue. Perhaps this is a mystery that will never be solved as with so many other moments in time. Or perhaps, once in the public arena, other facts will come to light that will bring us closer to a definitive answer. The authors wrote this book in a search for the truth, and they may have found it. Inevitably, you the reader, will be the ultimate judge."

You can, I hope, understand that I'm not keen to put large chunks of the 380 page manuscript up onto an open forum before publication. However I will be more than happy to answer specific questions from readers after it's out.

I can say that both Simon Dunstan, an eminent military historian, and I have been consistently shocked at what we have found in our research. In my years as a journalist I have never discovered a single conspiracy theory that stood up to scrutiny. In "Grey Wolf" I believe we have uncovered a real conspiracy, one that even today has far-reaching effects on the world we live in.

Best Regards

Gerrard Williams

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Gerrard,

Notwithstanding your publisher's (unsurprising) claims to the contrary, this looks exactly like another sensationalist conspiracy theory designed to make a fast buck by abusing a gullible, non-specialist public.

Putting up PR puff by your publisher - something specifically designed to boost sales - does nothing whatsoever to boost your book's credibility.

Sensibly, you do not claim to be a historian, but rather a journalist, which is a profession that necessarily embraces rather laxer standards of evidence and is much more market orientated.

However, you describe your co-author as an "eminent military historian". Presumably he is meant to carry the bulk of the intelectual responsibility. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he has written about 30 books, almost all light-weight volumes on armour for Osprey. Now, I love my Osprey books, but writing them can't make one an "eminent military historian". This sort of over-hyping of your co-author set my BS monitor off immediately.

Your publisher rather undermines confidence in the factual authority of your book by writing, "The authors wrote this book in a search for the truth, and they may have found it." "MAY"? This is hardly a ringing endorsement.

Your publisher adds, "Inevitably, you the reader, will be the ultimate judge." Yes, but presumably only after forking out good money to them and you.

I'm afraid I won't be one of them.

[projectgreywolf]

Hi Major T,
You're entitled to your views.
Obviously I don't share them. It does seem a little unfair to dismiss something out of hand without reading it or waiting for the reviews.
Simon has written over fifty books - not all of them about tanks, although that is his favourite subject - and we share what you call, "the intel(l)ectual responsibility" if there is such a thing. I don't "claim" to be a journalist, I am. Almost all of my experience has been with agencies and broadcasters.
I'll be happy to discuss with all forms of specialists our findings once they are public and people have read them.
I can promise you that any "bucks" earned aren't "fast". I've spent five years on this.
Anyway, I will be happy to defend our work once it is in the public domain.
I'll keep my eye out for a long-enough barge pole for you.
All the best
Gerrard

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Gerrard,

Thanks for the quick reply.

In the absence of the book itself, I can, and have, only addressed your marketing material.

I have corrected all the points you have taken issue with below:


Notwithstanding your publisher's (unsurprising) claims to the contrary, this looks exactly like another sensationalist conspiracy theory designed to make a buck by abusing a gullible, non-specialist public.

Putting up PR puff by your publisher - something specifically designed to boost sales - does nothing whatsoever to boost your book's credibility.

Sensibly, you do not claim to be a historian, but rather are a journalist, which is a profession that necessarily embraces rather laxer standards of evidence and is much more market orientated.

However, you describe your co-author as an "eminent military historian". Presumably he is meant to carry the bulk of the intellectual responsibility. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he has written over 50 books, almost all light-weight volumes on armour for Osprey. Now, I love my Osprey books, but writing them can't make one an "eminent military historian". This sort of over-hyping of your co-author set my BS monitor off immediately.

Your publisher rather undermines confidence in the factual authority of your book by writing, "The authors wrote this book in a search for the truth, and they may have found it." "MAY"? This is hardly a ringing endorsement.

Your publisher adds, "Inevitably, you the reader, will be the ultimate judge." Yes, but presumably only after forking out good money to them and you.

I'm afraid I won't be one of them.

[projectgreywolf]

Hi Major T,
Thanks for that. I'm not really taking issue with you, or wanting to get into any sort of "slanging match." You are always entitled to your thoughts.
We wrote the book because we feel it's a story that needs telling. I think the publishers use of "may" and suggesting that the reader will be the ultimate judge, once they have seen the evidence presented, is eminently sensible. If it was just a "PR-PUFF" I think they, who are in the business of selling books after all, would have chosen somewhat more colourful language.
All the best
Gerrard

[J. Duncan]

Nor is this a stellar endorsement:

"This book raises many intriguing questions, but it does not conclusively settle the issue. Perhaps this is a mystery that will never be solved as with so many other moments in time. "

Facts are facts...either the evidence is there, or it is not. Either the new evidence outweighs the established dogma or it doesn't. One can raise questions simply to obfuscate without providing any real PROOFS.


*By the way, didn't you say in an above post that originally you were the one who was "skeptical" towards this whole project yet the quote below says it was you who approached the publisher and it was THEY who were the ones who were skeptical.

It also says below that they were approached with an "idea"...this is a rather significant slip of the tongue since an "idea" sounds more like a movie script (which it could be since a film is accompanying this book). 5 years not only writing the book but producing the film as well (what's the breakdown on that - 6 months for the book, 4 years and 6 months for the film?). An "idea"? This is the origin of this entire project? An "idea" and a "reputation" rather than a folder of explosive documents or a PROOF of any kind! Now that's a publisher that practices journalistic integrity!

"When we were first presented with the idea for Grey Wolf: The Escape of Adolph Hitler, our initial reaction was to dismiss it as just another conspiracy theory. Everyone knows that Hitler and Eva Braun took their lives in the bunker to escape the humiliation and certain execution that awaited them. However, we agreed to give it serious consideration due to the stellar reputations of the authors, Simon Dunstan and Gerrard Williams."

Another interesting tidbit:
"The authors have spent the last 5 years researching this subject, and have traveled the globe, interviewing eye witnesses, unearthing documents, and piecing together a mountain of evidence that has convinced them of a fact almost too horrible to contemplate; that Adolph Hitler escaped punishment and lived out his life in domestic tranquility in Patagonia until his death in 1962.
This prospect is so despicable that we contemplated not publishing the book out of concern for those who would be offended by the mere prospect of Hitler’s escape, whether or not they found the argument credible."

That's a big whopper if there ever was one! They actually considered NOT publishing for fear of hurting anyone's feelings! What a crock of BS! Not to mention poorly written...."This prospect...offended by the mere prospect" (redundancy).

[projectgreywolf]

Hi J, I don't want to bash back and fore on the semantics of the publisher's note. We didn't approach them with an "idea" but a thorough synopsis and a lot of new evidence.
It's not a movie script.
I suppose I can only wait until it's published and reviewed before coming back and discussing the evidence and the points raised within the Book.
And that I will be more than happy to do.

Best Regards

Gerrard

[phylo_roadking]

A journalist no less (Reuters), so you come with good credentials.

Well, not necessarily...

Len Mosley? Gerd Heidemann?

[Andy H]

Hi All

I think that until the book is actually published we should refrain from getting bogged down in a rather abstract discussion concerning the Promo Blurb and also the authors credentials. Equally a semantic discussion about specifics when only the author has read it, is to say the least surreal.

By alI means lets discuss the books historical construction & methodology but lets not take it any further than that at this stage.

The author has very kindly agreed to discuss the possible issues raised in the book with those that are inclined, for which I thank him. So let those that want, take up his offer upon the books publication and take it fom there.

Regards

Andy H

[phylo_roadking]

By alI means lets discuss the books historical construction & methodology

Then, just as this..."When I started I was, as an ex Reuter and AAP Journalist, completely cynical. Five years of following this trail led us to the book"....is no real guarantee of an absence of venality in the world of journalism, given well-documented examples of investigative journalists in the past who dabbled in fiction when apparently dabbling in history, could I recommend then that the author post up a sample of "500 footnotes in 55 pages"... given that as of here and now they could consist of just one real reference - and 499 instances of "Ibid."

[projectgreywolf]

In response to a perfectly reasonable request.
As for the examples of journalists given, we should remember that Harold Shipman and that evil B* Mengele were Doctors, it doesn't mean the whole medical profession are mass murderers.
The same I would hope is true for Journalists, we should not all be tarred with the same brush. But as always you are entitled to your opinions.
Best Regards
Gerrard

[phylo_roadking]

The same I would hope is true for Journalists, we should not all be tarred with the same brush. But as always you are entitled to your opinions.

Well, thankfully the mobile fone hadn't been invented by the middle of the 20th century...

[projectgreywolf]

Never worked for a Newspaper thank god.
G

[J. Duncan]

Thanks for posting some notes, however I noticed straightaway that your source material contains one of the very books I mentioned in one of my earlier posts (you used him twice in only 2 pages of notes).

Here's what I said on page one of this thread:


"There are three source pitfalls to be aware of however. Ladislas Farago and his "Aftermath: The Hunt for Martin Bormann and the Fourth Reich", Paul Manning's "Martin Bormann In Exile", and the book "The Bormann Brotherhood". These three books have been largely discredited. Manning uses no source material and gives the impression that he completely fabricated everything and Farago was taken for a ride by the faked documents of the Argentinian police."


The book in question is Paul Manning's "Martin Bormann Nazi in Exile". This book is not of historical value and has been dismissed as pure fantasy. Paul Manning may well have made his entire book up as it contains no notes, only hearsay and a fanciful imagination. That's the problem with so many of these type of books. They do not check their sources carefully. "Nazi Hydra in America" is another book which is of dubious value to anyone who is concerned with serious historicism. Sources of information are so very important in a book being taken seriously by accredited historians. Without proper sources, the book becomes tripe. Authors become so hell bent on proving their case that they will use ANY source, no matter how discredited. John Higham ("Trading With The Enemy") is another one listed who himself uses discredited and dubious sources of information.
The continued use of Hermann Rauschning's book "Hitler Speaks" is a case in point. Even historians as reknowned as Robert Wistrich continue to use him despite the fact that this book has been proven to be a well crafted work of WWII propaganda.
Sorry, but after seeing Paul Manning listed on the first 2 pages of your notes, I'm now ready to dismiss the work entirely.
Manning's is one of the very worst sources on Bormann a person could use. Hardly a single word of truth in it against the known facts of the man put forward best by Jochen von Lang in his book "The Secretary". *Manning was himself, a journalist.

For those who are interested in investigating the Manning book for themselves see provided link below (at bottom). Manning even claims that Bormann got an offer from Jewish gangster Meyer Lansky, who promised "protection" if only Bormann would give him a piece of the action! The quote is from chapter 7:

"A revealing insight into this international financial and in­dustrial network was given me by a member of the Bormann organization residing in West Germany. Meyer Lansky, he said, the financial advisor to the Las Vegas-Miami underworld, sent a message to Bormann through my West German SS contact. Lansky promised that if he received a piece of Bormann's action he would keep the Israeli agents off Bormann's back. "I have a very good relation with the Israeli secret police" was his claim, although he was to be kicked out of Israel later when his pres­ence became too noted-and also at the urging of Bormann's security chief in South America. At the time, Lansky was in the penthouse suite of Jerusalem's King David Hotel, in which he owned stock. He had fled to Israel to evade a U.S. federal war­rant for his arrest. He sent his message to Bormann through his bag man in Switzerland, John Pullman, also wanted in the United States on a federal warrant. Lansky told Pullman to make this offer "which he can't refuse." The offer was forwarded to Buenos Aires, where it was greeted with laugher. When the laughter died down, it was replaced with action. Meyer Lansky was evicted from Israel, and was told by Swiss authorities to stay out of their country, so he flew to South America. There he offered any president who would give him asylum a cool $1 million in cash."

http://www.animalfarm.org/mb/mb.shtml

Bormann's remains were discovered by construction workers in Berlin in 1972. Forensics experts super-imposed images onto the skull for identification. A DNA test was done on the skull in 1998 (see article below) using his son Martin Bormann Jr.'s DNA for a match.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/dna-t ... 61449.html

[phylo_roadking]

I note the almost immediate mention of Erich Kempka, who's story of his own involvements in the events surrounding Hitler's death and cremation...um..."underwent ongoing revision as events unfolded"