July plotters

Discussions on every day life in the Weimar Republic, pre-anschluss Austria, Third Reich and the occupied territories. Hosted by Vikki.
Post Reply
walterkaschner
In memoriam
Posts: 1588
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 02:17
Location: Houston, Texas

#31

Post by walterkaschner » 15 Sep 2003, 09:08

Scott Smith wrote:
So basically we have nothing more than hearsay, academic incest, and Speer's pandering imagination
Well, we have the testimony of the two camera-men that the films were actually taken, and for purposes of being shown to Hitler. We have the testimony of Speer that Hitler watched the film over and over again. We have the testimony of Hitler's Luftwaffe Adjutant, von Below, that films of the executions were bandied about Führer Headquarters in a repulsive fashion by Hermann Fegelein, but that Hitler appeared to show little interest in them. And we have the testimony of Walter Frentz, Hitler's own cameraman, made long after the war, that the films indeed arrived at the Wolf's Lair, but that Fegelein was the only one who saw them. See Kershaw's footnote 43, accompanying the text I quoted above.

So it seems to me that the notion that Hitler himself watched the films, although certainly open to serious question, can hardly be dismissed as "nonsense" as Scott Smith would have it. In my own opinion, it does not seem out of character for Hitler to wish to view the death throes of those who had attempted to take his own life, even though such may seem repugnant to those of us who profess to have a more delicate stomach or sensibilities. If I had to place a bet on it, I would bet that he did. We all know that he loved movies.

Regards, Kaschner

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

#32

Post by Scott Smith » 15 Sep 2003, 11:39

Shirer gives Frentz and Schmidt, IIRC. Are there citations for any of the others that you imply are primary sources? I have no doubt that there were photographs of the executions; there are photographs of American executions. One can even see Lee Harvey Oswald's autopsy photos with a quick Google search. But the TV programs and movies of Hitler watching the executions is hogwash. Once a story is widely propagated a source ceases to be primary unless one is questioned as to firsthand details. For example, I can't read a bunch of memoirs about the Kennedy assassination forty years later and then drop in my memoirs my own version of events as a primary source just because I was alive in 1963 and have visited Texas. Of course the amateur will see all of these sources as the same. They are believeable because we want to believe. For some reason it tickles the fancy of Hitler eating popcorn and soiling himself while watching German traitors filmed while getting their just desserts.
:)

CORRECTION: Shirer does not cite Schmidt and Frentz here. I don't know what I was thinking of, some past dispute perhaps. He cites von Oven, Dulles, and Wheeler-Bennett.
:oops:
Last edited by Scott Smith on 17 Sep 2003, 08:49, edited 1 time in total.


User avatar
GFM2000
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 09:27

#33

Post by GFM2000 » 15 Sep 2003, 12:34

I have here another interesting tidbit for this discussion....
...A film was also taken of the executions which were carried out in Ploetzensee prison on the afternoon of the trials itself. Hitler could watch the slow struggles of the almost naked sixty-three-year-old Field Marshal Witzleben in the strangler's noose, but Goebbels had to hold his hand over his face. The cadets at Gross-Lichterfelde walked out when the film was shown to them.
Source : Gerald Reitlinger's Alibi of a Nation

:D

Glenn A. Steinberg
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: 22 Jun 2003, 21:17
Location: New Jersey

#34

Post by Glenn A. Steinberg » 15 Sep 2003, 19:02

Scott Smith wrote:So basically we have nothing more than hearsay, academic incest, and Speer's pandering imagination.... Not much meat for such a rich stew.
:)
Very interesting. First, there was the suggestion that the execution films didn't even exist.

Once pretty significant evidence is cited that indeed the films existed, then we cast aspersions on the sources that say Hitler ever watched them.

True enough. We don't know for certain that he watched them.

But if he didn't, why did he have them made?

More importantly, why is it so important to clear Hitler's name of the heinous crime of having watched those films?

Oh, I forgot. There's that OSS conspiracy to blacken everything Nazi. Darn those OSS propagandists. They just won't stop at anything. I mean, Hitler ordered the murder of 6 million Jews and assorted other ethnic groups, as well as the incarceration of thousands of Germans and the unprovoked invasion of all Germany's neighbors. But he has to bear the unfair onus of having watched the films of the July 20 plotters' executions.

Poor, poor man. How can anyone stand to see his reputation besmirched that way?

Evil OSS. Bad, evil OSS.

xcalibur
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 20 Apr 2003, 16:12
Location: Pennsylvania

#35

Post by xcalibur » 15 Sep 2003, 20:29

walterkaschner wrote:Scott Smith wrote:
So basically we have nothing more than hearsay, academic incest, and Speer's pandering imagination
Well, we have the testimony of the two camera-men that the films were actually taken, and for purposes of being shown to Hitler. We have the testimony of Speer that Hitler watched the film over and over again. We have the testimony of Hitler's Luftwaffe Adjutant, von Below, that films of the executions were bandied about Führer Headquarters in a repulsive fashion by Hermann Fegelein, but that Hitler appeared to show little interest in them. And we have the testimony of Walter Frentz, Hitler's own cameraman, made long after the war, that the films indeed arrived at the Wolf's Lair, but that Fegelein was the only one who saw them. See Kershaw's footnote 43, accompanying the text I quoted above.

So it seems to me that the notion that Hitler himself watched the films, although certainly open to serious question, can hardly be dismissed as "nonsense" as Scott Smith would have it. In my own opinion, it does not seem out of character for Hitler to wish to view the death throes of those who had attempted to take his own life, even though such may seem repugnant to those of us who profess to have a more delicate stomach or sensibilities. If I had to place a bet on it, I would bet that he did. We all know that he loved movies.

Regards, Kaschner

On the contrary, Speer is quoted (in [/u]Albert Speer: His Battle with Truth, page 455) as saying:

"As far as I knew Hitler never saw the film, and I have always said so. It was not his nature to want to see a thing like that. I doubt, too, that he looked at the photographs any more than I did.".

Further down the page von Below is quoted as saying:

"I declined to look at these photographs. And Hitler would have found no more pleasure in looking at them than in seeing photographs of destroyed cities. He literally closed his eyes if forced to see the consequences of his orders.".


Apart from the fact that they are in agreement about Hitler viewing the film, they also seem to be in agreement that he didn't have any desire to view it.

walterkaschner
In memoriam
Posts: 1588
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 02:17
Location: Houston, Texas

#36

Post by walterkaschner » 15 Sep 2003, 22:50

Scott Smith wrote:
Shirer gives Frentz and Schmidt, IIRC. Are there citations for any of the others that you imply are primary sources? I have no doubt that there were photographs of the executions; there are photographs of American executions. One can even see Lee Harvey Oswald's autopsy photos with a quick Google search. But the TV programs and movies of Hitler watching the executions is hogwash. Once a story is widely propagated a source ceases to be primary unless one is questioned as to firsthand details. For example, I can't read a bunch of memoirs about the Kennedy assassination forty years later and then drop in my memoirs my own version of events as a primary source just because I was alive in 1963 and have visited Texas. Of course the amateur will see all of these sources as the same. They are believeable because we want to believe. For some reason it tickles the fancy of Hitler eating popcorn and soiling himself while watching German traitors filmed while getting their just desserts.
The names of the two photographers whose statements are included in Germans Against Hitler [cited in my post above] are Stoll and Sasse. After describing the manner of execution in some detail, Sasse had this to say:
Only the most important of the remaining trials were filmed, again on the order of the then Reich film superintendent. Nine camera-men took turns in making the films. This was because every camera-man disliked the assignment. Further filmings of the executions were refused, as I declared that I could not expect my camera-men to film any more of such cruelties. All the camera men were with me on that.
(at p. 190)

A written statement of an unidentified prison warden, eye-witness to the executions, is also included in Germans Against Hitler (at pps. 190-91), which concludes as follows:
The camera worked uninterruptedly, for Hitler wanted to see and hear how his enemies had died. He was able to watch the proceedings that same evening in the Reich Chancellery [sic; by all accounts Hitler was at the Wolfsschanze near Rastenburg at the time].

That was his own idea. He had had the executioner come to him, and had personally arranged the details of the procedure: "I want them to be hanged, hung up like pieces of meat." Those were his words.
It may be of interest to note that the book Germans Against Hitler was first published in 1952 by the Bundeszentrale für Heimatsdienst, and was revised, supplemented, translated and republished in 1960 by the Press and Information Office of the Federal German Government in Bonn. So for whatever that may be worth, it bears at least a semi-official governmental cachet.

I don't have ready access to Albert Speer: His Battle With Truth, cited in Xcaliber's immediately previous post, and I would be interested in knowing the citation provided by the author of the quotation from Speer which Xcaliber provided.

I do have a copy of Speer's memoirs Inside The Third Reich (The Macmillan Company, 1970), which contains Speer's recollection as quoted in one of Scott Smith's posts above (although it appears on p. 469 in my cheap Book Club Edition.)

The source Kershaw cites for the statement that Hitler watched the film of the executions over and over is John Toland's Adolf Hitler. Here is what Toland wrote:
In line with Hitler's specific instructions, the eight men were trucked to Plötenzee prison. Here the condemned were stripped to the waist and hung by nooses of piano wire. [sic] Their agonized jerking was recorded by a movie camera, and that same evening was reproduced on a screen at Wolfsschanze. According to Speer, "Hitler loved the film and had it shown over and over again," but Adjutant von Below and others in the family circle still assert he never saw it.
John Toland,Adolf Hitler, (Doubleday and Company, 1976), Vol. II at 927. As the source of Speer's quoted statement, Toland cites an interview of Speer by Eric Norden, appearing in the June 1971 issue of Playboy magazine. [I don't happen to have that, or indeed any other, issue of Playboy magazine and, although I may have come across that issue some thirty years ago in a barbershop I'm sure that my attention would have been concentrated on other of its at the time more fascinating attractions than an interview with Albert Speer.]

So it appears that we will never know with absolute certainty whether or not Hitler watched the film of the July 20 plotters'execution. But at the end of the day, so what? If true, it would add only a miniscule touch to what we already know of the nature of the man, and if false would not in any significant way affect our judgement of him. At least as far as I'm concerned.

Regards, Kaschner

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#37

Post by David Thompson » 16 Sep 2003, 00:43

Here's what we have to work with on the controversy over whether Hitler watched the execution film of the hanging deaths by meathook of the 20 Jul 1944 conspirators von Hase, von Helldorf, Hoepner, Stieff, von Witzleben, and Yorck von Wartenburg:

(1) We know that Hitler had a strong personal interest in the trial of 7-8 Aug 1944 and the subsequent executions on 8 Aug 1944.

a. Before the trial, Hitler announced:
"This time I'm making short work of it. These criminals are not to be brought before a court-martial, where their accomplices are sitting and where the trials are dragged out interminably. They're going to be expelled from the armed forces and face the People's Court. And they're not going to receive the honorable bullet, but are to hang like common traitors! We'll have a court of honor expel them from the service; then they can be tried as civilians and they won't be soiling the prestige of the services. They must be tried at lightning speed, not be given a chance to make any grand speeches. And within two hours after the announcement of the verdict it has to be carried out! They must hang at once without the slightest mercy. And the most important thing is that they're given no time for any long speeches. But Freisler will take care of things all right. He is our Vyshinsky." (Joachim Fest, Hitler, Verlag Ullstein, Berlin: 1973, trans. 1974, p. 711, citing to W. Scheidt, Gespraeche mit Hitler, quoted in Zeller, Eberhard, Geist der Freiheit, Hermann Rinn Verlag, Munich: 1954, p. 538, and ed. Heiber, Helmut, Hitlers Lagebesprechungen, Stuttgart: 1962, p. 588.)


b. Hitler personally specified the manner of execution -- that the defendants were to be hanged on meathooks:
"I want them to be hanged, strung up like butchered cattle." (W. Scheidt, Gespraeche mit Hitler, quoted in D. Ehlers, Technik und Moral einer Verschwoerung, Kassel, Bonn: 1964, p. 113; see also Zeller, Eberhard, Geist der Freiheit, Hermann Rinn Verlag, Munich: 1954, p. 461)


c. Hitler personally specified that the condemned were not to receive religious services nor consolations of any sort. (D. Ehlers, Technik und Moral einer Verschwoerung, Kassel, Bonn: 1964, p. 113; Zeller, Eberhard, Geist der Freiheit, Hermann Rinn Verlag, Munich: 1954, p. 461)

d. Hitler personally specified that Wolf Graf von Helldorf was to be executed last, and was to be forced to watch the executions of the others before he himself was hanged. (David Irving, Hitler's War p. 712-13, no specification of source).

e. Hitler personally spoke with the executioner to pass on these instructions. (Ploetzensee prison warden, quoted in ed. Erich Zimmermann and Hans-Adolf Jacobsen, Germans Against Hitler: 20 July 1944, Berto-Verlag, Bonn: 1960, p. 190; see also Zeller, Eberhard, Geist der Freiheit, Hermann Rinn Verlag, Munich: 1954, p. 461).

(2) We know that the executions were filmed, and that the warden and cameramen were told it was on Hitler's orders.

a. The Reich cultural administrator and director of the film department in the Reich Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment, Hans Hinkel, admitted in a wartime letter that he supervised the filming of the executions. (Reuth, Ralf Georg, Goebbels, Harcourt, Brace & Co., New York: 1993, p. 334, citing to letter from Hinkel to undersecretary (Staatssekretaer) Naumann dated 31 Aug 1944 at BAK R 55/664)

b. A warden at Ploetzensee prison witnessed the executions and described them as follows, in the quote provided by walterkaschner:
"The hangman wore a permanent leer, and made jokes unceasingly. The camera worked uninterruptedly, for Hitler wanted to see and hear how his enemies had died. He was able to watch the proceedings that same evening in the Reich Chancellery. That was his own idea. He had the executioner come to him, and had personally arranged the details of the procedure. 'I want them to be hanged, hung up like carcasses of meat." Those were his words." (ed. Erich Zimmermann and Hans-Adolf Jacobsen, Germans Against Hitler: 20 July 1944, Berto-Verlag, Bonn: 1960, p. 190).
As walterkaschner has already mentioned, the two cameramen Stoll and Sasse also gave accounts of the filming of the execution.

(3) The film was developed and delivered to Hitler's HQ (Wolfsschanze) the same day of the executions -- 8/9 Aug 1944 [Frentz, previously mentioned by walterkaschner; and Ploetzensee prison warden, quoted in ed. Erich Zimmermann and Hans-Adolf Jacobsen, Germans Against Hitler: 20 July 1944, Berto-Verlag, Bonn: 1960, p. 190), suggesting that someone was in a rush to see it.

(4) We know the film was then shown at Hitler's HQ.

a. to various persons (Speer, Inside the Third Reich, Avon Books, New York: 1971, p. 504)

b. to Goebbels, who covered his eyes to keep from fainting (von Oven, Wilfred, Mit Goebbels bis zum Ende, Buenos Aires: 1949, vol. II, p. 118)

c. to Fegelein only (von Below and Frentz, cited to by walterkaschner).

(5) Finally, we know that photographs of the execution were on Hitler's table (Speer, Inside the Third Reich, Avon Books, New York: 1971, p. 504)

Against these facts, we have quotes from two persons -- Speer and von Below -- who did not think that Hitler would want to have seen the executions. Neither of these quotations give any hint as to whether the speakers were aware of the detailed instructions Hitler had given regarding the trial and executions, or his orders to have the film processed and rushed to the Wolfsschanze the same day the executions took place. Neither quote says Hitler refused to look at the film, and neither quote explains what the execution pictures were doing on Hitler's table.

I think the inference is pretty clear that Hitler did, in fact, watch the execution film, and I agree with walterkaschner that such an act was well within Hitler's character. Furthermore, the claim that Hitler wasn't (or wouldn't be) interested in such a thing is in direct conflict with all of the other evidence.

Under these circumstances, it seems more likely that the claim Hitler didn't watch the film is the real nonsense in this controversy.
Last edited by David Thompson on 16 Sep 2003, 01:40, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

#38

Post by Scott Smith » 16 Sep 2003, 01:35

Glenn A. Steinberg wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:So basically we have nothing more than hearsay, academic incest, and Speer's pandering imagination.... Not much meat for such a rich stew.
:)
Very interesting. First, there was the suggestion that the execution films didn't even exist.
I don't think it is definitively proved that a film did exist. There seems to be some confusion over the film of the trials and alleged films of the execution; however, I don't doubt there were some photographs just like the photographs of those hanged at Nuremberg--for the personal edification of the Allied throngs, no doubt, and commissioned by their leaders perhaps. One has only to turn to Life magazine for answers.
:P
Once pretty significant evidence is cited that indeed the films existed, then we cast aspersions on the sources that say Hitler ever watched them.
It looks like a tangled web of hearsay to me. And some historians have been really sloppy or done their best to muddy the issue.
True enough. We don't know for certain that he watched them.

But if he didn't, why did he have them made?
Then why did Truman have the Nuremberg photos made?
:wink:
More importantly, why is it so important to clear Hitler's name of the heinous crime of having watched those films?
A better question is why is it so important to demonstrate that Hitler commissioned a film of the executions of vile German traitors by garrote and then watched them for his personal amusement?

Possible reasons:

1) Wartime OSS black propaganda. It has even been suggested that they made a fake film and spread the rumor around.

2) The Allied interrogators obsessed on the OSS story and ferreted out as much as possible from anybody associated with the circumstances. If you do enough digging you will start hitting paydirt because it is a self-fulfilling prophecy that you will "uncover" what you are trying to find, devils with horns and tails and pointed ears in medieval trials for witchcraft for example. And what's more, the witnesses believe such stories themselves because why else would everybody be asking the same things?

3) The Bundestablishment has a strong interest in propagating the myth of the German Widerstand. This has certain corollaries to it such as Speer's apologia where nobody in the Wehrmacht was even morbidly curious about the film but the SS of course was--the SS being the "alibi" of an entire nation in Reitlinger's words. And the idea that Goebbels had to cover his eyes. Yes, we know that the Poison Dwarf was a coward, after all, which explains his personal aggressiveness during the Kampfzeit against peaceful Communist protesters.
Oh, I forgot. There's that OSS conspiracy to blacken everything Nazi. Darn those OSS propagandists. They just won't stop at anything. I mean, Hitler ordered the murder of 6 million Jews and assorted other ethnic groups, as well as the incarceration of thousands of Germans and the unprovoked invasion of all Germany's neighbors. But he has to bear the unfair onus of having watched the films of the July 20 plotters' executions.
It was the job of Anglo-Saxon spymasters to generate Black propaganda. Not very cricket but it "works." Just like negative campaign ads "work" in the Democracy-Capitalist system today (and the election usually goes to whomever can raise the most money for TV advertising to manufacture popularity).
Poor, poor man. How can anyone stand to see his reputation besmirched that way?
There is no evidence that he ordered the murder of six-million Jews. But if one story rubs off there must be more.
Evil OSS. Bad, evil OSS.
And also amateurish in many respects. Most of their crackpot schemes didn't work and they had a bloated view of their own importance to the big picture. CIA Dulles was canned by Kennedy over the Bay of Pigs. But then we have generally had an overly optimistic opinion of proxies fighting our imperialist wars, Phillipine guerrillas and Chiang Kai-shek against the Japanese, the ARVN against the VC, and so on. Good Germans against their commander-in-chief! Oh well, as Churchill said, it takes a "bodyguard of lies." But once you strip away all the good-lies, how much truth is left?

These are questions that legitimate historians ask.
:)
Last edited by Scott Smith on 20 Sep 2003, 10:36, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

#39

Post by Scott Smith » 16 Sep 2003, 01:38

David Thompson wrote:Under these circumstances, it seems more likely that the claim Hitler didn't watch the film is the real nonsense in this controversy.
Too bad we can't find this amazing film. It could be exhibited next to the Human Soap and the Human Lampshades in the Museum of Tolerance along with Hitler's lone testicle.
:wink:

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#40

Post by David Thompson » 16 Sep 2003, 02:31

Scott -- You said:

(1)
"I don't think it is definitively proved that a film did exist. there seems to be some confusion over the film of the trials and alleged films of the execution"
We have a German official saying, in official correspondence dated 31 Aug 1944, that he supervised the filming of the executions. We have 2 German cameramen saying they filmed the executions. We have the German warden of Ploetzensee prison saying he watched the executions being filmed. Other people talk about films of the executions. I think the only person who is confused here is you.

(2)
"It looks like a tangled web of hearsay to me."


Of course it's hearsay. Hearsay is a statement made outside of a court, to prove the matter asserted. History almost never takes place under oath, in a courtroom. The claims that Columbus discovered the new world, that Cortes conquered the Aztecs, that the Wright brothers flew an airplane, and that atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are all hearsay, along with 99.9% of the eyewitness accounts of historical events.

(3)
"And some historians have been really sloppy or done their best to muddy the issue."
Like who?

(4)
"A better question is why is it so important to demonstrate that Hitler commissioned a film of the executions of vile German traitors by garrote and then watched them for his personal amusement?"
For purposes of this thread, the only importance of such a demonstration is because you wrongly claimed that the allegations were nonsense.

(5)
"Wartime OSS black propaganda. It has even been suggested that they made a fake film and spread the rumor around."
Suggested by who? And given the fact that the German supervisor and cameramen who made the execution film admitted that it was genuine, and others saw it being made or after it was processed, what is the basis of that suggestion? It sounds like a wild and baseless allegation to me, but maybe you have something to back it up. If you do, I'd like to see it.

(6)
"And the idea that Goebbels had to cover his eyes. Yes, we know that the Poison Dwarf was a coward, after all, which explains his personal aggressiveness during the Kampfzeit against peaceful Communist protesters."
Why would Wilfred von Oven, an official in the Reich Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment, be lying or be somehow mistaken about the incident?

(7)
"They are believeable because we want to believe."
In this case, I think it's more accurate to say that the facts are unbelievable to you because you don't want to believe them. That's fine, but you get no points for logical thinking on this issue.
Last edited by David Thompson on 16 Sep 2003, 03:12, edited 1 time in total.

walterkaschner
In memoriam
Posts: 1588
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 02:17
Location: Houston, Texas

#41

Post by walterkaschner » 16 Sep 2003, 02:50

David: Thanks most hearty for your outstanding post - a most impressive piece of historical research, assembling of evidence, logical analysis and compelling conclusion! Superb!

An additional evidentiary source which adds weight to the argument is the testimony of the Plötzensee prison chaplain, Harald Poelchau, in his book Die Letzten Stunden: Errinerungen eines Gefängnispfarrers , (Cologne, 1987) at 101, cited in Fest's Plotting Hitler's Death, at 301-2, and FN. 15. I do not have ready access to Poelchau's book, but here is what Fest has to say about it:
On the afternoon of August 8, immediately following their trials, the first group of condemned men was transported to the execution grounds in Plötzensee prison. Although Hitler had expressly forbidden any spiritual consolation, the prison chaplain, Harald Poelchau, did mannage to "speak quickly" with Witzleben [General Feldmarshall Erwin von Witzleben]and Hase [General Paul von Hase]. But according to his own report, as he approached Yorck [Peter Graf Yorck von Wartenburg] "the conversation was violently interupted. SS men with floodlights stormed into the cells and filmed the various prisoners before they were hauled away to be executed. The resulting movie, made at the express wish of the Führer, was supposed to show all phases of the entire process, at length and in full detail."
One other very minor point. According to the "Mordregister" cited in Germans Against Hitler" at 182, Graf Helldorf was not tried and sentenced until August 15, one week later. As to those executed on August 8, the "Mordregister" lists: Yorck von Wartenburg, Friedrich Karl Klausing, Robert Bernardis, Paul von Hase, von Witzleben "and others". As to the "and others" it is well known that Generals Erich Hoeppner and Helmuth Stieff were among those executed on August 8, but I have in mind that there was in fact a total of 8 executions on that date. Right now I can't place a source for that except my recollection of seeing 8 hooks suspended from the ceiling of the execution room when I visited Plötzensee prison years ago, and my aged memory is no longer a reliable source for much of anything. As an example, I now notice (after having first posted this) that I have failed to remember that in a cite I quoted from John Toland in a post above, he speaks of 8 men going to the hangman on August 8. Ah, sic transit goria memoria!

Was there an eighth man executed at Plötzensee on August 8, and if so, who was he ?

Regards, Kaschner[/i]
Last edited by walterkaschner on 16 Sep 2003, 03:14, edited 1 time in total.

walterkaschner
In memoriam
Posts: 1588
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 02:17
Location: Houston, Texas

#42

Post by walterkaschner » 16 Sep 2003, 03:05

Scott Smith wrote:
David Thompson wrote:
Under these circumstances, it seems more likely that the claim Hitler didn't watch the film is the real nonsense in this controversy.
Too bad we can't find this amazing film. It could be exhibited next to the Human Soap and the Human Lampshades in the Museum of Tolerance along with Hitler's lone testicle
.

I am reminded of a German cartoon I saw long ago. It portrayed Joseph Goebbels, at the end of the war, lifting his head out of a sewer manhole-cover in the smoking ruins of an utterly devastated Berlin, and shouting into a megaphone: "Aber wir haben DOCH gesiegt! " ("But we have TRULY won!)

Regards, Kaschner

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

#43

Post by Scott Smith » 16 Sep 2003, 03:27

David Thompson wrote:
"And the idea that Goebbels had to cover his eyes. Yes, we know that the Poison Dwarf was a coward, after all, which explains his personal aggressiveness during the Kampfzeit against peaceful Communist protesters."
Why would Wilfred von Oven, an official in the Reich Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment, be lying or be somehow mistaken about the incident?
Why indeed? What were the circumstances of this revelation? A tell-all memoir? A postwar interrogation by the denazification commission, perhaps? And why wouldn't Goebbels gloat about it in his diary?

Let's take all of the claims, list them, and try to find the original source, shall we? No secondary sources, no so-and-so said such-and-such but only whosever claims to have direct experience with the events or facts in question. Then we'll try to find the original context and the motives involved.

So give me your best sources and we'll look at each one.

Btw, the Human Soap seems to have fizzled as soon as I published what the Neely and Witton affidavits really said.

Nonsense is still nonsense no matter how authoritatively it is propagated.
:)

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#44

Post by David Thompson » 16 Sep 2003, 03:40

Scott -- When I asked why von Oven would lie about Goebbels hiding his eyes to keep from fainting while watching the meathook execution film, you replied:
Why indeed? What were the circumstances of this revelation? A tell-all memoir? A postwar interrogation by the denazification commission, perhaps? And why wouldn't Goebbels gloat about it in his diary?
I don't have Wilfred von Oven's 1949 account, or I'd scan it for you. I believe the entries for the relevant dates in Goebbel's diary are missing, which is probably why we haven't gotten to read about his gloating. As for von Oven, who fled after the war to Argentina where his 1949 book was published, here's what David Irving had to say about an article on him published 1 Dec 2002. He may still be alive, so you could ask him about why he might make up the story:
"This is the way to do things! yesterday's Mail on Sunday features an interview with "Hitler's last loyal soldier", Wilfred von Oven, who lives in Argentina. The interviewer claims that Oven is "totally unrepentant and chillingly, the idol of a new generation of neo-Nazis". The Mail on Sunday seems to be easily chilled. Oven comes across as an old man never happier than when reminiscing about his friendship with the Goebbels family."
You can read it on line at:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/RadDi/2002/151202.html

By the way, David Irving himself seems to have been taken in by the "OSS" execution film story, which he mentions without a hint of confusion on p. 729 of Hitler's War (at line 9). He says that Hitler refused to watch the films, but did not give a source for his claim.
Attachments
Hitlers War 729.jpg
Hitlers War 729.jpg (122.79 KiB) Viewed 8545 times
Hitlers War 001.jpg
Hitlers War 001.jpg (45.05 KiB) Viewed 8545 times

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:17
Location: Arizona
Contact:

#45

Post by Scott Smith » 16 Sep 2003, 04:05

Even if David Irving and John Toland are convinced I'm still skeptical. It sounds like von Oven is in the tell-all memoir category. I assume this is the book you are refering to:

Mit Goebbels bis zum Ende
Author(s): Oven, Wilfred von.
Publication: Beunos Aires : Dürer-Verlag,
Year: 1949-1950

I don't see an English translation, but he has several books published, including one called Ein "Nazi" in Argentinien. Sounds like he is distancing himself from the Nazis and his former boss just a bit.

I'll see if I can track down the primary sources (presumably) used by Shirer tomorrow.
:)
Last edited by Scott Smith on 17 Sep 2003, 09:02, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Return to “Life in the Third Reich & Weimar Republic”