Did Martin Bormann survive the war?

Discussions on every day life in the Weimar Republic, pre-anschluss Austria, Third Reich and the occupied territories. Hosted by Vikki.
EditorialDreams
Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 24 Jun 2022 04:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Did Martin Bormann survive the war?

Post by EditorialDreams » 25 Jun 2022 00:21

Actually, I've spent some years studying this, and the truth is a bit more complicated. I'll explain why in 3 parts.

Facts
1. One evening in Asunción in 1959, Paraguayan-Austrian doctor Otto Biss was asked by a local fascist to make a house-call to examine a guest, but could do little to help, as the guest, who spoke fluent German, had advanced stomach cancer. Shortly afterwards, Dr Biss saw a photograph of Bormann: he said there was no doubt that he and the man he'd examined were one and the same. Dr Biss maintained the veracity of this account for the rest of his life, and it appeared in published work in the late 1960s. In the early 1990s, when the Archives of Terror were released, they included a document confirming Dr Biss' testimony detail for detail -- Martin Bormann died of stomach cancer in 1959 in Asunción. So, either Dr Biss was psychic and knew what would be found in the Archives of Terror, or Bormann really did die in Paraguay.

2. DNA testing in 1998 confirmed that the skull found in Berlin in 1972 did belong to Martin Bormann.

3. The Bormann document in the Archives of Terror states that Bormann was buried in a graveyard in Itá, and that West German intelligence was aware of this. Contrary to what's been posted previously, the Itá graveyard is full of red clay.

Conjecture
Why was the body found in Germany?
By 1972, the search for Nazi war criminals had gained considerable International attention. At the end of November 1972, author/journalist Ladislas Farago, who had been tracking Bormann for some time, gave a statement claiming he had found Bormann alive in Buenos Aires, along with several other fascinating discoveries. Whether Farago was simply overenthusiastic or had been deliberately misinformed is a question for another day, but his announcement, although untrue, shone enough light on the Bormann issue to rattle the German authorities at a time when Willy Brandt was trying to change Germany's image. Knowing Bormann was dead and buried in Itá, the skull was dug up and reburied in Germany to end any further embarrassing speculation. Just days after Farago's report, Bormann's remains were miraculously discovered in Berlin in a place that had already been thoroughly excavated.

Was the skull really covered in red clay?
Impossible to say -- the most prominent exponent of the red clay assertion is Hugh Thomas. I've spoken with Thomas numerous times, and -- I say this as kindly as possible -- I found it an exercise in futility. In his work, Thomas makes crucial observations; however, his most important sources are repeatedly 'private conversations' he held with other vital individuals (all dead at the time of publishing). When I spoke to him, I explained that I agreed with his conclusions, but asked several times if he had any evidence of these original conversations. I could never get Thomas even to address my questions: he would only expand on his theories, despite my constant assurances that I already believed him. When I spoke to him, he was a man of advanced years in ill health, and I honestly can't say whether he was deliberately dodging my questions or simply, genuinely, misunderstood what I wanted and felt the need to defend his ideas.
Certainly, photographs show that the skull was covered in something that, if not clay, looks an awful lot like it. As the only photographs I have ever been able to source are black and white, I can't say what colour the clay is (Hugh Thomas did once have colour photos. Great. Can I see them? No. He gave them away); however, no forensic analysis ever took place to determine the nature of the substance covering the skull.
The body, conversely, was simply coated in Berlin sand. I've spoken to several forensic experts, all of whom told me that, even today, the skull is rarely the best place to extract DNA. If the entire body really did belong to Bormann, why, when German authorities came to perform DNA testing in 1998, did they use the skull as their source?

How could the skull get covered in clay?
It is possible Bormann's body was interred straight into the ground; however, by all accounts, Bormann was buried in a coffin, and I personally think it's highly unlikely that local fascist Werner Jung, who attended the burial, would have put Bormann into the ground uncovered. I find Hugh Thomas' theory more plausible -- that the coffin was discreetly recovered immediately after the funeral to be resold and reused (a practice not uncommon throughout the world), leaving Bormann's remains exposed to the clay earth.

Summary
My personal opinion is that the Biss testimony, in conjunction with the fact that documents found in the Archives of Terror are considered so reliable they've been used in several legal cases, is too persuasive to be discounted. At the same time, much of the information about Bormann's survival stems from Hugh Thomas, who I haven't found to be enormously sound.
As time goes on, and fewer and fewer people who were actually involved in the Bormann investigation are still alive, it'll become harder and harder to determine the truth (for example, when I started looking into Bormann, I asked one of my Israeli friends if her late grandfather, a Mossad agent, had any colleagues familiar with the Bormann investigation, but she didn't know any still alive who could help me).
Ultimately, it's unlikely anyone will ever know for sure what happened; but all those who say it's an open-and-shut case and Martin Bormann absolutely definitely died in Berlin in 1945 -- well, there are none so blind as those who will not see.
What good is your brain? Without curiosity, it is a rusty tool!

User avatar
hambubger
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 27 Jan 2020 01:39
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: Did Martin Bormann survive the war?

Post by hambubger » 25 Jun 2022 04:51

EditorialDreams wrote:
25 Jun 2022 00:21
Actually, I've spent some years studying this, and the truth is a bit more complicated. I'll explain why in 3 parts.
Summary
My personal opinion is that the Biss testimony, in conjunction with the fact that documents found in the Archives of Terror are considered so reliable they've been used in several legal cases, is too persuasive to be discounted. At the same time, much of the information about Bormann's survival stems from Hugh Thomas, who I haven't found to be enormously sound.
As time goes on, and fewer and fewer people who were actually involved in the Bormann investigation are still alive, it'll become harder and harder to determine the truth (for example, when I started looking into Bormann, I asked one of my Israeli friends if her late grandfather, a Mossad agent, had any colleagues familiar with the Bormann investigation, but she didn't know any still alive who could help me).
Ultimately, it's unlikely anyone will ever know for sure what happened; but all those who say it's an open-and-shut case and Martin Bormann absolutely definitely died in Berlin in 1945 -- well, there are none so blind as those who will not see.
EXCELLENT first post. Oh, man, you've clearly done a hell of a lot of research on Bormann's aftermath. The Otto Biss angle is particularly interesting, and that's an account I'm unfamiliar with (granted, I've maybe a handful of hours looking into Bormann's fate vs your multiple years or so). Thanks for bringing all this detail to our attention. I'm sure you'll get some VERY-interested folks commenting here, too.

As you mentioned (I cut your post to save the reading space), there's a resounding acceptance of Bormann's skull from 1972 (and the subsequent 1998-1999 DNA analysis). Before the DNA analysis, his family had been prohibited from having cremation done to his body, specifically because of the possible DNA-testing route. Is there anything that was lost, as a result of cremating him before the science became more advanced? Are there still comprehensive DNA records/data available in case further records from other countries (ie anywhere in South America) were to show up?
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes." – Mark Twain.

User avatar
Helly Angel
Member
Posts: 5053
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 20:00
Location: Florida, USA

Re: Did Martin Bormann survive the war?

Post by Helly Angel » 25 Jun 2022 06:20

Just thoughts on Bormann.
The man held a position close to AH but did not have significant influence like other party leaders.
He was not popular or liked despite being well known. It is a mistake that legend that he was a stranger.
There were even public postcards of him and his face and his biography appeared published in the book "The Corps of Leaders of the Third Reich." However, Bormann was an intriguing, hated and hateful, at his death he was not loved by anyone and no one would have followed him like others more charismatic and charlatans like Skorzeny who was a product of the media.

Had he survived, he would have been left alone, as he was to Axmann. Even the leader of the post-war Nazis was Naumann, the one from the propaganda ministry and not Bormann.

Today we can say that there was no such ODESSA and there was a lot of fantasy, but it is very unlikely that he would have survived and even if he had been like that, his presence would have been irrelevant.

The book "Living with Hitler" says a lot about how miserable, selfish and unpopular he was.

A hug to all.,
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

VanillaNuns
Member
Posts: 353
Joined: 30 Aug 2020 18:56
Location: UK

Re: Did Martin Bormann survive the war?

Post by VanillaNuns » 25 Jun 2022 08:56

There are so many errors in his first post (which is sensationalist) that I'm not even going to waste time rebutting them.

The author Hugh Thomas is a fraudster. All his books on Hitler, Himmler and Bormann say they all escaped (and the bodies are doppelgangers) - I'm surprised he didn't cash in by writing about Rudolf Hess too!

It makes for good reading so long as you don't take it too seriously.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9864
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Did Martin Bormann survive the war?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 25 Jun 2022 08:59

Hi EditorialDreams,

What you headline as "Facts" are often not facts, but claims.

You post, "Dr Biss saw a photograph of Bormann: he said there was no doubt that he and the man he'd examined were one and the same." Why "no doubt"? One twenty year old photograph seen at an indeterminate time after the event and a single medical consultation with a presumably very ill patient who he had never met before leave "no doubt"? This is a very low standard of evidence to accept.

The claimed fact that, "Dr Biss maintained the veracity of this account for the rest of his life, and it appeared in published work in the late 1960s." does nothing to corroborate the already rather questionable story at all. The misguided, the ignorant, the misled, the honest dupes, the self-deluded, liars, charlatans and confidence tricksters, etc., etc. may also maintain the veracity of their accounts for the rest of their lives, sometimes in print.

Biss doesn't have to be "psychic" if his source was the same flawed source as the so-called "Archives of Terror", or if he was that source himself.

The mere use of material in court means nothing if its content is not accepted. What court cases, how many is "several", what were the outcomes and was it accepted as reliable by the court or just submitted by one side?

What, "Bormann document in the Archives of Terror"? I have Googled "Archives of Terror Borman" and other combinations and found only one relevant reference - your post above. You need to be a lot more explicit for this reference to be credible.

The apparently undeniable facts are (1) that Bormann is dead and (2) that his body was found in Berlin in much the same place he was last seen alive in 1945. The default interpretation is that he died there and then.

Anyone wishing to challenge this default position needs to provide a plausible and verifiable alternative. The various convoluted alternative scenarios are, frankly. implausible and based on the flimsiest of "evidence".

Certainly, "it's unlikely anyone will ever know for sure what happened", but that is the case with millions of men missing in action. That is why the category MIA was created. That is why the Menin Gate carries the names of 60,000 British soldiers whose bodies were never recovered in WWI. That is why many countries have a representative tomb of the "Unknown Soldier" containing one of their unidentified bodies. Bormann's disappearance during heavy fighting is nothing abnormal. It is not, of itself, a mystery. The fact that his body was found pretty much where he was last seen alive implies very heavily that there is no mystery at all as to his fate.

Cheers,

Sid.

Br. James
Member
Posts: 760
Joined: 27 May 2013 20:45
Location: Baltimore

Re: Did Martin Bormann survive the war?

Post by Br. James » 25 Jun 2022 14:42

If Martin Bormann were alive today, he would have celebrated his 122nd birthday a week ago, on June 17th -- thank God there is little to no chance of that!!

Br. James

ajcol
Member
Posts: 3
Joined: 07 May 2020 00:36
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: Did Martin Bormann survive the war?

Post by ajcol » 25 Jun 2022 15:40

Br. James wrote:
25 Jun 2022 14:42
If Martin Bormann were alive today, he would have celebrated his 122nd birthday a week ago, on June 17th -- thank God there is little to no chance of that!!

Br. James
Unless of course, the mysterious 'Nazi Bell' was in fact a time machine, and not merely an anti-gravity device as purported on at least one other dubious internet site! :lol:
I do however enjoy a good conspiracy theory, and it surely can't be denied that without them, the facts of some incidents may never have come to light. But, the application of William of Ockham's razor, and the simple questions “How?” & “Why?” always lead towards the most logical and therefore the most likely of scenarios, so I'm with Sid on this one. :thumbsup:

EditorialDreams
Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 24 Jun 2022 04:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Did Martin Bormann survive the war?

Post by EditorialDreams » 25 Jun 2022 21:52

hambubger wrote:
25 Jun 2022 04:51
EXCELLENT first post. Oh, man, you've clearly done a hell of a lot of research on Bormann's aftermath. The Otto Biss angle is particularly interesting, and that's an account I'm unfamiliar with (granted, I've maybe a handful of hours looking into Bormann's fate vs your multiple years or so). Thanks for bringing all this detail to our attention. I'm sure you'll get some VERY-interested folks commenting here, too.

As you mentioned (I cut your post to save the reading space), there's a resounding acceptance of Bormann's skull from 1972 (and the subsequent 1998-1999 DNA analysis). Before the DNA analysis, his family had been prohibited from having cremation done to his body, specifically because of the possible DNA-testing route. Is there anything that was lost, as a result of cremating him before the science became more advanced? Are there still comprehensive DNA records/data available in case further records from other countries (ie anywhere in South America) were to show up?
Thank you very, very, very much for your kind words. The only major opportunity lost by cremating the skull, I think, was that no forensic investigation ever took place as to where it had been previously buried. Of course, if Bormann really was buried in Itá, it's very likely the rest of his body remains there; however, exhumation of the supposed grave would only be allowed if a formal request was made by Paraguay's attorney general or an interested foreign government, so it's sadly not something that can be done by any private individual.
VanillaNuns wrote:
25 Jun 2022 08:56
The author Hugh Thomas is a fraudster. All his books on Hitler, Himmler and Bormann say they all escaped (and the bodies are doppelgangers) - I'm surprised he didn't cash in by writing about Rudolf Hess too!
I don't think Hugh Thomas is a fraudster in the truest sense of the word, because he genuinely seems to believe what he's saying. He struck me as an intelligent man with a vast knowledge, but his theories are frequently based on unproven assumptions, he has a fixation with forensic fraud, and most of his ideas are too fantastical to be given any credibility whatsoever. However, in the case of Bormann, I believe he made a leap of imagination and stumbled on the truth.
Sid Guttridge wrote:
25 Jun 2022 08:59
Hi EditorialDreams,

What you headline as "Facts" are often not facts, but claims.

You post, "Dr Biss saw a photograph of Bormann: he said there was no doubt that he and the man he'd examined were one and the same." Why "no doubt"? One twenty year old photograph seen at an indeterminate time after the event and a single medical consultation with a presumably very ill patient who he had never met before leave "no doubt"? This is a very low standard of evidence to accept.

The claimed fact that, "Dr Biss maintained the veracity of this account for the rest of his life, and it appeared in published work in the late 1960s." does nothing to corroborate the already rather questionable story at all. The misguided, the ignorant, the misled, the honest dupes, the self-deluded, liars, charlatans and confidence tricksters, etc., etc. may also maintain the veracity of their accounts for the rest of their lives, sometimes in print.

Biss doesn't have to be "psychic" if his source was the same flawed source as the so-called "Archives of Terror", or if he was that source himself.

The mere use of material in court means nothing if its content is not accepted. What court cases, how many is "several", what were the outcomes and was it accepted as reliable by the court or just submitted by one side?

What, "Bormann document in the Archives of Terror"? I have Googled "Archives of Terror Borman" and other combinations and found only one relevant reference - your post above. You need to be a lot more explicit for this reference to be credible.

The apparently undeniable facts are (1) that Bormann is dead and (2) that his body was found in Berlin in much the same place he was last seen alive in 1945. The default interpretation is that he died there and then.

Anyone wishing to challenge this default position needs to provide a plausible and verifiable alternative. The various convoluted alternative scenarios are, frankly. implausible and based on the flimsiest of "evidence".

Certainly, "it's unlikely anyone will ever know for sure what happened", but that is the case with millions of men missing in action. That is why the category MIA was created. That is why the Menin Gate carries the names of 60,000 British soldiers whose bodies were never recovered in WWI. That is why many countries have a representative tomb of the "Unknown Soldier" containing one of their unidentified bodies. Bormann's disappearance during heavy fighting is nothing abnormal. It is not, of itself, a mystery. The fact that his body was found pretty much where he was last seen alive implies very heavily that there is no mystery at all as to his fate.

Cheers,

Sid.
Those words really mean a lot coming from someone who's never heard of the Archives of Terror. The Archives of Terror proved the existence of Operation Condor. Here are some links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archives_of_Terror

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation ... out_Condor

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20774985

https://www.cipdh.gob.ar/memorias-situa ... el-terror/

And they do indeed contain a file on Bormann. If you don't believe me, you're welcome to go to Asunción yourself; but you can also read about it here: https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... che/21679/

So it's pretty strange that a doctor was stating the exact facts as shown in the Archives of Terror decades before the archives were released to the public.

The difference between Bormann and ordinary MIA servicemen is that people had a vested interest in keeping Bormann's location a secret. Any denial of that fact is deliberate obtuseness.
What good is your brain? Without curiosity, it is a rusty tool!

User avatar
hambubger
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 27 Jan 2020 01:39
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: Did Martin Bormann survive the war?

Post by hambubger » 26 Jun 2022 00:43

Would Otto Biss have had any motive to fabricate an account, possibly from a political perspective? Would he had an incentive to make it seem like the government had deliberately hid more Nazis than people were aware of?

Bormann didn't have a distinct look to his appearance, and especially 15 years after the war, it'd be hard for him to stand out unless the doctor had known him prior.
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes." – Mark Twain.

EditorialDreams
Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 24 Jun 2022 04:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Did Martin Bormann survive the war?

Post by EditorialDreams » 26 Jun 2022 01:03

hambubger wrote:
26 Jun 2022 00:43
Would Otto Biss have had any motive to fabricate an account, possibly from a political perspective? Would he had an incentive to make it seem like the government had deliberately hid more Nazis than people were aware of?
I think that's the most pertinent question. Not that I have ever found -- by all accounts, he was just a doctor who died in obscurity. His only claim to fame was that he had once been called to the house of Werner Jung and examined a man he said he later recognised as Martin Bormann. If it wasn't for two points, it would sound like the ramblings of someone who wanted their 15 minutes:

1. The date of the alleged visit and diagnosis were both confirmed in the Archives of Terror.

2. Dr Biss said he'd been called to the house of local fascist Werner Jung, and that another -- German-speaking -- doctor was there [identified in the Archives of Terror, but never by Dr Biss, as Josef Mengele]. In fact, initially, the man he identified as Bormann insisted on only speaking non-native-Spanish, which made the consultation difficult, until the other doctor leant forward and told 'Bormann' that it was all right, and he could speak in German.
Werner Jung was Mengele's co-sponsor for Paraguayan citizenship, and Mengele was living in Paraguay at the time, so these are very specific details to include. My perspective is that, if Dr Biss is lying, the only way he would have known the significance of Werner Jung and the 'German-speaking doctor' he mentions is if he was affiliated with the group, and if he was, his motivation would surely be the opposite -- to never mention the event.
hambubger wrote:
26 Jun 2022 00:43
Bormann didn't have a distinct look to his appearance, and especially 15 years after the war, it'd be hard for him to stand out unless the doctor had known him prior.
Dr Biss said that, a few days after the consultation, a friend told him it was Martin Bormann that was staying at Werner Jung's house, and after that, Dr Biss got hold of a photograph to compare. Maybe the friend was mistaken, and Dr Biss just found the idea so interesting he wanted to believe it had been Martin Bormann...but the Archives of Terror also confirm that Bormann died of stomach cancer in 1959.

Separately, Dr Biss' story and the Archive of Terror document don't mean very much...but together, they confirm each other, especially as Dr Biss' story appeared in print years before the archives were released, thus proving it was not a story he concocted after the archives were made public (that's why the fact that his story appeared in published work in the late 60s is significant). If both Biss' story and the Archive of Terror document are false, the only explanation is blinding coincidence, or that Biss had a connection with the Archives of Terror...and considering the Archives of Terror are a collection of documents produced by the repressive, Nazi-aiding dictatorship elements of Paraguay, we circle back round to: if Biss was affiliated with these elements, wouldn't he have kept his mouth shut?
What good is your brain? Without curiosity, it is a rusty tool!

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9864
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Did Martin Bormann survive the war?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 26 Jun 2022 21:28

Hi EditorialDreams,

A typical piece of conspiracy theorist flim-flam.

Let's go through it.

You say, "Those words really mean a lot coming from someone who's never heard of the Archives of Terror." What on earth makes you think I had never heard of the so-called "Archives of Terror"? It is that sort of erroneous leap to judgement that undermines your credibility generally. Apology accepted.

You then post, "The Archives of Terror proved the existence of Operation Condor. Here are some links:" and provide four of them. In the trade, this is known as Misdirection. Nobody is disputing the existence of "Operation Condor" or even discussing it. However, we ARE discussing Bormann. Not one of these four links mentions Borman at all. By putting up these irrelevant links you are simply engaged in misdirection. This again reflects on your credibility.

You then offer a fifth link that does, indeed, mention Bormann. Here is one of the things it says, which you forgot to mention: "There is strong evidence that Bormann died in 1945. As the infamous David Irving notes, the plundered possessions from Bormann's coat later appeared in Soviet hands, and a corpse found next to the Bormann skeleton appears to be that of Ludwig Stumpfegger, Hitler's last physician and Bormann's alleged getaway partner." It also describes those believing the death in Paraguay theory as "conspiracy theorists" - twice! It is far from a ringing endorsement of the death-in-Paraguay theory.

Now, to the alleged document. The article says, "In 1964, a Paraguayan Interior ministry functionary wrote a memo describing intelligence passed along by Reinhard Gehlen, the head of the West German intelligence apparatus and a serial producer of strange theories about former Nazis. According to the document, Gehlen told the Paraguayans that Martin Bormann lived in Paraguay in the late 1950s and died in Asuncion in 1959, under the care of Josef Mengele himself." OK, so where is this document? Have you seen it? Where has it been published? What is its text? What is its accession number in Paraguayan archives? If all you have to go on is this one article, then you effectively have nothing verifiable at all. We need all this before we can even begin to discuss its credibility.

If you really have "spent some years studying this" then you must have more than this extremely thin material. Please put up some traceable primary sources and verifiable hard facts instead of the hollow pretence of your last reply.

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. You have now added a detail not in you original account abvout Biss: You originally said, "Shortly afterwards, Dr Biss saw a photograph of Bormann: he said there was no doubt that he and the man he'd examined were one and the same." You now say, "Dr Biss said that, a few days after the consultation, a friend told him it was Martin Bormann that was staying at Werner Jung's house, and after that, Dr Biss got hold of a photograph to compare." So, Bliss did not come up with the theory himself. Rather it was suggested to him by a third party. He then went looking for photographic confirmation. In the trade this is known as Confirmation Bias.

EditorialDreams
Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 24 Jun 2022 04:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Did Martin Bormann survive the war?

Post by EditorialDreams » 27 Jun 2022 00:54

Hi Sid,

I have given you no apology; in fact, you owe me one for your incessant rudeness. The unprofessional level of hostility and incivility you have shown me from your first reply reflects your credibility generally, and I do not understand why you feel the need to be so consistently abusive.

To address your post -- so you have heard of the Archives of Terror, yet insist on calling them "so-called Archives of Terror"? I see. That really shows respect to the torture victims that suffered and died under this regime. I gave you enough intellectual credibility to take your words as ignorance, not insensitivity. My mistake. Still not an apology. Just curious -- do you say the "so-called Aktion T4 programme" and the "so-called Holocaust" as well?

I posted the links about Operation Condor because you asked a (rather bizarre, if you are familiar with the Archives of Terror) question about their overall credibility. This is not misdirection -- you asked, I answered. Did you not want an answer?

In regard to Wood's article, I did not 'forget' to mention these things. I did not, and do not, consider them relevant to my own interpretation of events. The article confirms the existence and text of the Bormann document; but in itself, it is not remotely, in any way, a ringing endorsement of the death-in-Paraguay theory. I have never said that it was. It is an extremely well-written article by an accomplished, broad-minded journalist/academic for whom I have great respect, but from whose conclusions, on this matter, I happen to differ. The angle of the article is beside the point -- the substance of the article is the point.

And on that note, are you honestly saying that you don't believe in the existence of this document, as described by internationally-respected journalist and Yale lecturer Graeme Wood? You...think he's lying? And that reputable outlet The Atlantic would publish this lie?

Here are some other mentions of the document in major news outlets, most of them published at the time of the original documents' release:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 75068.html

https://www.jta.org/archive/paraguay-re ... re-in-1959

https://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/01/worl ... rmann.html

However, if you don't believe respected academic Graeme Wood, I don't expect you to believe the JTA, the AFP/Independent, or the New York Times, either. Asking things like, "where is this document?" (in Asunción) and "Where has it been published?" (in The Atlantic, and several other major news outlets) are yet again deliberately obtuse questions you already have answers to.
Have I seen the document with my own eyes? What a wonderfully unoriginal attempt to discredit me. If I tell you that yes, I have seen it, and give you the number with which it is marked -- based on what I have already written, I am not a credible witness, and that will further discredit the existence of the document. If I say no, I have not seen it -- then I am not a credible witness, as I have not seen the document.

The fact is, this document has repeatedly been recorded as existing. Whether or not it's true or accurate is another question, but if you refuse even to believe it exists, that's your prerogative. I think the evidence of its existence speaks for itself. At this stage, it rather seems that I could buy two tickets to Asunción to take you to see the document myself, and you still would not believe it exists.

Indeed, these are my 'hard facts': Bormann's Archive of Terror document, which, regardless of whether or not I have seen it, I believe exists due to references made to it by sources I deem credible; and Dr Biss' testimony (I confess. I -- gasp! -- did not interview Dr Biss myself. I relied on Gerald Posner for that one -- but I'm sure you would not consider him a reliable source, either).

If you do not find these sources credible, again, that is your decision. I find it incredible to ignore the work of published academics, investigative journalists, and International news sources. It is every individual's decision to read what is written here by every user and make up his or her own mind -- that's what I understood to be the point of forum discussions like these, not to hurl abuse at users you don't agree with.

And you're quite right, Dr Biss' claimed recognition of Bormann is confirmation bias; but I'm not totally sure what significance you think that has. Are you saying it's likely that Dr Biss did go to Werner Jung's house in 1959 to examine a man with stomach cancer in the presence of Mengele, and that all these details tie up with the Archives of Terror document, except the man wasn't Bormann because of...confirmation bias?
What good is your brain? Without curiosity, it is a rusty tool!

User avatar
von thoma
Member
Posts: 5956
Joined: 10 Jul 2010 03:40
Location: Spain

Re: Did Martin Bormann survive the war?

Post by von thoma » 27 Jun 2022 08:56

Hess walking to Patagonia in search of his friend Bormann...
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
" The right to believe is the right of those who don't know "

EditorialDreams
Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 24 Jun 2022 04:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Did Martin Bormann survive the war?

Post by EditorialDreams » 27 Jun 2022 21:54

von thoma wrote:
27 Jun 2022 08:56
Hess walking to Patagonia in search of his friend Bormann...
:lol: :lol: :lol: This post is a perfect example of how to disagree with someone in a manner that's witty and amusing, but also mature and informed.
What good is your brain? Without curiosity, it is a rusty tool!

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9864
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Did Martin Bormann survive the war?

Post by Sid Guttridge » 29 Jun 2022 06:10

Hi EditorialDreams,

Errr, no, I didn't question you about the credibility of the so-called "Archives of Terror". I asked you a question about the Bormann document allegedly in them. Specifically I suggested, "You need to be a lot more explicit for this reference to be credible." So far you haven't been.

You say, "I answered. Did you not want an answer?" Yes, I want answers but not to questions I haven't asked, just the ones that I have asked. If you want to debate yourself, feel free, but don't pretend I have asked you questions I haven't.

You say, Woods article. "confirms the existence and text of the Bormann document". No it doesn't. It reports on a claim in a fairly sceptical tone. The fact that you left out material from it that contradicts what you claimed for Wood's article because, "I did not, and do not, consider them relevant to my own interpretation of events." is basically a confession that you are Cherry-picking from his piece - another typical conspiracy theorist trait. Deliberately overlooking things because they don't suit your chosen narrative is very much worse than forgetting them.

Cutting through the evasive irrelevances and waffle of your next few paragraphs, it would seem that you have never seen a copy of the alleged document, can't direct us to one that is publicly available and are reduced to taking on trust second, third or fourth hand references to it in the media from a quarter of a century ago, none of which appear to be by people who have seen so much as a copy themselves or give a traceable source for it. Your apparent explanation to the effect that It's somewhere in the Paraguayan archives doesn't really cut it as traceable evidence, does it?

You ask, "....are you honestly saying that you don't believe in the existence of this document". No, I am saying that until some substantive evidence emerges of its existence - and you are providing none - it must be treated with reasonable scepticism. It is now nearly 30 years since it supposedly emerged and yet nothing more seems to have been heard of it since the original claim. If there is more recent reference to it, you are not presenting it here. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. As things stands, this alleged document must be treated as if it didn’t exist until such time as some substantive evidence emerges that it does. And this has to happen before we can start investigating whether its contents have validity.

You post, "It is every individual's decision to read what is written here by every user and make up his or her own mind." Yes, and that is what I am doing. Remember, this is the Axis HISTORY Forum. It requires we uphold a certain standard of evidence and you are not doing so. I am simply calling you out on your abysmally low standard of evidence thus far.

You ask of me "if you don't believe respected academic Graeme Wood". Errrrr..... isn't it YOU who just posted that Wood is someone, "from whose conclusions, on this matter, I happen to differ." Consistency is not your middle name!

Why do you apparently disagree with Wood? Because Wood says "There is strong evidence that Bormann died in 1945. As the infamous David Irving notes, the plundered possessions from Bormann's coat later appeared in Soviet hands, and a corpse found next to the Bormann skeleton appears to be that of Ludwig Stumpfegger, Hitler's last physician and Bormann's alleged getaway partner." However, this doesn't suit your narrative and so you chose not to mention it and cherry picked other bits of his article instead. This is not intellectually honest.

A quick look at your three “links”: The first is a syndicated piece taken up from another press agency. It is hearsay and removed from the original source. The second says sceptically of the report, “if accurate” and nowhere endorses it. The third is headlined “Hohenau Journal; Sure, Mengele Was at Home Here, but Bormann?”, which sounds sceptical, but I have no access to the text. Perhaps you could tell us more?
Not one of these links is based on reporting by their own journalists. All report on a claim only and none of them seem to confirm the supposed report’s existence, let alone its specific contents. They are not the work of their own “investigative journalist” but syndicated reporting.

Yes, I have used the formulation 'so-called "Holocaust"' dozens of times here on AHF. Easy to check - use the Search facility. Why? because it IS the so-called "Holocaust". just as the documents you refer to in Paraguay are the so-called "Archives of Terror". Both are labels attached by others after the events they describe. I doubt a single Jew mudered by the Nazis was aware that they were dying in what was later dubbed "The Holocaust" in the English speaking world. Likewise, the so-called "Archives of Terror" carry a label applied by others. I doubt that the Paraguayan Archives have a section labelled "Archives of Terror", either. It would have been a bit of a give away, don't you think?

I am willing to believe pretty much anything providing some hard evidence is presented but, despite two previous requests, you just aren't giving us any, even though you initially claimed to have "spent some years studying this". Where's the beef?

Cheers,

Sid.

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