Saturday, July 28, 2007

"A minor "revisionist" admits Einsatzgruppen shootings of Jews!"

Or so I could have said, if were fond of pathetic demagoguery, which the Holocaust deniers use all too often.

As usual, David Irving posted some trash on his website, this time it's a letter by Paul Grubach about, what Irving calls, a "minor conformist concession about Himmler's Posen speech of 1943".

Read more!

IN the summer of 2006 Professor Jeffrey Herf published his book, The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda During World War II and the Holocaust (Belknap Press of Harvard University Press). It has been said this is one of the most important books on the Holocaust in the past decade.

I would like to bring to your attention an admission by Professor Herf that actually corroborates the revisionist thesis of Dr. Arthur Butz.

In October of 1943, Heinrich Himmler delivered a speech in Posen, in occupied Poland. This speech is considered by many to be absolute proof that the Nazis had a policy to exterminate all the Jews of Europe, primarily through the use of homicidal gas chambers.
Um, no. The speech indeed is a piece of evidence (one of many) that the Nazis had a policy to exterminate Jews. That's all. No specific methods are explicitly mentioned in the speech, and nobody, to my knowledge, claims that the speech directly proves specifically gassings. So Grubach erected a strawman.
Let us assume that Himmler really did make the comments attributed to him.
Note the usual "revisionist" "I can't debunk it, but I will try to cast unreasonable doubt on it anyway" rhetoric.
Here is the key passage in question:
"I [Himmler] am now referring to the evacuation of the Jews, to the extermination of the Jewish people. This is something that is easily said: 'The Jewish people will be exterminated,' says every Party member, 'this is very obvious, it is in our program -- elimination of the Jews, extermination will do.'"
Himmler continued: "Most of you here know what it means when 100 corpses lie next to each other, when 500 lie there or when 1,000 are lined up. To have endured this and at the same time to have remained a descent person...has made us tough."

Herf writes that in this speech, "Himmler referred only to the early methods of the Einsatzgruppen murders and said nothing about the death camps, gas chambers, and crematoria [p.233]."

Herf is admitting that Himmler is referring only to the mass shootings of Jews that took place on the Eastern Front, and this speech says nothing at all about the alleged "death camps, gas chambers, and crematoria."
Note how Grubach tries to mislead the readers by using the word "admitted". The word implies that it is usually assumed by historians that Himmler somehow explicitly mentioned gas chambers and crematoria in his speech, and only rare honest researchers actually "admit" that this is not true. What a load of... Nevermind.
As far back as the early 1970s, Arthur Butz made the important revisionist point that the only part of the extermination legend that contains a particle of truth is that the Einsatzgruppen exterminated some Russian Jews by mass shootings (See Hoax of the Twentieth Century, p.241).

Professor Butz wrote:
"At the time of the invasion of Russia in June 1941, there was a Führer order declaring, in anticipation of an identical Soviet policy, that the war with Russia was not to be fought on the basis of the traditional rules of warfare. Necessary measures were to be taken to counter partisan activity, and Himmler was given the power to 'act independently upon his own responsibility.' Everybody knew that meant executions of partisans and persons collaborating with partisans. The dirty task was assigned to four Einsatzgruppen…which had a total of about 3,000 men…We have had occasion to note in several instances that the Jews did, in fact, pose a security menace to the German rear in the war…The task of the Einsatzgruppen was to deal with such dangers [anti-German partisan and guerrilla warfare] by all necessary means, so we need not be told much more to surmise that the Einsatzgruppen must have shot many Jews, although we do not know whether 'many' means 5,000, 25,000 or 100,000. Naturally, many non-Jews were also executed (pp. 241-242)."
Butz, being the dishonest bloke he is, tries to obfuscate things, by pretending that EGs murdered (some) Jews as a security danger, not as, well, Jews. But, as I wrote elsewhere
I think I should only mention that according to message no. 412 of 09.02.1942, out of 138,272 people killed by EG A, 55,556 were women and 34,464 were children.

Only idiots and deniers will argue that this was any sort of anti-partisan action.

In fact, of these 138,272 people only 56 were partisans, and 136,421 - Jews.
Or take Jaeger's report with its clear division of the victims into men, women and children, like
20.9.41 in Nemencing
128 Jews, 176 Jewesses, 99 Jewish children

22.9.41 in Novo-Wilejka
468 Jews, 495 Jewesses, 196 Jewish children

24.9.41 in Riess
512 Jews, 744 Jewesses, 511 Jewish children

25.9.41 in Jahiunai
215 Jews, 229 Jewesses, 131 Jewish children

27.9.41 in Eysisky
989 Jews, 1,636 Jewesses, 821 Jewish children
Yes, one must be a real idiot to deny the obvious extermination plan (at least for the Soviet Jewry).
Herf is now admitting that Himmler is referring to only the mass shootings of Jews by the Einsatzgruppen on the Eastern Front, something that was never denied by Holocaust revisionists.
Ah, yes, this "admitting" thingie again. That's how "revisionist" sensations are made. Remember all the "Auschwitz Museum Director F. Piper admits this or that" hype? Nothing ever changes.
The secret police chief was not referring to the alleged Hitler "gas chambers" and accompanying crematoria, and the so-called extermination camps. So, this passage cannot be used by orthodox Holocaust historians to "prove" that the Nazis had a policy to exterminate Jews in "gas chambers."

Thank you Dr. Herf for corroborating this key Holocaust revisionist point!
So, the redundant, never-contested point that Himmler did not mention the words "crematoria" and "gas chambers" in his speech is actually a "key Holocaust revisionist point"? Thanks for such an embarassing admission, Mr. Grubach!

Now, Grubach, being the silly denier that he is, ignores THE key phrase in Himmler's speech:
I am now referring to the evacuation of the Jews, to the extermination of the Jewish people.
So, no. Himmler did not refer solely to Einsatzgruppen mass-murderers. He directly, and truthfully, equated deportation with extermination. And indeed, the bulk of the evacuated Jews were exterminated in the death camps, mainly by gas, as we know from numerous testimonies and some documents. So, while Himmler did not explicitly mention murder by gas in his speech (and nobody has ever implied that he did), his speech serves as a confirmation of the established fact that the bulk of the deported Jews were indeed exterminated. And since they were deported to the camps, this speech also indirectly confirms the existence of extermination camps.

So much for "revisionist" analyzing skills.

This is a serious case of ... well, "Revisionism"

In his CODOH post of Thu Jul 26, 2007 2:08 pm, my old friend "Haldan", aka "k0nsl" aka Jonathan Andersson, committed the imprudence of mentioning my name.

While I usually let the Cesspit lunatics spout their boring nonsense as they please, when they mention me in their babblings I take a closer look at the same, and that’s what I’m going to do now regarding Mr. Andersson’s post.

Read more!



Andersson starts out as follows:

Hannover wrote:
This is absolutely embarrassing.
from:
http://www.jewishgen.org/ForgottenCamps/Camps/TreblinkaEng.html

This is supposed to be a mass grave that held 900,000 Jews at Treblinka.

It sure is. I tried to ask Nick Terry, Roberto and I believe even Andrew E. Mathis about this strange "mass grave". I said, all I see is wooden planks and some form of sheet material - "where are the bodies, where are the human remains and how could so many corpses fit in such a small grave?" No reasonable response from neither of those self-proclaimed Holocaust Experts. None.


I don’t remember where on the RODOH forum Andersson asked those silly questions, and it would be too much of an effort to roam through old threads trying to find the one he may have been referring to, if existing. (Typically dishonest "Revisionist" that he is, Andersson of course doesn’t give his readers the opportunity to check his claims by providing a link or a thread title. Not that anybody on the Cesspit, where the name "RODOH" cannot even be spelled out, would be likely to check, of course.) But if the bugger asked such questions, the likely answer was that

a) the photograph shows but one small section of one out of several mass graves in which the bodies at Treblinka were buried, and allows for no estimate about the size of the grave it shows let alone that of any other grave; and

b) if the bodies are mostly not visible (there are arguably three at the top of the grave that can be made out), this is because they are covered by wooden planks and what looks like tarpaulin sheets, which may have been related to an effort on the part of the camp staff to stretch the capacity of the mass graves by "top down" burning, or (see the comment on this site) to an experiment on whether the bodies could be effectively burned inside the mass graves.

If this answer was not "reasonable" enough for Mr. Andersson, that’s because his criterion of reasonability is a rather peculiar one that he shares with most if not all fellow "Revisionists": whatever fits his preconceived notions is necessarily "reasonable", and what does not fit those notions can never be.

After this instructive introduction, Mr. Andersson turns to downright lying when he writes the following:

I have that discussion saved somewhere and will look it through sometime. Very embarrassing! However, all three of the gentlemen stuck by the insane claim that its a mass grave which held 900,000 Jews.


That’s about as thick a straw-man as I have ever seen. Neither Nick, nor Andrew, nor I maintain that the number of victims of Treblinka was necessarily as high as 900,000 (the documentary evidence rather points to an order of magnitude of 750,000 to 800,000, and the very site that Andersson's brother-in-spirit Jonni "Hannover" Hargis started out making a fuss about states that "Jews from the Polish Districts of Warsaw, Radom, Bialystok and Lublin as well as others from Theresienstadt concentration camp, Macedonia and the Reich comprised he nearly 750,000 people who would die in the gas chambers of Treblinka between July 1942 and April 1943"), and neither of us has claimed that the bodies of the victims, insofar as they were not incinerated right after the killing during the later stages of Treblinka’s operation, were buried in one single mass grave. My take on the number, size and capacity of the mass graves at Treblinka is explained in my articles Polish investigations of the Treblinka killing site were a complete failure … and Videos, a must see!, among others.

The next straw-man dished up by Andersson is just as mendacious:

A mass grave of wooden planks and sheets spread here and there is evidence enough for those gentlemen that the Germans did away with 900,000 Jews - yet can not explain why there are no human remains.


Actually the bigmouth would have a hard time finding a statement where either Nick, Andrew or I ever invoked this photograph, which like all photographs can but illustrate a small fraction of the events in question and constitutes no more than one out of many elements of evidence, as "evidence enough" for the mass murder committed at Treblinka. I actually don’t remember having addressed that photograph except in the context of "Revisionist" ramblings about it, like in my RODOH posts # 8582 and # 8588. Evidence to the mass killings at Treblinka consists of

• the depositions of numerous eyewitnesses, including and especially former members of the SS staff testifying or on trial for their crimes before West German courts,

• documentary evidence that allows for reconstructing the deportations to Treblinka and shows Treblinka to have been a final destination for deportees taken there, a place where people were taken in order to be destroyed and a place from which an unbearable stench of corpses emanated and befouled the air,

• the physical evidence discussed in my above-mentioned articles and

• demographic evidence showing that none but a few dozen escapees from among the hundreds of thousands of deportees were ever seen or heard of again after entering Treblinka.

As to the claimed absence of human remains, Andersson should start doing something about his ignorance by reading this article, which is based on sources quoted by "Revisionist" guru Carlo Mattogno.

The continuation of Andersson’s straw-man:

Actually, I find it all a bit hilarious; a tiny picture, some wooden planks and a bit of yarn here and there, and you've got a "mass grave" of Jews.


is just plain infantile and yet another indication of the inability of "Revisionists" to understand that context is the name of the game: the picture in question is only known to show a part of a Treblinka mass grave because it is part of an album of photos taken by Treblinka’s second-in-command Kurt Franz, who in turn described the mass killing and body disposal procedure at Treblinka at his trial before a West German court (in which he was sentenced to lifetime imprisonment), and whose description is corroborated by those of other eyewitnesses and further evidence independent of him. Without this context, the photograph in question would be completely meaningless, and even within that context it is just one out of many exhibits, which provides no meaningful information except in connection with other exhibits.

Then Andersson opens his mouth real wide:

In the meantime, there are a endless list of real mass graves where the victims are German, Polish, Latvian and other Europeans, everywhere - easily identified as such!


I would love to see the fellow trying to show but a few examples out of the "endless list" he claims. As I pointed out in this article, only a fraction of the mass graves containing victims of Stalin’s purges or penal camps, of crimes committed by Soviet soldiers against German civilians in 1944/45 or of postwar expulsion atrocities against ethnic Germans in Poland, Czechoslovakia and other countries, have so far been found. On the other hand, the former occupied territories of the Soviet Union are full of Nazi-made mass graves investigated by Soviet state commissions, whose findings are largely corroborated by evidence independent of the Soviets, as in the examples mentioned in Nick’s article Mass Graves in the Polesia and in my article Neither the Soviets nor the Poles have found any mass graves with even only a few thousand bodies …. Hundreds of such mass graves have lately been located again in the course of the Yahad in Unum project.

Finally comes the icing on Andersson’s cake:

But here we are looking at a microscopical picture of a small hole with some wooden planks in it, and that is evidence of murder by the Germans, of 900,000 thousand Jews - almost a million people.


No, Mr. Andersson. It’s just a photo showing a small fraction of one of the several mass graves in which, as becomes apparent from a multitude of eyewitness, documentary, physical and demographic evidence, hundreds of thousands of people murdered at Treblinka were buried before they were disinterred and incinerated in order to reduce the amount of incriminating evidence. It is but one of the many pieces that make up the puzzle of evidence to the Treblinka mass killings – nothing more, and nothing less.

Andersson ends his sermon as follows:

Picture that.

Impossible.


Yeah, just picture the inane trash that folks like Andersson are capable of uttering in all seriousness. I would consider it impossible that such nuts as Andersson are in existence, were it not for the clear evidence that they actually do exist.

Friday, July 27, 2007

I Smell the Wood Burning

Jonnie Hargis, the UCLA library assistant who posts to the Führerbunker as "Hannover," took some time out from his schedule on July 26 to "think," as he put it, offering this steaming pile of pony loaf, begging the question of what goes on in Hargis's head when he doesn't have "thoughts."

It brought to mind this list of 10 traits of conspiracy theorists by Donna Ferentes, which was I think originally drafted to describe 9/11 "troofers."

Read more!


Consider the mind of a Holocaust denier, though, with regard to these traits:
  1. Arrogance: So I think anyone familiar with his "work" will agree that Hargis is arrogant. So is Fritz Berg. So is Robert Faurisson. And David Irving. I've met very few humble Holocaust deniers. Granted, I'm not a humble person myself. But is the average normative Holocaust historian quite so arrogant? I know a couple of prominent historians personally. Are some arrogant? Sure. Is it an overwhelming trait of Holocaust historians? No.

    Note how Ferentes typifies this arrogance. No Holocaust historian I know or have read has ever defined him- or herself as a "truth-seeker." There have to be at least half a dozen variations on that name as handles at the Führerbunker.

  2. Relentlessness. I think this is typified best by how often something like the "Auschwitz four-million gambit" is used by deniers, no matter how often it's pointed out how easily disproved it is.

  3. Inability to answer questions. Read here and see how Hargis refuses to answer a simple yes-or-no question.

  4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. Do yourself a search on "Holocaust industry" at the Fuhrerbunker sometime.

  5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. A sad example is found here. What our little friend seems not to understand is that there is no leap in logic when you have Adolf Eichmann testifying that code words were, in fact, used.

  6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Writes Ferentes, "Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources." Find me a tenured U.S. historian who denies the Holocaust.

  7. Inability to withdraw. See a key example here.

  8. Leaping to conclusions. Again, from Ferentes: "Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the 'official' account clearly and definitively discredited." The consistencies in eyewitness testimony far outnumber inconsistencies and the inconsistencies are much smaller in magnitude than the similarities.

  9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. Take, e.g., Don Heddesheimer's claim that it was claimed that six million Jews were killed in World War I. But no such claim was ever made. Oh, well.

  10. It's always a conspiracy.
I'll give the final point entirely to Ferentes:
A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.
Yes, indeed.

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Hitler the Jewish Zionist (Part I)

The wife and I were watching the Hitler Chan--, er, I mean, the History Channel the other night, and there was a biography of Reinhard Heydrich, he of Wannsee, the camps named for him, etc. It was a program primarily on his assassination in Prague in the spring of 1942, but it had some background on him, including his own apparent fear that he was of partially Jewish ancestry. This is, as far as I know (Sergey or Nick will probably correct me), never been definitively proved one way or the other. Of course, self-hatred as a source of anti-Semitism is not a new phenomenon.

And we all know that the claim that Hitler was of partially Jewish ancestry has been dying particularly hard for over eighty years. So imagine my surprise when I listened to a three-hour interview with "traditional Catholic" (i.e., schismatic) Jim Condit, Jr., conducted by palpable lunatic Christopher Jon Bjerknes and discovered that not only was Hitler Jewish, but he was a Zionist and, furthermore, most of the Nazi leadership was similarly Jewish.

Read more!


Most of this crap is covered in Condit's film The Final Solution to Adolf Hitler, which can be viewed online here. I'm going to tackle this video in three parts. Here's Part I.

The main thing that impressed Bjerknes so much with Condit was that Condit allegedly had sources for everything that he stated. So I decided to look at Condit's film (all two-plus hours of it) with a view toward assessing his sources. I'm inclined to numbered lists, so here are Condit's sources in numbered order.
  1. Barbarians Inside the Gates by Donn R. Grand Pre. Condit cites this book as the one he read that got him interested in this whole "Hitler was a Jewish Zionist" conspiracy theory. Grand Pre was apparently the biggest arms dealer in the Carter Administrator -- or some he claims. (I'd always thought that honor had gone to Adnan Khashoggi) I can't vouch one way or another for this book, except to say that if this is where Condit got his start, it's probably crap.

  2. Hitler's Policy Is a Jewish Policy by P.R. Masson and Borge Jensen. This book purports to be the correspondence between the above-listed authors and a "Jewish publicist" (not named -- of course). I couldn't find much information about Masson, but Borge Jensen has at least two books to his name: The "Palestine" Plot and The "World Food Shortage": A Communist-Zionist Plot. I think we can see from that second title where Mr. Jensen's sympathies lay. The publisher of the pamphlet cited here is KRP Publications, Ltd., which a Google search revealed mainly published books on banking and "social credit," an economic scheme adopted by a variety of malcontents, most notably Ezra Pound.

    The key points that Condit draws from this pamphlet are (a) The Nuremberg Race Laws were merely the "transplantation" of Jewish Law about "race" onto German soil; and (b) Otto von Bismarck and Kaiser Wilhelm II were "surrounded" by Jews. In the first point, we should consider that while Jewish Law will allow any Jew except a male on the kohen (priestly) line to marry a convert -- in fact the Book of Ruth in every standard Bible is a story of conversion to Judaism -- the Nuremberg Laws would not permit such a thing. On the second point, consider that Bismarck once quipped to Benjamin Disraeli, presumably about South-West Africa, that "the Germans have just bought a new country in Africa where Jews and pigs will be tolerated," to which Dissy responded, "Fortunately we are both here in England." As for Kaiser Wilhelm, while he found the Nazis to be thugs, he had no love for Jews. An informative quote from The Jewish Encyclopedia on both men:
    As long as Bismarck was in power Anti-Semitism was checked; for though an anti-Semite by birth, as he himself confessed, he never permitted the turbulent elements to gain the upper hand. In fact, after his retirement he said that the Conservatives, in their attempt to fight Socialism with anti-Semitism, "had got hold of the wrong insect-powder" ("Allg. Zeit. d. Jud." Nov. 11., 1892). The accession of Emperor William II. to the throne (June 15, 1888) soon gave encouragement to the anti-Semites and their allies. An attempt was made to induce the emperor to refuse his confirmation of the election of Prof. Julius Bernstein as rector magnificus of the University of Halle. Bismarck evidently advised the emperor to decline so to act. It was also Bismarck's influence that brought about Stöcker's retirement as court chaplain.
    In short, the allegation that these men "surrounded" themselves with Jews is a bit ludicrous given the times.

  3. American Free Press. Condit cites this article. He suggests that this AIPAC meeting was "suppressed" by the mass media, and yet the article itself mentions both the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Post.

    But the issue, again, is the source. American Free Press is published by Willis Carto, a man who sued the National Review for having called him a "neo-Nazi," only to have the judge rule that this was "fair comment." On any subject dealing with Jews, a Carto publication (he founded the Institute for Historical Review, to boot) cannot be trusted.

  4. Hitler's Jewish Soldiers by Brian Mark Rigg. I think most of us have heard of this book. What Condit only says once is that these "Jewish soldiers" were Mischlinge, i.e., of only partial Jewish ancestry. And, if you've read the Nuremberg Laws, you know that people with one Jewish grandparent had very few restrictions on them, and even people with two Jewish grandparents could be exempted for reasons such as prior military service.

    No big revelations in this book, in other words.

  5. Here We Go Again by Doug Collins. Collins is a deceased Canadian journalist, whose obituary in his own newspaper you can read here.

  6. IBM and the Holocaust by Edwin Black. I'm not exactly sure what Condit's point is in bringing in this book. He seems to agree with Black's account that Tom Watson, the founder of IBM (and a man my own grandfather knew), worked with the Nazis.

  7. Open Secrets by Israel Shahak. Shahak might be a useful source were he not a court-affirmed liar.

  8. "Secret Contacts: Zionist-Nazi Relations" by Klaus Pohlken. Condit uses this article from the Journal of Palestine Studies to prove, among other things, that while Hitler closed all other Jewish-published newspapers, he let the Zionist newspapers continue to operate.

    So what? Isn't it clear (and made further clear in the Nuremberg Laws) that Hitler wanted the only Jewish voice that could be heard one that had no loyalty to Germany?

    What's funny about this source's inclusion by Condit is that Condit is an anti-communist, but Pohlken was a East German, Marxist historian with the full approval of his government. I thought communism was a Zionist endeavor? So why anti-Zionism from a communist writer?

  9. The Transfer Agreement by Edwin Black. Yawn. Condit said in his interview with Bjerknes that Black broke this story. Actually, it was "broken" at least as early as 1963 by Hannah Arendt in Eichmann in Jerusalem. Condit claims that the Transfer Agreement (Ha'avara in Hebrew) was a money-making endeavor for the Zionists. Actually, what the yishuv got in Palestine was people, not money. I discuss this in my article on Kristallnacht, which you can read here.

    Condit makes a big deal that "Hitler never complained" about the Transfer Agreement. Why would he? It got Jews out of Germany and it made money for the Reich. What's to complain about, from Hitler's point of view?

  10. A pamphlet by Rabbi Moshe Shonfeld. Yawn again. This anti-Zionist rabbi "reveals" that Jewish police helped round up Jews for deportation.

    Didn't Hilberg write about this in 1961?

  11. Hitler's Youth by Franz Jetzinger. Condit never explicitly says what this book is supposed to reveal, but he seems to imply that it proves Hitler's alleged Jewish background.

  12. Bevor Hilter Kam by Dietrich Bronder. Condit can't read German, but he claims that this book also supports the "Hitler was Jewish" theory.

  13. Hitler's Vienna: A Dictator's Apprenticeship by Brigitte Hamann. This Condit cites for Hans Frank's "deathbed confession" that Hitler was Jewish. Writes Hamann, "What needs to be pointed out is that the Frankenberger story [see below] has one single source: Hans Frank. In looking for a motive for his equivocal insinuations one cannot but suspect that the raging anti-Semite Frank even wanted to place the responsibility for an allegedly Jewish Hitler on the Jews, or at any rate rattle them by way of rumors" (p. 52). Incidentally, despite claims elsewhere by Condit, this book also states clearly that William Patrick Hitler, Adolf's half-nephew by half-brother Alois Jr. and his Irish wife, never claimed Jewish ancestry.

    At this point in this film, we're told by Condit that, during the Anschluss, Hitler had records, etc., in his hometown of Braunau, Austria, destroyed. And yet the house of his birth was still standing. Furthermore, given that Hitler was born in Braunau, not far from Linz, while his father (who was legitimized before Adolf's birth) was born near Vienna, it makes no sense to destroy records in Braunau -- there wouldn't have been any about Alois's allegedly Jewish father.

    I'll give the last word to Ian Kershaw:
    Frank's story gained wide circulation in the 1950s. But it simply does not stand up. There was no Jewish family called Frankenberger in Graz during the 1830s. In fact, there were no Jews at all in the whole of Styria at the time, since Jews were not permitted in that part of Austria until the 1860s. A family named Frankenreiter did live there, but was not Jewish. There is no evidence that Maria Anna was ever in Graz, let alone was employed by the butcher Leopold Frankenreiter. No correspondence between Maria Anna and a family called Frankenberg or Frankenreiter has ever turned up. The son of Leopold Frankenreiter and alleged father of the baby (according to Frank's story and accepting that he had merely confused names) for whom Frankenreiter was seemingly prepared to pay child support for thirteen years was ten years old at the time of Alois's birth. The Frankenreiter family had moreover hit upon such hard times that payment of any support to Maria Anna Schicklgruber would have been inconceivable. Equally lacking in credibility is Frank's comment that Hitler had learnt from his grandmother that there was no truth in the Graz story: his grandmother had been dead for over forty years at the time of Hitler's birth. And whether in fact Hitler received a blackmail letter from his nephew in 1930 is also doubtful. If such was the case, then Patrick -- who repeatedly made a nuisance of himself by scrounging from his famous uncle -- was lucky to survive the next few years which he spent for the most part in Germany, and to be able to leave the country for good in December 1938. His `revelations', when they came in a Paris journal in August 1939, contained nothing about the Graz story. Nor did a number of different Gestapo inquiries into Hitler's family background in the 1930s and 1940s contain any reference to the alleged Graz background. Indeed they discovered no new skeletons in the cupboard. Hans Frank's memoirs, dictated at a time when he was waiting for the hangman and plainly undergoing a psychological crisis, are full of inaccuracies and have to be used with caution. With regard to the story of Hitler's alleged Jewish grandfather, they are valueless. Hitler's grandfather, whoever he was, was not a Jew from Graz.
More as I compile it.