Grey Wolf - The Escape of Adolf Hitler

..as I recall - and its no secret since I took the microphone in front of an audience of 250+ people - I specifically asked him about 'Grey Wolf - The escape of AH'. I mentioned both authors' names and your Sky interview - you should be thanking me for the additional free publicity come to think of it (although some people laughed - or may be I imagined that..) Sir Max himself delivered the words of wisdom already quoted. I'm hardly likely to put words in the mouth of a public personality. I doubt whether he has seen the book - and as he dislikes 'alternate history' and 'journalistic revelations about WW II' (his words again) I can't see him reading it. He told us about the ground rules he had at the Telegraph for 'Bormann alive in Argentina' stories..
I then also met him after his lecture where we chatted and he wrote a long dedication in my copy of his latest book.

 

Given that rather conclusive knocking-down of his denial, I doubt Gerrard will reply again...

....but if you do, can you remember to answer some of the outstanding questions on this thread? They aren't going to go away, you know...

 

here's another one pointed out by a genuine Luftwaffe researcher (I'm just an ill-informed amateur...)

" ..I was quite taken with Baumgart's claim (Hitler's pilot according to Williams) that the 'rescue' flight put down in Magdeburg on the way to Denmark. Awfully magnanimous of the US Army (there since 18 April) to let them fly on, wasn't it?..."

 

Your reporting is as skewed as your view of history..."?

Gerrard, you of all people should not be handing out criticism of "skewed" views of history, when your book is in many ways the ultimate in 'skewing' views.

History, my dear fellow, is not about what you know....or think you know...

It's about what you can prove beyond doubt. This is exactly why Empirical method is paramount to publication of serious history, the type of publication that changes preconceived 'views'. Opinions are like sphincter muscles; everybody has one. But, can you present enough evidence to substantiate this 'view', turning it from the realm of opinion to accepted fact?

Adolf Hitler is one of the most written about figures of recent times. Some publications in the seventies suggested, for instance, that he suffered from syphilus. Turns out that the only evidence for this comes from less than credible testimony from old occupants of the Vienna 'Gasthaus' that he inhabited in his days of 'kampf', hobnobbing with Vienna's down and out to enhance his 'bohemian' self image as a frustrated artist. Yet, the syph story was repeated so often it took on the veneer of respectability, and became 'accepted', even though there is no medical evidence to sustantiate it. For a long time, people believed the worst of Adolf Hitler simply because it was very expediant to do so. These days, we have a far more balanced view; the further we get from the actual event, the more information that surfaces to get rid of all the hyperbole, stripping Adolf back to a rough approximation of the person he actually was.

Only patient crosschecking of primary sources can achieve this.

'ProjectGreywolf' can make no such claim.

I have just finished reading Sir Max Hasting's newest offering on the subject of WW2, "All Hell Let Loose". It raises some very important issues surrounding WW2, and in the manner of John Terraine on the Great War, simply deals with the facts and figures, rather than speculative opinion dressed up as empirical research. I most certainly urge any history buff to pick up this book and read it deeply. It's the culmination of a lifetime of solid research. The very fact that Mr. Hastings has used the word 'drivel' to describe Gerrard's book is more than enough for the serious student to toss his copy of "Greywolf-The Escape of Adolf Hitler" into the homefires, never to be picked up again.

I hope that other members of this forum do not mistake this novel for serious history. I certainly do not, and have not since this thread popped out of nowhere.

And that, my fellow Rogues, is where this 'project' is headed for.....right back to the hole it crawled out of.

 

yes I'm afraid that just because X hasn't been proved absolutely (for Gerrard), does not for one moment mean that Y must be true..

 

Meanwhile back in the Bunker, with AH safely on the Uboot, Hitler's 'double' - no doubt thoroughly briefed - is busy directing armies and proposing new landing strips..

Ultra decrypt from AIR 240 (courtesy Nick Beale)

 

Ok, it's time to put the submarine nonsense to bed at last.



"Grey Wolf" has AH escaping to South America very specifically on board on board the U-518....and this is what the authors say about the "fate of U-518...Chapter 15 "The Flight" - page 171 -

Unfortunately for Gerrard Williams - who steadfastly for many weeks has refused to enlighten us even to THIS extent no matter how often asked - his story of the alleged (by the Americans) demise of U-518 is somewhat lacking in some VERY important details....

First of all - there was no question as to the identity of the submarine later identified as U-518 - because what allowed the ships of HUK Task Group 22.13 to close with it was that Offermans had surfaced and radio'd a weather report home!

Next, I note that Williams/Dunstan didn't bother including any details of the actual sinking for some reason; the U-518 wasn't depthcharged as most short Wiki-style histories say - it was attacked by the USS Carter DE 112 and the USS Neal A. Scott DE 769 using their Mk10 Hedgehog...which fires contact-exploding ordnance No hit - no explosion.

However - the ordnance first fired by the Carter caused TWO explosions around the 400 foot depth mark...followed by several more hits/explosions by Hedgehog ordnance from the Scott...immediately followed by a deep-sea blast. Ten minutes later the depths emitted a volcanic thunder that was felt and heard by all hands in Carter and Scott.

So not only was there ultimately no question of the identity of the U-518...there was no question that it wasn't destroyed. Because of the nature of Hedgehog, there were several confirmed hits on the U-518.

Finally - there's ANOTHER factlet that indicates that the authors either didn't do enough research on the U-518....or didn't bother including material that contradicted their story...remember this???

This is not correct; after the attacks and subsequent large underwater explosion the DEs continued to probe and "ping"....searching the surface, they found a significant oil slick and floating trash. Among the residue were scraps of paper, shattered wood and two tattered wooden boxes. The victim under this rubbish was eventually identified as the U-518.

All the above from Theo Roscoe's "United States Destroyer Operations in World War II" Annapolis, 1953. It's not as if the facts haven't been out there for decades now....


So where does that leave "Grey Wolf" now???

We have Hitler leaving the Bunker via a private tunnel in his personal quarters that there is absolutely no historical or anecdotal evidence for;

Escaping by plane via a stop-over at Magdeburg...a city and airfield that had been in American hands for ten days before Hitler's alleged escape;

Hitler crossing the Atlantic on a submarine which was destroyed a week before and who's identity WAS historically confirmed;

This is what's colloquially known as - a crock.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that it is very possible for Hitler to have escaped. One thing I have learned is history is often full of lies or misperceptions. I have had plenty of WW2 vets tell me certain matters did not happen in the manner which they are presented in books and movies. I can assure you that also applies in my experiences as well in the 1st gulf war. One example is the ground campaign lasting only a 100 hours. They overlook the fact that Task Force 1-41 was involved in recon and breaching operations several days before the main offensive began. I can easily see Hitler escaping, however, we will NEVER know the truth. My point is history is not always made up of the truth.

 

I like such funny discussions! OK, to me the interesting point would only be the fact how he made his way to Agentinia. The rest isn´t very important to me because after 8th of May 1945 he hasn´t anything to say and for that it is no matter if he died in his Bunker or in a fine bed in his Hazienda. It gives always space for good or funny fantasy!

 

Well, Ulrich - the one thing we can definitely say is that it wasn't aboard U-518 like Gerrard Williams claims!

Well - exactly! And the very same goes for the book in question...particularly when it mow seems to be a confection of untruths, inaccuracies, and conveniently ignored facts.

So how do you go about reconciling all these major points of failure in Gerrard Williams' story?

Oh, and to the list don't forget we have to add that there no sign at all of Peter Baumgart/d a Ritterkreuz winner AND the forensic identification of Hitler's dental remains in Moscow by Mark Benecke - which the authors ALSO seem to have conveniently neglected to mention...

 

So we can concentrate on other things phylo!
Ok, lets see! Getting out of Berlin unseen, no problem. Changing the haircut and the colour of the hairs no prob. Remove the moustache no prob. Leaving Germany unseen possible, the allies couldn´t be everywhere. But how to get to Argentinia? Maybe he used the Popes own connection, which is well known for exporting higher ranked Nazis to Argentinia, How to stay unknown at ther isn´t easy for a man with his ego. And as far as the Argentinian Gouvernment had guess of him, i´m absolutely sure that your nice "Company" had guess of him too! Are you sure that they looked at him how he lived peaceful in his home while he was guilty for millions of dead people? So that would be the only interesting thing to me. His role after the war wasn´t important if he survived it.

 

But they COULD be at the airfield Gerrard Williams says they landed at en route...

That's the problem now with the Williams/Dunstan version of the story - multiple points of failure.

Wrong country

 

Sorry for that! So to correct it : I´m sure that the Company had guess of him! Seems he wasn´t there?! The problem is that there are to many of so called historians out there and if you´ll follow others he had found a home at the Antarctis and planned some nice new Wunderwaffen!
But to stay real, to me the only way to escape all the troubles he must have had some good friends with good connections or a important western power found that he was worth the troubles they could get if it came to daylight, or.....?

 

Ulrich, you're starting from the wrong end - just as Williams did - from the posit that he DID escape.....and thus he "only" had to work out a way it happened

That's the old "Beppo Schmidt" intelligence analysis mistake - the Germans did it SO often during the war that Op FORTITUDE depended on it!

First of all you have to look at did he die or not in the Bunker...that's the proper starting point.

In "Grey Wolf" the authors have taken ONE piece of modern forensic work and predicated their entire story on that - while ignoring all the OTHER equally reputable and recent forensic work to the contrary.

 

No, it wasn´t the wrong startingpoint! I believe that he had never left Berlin but if i would follow the theories, to me the most important point would be the " how could he managed it"! And how could he managed it to survive while every secret service of any nation he was in war with, would have had the order to kill him. There are so many unexplained questions that it isn´t possible that he has lived at Argentinia.
The funny thing on the evidences of his death the Russians had, are wrong and as far as i remembered it right it goes a saying that the Russians had a special unit that carried his remnants with them in a wooden chest. And somewhere in 1946 they had the order to grind his bones and leave them in a river. That say they have destroyed the evidences by themself and knew that the fragments of the skull were a fake. Hmmmm.... that leaves enough space for theories.

 

That's only part (sic) of the story. Remember - the jawbone had already been separated from the body at the autopsy on the 8th of May - and was taken to Kaethe Heusemann at SMERSH's new Berlin headquarters. It remained separate from the rest of the autopsied remains, and ended up in Moscow - along with pieces of the bloodstained upholstery from the couch in the Bunker. IIRC the skull fragment was recovered from the point where the body was originally found when investigations recommenced some time later.

 

Come on guys, Hitler's brain was imprinted on a computer in the secret nazi base in antartica, everbody knows this!

 

Iám not a forensic expert, but the skull fragment has to less firemarkings on it and if you take a closer look to the cranial suturs, they are from a younger person. So this is what we never will clarify. There are to many open questions to many wrong traces and to many people that want make money with his story. To me the question would be: In whose interest might have been to give him a asylum? And what advantages could it had to have him?

 

Is anyone considering Hitler's health in April '45? He had trouble standing, how is he going to make this journey?

 

Actually - the origins of the skull have been clarified to an extent, if you remember, courtesy of Nick Bellantoni - that it belongs to a young woman.

But the skull is of minor importance compared to the jawbone - for IT and other dental remains such as the bridgework have been confirmed by several forensic experts as being Hitler's....so unless Hitler was strolling about the good Earth minus half his face....

Not as many as the authors hoped - and hoped to put across....for example, Magdeburg being in Allied hands, there being no issue over the identification of U-518 etc. etc.....

That's the point about WWII history - it's neither quite as remote as conspiracy theory authors hope it is, nor is it quite as badly-recorded/documented as they hope...and rely upon

This of course the problem.

Belasar, you're making the mistake that Williams et al need us to make; once we start to work out/question HOW - he's halfway to making us accept that it DID.

Of course he couldn't make the journey - given that it never happened. Look at all the points-of-failure in this excreble tale that I and others have turned up; the authors need to deal with all of these, PROVE the journey actually took place as they say it did, every step of the way, before they can make us wonder how the protagonist actually coped with the trip. And there is no such proof.

Don't let the CT'ers get you sidetracked onto the wrong questions - instead, we need to keep demanding the real proofs.