Searching for the Truth

By Germar Rudolf

[This article is a slightly adapted translation of a German article that appeared in the German historical journal Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung, issue 6(3) (2002), pp. 269-283. It was preceeded by an article by historian Mark Weber, and a retort by Gregory Douglas.]


The reader has probably noticed that both Mark Weber's review and Gregory Douglas' response to the review are filled with ad hominem attacks. It is not unusual to dispense with footnotes in reviewing books, as Weber does, but it is unusual to attack an author's person instead of his thesis and to accuse him of falsification. It is extremely important to prove such charges before printing them in a scientific journal such as the Journal of Historical Review because, if they can not be proven, the author leaves himself open to charges of criminal libel. The fact that Weber has not yet been sued, in which case he would have to prove his charges or face prosecution himself, is due primarily to the fortuitous circumstance that both he and Douglas are nearly destitute. Douglas lacks the resources to press charges and Weber would be unable to pay damages.

As the readers of the German periodical "Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung" (Quarterly for Free Historical Research) are well aware, the results of such courtroom conflicts are not necessarily the truth. Here we are concerned not with legalistic matters, but with establishing the actual facts of the case.

Douglas has written a great deal about the Third Reich and other contemporary subjects in recent years and will presumably continue to do so in the future, so it is appropriate for us to carefully evaluate the credibility of the man and his work.

The British historian David Irving has levied criticisms on his website which are even more serious than Weber's. Since these are distributed haphazardly over numerous publications, we can not reproduce them here in their entirety. The interested reader will have to avail himself of the Internet in order to access the unorganized sources. Because of the severity of Irvings charges, we will objectively analyze some of them.

The Background to the Heinrich Müller Revelations

In 1994, Dr. Sudholt of the Druffel Publishing House received a manuscript from the American writer G. Douglas, which purportedly was the protocol of an interrogation of former Gestapo chief Heinrich Müller, prepared by the Americans in Switzerland in 1948, and now commented by G. Douglas. According to this protocol, Müller had fled from Berlin to Switzerland at war's end. When the Cold War got underway, he offered the USA his assistance against the Communists, which they gladly accepted.

In 1994, having made my debut as a Revisionist writer with my Expert Report[1] and the book Vorlesungen zur Zeitgeschichte[2] (Lectures on Contemporary History), I was preparing to publish the anthology Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte (Engl. title: Dissecting the Holocaust),[3] and had acquired the reputation of an expert on the "Holocaust." How quickly one is promoted to "Expert" in this field! For these reasons, Dr. Sudholt, during my first visit to his office, asked me to examine Douglas' recently submitted manuscript. He wanted to know whether Müller's statements about concentration camps and the "Final Solution" were compatible with my observations as a Revisionist. He wanted to avoid harming the Revisionist cause in case it should subsequently develop that Müller's statements disputed known facts.

After reading the passages which Dr. Sudhold had marked, I said that in my opinion Heinrich Müller's testimony on Auschwitz coincided with revisionist findings that there had been neither homicidal gas chambers nor mass murder there. Müller's testimony is particularly relevant because Auschwitz was under the jurisdiction of the Gestapo, which maintained a branch office in the camp. He claimed to know exactly what did and what did not go on there. Concerning the so-called Aktion Reinhardt camps, however, his testimony is very vague. These camps lay outside the borders of the Reich and thus came under jurisdiction of the SS. He was familiar with investigations by SS judges of irregularities in eastern camps and assumed that massacres had taken place in the Globocnik camps, specifically Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec. From his testimony, however, it was clear that his knowledge of these camps was based on rumors and third party accounts which he heard after the war. He probably had been influenced by the pronouncements of the Nuremberg Tribunal, as were most big shots in the Third Reich.

I told Dr. Sudholt that I had no misgivings about Müller's testimony because he had no first hand knowledge about the eastern camps, therefore his testimony could not dispute the findings of revisionist research. To approach the question from another angle: If the alleged massacres had really taken place, the chief of the Gestapo would certainly have been one of the first to gather concrete information.

Peter Stahl under the pseudonym "Freiherr von Mollendorf" released in 1969 in his own publishing house, the brochures Fakes & Frauds of the Third Reich (click on picture to enlarge)

Dr. Sudholt went on to say that the author's American publishers had declined to publish the book. They were afraid of legal action by the US Government since the documents which Douglas proposed to publish came directly from a person involved in the secret services and had not been declassified by the US Government. For this reason, the book was first published in Germany in 1995.[4]

In mid 1996, Steffen Werner's highly unfavorable review of the first volume of Gestapo Müller appeared in Staatsbriefen,[5] which has since ceased publication. Werner concentrated his attack on the technical impossibility of the airplane flight from Berlin to Switzerland as described by Müller, one argument being that Müller could not have flown to the Swiss border in a Fiseler Storch airplane because of its limited range. He overlooks the possibility that the Fiseler could have extended its range with auxiliary fuel tanks, but this is not the place for a critique of Werner's review.[6]

In 1996, Druffel released Volume II of the Müller interrogation along with additional commentary.[7] The first volume soon appeared in English, to be soon followed by two additional volumes of excerpts from the Müller interrogations, followed by a volume of excerpts from the diary which Müller allegedly kept in the USA.[8]

Because of their revisionist contents, the German editions of these books were confiscated and burned in 1996 and 1997, resp., on orders of the Starnberg District Court.[9]

About the Gregory Douglas

During our first conversation in 1994, Dr. Sudholt informed me that Gregory Douglas was the pseudonym of an American writer with connections to American secret services; early in 2001, Mr. Douglas contacted me by telephone in the US. He said he had gotten my number from the Washington revisionist Andrew Gray, since deceased, and that Gray had described me as a rising star and new leader in the Revisionist movement. Mr. Douglas obviously felt a great need to talk to someone. Since I was entirely alone and a good listener, he called me more and more frequently, until he was calling every day and expounding on God, the world, and his action packed life. Some of his tales were truly wild and far-fetched, concerning his dealings with high ranking dignitaries and the underground, in which he always emerged as the hero. Since his lengthy tales helped familiarize me with American colloquial language, I let him talk as much as he wanted. Thanks to my sheeplike patience and his need to talk endlessly, Douglas developed so much confidence in me that he invited me to his home, where he revealed some of his most intimate secrets.[10]

Let me summarize what I learned about him.

After we had become well acquainted, Douglas confessed to me that his real name was Peter Stahl, and he showed me his identification papers. He said he often used the name of his illegitimate son, however. In 1993, this son had begun writing newspaper articles about Gestapo-Müller. This had inspired him (Stahl) to publish the articles in book form. His son had signed the contract with the US publisher and had also received the royalties.

He said that he himself had been born in Germany in 1933. Because of hard times in Germany his parents emigrated to the US in 1934; but finding conditions in the US even worse than in Germany, they gave him up for adoption. Eventually, he was adopted by a German American family. As a young man he researched his parentage and learned that his mother maiden name was Müller and that here family roots went back to the German-French region of Alsace.

Stahl was strongly influenced by his adoptive grandfather, a staunch German nationalist; and since early childhood, Stahl had a strong interest in everything that had to do with Germany and the Third Reich. The defeat of Germany in WWII did not dampen his enthusiasm. In his youth, he began collecting and dealing in National Socialist memorabilia, with which he soon developed an intimate familiarity. This trade became lucrative, as there was a huge market for NS memorabilia from the fifties to the seventies. He progressed from Hitler paintings to other art and sculpture, becoming an artist and art dealer along the way.

In 1963, his predilection for all things German and his admiration for the Third Reich brought him in contact with a German war veteran who introduced himself as a fighter pilot and later confided that he had been a member of the Führer's honor squadron (Führer-Begleitstaffel). After some time, this pilot introduced Stahl to a friend who later revealed his real identity: Gestapo-Chef Heinrich Müller. A great surprise developed from the discussion of Stahl's family background, as it turns out that Heinrich Müller's family originates from the region of Alsace, had a sister with exactly the same name as Stahl's mother, who happened to have emigrated to the U.S. in the year given by Stahl. A comparison of Stahl's family documents with those in the possession of Heinrich Müller reveals that Stahl is indeed Müller's nephew.

Of course, this story sounds rather unlikely, and any attempt to do research into the family background of Heinrich Müller and his alleged sister failed due to German privacy laws which barred me from receiving any information. If only Stahl would publicly offer some proof of the statements which he has made to his friends, his credibility would be greatly enhanced; but he seems unconcerned about credibility.

Two of the extensive brochures produced by Stahl on various aspects of the Wehrmacht (click on picture to enlarge)

The Stanford Daily, Thursday, May 1, 1979 (click on picture to the enlarged full version)

In the intervening twenty years until Müller's death in 1983, a close friendship developed between Stahl and Müller, and they shared many activities. Stahl garnered a great deal of information about the Third Reich from his elderly friend who became the primary source of his knowledge of the epoch.

This biographical data has been corroborated by Stahl's close friends. In private, and in confidence, each and every one of them repeated what Stahl had told me. So if Stahl has been lying, he has done so consistently and without contradicting himself, for decades.

In 1969, Stahl published his first book, in two volumes, under the pseudonym of Freiherr von Mollendorf.[11] In it, he exposes the booming industry of counterfeiting NS memorabilia. It is understandable that he used a pseudonym, because the book caused many collections of NS memorabilia to lose their value overnight. It ruined a trade carried on by dubious dealers worth millions of dollars; and many of the injured parties hedged a grudge against the author. After publishing a number of less controversial books and brochures about weapons, military units, and memorabilia of WWII,[12] Stahl again targeted counterfeiters and exposed more of their swindles in: The Crooked Cross, A History of Counterfeit Third Reich Memorabilia. This time, for safety's sake, he used the pseudonym Mike Hunt.

From his revelations in this book as well as his oral reports, it is clear that Stahl had detailed knowledge about not only the memorabilia market but the grey market in counterfeits as well. According to his own admission, he was himself repeatedly engaged in the production and delivery of counterfeit memorabilia. He professes to have always explicitly stated that his creations were reproductions when selling them to dealers, although he was aware that the dealers were selling them as genuine memorabilia to collectors. This manufacture of replicas gave him intimate knowledge of the huge trade in counterfeit memorabilia sold as genuine. He believes himself less involved with counterfeiting than were the dealers, however.

From Stahl's reports, dealings, and connections it becomes quite clear that he also benefited from professional training as a secret service agent. He admits to having worked at different times for the USA, Germany, and Russia. The exact functions and occasions are not clear, however. Although we can find little evidence of Stahl's activities as an agent, we know from his own accounts (verified by third parties) that he has been active for decades in the discovery of counterfeits, deceptions, and dealings in stolen goods on the international market for memorabilia, art, and documents. Three examples illustrate his activities in this field.

Auguste Rodin

Prof. Albert Elsen of Stanford University ranked as one of the outstanding experts for the works of the French artist and sculptor Auguste Rodin. It is well known in the art world that in 1954 the Rodin Museum in Paris allowed a limited number of copies of Rodin sculptures to be cast. Early in 1974, B. Gerard Cantor, an investment banker from Los Angeles, made a gift of 158 of these sculptures for the creation of a Rodin sculpture garden at Stanford University. In order to establish the tremendous value of these "genuine" Rodin sculptures, he called upon Prof. Elsen, who appraised them at three and a half million dollars. We assume that Mr. Cantor, in accordance with the law and Prof. Elsen's evaluation, claimed the appraised value of the gift as a deduction on his income tax return.

The affair would have interested no one except Mr. Cantor and the IRS had it not been for George Schattle, who, towards the end of the seventies, approached Prof. Elsen about appraising four genuine Rodins. According to Schattle, they had come from Görings collection having been seized as booty by the Wehrmacht during the Polish campaign. When Prof. Elsen heard this, he demanded that Schattle surrender the sculptures to him so that he could return them to their rightful owners in Poland, which Mr. Schattle declined to do. Prof. Elsen then initiated a slander campaign against Schattle and his art works, claiming that Schattle intended to sell counterfeit Rodin sculptures. Schattle responded to this threat with a civil suit and contacted Stahl, rushed to his aid and quickly solved the puzzle of possible Rodin counterfeits. He did this by preparing, under the pseudonym Friedrich Hasek, a manuscript which was never published. The title was Rodin: The Anatomy of a Fraud, and its purpose was to provoke Prof. Elsen to an overreaction. Stahl's tactic worked perfectly (see the attached newspaper article.) Schattle's civil suit ended when Elsen conceded in face of the devastating evidence produced by Stahl. Both parties agreed to an out of court settlement whereby Prof. Elsen paid three million dollars damages and promised never to resume complaints about Schattle and the authenticity of his sculptures.[13] Peter Stahl informed numerous art magazines of his discoveries.[14]

The Berlin Document Center

Around the end of the Eighties, German officials discovered an extensive theft of documents from the Berlin Document Center. Detlev Mehlis, the attorney in charge of investigation, turned to Stahl for help in finding the culprits, who were mostly US residents. Thanks to Stahl's investigative work, it was possible to recover many of the stolen documents and to arrest a large number of the thieves.[15]

The Hitler Diaries

The third example concerns Konrad Kujau's famous/infamous "Hitler Diaries." Wolfgang Schultze was a dealer in NS memorabilia who lived in Florida and had a Saxon accent. Since Stahl was in the same business, they were acquainted with each other; and Schultze was well aware that Stahl detailed knowledge on the subject of Hitler and the Third Reich. So one day, Schultze asked Stahl whether he might be able to furnish him a daily log of Hitler's activities in any given year. He claimed he needed the data for a book project and would compensate Stahl with valuable memorabilia. Stahl agreed, and after three months' work, including research in the literature of the period as well as his own extensive knowledge, Stahl presented Schultze with a daily log of Hitler's activities.

With time, Stahl became quite familiar with Schultze. He took note of Schultze's Saxon accent as well as the fact that he nearly always paid his debts with memorabilia from military districts in Middle Germany. Since it was unlawful to export military property from the erstwhile communist German Democratic Republic, he surmised that Schultze was acting with official permission and raising funds for the GDR, which Schultze finally admitted in the course of a conversation.

When Schultze evaded Stahl's further questions about when the book to which he was contributing would be published, Stahl informed the Stasi agent that the FBI would be very interested in a convertsation about him. Thereupon Schultze admitted that Stahl's research had been translated by another Stasi agent named Konrad Kujau, rewritten and then copied in Hitler's handwriting into an old but unwritten diary which had then been sold to a Texas millionaire named Billy F. Price for one million dollars.[16] As it later turned out, this was a trial run for the subsequent sale of the "Hitler Diaries" to the German weekly stern magazine. Under these circumstances, Stahl rejected another offer from Schultze to research additional years of Hitler's daily activities.

A few years later, when the scandal broke over the phony Hitler diaries, Stahl remembered the affair with Schultze and then, after mentioning the FBI again, got all the information he wanted: Schultze and Kujau had indeed carried out the action under auspices of the Stasi in order to raise money in West Germany for the communist government of East Germany. They disclosed that the journalist for stern, Gerd Heidemann, had collaborated with them since the beginning, receiving a share of the profits along with a phony Göring uniform and phony Rosenthal china. Stahl released this background information during an interview with a stern journalist in Grass Valley, California, after the swindle had been made public. This interview, which was extremely embarrassing for stern magazine, was never published, but it served as the basis for convicting and sentencing Kujau and Heidemann.[17]

Unlike the first two examples mentioned here, I did NOT investigate Stahl's account of his role in exposing the Hitler diaries. Since the case received wide coverage and is now familiar to all, and since the culprits admitted their misdeeds in court as well as in numerous publications, I simply assumed that Stahl himself did not have dirty hands in the affair. It could be that he exaggerated the role which he played, in which case he is guilty of nothing worse than bragging.

David Irving's Attacks on Gregory Douglas / Peter Stahl


Charles Hamilton, who died recently, was one a leading experts on the subject of hand writings.[18] In 1997, he published his last book, which was volume 2 of Leaders and Personalities of the Third Reich.[19] In the course of his research for this book, he researched original handwritten or signed documents of leaders of the Third Reich. He obtained these by borrowing or buying, and among those who supplied him with documents was British historian David Irving.

Concerning his dealings with Irving, he reported the following in a letter to Gregory Douglas:[20]

The Hamilton letter about David Irving (click on picture to enlarge)

"Dear Gregory:

Like to take this opportunity of thanking you for the Christian Wirth signature! This is a scarce one indeed!

The second volume should be out in a few months and I am now working on the third. Since the German Army is one of your specialties, would appreciate anything you might have in the way of signatures.

Just send these to Roger with a copy to me.

I thought I would keep you up to the mark on my problems with David Irving.

He has been sending me quantities of Hitler, and other personalities, papers for sale in my auctions. So far, until this month at least, no problems but Irving is really terrible to deal with. No manners and very rude.

The last batch contained a number of Hitler documents. I had to tell Irving that some were mechanically signed and he became very usual.

I had my suspicions about the origins of several of these and found a circular from the former Soviet Archives about stolen Hitler papers. Sure enough, one of these Irving pieces turned out to be stolen.

Well, as you know, I am careful about this so I did some more digging and discovered that all of these Irving pieces had been taken from various archives over the past few years.

I naturally informed Irving about this and he became extremely abusive, telling me that he had no idea (hah!!) that they were stolen (but all seem to have come from archives that he had visited) an then absolutely demanding their immediate return.

When I told him that these pieces were being returned to their legal owners, he really let fly at me! He demanded their return, threatened to actually sue me for stealing his (stolen) documents! he also said that if I ever mentioned his name in connection with all of this, he would also sue me for defamation!

Of course he won't get them back and he will be damned lucky if he isn't permanently 86'ed out of these archives. He has a bad reputation for selling very, very dubious Nazi relics and now this!

I think I made a mistake when I told him off because I said that Pete Stahl knew all about his diddlings and cons. I am sure he now hates Stahl and will now turn on him!

I did blow it but perhaps he will realize that I can no longer have any dealings with him. (J. Costello told me three years ago that Irving was stuffing original papers into his briefcase at the NA.)

Thanks again for your courtesy and I promise not to put your name into this sorry business.


According to Stahl, the trade in genuine and "questionable" NS memorabilia and documents has for decades been an important source of income for David Irving. Since Stahl himself was also active in the memorabilia trade, he claims to know a great many details about Irving's dealings. Irving, on the other hand, informed me recently by email that he has never dealt in NS memorabilia. However, it is a fact that Charles Hamilton (quoted above) is aware of Irving's bad reputation regarding NS documents and memorabilia, and that Irving and Stahl have been acquainted at least since the end of the seventies. The reason for this can only be that Irving has been involved in the memorabilia trade, which includes documents. His involvement would not be not surprising, since many historians, researchers, and authors who specialize in this period use their access to such materials for commercial gain. This is neither morally reprehensible nor a subject of debate here.

Irving published his controversial book Hitler's War in 1977.[21] The thesis which Irving developed--that Hitler was unaware of a "Final Solution" in the sense of mass extermination of Jews--brought massive attacks from established historians. Since Irving apparently could find no documentary evidence for his thesis, he finally turned to various experts, including Dr. Charles B. Burdick, Dean of the Sociology Faculty of San Jose State University.[22] Dr. Burdick was well acquainted with Stahl, as the latter had supplied him with numerous contemporary documents of the Third Reich. Burdick arranged a meeting between Stahl and Irving, at which time Irving requested Stahl's assistance in his search for a document which would prove Hitler's ignorance of a genocidal solution to the Jewish problem. Stahl describes the results of this meeting in his own words:[23]

As Stahl was unable to report success in his searches of several archives, Irving became ever more persistent and aggressive. In order to be rid of the pesky Irving, Stahl's friend Michael Shea, who had spent considerable time in Germany and had a rudimentary knowledge of German, suggested they play a practical joke on Irving. Shea sat down and typed out in broken German something which Himmler might conceivably have written to Pohl and pasted Himmler's letterhead and signature on it. Since he had no idea of Pohl's title or address, he simply left those blank.

Who would take such a document seriously? Irving did... (click on picture to enlarge)

The reader can marvel at Shea's grotesque creation in the reproduction to the right. For any one who knows German, it is immediately obvious that this is a parody. Even Stahl, who has a very limited command of German, was aware that it was a parody, and was unwilling to use Sheas's lousy job. But since Irving stubbornly continued demanding results from Stahl, often calling him at night, Stahl finally read the "document" to him over the telephone in June of 1980. Irving wrote down what Stahl dictated over the telephone. Not only was Irving filled with enthusiasm, he constantly urged the reluctant Stahl to send him the original "document" or at least a high quality copy. Stahl was amazed that Irving, who speaks fluent German, stubbornly continued to insist on having the absurd document in spite of its grotesque German. He played for time, hoping that Irvings fanaticism would finally give way to reason and he would stop harassing him, but nothing helped. Irving simply could not be dissuaded, however, and so, around the end of July 1980, Stahl sent him the "document." Instead of the expected tantrum, Irving telephoned to express his gratitude and then sent Stahl an autographed photograph of Rommel.

The affair was still not over, however. After the first volumes of Gestapo Müller appeared, Stahl was contacted by Thomas L. Shutt II, a well known document collector of his acquaintance who promised to send him a copy of an interesting document on concentration camps. When Stahl received the "interesting document," he immediately recognized it as Sheas's bizarre invention. In response to Stahl's query, Shutt revealed that he had received the document as a gift from Irving, who praised it in glowing terms as a very important document.[24]

At about the same time that Charles Hamilton responded to threats made by Irving in counter-threatening with information he had from Peter Stahl (see Hamilton's letter), Irving contacted the German publisher and attempted to dissuade him from releasing the Gestapo- Müller books, charging that Peter Stahl was a known counterfeiter.[25] In April of 1996, Irving wrote an unpublished letter to the editor of the London Observer in which he repeated charges that Stahl was engaged in counterfeiting. He posted this letter on his website.[26] Irving's first entry in his diary branding Stahl a counterfeiter appears in 1997, as published on Irving's website.[27] This was followed by a similar accusation in his Action Report in 1998.[28]

Combined with similar attacks by Mark Weber of the Institute for Historical Review (see below), these writings hampered to sales of Gregory Douglas' new book on the Kennedy assassination,[29] which initially enjoyed considerable success. The charges of falsification raised against Douglas/Stahl caused conspiracy theorists, critics, and reviewers to shy away from the book. In reaction to this smear campaign, Douglas/Stahl launched their own websites in June 2002.[30] David Irving reacted to them with a massive counterattack.[31]

An analysis of Irving's Charges

1. "Webbugs"

Irving's most striking attack on Douglas/Stahl was Irving's oft repeated charge that Douglas' websites contained some kind of programs such as JavaScript, ActiveX, Viruses, or Cookies which made it possible for him to observe visitors to the websites and damage their computers. As someone who is familiar with these technologies, I investigated it and found out that Irving's claims are untrue. Douglas' websites are rather primitive and show no evidence of any such programs. After I informed Irving that his allegations were untrue, he changed his warning somewhat by making them even worse, expanding his accusation to include other kinds of alleged observation. He also extended the warning to include another website where Stahl had posted materials, but which has no such observing techniques either.[32] Thus, it must be concluded that Irving has deliberately spread malicious rumors in order to discourage his website visitors from considering the opposing point of view. In addition, Irving fails to provide links from his website to the Douglas/Stahl website whereas Douglas/Stahl provide a great many links to Irving's website, thus making it easy to compare arguments.

2. Pseudonyms

Prof. Frank Thayer,
University of New Mexico

A charge which is frequently made against Stahl is that he writes under various pseudonyms; and whoever has read this far is already acquainted with several of these: Gregory Douglas, Freiherr von Mollendorf, Mike Hunt, Friederich Hasek. We can also add names from the website where articles as well as extracts from controversial documents have been published, which allegedly came from the private files of Robert T. Crowley. Formerly an assistant director of the CIA, Crowley died in October 2000. Stahl has repeatedly stated that he possessed these documents and had posted them on his website. The names appearing there are: Walter Storch,[33] Karl Kolcheck,[34] George S. MacAlister.[35] While Irving does not count the first two names, he does list others which he says are pseudonyms of Stahl's, but which have proven not to be so:[36] Robert T. Crowley, Chris Crowles,[37] Frank Thayer, Richard Mundhenk,[38] Aaron Johnson,[39] Zack Mehlis, Norwood Burch, Roger Steele,[40] and who knows how many others. Irving seems to have included every name which ever appeared in any connection with Peter Stahl as a pseudonym of his.

The name Roger Steele is particularly interesting psychologically because this was a pseudonym of Gaylord Wessock, who formerly supplied Stahl with NS memorabilia and was subsequently convicted of theft and counterfeiting. It is conceivable that Irving's constantly reiterated charge of counterfeiting derives from his assumption that Roger Steele is really Peter Stahl. Stahl is, after all, the German word for Steel! However, Roger Steele died on November 29, 1978.[41]

Rap Sheet of Gaylord Wessock alias Roger Steele (click on picture to enlarge)

Death Certificate of Gaylord Wessock alias Roger Steele (click on picture to enlarge)

Out of concern for security as well as privacy, Stahl has carefully avoided using his real name since the eighties. Stahl never bothered about where and under what names his articles appeared, and this led to such blunders as publication of the same article under different names and first person references to other pseudonyms, and so his practice of using pseudonyms is as full of holes as a Swiss cheese.

But it is hard to see how one can blame a writer for using pseudonyms when he deals with controversial subjects and expresses viewpoints which are dangerous for him personally. The use of pseudonyms is quite common, entirely legal, and morally unassailable. I myself have used around thirty different pseudonyms in the past twenty years. My journal Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung fairly teems with authors who are not writing under their own names; in fact, a Revisionists who uses his real name is the exception rather than the norm. As readers of the Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung well know, there is a good and logical reason for using pseudonyms, in view of the social and legal persecution to which Revisionist writers are exposed. Until now, the only objections to my use of pseudonyms have come from radical opponents of Revisionism. I find it very distasteful that such attacks should come from the ranks of Revisionists and be directed against a writer who is, to say the least, not an opponent of Revisionism.

3. Forgery of the Himmler-Document

As we have noted above, in 1980, Stahl did indeed give Irving a grotesque and bogus "document" as Irving had been demanding with annoying persistence over a long period of time. Stahl's version of the story, related above, is corroborated in its essentials by Irving's diary entries published on his website.[42] Irving corroborates also that Stahl dictated the document over the telephone. Irving actually published his notes concerning what Stahl had dictated to him. The body of what Irving jotted down is the same as in Stahl's "document" except that Stahl's version did not contain Pohl's title and address, given in Irving's diary as follows:

"SS Obergruppenführer und General der Waffen SS Oswald Pohl,
SS Wirtschafts- und Verwaltungshauptamt
Berlin Lichterfelde-West
Unter den Eichen 126-135.

Sehr geehrter Herr Obergruppenführer"

Stahl insists that he dictated the letter exactly as Shea had typed it. The reason for the discrepancy between Stahl's statement and Irving's diary entry will not be discussed here. It is very significant that Irving's Internet diary entries make no mention of any attempt to investigate the authenticity of this "document." Sure enough, his diary entries confirm the exuberance mentioned by Stahl. Irving telephoned Prof. Joe Hobbs in Raleigh, North Carolina, just five days later to announce the glad tidings of the documentary discovery:

"June 21, 1980

(New Orleans)

7:25 pm Telephoned Professor Joe Hobbs at Raleigh, North Carolina, and told him about the Peter Stahl document. He was astonished, and full of admiration and congratulations. He compared it with Copernicus and said that the difference was that I was living to see myself vindicated in my lifetime. He added that a few days ago he had seen a picture book on aerial warfare with several pages on the Dresden raids and drew the conclusion that even if I had written only the Dresden book I would have justified my writing activities for my lifetime. [...]"

According to Irving's diary, Stahl sent him the "document" in mid July 1980. One can safely assume that Irving, at the very latest when he received this hoax through the mail, must have realized that somebody was pulling the wool over his eyes. In view of Irving's temperament, this surely would have led to additional diary entries. However, Irving mentions nothing at all about either receipt of the "document" or his reaction to it. For seventeen years, he avoids mentioning the incident anywhere, until February 2, 1997, during a telephone conversation with Andrew Gray, when he mentions that Stahl falsified his "Himmler Document." Has Irving withdrawn diary entries which supported Stahl's statement that he was enthusiastic about receipt of the "document" and sent him a photo of Rommel in return?[43]

All in all this affair casts a bad light on Irving as well as on Stahl, who may not have been the creator of this parody, but he did knowingly pass it on. This was such a miserable and grotesque hoax that no one can seriously think that Shea or Stahl would have believed for an instant that they could deceive a real historian who spoke perfect German. It was nothing more than poking fun at David Irving; but alas, Irving threw himself upon the sword. Obviously he was so obsessed with finding any document at all to support his thesis that he was taken in by this absurd dictated "document" for over a month, stubbornly persisting in the attempt to gain possession of it. Since Irving speaks perfect German, there is no excuse for his behavior. Furthermore he himself distributed the "document," or copies thereof. It is clear that he sent it to at least one person: Thomas Shutt, who does not know German and was taken in by the hoax. This absurdity - I can't make myself say "counterfeit" because it is such an insult to all real counterfeits of the world - was silently accepted by Irving for more than seventeen years. In the final analysis, he in a sense provoked creation of this "document" and helped with its distribution, with his pushy quest for evidence supporting his thesis. As far as distribution of this nonsense is concerned, he is sitting in the same boat with Shea and Stahl

The scientist molds his theses to fit the evidence, but in this case, Irving attempted to force the evidence to conform to his thesis. At last he has been convinced that it won't work, but now he is using the incident to reflect unfavorably on others. This whole incident should be in a cabaret theatre, not on Revisionist websites.

4. Other Accusations

Irving goes on to charge that documents used by Gregory Douglas in his Gestapo-Müller book are falsified, also that police reports exist stating that Peter Stahl is really named something else and that he has been convicted of counterfeiting. I shall examine these charges in the next section because Irving is basing his arguments on Weber, whose presentations are more extensive and objective.

Directly and indirectly, Irving charges at various places that Stahl was on the wrong side of the law in the matter of the Rodin counterfeits; that Stahl stole documents from the Berlin Document Center, and that Stahl forged the Hitler Diaries. But Irving is simply taking facts which Stahl admits and turning them on their heads. He provides no proof whatsoever for these accusations, just as he provides no proof for the lesser charges which he makes and distributes over his entire website. He is engaging in plain old character assassination.


David Irving has earned the reputation of suing everyone who dares to say anything uncomplimentary about him. As a consequence, the matters which we mention here in passing have never come to the surface. Since I have no desire to expose myself to David Irving's malicious attacks and ruinous lawsuits, I will abstain from evaluating his person as well as the nature of his charges against Gregory Douglas/Peter Stahl. The facts will have to speak for themselves.

Mark Webers Attacks on Gregory Douglas / Peter Stahl


In his critique of Weber's review, Gregory Douglas presents his version of his dealings with Mark Weber, who in his review does the same for his dealings with Douglas.

To this I would like to add the events which occurred in the Spring of 2001. In our long telephone conversations, Stahl and I agreed that the long, drawn-out legal battle between Willis Carto, the founder of the "Legion for the Survival of Freedom" (LSF, cover organization of the Institute for Historical Review, IHR) on the on hand and the LSF/IHR on the other hand, was doing real damage to the Revisionist movement, and that we would do everything in our power to put an end to it. I therefore attempted to bring about an out of court resolution by acting as intermediary and engaging both sides in a discussion. Douglas alias Stahl acted on behalf of Carto, with the San Francisco lawyer Andrew Allen representing the LSF. Since, in the view of the IHR, Carto had already torpedoed two out-of-court settlements, the LSF/IHR harbored a great deal of skepticism about Carto's willingness to negotiate. At any rate, the LSF over-reacted to Carto's proposal that Douglas should be accepted as his confidential representative on the LSF board of directors. In a press release published by the LSF during arbitration negotiations and in connection with Carto's proposal, they referred to Gregory Douglas as "a known criminal and document forger."[44] No attempt at arbitration could be more effectively sabotaged, no declaration of war on Douglas/Stahl could be more clearly expressed. In continuation of this war, Mark Weber published his review of the Gestapo-Müller books[45]--six years after their initial publication! In doing so, he used this periodical as a vehicle to vent his personal animosities.

An Analysis of Weber's Charges

1. Pseudonyms

Weber is basically repeating Irving's charges, except with a different assortment of names. With the exception of the name Gregory Douglas, Weber does not provide evidence for his assertion. The statements made in the section on Irving are valid here as well.

In several telephone conversations, Weber explained that the objectionable aspects of Stahl's use of pseudonyms was not that he was protecting his privacy, but that he also used them for public appearances and to launch personal attacks on others, and those targeted were unable to defend themselves against phony names.

I am unable to follow this alleged reprehensibility of using pseudonyms at public appearances. Ultimately, pseudonyms still serve to protect one's private sphere. However, the use of pseudonyms is obviously pointless when the same person appears in public under numerous names and can thus be easily identified. Such a practice may well be called dumb, but not reprehensible.

The charge that Stahl initiated personal attacks under cover of pseudonyms is valid, as shown by his sometimes tasteless, below-the-belt attacks on Irving.[46] However, they occurred only after Irving's attacks on Stahl had been published.

2. Criminal Records

Both Irving and Weber claim to have documents proving that Stahl's real name is something different, and that he has a sizeable criminal record. In spite of my repeated requests, both Irving and Weber declined to furnish me with copies of these documents. It appears that these documents are not records of convictions, but rather arrest records: that is, complaints which led to his arrest. Stahl admitted to me that an arrest record might well exist but said that he has never been charged with, or at least convicted for, a felony. The charges on which he was arrested could not be substantiated.[47] Since the release of such records without the consent of the subject is unlawful, Weber and Irving would never be able to offer them as evidence. But they claim nevertheless that the documents prove Stahl is a counterfeiter. This could be proven true only if Stahl had been convicted of a felony, and it appears that this is not the case.

In other words, Weber's and Irving's charges represent unproven, apparently unprovable accusations. Stahl could charge them with defamation if he were so minded. All three are chronically broke, however. Stahl is unable to sue either Weber or Irving because he could never rake up enough money for a trial. The same goes for Gregory Douglas, Stahl's son, who is vilified in the same breath as his father. However, he has already won several civil suits with corresponding monetary damages.

3. Gestapo Müller

Page 37 of Document No. XE 235539WJ, US Intelligence Command, Ft. George Meade, Maryland 20755-5995 (click on picture to enlarge)

Letter from Brigadier Gen. John Weckerling, 11.Sep.1950,
regarding Heinrich Müller, from the Crowley-Papers (click on picture to enlarge)

Weber's argument that Gregory/Stahl are guilty of falsifying documents centers on the Stahl's writings about Gestapo-Müller. He alleges the Stahl concocted the story of Hitler's evacuation to Spain by way of Austria at the end of WWII. Since Douglas deals intensively with the subject in his response to Weber, I will spare myself the effort of repeating his explanations. Let me reiterate as a supplement that Dr. Sudhold informed me in 1994 that Douglas' English publisher, Roger Bender, had initially declined to publish the Gestapo Müller manuscript because he was afraid of possible legal consequences in releasing secret US documents. This is confirmed by later statements of Bender and Stahl. When Bender published the first article by Douglas in his periodical, he avoided publishing the original document for this reason. He expressed the wish that it did not contained an archive marking of "Secret" whereupon the document was "manipulated" or altered to remove the stamp. Later he acknowledged this as a mistake which he corrected along with an explanation in a subsequent edition of his magazine. With this, Weber's accusations of counterfeiting collapse.

Weber said by telephone that, as far as he was concerned, he still considers in proven that Stahl had falsified the document. After the first fake, when Douglas had noticed his mistake, he persuaded Bender to print a second falsified and improved version with a phony explanation. Again, Weber offers no proof of his accusation, however. After receiving Stahl's written response to Weber's review, I invited Weber to write a retort, but he declined to do so.

Weber's thesis is that Müller was never in the US. He believes that the documents which Douglas quoted and reproduced in this regard are counterfeit. In numerous telephone conversations and extensive email correspondence I referred Weber to the following facts:

Weber's reaction to these various independent attestations that Müller had really been employed by the US Secret Services and flown to the USA is indicative. Entrenched behind the position that what should not be true can not be true, he refuses to discuss the matter. In Weber's eyes, it is unthinkable that the media and first of all the Jewish lobby in the United States would stay silent if there would only be a substantiated suspicion that Müller was present in the USA after the war. However, Weber ignores that Müller did not immigrate into the USA secretly, as did, for example, John Demjanjuk or other alleged NS "war criminals", but that he was hired by the U.S. government itself. To admit this would mean that the U.S. government was either so unscrupulous as to make common cause with one of the worst "Nazis" and biggest mass murderers of all times, or that they believed Müller's statements and considered the "findings" of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg to be propaganda. Hence, to turn the case of Gestapo Müller into a scandal would not have made it just another "Nazi hunt", but would be both a recognition of the correctness of revisionist findings as well as a massive attack on the U.S. government itself, or in other words: an attack of the Jews against themselves. It cannot therefore come to anybody's surprise that the entire U.S. establishment would prefer to sweep the entire affair under the carpet.

4. Hitler's alleged Flight to Spain

Douglas' remarks on the genesis of the two drafts of the document concerning Hitler's alleged flight to Spain require critical analysis.[50] In the course of a conversation, Mark Weber informed me that he had spoken with Douglas' publisher, Roger J. Bender. He said Bender disputed Douglas, saying that he himself had not altered or manipulated the first published version, but had received it from Douglas. In a letter written on 24 June 2002, twelve years after the incident, Mr. Bender wrote me the following:

"It has been over ten years ago that I did those publications so the memory may be a little vague. I do remember being a little concerned using a document marked 'secret' and expressed this to the author. He then came up with the clean version without markings."

After further telephone conversations in which I confronted Bender and Douglas with each other's statements and directed their attention to several contradictions, I was able to establish the following:

  1. The version published as the second "original" version is the one Douglas first gave to Bender, a short time before the first article was printed. At first, Bender hesitated to print this version for fear that it would be illegal to do so, as he informed the author. He asked someone to change the document so that he would no longer need fear legal consequences.
  2. Douglas then handed Bender a second copy after readers began to protest the printing of the altered version. Thus Douglas always had access to the original version. In the correction, made in coordination with Bender after two editions, Douglas explained the process as follows:[51]
    "This document, as published, was not an exact copy of the original but had been retouched prior to printing to obliterate a number of tell-tale post-war US intelligence stamps and frankings. In blanking out these marks, the text was partially destroyed and had to be reconstructed by an individual unfamiliar with German grammar. This caused a number of minor errors to appear."
  3. Let us assume that Douglas himself tried to remove the stamps and markings and an accident occurred which damaged the text. This might have led him to rewrite the entire text, then paste on a letterhead and signature. This would make sense only if Douglas had foolishly altered his original without making safety copies, or if he no longer had access to that original. If he still had access to the original, he would simply have discarded the ruined copy, made a new photocopy, and tried again to remove the stamps and markings. Since he subsequently supplied Bender with an unaltered copy of the original, both scenarios can be ruled out. Douglas did not destroy his original, and he always had access to it. We can therefore logically rule out the possibility that Douglas himself carried out these alterations.
  4. Bender points out that he certainly could not have changed the document because he did not have a German typewriter; the same is true of Douglas as well. Bender pointed out that in those days, the final typesetting and pasting-up were done by the printer. He no longer remembered which printer had done that job, however. The technology used by Bender's printers in those days consisted of making the proper sized negatives of all illustrations and documents and then mounting them on the pasting-up table. Everything the author or publisher today does by computer, was then done by the printer during the final layout. Thus it is quite likely that the printer made the very mistake described above. During his attempt to whiteout the undesired stamps, the printer's only available copy of the document was damaged. He did have access to the technology to create a new and unflawed print, however. If he was under dateline pressure and Douglas did not deliver a new copy on time - the exact scenario which Douglas described to me - then it is entirely plausible that he would resort to the emergency solution of retyping.
  5. Since Douglas' German is good (though not perfect), it is unlikely that he would make such grammar mistakes. It is quite likely that a printer who did not know German would make them, however.
  6. Bender stated that after twelve years, he really did not know where the altered version had come from. He says he did not consider it the original, but rather an accurate rendition, even though the caption below the illustration unfortunately says "Original." His statement that he had received it from Douglas was not based on exact recollection but on an assumption, since he, as publisher, always received documents and photos from the authors.

This proves once again that, after many years have passed, eyewitness testimony should be treated with skepticism.

If we assumes that Roger Bender did not conspire with Stahl to cover a counterfeiting crime, then it can be said with certainty that in the beginning there was an original of this document. The copy was then created on orders of Roger Bender, regardless of who actually produced it.

Let us now move from the history of the documents to their content, which Weber has so ridiculed. Our Internet research on the subject of Hitler's fate at war's end quickly tells us that the official version of suicide, cremation, discovery, and successful forensic identification by the Russians is quite dubious. At any rate, alternative theories about Hitler's fate are widespread and socially acceptable. They are more widespread and acceptable than the revisionist ideas that homicidal gas chambers did not exist, or that the Germans had no policy of genocide against the Jews, to which Weber certainly subscribes. Everybody can carry out his own Internet research, so I will concentrate on just one aspect of it, the autopsy of Hitler's alleged remains which was performed by the Soviets. In 1994, four French physicians undertook a critical analysis of the Soviet autopsy report and concluded that the remains examined could not possibly have been those of Hitler. The French team concluded that the Soviet physicians were obviously under intense pressure from above to officially declare that the much desired trophy of Hitler's body had really been captured.[52]

Historically it does not matter whether Hitler escaped to Spain and died after a few reclusive years, or whether he died in the ruins of Berlin. Such a thesis is less radical and revolutionary than the idea that there was no mass extermination of Jews during the Third Reich.[53] And yet, Weber and Irving both ridicule Douglas' thesis just as opponents of revisionism ridicule revisionist ideas and ignore every argument that conflicts with their own view. I'll bet any amount that Weber would never allow a discussion of arguments for and against Hitler's escape to Spain in "his" magazine. It may well be true that Mark Weber is correct in his belief that Hitler did not escape. I too incline to that opinion. But a scientist, and above all a Revisionist, must know that truth can only be determined when all existing theses are open to criticism and new theses are tested on the public podium. Weber's self-appointed role as censor is incompatible with the role of a Revisionist historian and publisher.

5. Stahl's Contact with Gestapo Müller and Crowley

Weber considers it extremely unlikely that Gestapo Müller, if he had really lived incognito in the USA, would have developed contact with such an insignificant person as Stahl and developed such an intimate relationship. Weber also finds it unbelievable that a Top Man of the CIA such as Crowley would share intimate secrets with Stahl and furnish him with sensitive documents. Similarities in language, style, choice of subject matter, point of view and cynicism between Stahl's writings and Müller's alleged statements in his interrogation and diary is another sign to Weber that Stahl invented it all.

Weber would have a good point if Stahl had really been a nobody to Müller and Crowley, but this was not the case, if one follows Stahl's statements. Stahl's activities show that he and Müller were cut from the same mould. And together with Col. Critchfield, who is still alive, Müller worked for Crowley under the CIA. If Weber had not antagonized Stahl, he might have made contacts with Stahl's close friends, who from their personal knowledge affirmed to me the long years of friendship between Müller and Stahl, as well as Stahl's extensive contacts with Crowley. Without my requesting it, and possibly because I did not insist on evidence at the beginning (to tell the truth, I was not very interested at the beginning) these contacts and conversations became accessible to me.

I agree with Mark Weber and other historians that it is a great pity that it was Peter Stahl who came into possession of so much information and so many important documents. Because of his incompetence and unwillingness to proceed in scientific manner, and to cultivate a scientific ethos regarding truth, accuracy and provability, the works published by Stahl will always have a questionable reputation.


In my opinion it is no coincidence that Mark Weber and David Irving in tandem and using the same dirty weapons, are leading the campaign against Douglas / Stahl.

In several telephone conversations, Weber explained to me that the proven fact that Douglas had disseminated untruths on several occasions caused him to disbelieve everything that Douglas says or writes. However, his comprehensive rejections according to the motto "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" (wrong about one thing, wrong about everything) is scientifically invalid. As a revisionist, Weber knows that an eyewitness to the "Holocaust" spreads not only lies, he also makes honest mistakes, and a grain of truth can be found in his testimony. True revisionism does not totally reject a contribution as false because of one inaccuracy. The revisionist task is to seek the grain of truth and distinguish between it and the mistakes, distortions, exaggerations, and deliberate lies; and this holds true for the works of Gregory Douglas alias Peter Stahl.

My Own Critique of Gregory Douglas / Peter Stahl

Stahl's eternal game of hiding behind infinite pseudonyms is getting ridiculous. If he can bring himself to publish all his writings under the name of Gregory Douglas and stay on the trail he has blazed for himself, it will be a very welcome development. It is simply ridiculous for him to try to hide behind the narrow back of his son when he cannot resist constantly identifying himself.

His unchecked need to communicate is disadvantageous insofar as any secret shared with him will remain secret for about two hours. On the other hand, this is also an advantage insofar as one easily gets to the bottom of all his little intrigues. If one listens patiently to him, one soon learns that he does not adhere strictly to the facts with his endless tales. It is only a matter of time until he entangles himself in his own contradictions. After a few such incidents, I became quite critical of what he said and began insisting on documentary evidence for his statements, at least insofar as they were historically relevant or necessary for credibility's sake. Especially concerning his historical information on Gestapo Müller, I considered it important to obtain the relevant documents from the source which he cited rather than from him personally.

Stahl did not have the privilege of academic training, and he has never published anything in a scientific style. The publishers of his Gestapo books likewise had no experience in publishing scientific historical works, with the result that the books are unprofessional. For example, no sources are listed for Stahl's myriad assertions, and the summary bibliographies are of little value. If these works are to become scientifically credible they must be completely reworked.

Stahl's typical method of operation: He somehow got Page Nine of a document on Hitler's whereabouts from the US National Archives, but then lost his references. Now the skeptical researcher can go and busily search uncounted millions of documents... (click on picture to enlarge)

Irving has criticized Stahl for promising to provide documents and then failing to do so, and I am partially in agreement with him. However, the reason is not, as Irving assumes, that Stahl does not have the documents. The reason is that his apartment is a complete mess and his garage, where he keeps his books and documents, is best described as a rubbish heap. He simply, literally dumps all his documents and books onto a single huge pile. I have visited Stahl's home several times over the last 18 months and repeatedly urged him to straighten out the mess, so he can find his documents. At long last, I can report some progress. As I have encouraged him to write down his immense historical and biographical information and to document them, he is finally beginning to organize the mess and has begun finding documents.

After struggling for months to persuade Stahl to use a typewriter or computer, it is obvious to me that any accusation of his having personally counterfeited anything is absurd. He might well know people who can do such things, thanks to long established contacts from his days as a dealer in documents and memorabilia. But he himself is so awkward in the use of paper and writing materials of any kind that it drives me up a tree every time I try to get even the simplest written text from him.

Furthermore, Irving is mistaken when he claims that Stahl has a compulsion to be acknowledged as an author and historian; Irving is describing himself when he asserts that. Unfortunately, Stahl's desire to be taken seriously is sadly underdeveloped. He always approaches his subject with the relaxed conviction of an eyewitness who knows that what he writes is true. He could not care less whether anyone believes that Heinrich Müller was his closest friend over a period of twenty years, or that he and his young friend Aaron Johnson have salvaged Odilio Globocnik's treasure trove of gold in the Weißensee in Austria.[54] He is not interested in whether anyone believes that Müller and Globocnik were in the US after the war. He was there, and he sold the gold and lived like a king for a few years from the proceeds. And that's that. For Stahl, it is a total waste of time to swap insults with arrogant ignoramuses like Weber or Irving who do not even take the time to consult documents in the archives which he referenced in his books.

Stahl casually reveals much to those whom he instinctively trusts. This includes documents and material evidence, plus eyewitness accounts of his trusted friends, who affirm everything he says. However, he certainly does not share with those who insult him and call him a liar, counterfeiter, swindler, etc.

Stahl has a terrible reputation for dealing ruthlessly with those who make his life difficult. He has ways of ruining their economic and social lives by means which are legal and yet very effective. As a trained secret agent with many influential connections he has both the abilities and opportunities to do this. He seems to derive real pleasure from carrying on private feuds.


The above article was written in early 2002. Several important events happened afterwards, which are worthwhile reporting to shed some light on the person and personality of Peter Stahl.


In early 2002, Stahl and I agreed upon publishing a book on 9/11, as he had received several information about detailed pre-knowledge of the administration of 9/11. He claimed to have received a memorandum that the US President had been informed in advance by German and French diplomatic sources about the exact date, time, locations and targets of the attacks. However, the memorandum he received had neither letter head nor signature or anything. It was just a piece of paper and as such rather worthless. Of course, as a future publisher I was not happy with proving an outrageous claim (they knew and let it happen) with a meaningless piece of paper, so I asked him to try to get something more from the same source from where he received this document . At one day, while writing his manuscript, he asked me if I can make a translation from English to French. I said I could, but that my French is rather bad, thus it would be better to ask one of my friends. When asked what he needed it for, he responded that he was thinking about making a document which looks like a real one and which would support his claims. I told him that under no circumstances I would want to be a part of this, and I massively attacked him how he could even think along this line when at the same time he tries to defend himself against accusation from David Irving and Mark Weber that he forges documents? He replied that if I was unwilling to do it for him, he will find somebody else. "Then find somebody else" I responded. At the same time, I downgraded the 9/11 book project, as I figured that this isn't going anywhere.

Several days later Stahl mailed me a version of what he called a part of his manuscript for his 9/11 book. He urged me to read it, which I did. Including many facts that Stahl had found in media reports and enriched by his own thoughts and the claims of his alleged German memorandum, it read like a report written by some German intelligence agency on their findings of 9/11, without, however, spelling out who wrote it. Stahl called me back, and after I asked him what this was meant to be, he told me that he wanted me to translate that into German and make it look like a document from the German intelligence agency BND, with letterhead, reference number, names,  signature and rubber stamp. I told him

He apparently changed his mind, as he later re-defined what he wanted: He wants to use just the text of this report as a sample of information of what the upcoming book will contain. His plan was not to turn it into a document, but to leave it in the form of an essay. He wished to have a anonymous mailing made to various news and political sources in Washington, which includes the announcement of the book and a copy of this essay summarizing the upcoming book's statements. Hence, it was to be a promotion move to get attention for the book.

Under these circumstance -- no letter head, no names, no signature, no stamps, nothing that would make it a document, no inclusion in the upcoming book, no claim that this is a document, use only as an anonymous promotional mailing -- I agreed to translate it.

Already during the process of translation (late May/early June 2002), he circulated a copy of his English essay to some individuals at The Barnes Review/American Free Press. It thus ended up at some organization of the Republican Party, which contacted Stahl only a few days later, asking about the 9/11 book (so his claims...). Hence, Stahl associated with this essay already before it was even supposed to be released.

In June 2002, during the Barnes Review Conference, Peter Stahl presented his "findings" about 9/11 during his speech to the audience. During this speech, he pulled out my translation, claimed that it was an original German document, which he claimed he had received from his friend, the German public prosecutor Detlev Mehlis, and Stahl gave copies of this document to interested people.

I subsequently canceled the 9/11 book project as well as all other pending book projects I had with Peter Stahl, informed several people that this was not a document and that they should stop distributing it. I also made sure that The Barnes Review deleted Stahl's speech from their website.


Since summer 2001, I was working with Peter Stahl on a book project about the JFK assassination, which was published in early 2002 with the title Regicide. The Official Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Stahl claimed to have received documents from the late Robert Crowley, once deputy Assistant Deputy Director of Clandestine Operations for the CIA, who -- according to these documents -- was one of the organizers of this assassination. Crowley also was one of the officers in the CIA who -- according to Stahl -- worked together with his uncle Heinrich Müller in the late 1940s and early 1950s, which was Stahl's door-opener to Crowley. Stahl gave me addresses and phone numbers of Crowley's relatives, so I could verify that Stahl did indeed have a long history of conversations with Mr. Crowley and that documents from Crowley's files were indeed sent to Mr. Stahl. I also managed to verify that the basic story as revealed by the the Crowley documents are in accordance with what one of the foremost experts on the JFK-assassination has found out: Nigel Turner. I met Turner in early summer 2002 in Huntsville, who told me that after having a lengthy conversation with Stahl, he has come to the conclusion that Stahl himself has a rather poor knowledge about the JFK-assassination and the era. Stahl does not know more than what he took from the documents he claims to have received from Crowley and a few popular books he refers to in Regicide. Considering the facts that the documents published in Regicide contain a lot of very detailed information about the official responsibility and rank of many persons -- all being accurate -- Turner considered it extremely unlikely that Mr. Stahl, with his poor knowledge of the era and the events, could have manufactured them. According to Mr. Turner's view, these documents are either genuine or were fabricated by somebody who had in-depth knowledge of both the facts of the JFK-assassination as well as about all the people referred to in the documents. Thus, only Crowley or a similarly situated person could have fabricated those documents. The question would be, however, why Crowley or somebody of his standing would fabricate the documents which incriminate himself, the top personnel of CIA, FBI, Joint Chief of Staff, NSA, and Lyndon B. Johnson and Gerald T. Ford, thus kind of compromising the entire "system". Turner's conclusion was therefore that the documents are most likely genuine, that is: the JFK riddle is solved. He regrets, however, that these documents ended up and were published by such a shady person as P. Stahl, which puts the entire book and the documents contained in it in a twilight zone. But then again, he said, who would you expect a shady person like Crowley -- the CIA's liaison to the Chicago mob -- to give the documents, if not to a person of his own liking.

Shortly before Regicide was released by a publishing corporation that I and Mr. Stahl had established just for that purpose (Monte Sano Media, Imprint of Historians Ending Borders), the book wholesale company Ingram, which controls some 95% of America's book wholesale market, announced that it will no longer deal with self-published authors and small publishers offering less than 10 books. As a consequence of this, Monte Sano Media had to contract with a distributor for the book that was a vendor to Ingram. Being a new company in business, only one of the 20-some-odd distributors accepted by Ingram contracted with Monte Sano Media, but this distributor announced its insolvency only a few months later, refusing to pay more than 5% of the retail price of the book to the publisher. Hence, a new distributor had to be found, which Peter Stahl managed to organize himself, but because of this forth and back, it took 7 months to get the book into the Ingram database, which is equivalent with: to get the book into the market. Also, the promotion company hired to market Regicide had no success in getting any media attention for the book (they were not the most professional to begin with). An attempt to have email mass mailing made for the books failed, as the company hired for this ran into technical problems (spam blocking) and could (or would) not deliver the emails. Since the storage costs for the book became a problem, Stahl agreed to have the books stored in his garages. Facing all these problems, sales were of course be extremely unsatisfactory. This story needs to be told to make understandable what follows.

When Stahl receive a phone bill in summer 2002 over $5,000, he demanded that I cover his phone bill. I told him that if he sent me a copy of an itemized bill showing which calls were made for company purposes, I would cover those costs. Apparently Stahl was unable to produce such an itemized bill, and I in turn refused to pay such a horrendous amount. It later turned out that the phone company had made a billing mistake and reduced the amount to about 10% ($500). However, at that time Stahl thought that he deserved to be reimbursed for his phone bill accumulated by his attempt to find a new distributor. To regain his money, he suggested a book deal with a friend of his who had agreed to buy a large amount of books worth some $10,000 wholesale price. We agreed upon sharing this amount 50/50. Eventually an order with two checks of both some $5,000 came in for these books from a "Basilik Press". Peter Stahl then demanded that I transfer his share right away. As this deal was tricky, I insisted on making sure that the checks clear first before doing so, but because I was about to move to Chicago the next day and would no longer have access to my bank  for an electronic transfer (they have no branch in Chicago), Stahl insisted that I mail him a check right away, but he agreed upon not depositing it unless the "Basilik Press" checks had cleared.


If I learned something during these episodes, it is that Stahl is absolutely inapt to a) technically make any proper document forgeries, b) keep his mouth shut about them, c) spreading consistent stories about his lies.

What ever he may publish in future, be aware that you cannot trust the content of his writings for a second unless somebody has verified it. I exhausted myself in verifying the Regicide sources and to make it a high quality book, but after all what followed I can only warn everybody to get anywhere close to him when it comes to either business or scholarly writing and publishing. It isn't worth it.
Right now he prepares the publication of a book on the Auschwitz death figures and the death toll of the Einsatzgruppen. As he rejected any guidance and quality control by me, it will be a poorly laid-out, poorly researched self-published book using Stahl's own imprint " Morris Productions," his newest company name.

I report, you decide.


[1]Edited by Rüdiger Kammerer and Armin Solms, Cromwell Press, London 1993; 2nd edition by Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings 2001 ( Engl.: The Rudolf Report, Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings 2003 (
[2]Under the pen name Ernst Gauss, Grabert, Tübingen 1993 (
[3]Under the pen name Ernst Gauss, Grabert, Tübingen 1995 (; Engl.: Theses & Dissertations Press, Capshaw, AL, 2001 (
[5]"Die Gestapo-Müller-Fälschung" (The Gestapo-Müller forgery), Staatsbriefe 7(5-6) (1996), pp. 68-71; online:
[6]Gregory Douglas might to that himself eventually, cf. his website


[8]Gestapo Chief. The 1948 Interrogation of Heinrich Müller, Bender Publishing, San Jose, CA, vol. 1-3 (1995, 1997, 1998); Müller Journals. The Washington Years, vol. 1: 1948-1950, same location, 1999.
[9]County Court Starnberg, ref. 11 Js 24942/96; County Court Starnberg, ref. 11 Js 4458/97.
[10]One of it is the fact that his apartment is very untidy. His "library" and his "archive" is a garage, in which he has dumped(!) all of his books, documents, letters. A huge pile of chaotic paper!
[11]Fakes & Frauds Of The Third Reich, published by author, 1969. These two brochures circulated only under memorabilia dealers.
[12]Basic Nazi Swords and Daggers (1969), The Afrikakorps (1972), Kreta: the German invasion of Crete, 20.5.41-2.6.41 (1972), Kriegsmarine; uniforms, insignia, daggers & medals of the German Navy, 1935-1945 (1972), A History of the Fallschirmjäger troops, Uniforms and Insignia of the German Luftwaffe, und Panzer. German Armor 1935-1945 (year unknown). Only those with a year have an entry in the Library of Congress. They all are booklets and brochures published by the author without ISBN numbers.
[13]Cf. Stahl's article »Auguste Rodin: Anatomy of a Fraud«,; Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, 22.12.1978, ref. 405954.
[14]According to Stahl, one of these letters were published as a letter to the editor in the magazine The Connoisseur. My local library, however, had only an incomplete collection of this periodical, so that I am unable to confirm this. However, this event is confirmed by articles published in local newspapers of Palo Alto and San Francisco (Palo Alto Times, SF Chronicle), cf. the online article in note 13. Besides, Rodin seems to have been a sought-after target for forgeries, cf. Lillian Browse, »False castings of Rodin bronzes«, The Burlington Magazine, 129 (12) (Dec. 1987), pp. 807f.; Sylvia Hochfield, »Cast in doubt«, Art News, 88(2) (Feb. 1989), pp. 108-115; P. Rowlands, »Foundering foundry«, Art News, 94(1) (Jan. 1995), p. 42.
[15]Cf. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Jan. 10, 1988; Süddeutsche Zeitung, Feb. 17, 1988; Berliner Morgenpost, March 21, 1989; Die Welt, Feb. 28, 1988; New York Post, March 5, 1989; Frankfurt Allgemeine Zeitung March 16, 1989. English translations of these articles can be found online at: Stahl's decisive role in locating both stolen art and thieves is confirmed by Senior State Attorney Detlev Mehlis: StA beim Kammergericht, Elssholzstr. 30-33, D-10781 Berlin-Schönefeld; phone: 030-21 78 27 01.
[16]Author of the book Adolf Hitler als Maler und Zeichner, Gallant, Zug/Switzerland, 1983. According to Stahl, this book, too, includes several forgeries.
[17]For this, see also Robert Harris, Selling Hitler, Pantheon Books, New York 1986; Engl.: Adolf Hitler, the unknown artist, publ. by author, Houston, Texas, 1984.
[18]Some of his works: Collecting Autographs & Manuscripts, Univ. of Oklahoma Pr., 1961; Big Name Hunting, Simon & Schuster, 1973; The signature of America: a fresh look at famous handwriting, Harper & Row, 1979; Great Forgers and Famous Fakes, Crown Pub., 1980; Auction Madness, Dodd Mead, 1981; In Search of Shakespeare: A Reconnaissance into the Poet's Life & Handwriting, Harcourt Brace, 1985; The Book of Autographs, Simon & Schuster, 1987; The Hitler Diaries: Fakes That Fooled the World, Univ. Press of Kentucky, 1991.
[19]Bender Publishing, San Jose, California. This is the same publisher as the one of the Gestapo Müller books.
[20]Es the publisher of Hamilton, Roger Bender, told me, he received a letter from Charles Hamilton with a similar content.
[21]Hodder & Stoughton, London 1977.
[22]Regarding his works on modern history compare, e.g.: Donald S. Detwiler, Charles B. Burdick, Jürgen Rohwer (ed.) World War II German military studies: a collection of 213 special reports on the Second World War prepared by former officers of the Wehrmacht for the United States Army, Garland Pub., New York 1979; Germany's military strategy and Spain in World War II, Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, NY, 1968.
[25]June 22, 1995, cf. his diary online:
[27]Feb. 15, 1997,
[29]G. Douglas, Regicide. The Official Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Monte Sano Media, Huntsville, Alabama, 2002
[33]contact email of the website
[34]This name is given as the author of an article about, which is almost identical with the one posted at, but in this case, the author is G. Douglas.
[35]This name was used for an article about the Rodin forgeries; it is almost identical with the one posted at, but in this case also, the author is G. Douglas.; cf.
[36]Crowley: cf. his obituary in Washington Post, Oct. 10, 2000, p. B6;; C. Crowles, A. Johnson, Z. Mehlis: I know these gentlemen myself; F. Thayer: Prof. at the University of New Mexico, cf.; Norwood Burch: unknown; Richard Mundhenk: this is Richard Mundshenk, who has been identified by Irving himself as a business partner of Roger Benders, cf.
[41]Cf. for this the criminal register and the death reproduced in this article.
[43]Irving had promised Stahl this Rommel portrait on July 14, 1980, cf. his diary entry, and Peter Stahl possesses it still today!
[44]"Carto Proposes Document Forger for IHR Board of Directors",
[45]Mark Weber, "Not Quite the Hitler Diaries", Journal for Historical Review 20(2) (March/April 2001), p. 40. The date of this issue is deceptive. This issue actually appeared in fall of 2001, because for many years already, the individual JHR issues are appearing with long delays.
[46]Cf. his article under the pen name Karl Kolcheck, note 34.
[47]In a publication in preparation, Peter Stahl will himself tell us about Robin-Hood-like, quite humoristic backgrounds of his arrests, which, however, did not lead to an indictment or a conviction, but finally to his release from custody. Because I do not want to jump ahead, I will leave it with this remark.
[48]Cf. his reference in vol. 1, 2nd edition 1999, p. 282; see also more documents in vols. 3 & 4.
[49]Random House, New York 2001, S. 29 and notes.
[50]Published in The Military Advisor, 1(2), (spring 1990) p. 19 (manipulated version), and 2(1) (Winter 1990/91), p. 14.
[51]G. Douglas, "Blood & Gold", The Military Advisor, 2(1) (Winter 1990/91), p. 13.
[52]E. Laurier, V. Hedouin, D. Gosset, P.H. Muller, »Etude critique médico-légale du rapport d'autopsie d'Hitler« (critical forensic analysis of the autopsy report on Hitler), Journal de Medecine Legale Droit, 37 (1) 1994, pp. 65ff.; to be ordered from CNRS, Fourniture de documents, BP 310, F-54515 Vandœuvre Cedex.
[53]At least not as long as one assumes, Hitler had continued the Third Reich with his last loyal henchmen on Moon, Mars, in Antarctica or inside of the Earth. But Douglas' point of view about Hitler's flight to Spain has absolutely nothing in common with such fantastic-speculative, if not paranoid theses.
[54]Peter Stahl and Aaron Johnson, a relaxed young man, have both shown me their photo album of this treasure hunt and told me about independently from each other.