The curious case of the "break into Auschwitz"

The bestselling Holocaust memoir by Denis Avey should be withdrawn from publication.

By Guy Walters Published 17 November 2011 15:03

Over the weekend, the Sunday Times reported that Denis Avey, the author of the memoir The Man Who Broke Into Auschwitz, had changed important elements of his story before his bestselling book was published.

According to the article, Avey's account of how he had bravely swapped places with a Jew to enter into Auschwitz was radically different from an interview he had given to the Imperial War Museum in July 2001.

In the taped interview, Denis Avey claimed that he had gained entry to Auschwitz-Birkenau by swapping places with an unnamed "stripey" -- as British prisoners of war (POWs) called the Jewish inmates on account of their striped uniforms -- and had been accompanied by a Jew called Ernst. However, in the published book, Avey claims that he broke into Auschwitz-Monowitz (a camp about four miles from Birkenau), swapped places with a Dutch Jew called Hans, and that the man who accompanied him was not "Ernst".

One does not need to be a Holocaust historian to appreciate that these are important differences of fact.

Despite the assertion by the Sunday Times that this evidence is new, the catalogue of problems with Avey's story was highlighted by myself and my co-authors, Jeremy Duns and Adrian Weale, in the pages of the Daily Mail some seven months ago. Furthermore, we informed Avey's publishers, Hodder & Stoughton, in May of the existence of no fewer than eight differing versions Avey has given of his celebrated "swap", including the one given to the Imperial War Museum as well as accounts in the Daily Mirror and the Times.

Jeremy Duns -- whom readers of this blog will remember from the Hari affair -- wrote about these the differing versions of the story on his own blog a month ago.

Besides coming somewhat late to the feast, the Sunday Times failed to notice the smoking gun, the element which demonstrates that Denis Avey's story is questionable. In his interview for the Imperial War Museum, Avey says that he made the swap in an attempt to make contact with an Australian POW who claimed to have been incarcerated in Birkenau and forced to stoke the crematoria:

So over the days and weeks we arranged to have an 'umtausch' - an exchange. I went in to Birkenau with Ernst and this stripey got into my uniform and got into E715 for the night. And I went with him to Birkenau and slept alongside him, as was the position of this other fellow, and in this way I got the information, very surreptitiously again [...] Now he [Ernst] told me of an Australian POW that was working in Birkenau, and sure enough he did. I tried constantly to contact him. I couldn't. I don't know why - I couldn't. And you know what he did? He was an escaped POW. They picked him up just going into Switzerland in civilian clothes, and they interrogated him because of the civilian clothes, and they wanted to know how he got the clothes, how he got the map, how he got the compasses and he wouldn't tell them. He'd got my temperament and he was an Australian to boot as well. And of course he caused a lot of problems, and they beat him badly, and then they sent him to Auschwitz-Birkenau. You know what he did? He stoked the crematoria. He stoked the crematoria for twelve months. I tried to contact him after the war: I couldn't, but then I found out he'd written a book called "Stoker".

The supposed stoker to whom Avey refers is Donald Watt, who published a book about his experiences in 1995. Unfortunately for Avey, that book has been widely shown to be yet another discredited Holocaust memoir.

The work has been dismissed by Yad Vashem, by the Auschwitz Memorial and Museum, by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and, most devastatingly, by Professor Konrad Kwiet, resident historian at the Sydney Jewish Museum and the former chief historian of the Australian War Crimes Commission.

In an article published in 1997, Professor Kwiet revealed that Watt's Service and Casualty Form kept by the Australian army showed that he was discharged from Stalag 357 in April 1945, and that there was no evidence he had ever been in Auschwitz-Birkenau. Here is an extract from Kwiet's article:

The unbelievable Stoker-story has enjoyed a remarkable reception in Australia... However, Donald Watt's "memoirs" were not universally applauded. Criticism came from abroad. Members of the Research Institute of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington questioned the authenticity of Watt's testimonies. The Fritz Bauer Institut rejected the manuscript for translation into German. Yad Vashem, Israel's official documentation and research centre on the Holocaust, was asked for an expert opinion report. The Stoker-story was examined by Gideon Greif, an authority who had just published a documentation on the Jewish "Sonderkommandos" ("Wir weinten tränenlos... Augenzeugenberichte der jüdischen Sonderkommandos." Köln; Böhlau et al. 1995). He concluded that Watt "at no time had been a member of the Sonderkommandos in Auschwitz-Birkenau... The author describes a reality of the everyday life of the Sonderkommandos which never existed". In May 1996 a negative report arrived from the Museum of Auschwitz. Dr. Franciszek Piper, Director of the History Research Department, could find no record of the imprisonment of a "British subject/citizen/person of Australia" (...sic byly jeniec brytyijski z Australii...), let alone an Australian POW serving within the ranks of the Jewish "Sonderkommando".

Given this, and the various conflicting versions of Avey's supposed "swap", it is almost impossible to take The Man Who Broke Into Auschwitz at face value.

There are four bodies that need urgently to address the problems with Avey's story. First, there is Hodder & Stoughton, which told the Sunday Times: "We had no reason to doubt Mr Avey's account at the time of publication and we have no reason to doubt it now." The paperback of Avey's book is currently second in the Sunday Times's non-fiction chart.

Second, there is the Holocaust Educational Trust (HET), which has embraced Avey and promoted him. It is largely thanks to the HET that the third body in question -- the British Government -- awarded Avey a British Hero of the Holocaust medal, an award the HET campaigned to be established.

The fourth organisation that needs to ask questions is the BBC, whose employee Rob Broomby is the co-author of Avey's book. The broadcaster has been generous in giving airtime to what is essentially a commercial enterprise. Furthermore, Broomby has serious questions to answer. At what point during the writing of The Man Who Broke Into Auschwitz did he become aware that some of his co-author's claims were problematic?

There are numerous other problems with Avey's book, and not just those concerning his time as a POW. However, the passages regarding the Holocaust are what have propelled the book to the top of the charts, and it is these claims that have led to Avey being both feted and honoured.

Given that the account of Avey's story about "breaking into Auschwitz", as published in this book, varies in such a fundamental and disquieting way from his earlier telling to the Imperial War Museum, the book should be withdrawn from circulation and its claims presented to an independent body of historians for assessment.

Duns, Weale and I asked Hodder & Stoughton to do this seven months ago. The firm can no longer afford to be an ostrich. In order to protect its reputation, it must realise that telling such questionable stories about the Holocaust is a distasteful business.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Holocaust

More from Guy Walters

101 comments

Thu, 2012-04-12 08:06 — Ed Neafcy (not verified)

I see Ron Bryer published a book in 1997: 'White Ghosts of Nagasaki'. So both he and Denis Avey as old timers got their stories into print. I'm glad of that. I don't really want the detail of what Ron saw when he came out of his trench into what was left of Nagasaki and its inhabitants any more than I want details of Auschwitz. But they want to share and I'm going to read them both. I'm older now than they were when I knew them. When you haven't a job to hold down it's when the memories come back. For most of us it's organising photographs and family trees and visiting war-graves. For them, what can you say ...

Tue, 2012-04-10 08:57 — Ed Neafcy (not verified)

I made friends with Denis Avey when we both worked for Associated Dairies in Leeds in the late '70s. I haven't yet read his book. I knew he'd got the Israeli honour. I did not know about the issue of his credibility until the last few days. Denis did not push his stories of Auschwitz. I was already friends with him when I saw the white patch on his underarm and asked about it. Whether the subject would have arisen anyway, I don't know. He said he hadn't been fit to give evidence after the war. What is interesting in retrospect is that there was no more than polite interest in his experiences whenever I mentioned them to other people. I remember I told a history lecturer about it, who had written a book on Hitler, but he didn't ask for contact details for Denis and I didn't expect him to.

There is another POW story from Associated Dairies which makes an interesting contrast. Ron Bryer was at Nagasaki rivetting ships for Mitsubishi. The Americans started conventional bombing raids and he was put on digging a split trench for air raid precautions. He saw the plane and the atom bomb coming down by parachute, but he assumed an airman had bailed out and got back into the trench. The blast removed Nagasaki but only threw some debris down on to Ron. He was immediately good news. The Americans were pleased to find a survivor witness who spoke English. Later, mayors of Nagasaki would invite him back for the anniversary. Eventually he did go. CND wanted his support for their efforts to ban nuclear weapons.

Ron's was an easier story to tell. It still is. Who needed concentration camp stories after the war? The dragon of Japan is well and truly dead, so Ron's story may fade. The dragon of religion and race is breathing fire again, which I suspect is why Denis' story has emerged. Denis and Ron would never have met and it's doubtful if either heard the other's story.

Thu, 2012-01-19 19:27 — Carolyn Yeager (not verified)

Phil Boyd replied to me on Jan. 10:

"including his accounts of witnessing atrocities by the SS, i.e. killing people for no reason. It just didn't happen."

Unfortunately - that did happen. We have dozens, perhaps hundreds, of confirmed and ccrosshecked witness statements from the camps on that.

IS THAT SO? THEY HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED AND CROSSCHECKED JUST AS DENIS AVEY'S CLAIMS HAVE BEEN? THIS IS THE KIND OF STATEMENT 'BELIEVERS' THROW OUT WITHOUT ANY SPECIFICS NEEDED, THEY THINK. GIVE ME A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES OF A "CONFIRMED AND CROSSCHECKED" ACCUSATION OF SS ATROCITIES AGAINST CAMP INMATES AND LET ME HAVE A GO AT IT.

"In the end, they fought the war from the air, creating firestorms for German civilians to roast in."

And thousands of British seamen died and drowned all over the world, and her soldiers died in the snows of Norway, the sands of North Africa, the beaches of Normadny...then trudged all the way through North West Europe and into Germany, fighting all the way, including the bloddy fighting as BOTH the Americans and British broke through the Siegfried Line.

CHECK OUT THE CASUALTY FIGURES FOR BRITAIN IN THE WAR, AND IN WHICH BRANCH THEY TOOK PLACE, AND COMPARE THEM WITH GERMAN CIVILIAN DEATHS AND SERIOUS INJURIES; ALSO HOMELESSNES AND REFUGEE STATUS. HOW MANY BRITISH CIVILIANS WERE KILLED?

ALL sides fought the war from the air...and at sea and on land

MORE GENERALITIES FROM YOU. COME UP WITH CLEAR-CUT FIGURES ... THEY EXIST.

Thu, 2012-01-19 19:43 — Carolyn Yeager (not verified)

Phil Boyd wrote:
And I certainly don't have any problem with revisionism *for the sake of knowledge and accuracy*....but the problems arise when this is NOT the case ;)

My answer: Phil Boyd assumes to know when H. revisionism is for the sake of knowledge and accuracy and when it isn't. Yet he cannot answer any question with true knowledge and accuracy.

He condemns "preaching/proselytizing under a waving banner" (who is actually doing that but the Avey and Boyd types?)and differentiates between "historical research and unfettered free speech." (??) The (no longer applicable) proud British tradition of total free speech he has given up without a fight.

Thu, 2011-11-17 19:47 — Ben Garratt (not verified)

Denis Avey is a hero, not only for risking his life in the way he did to help those being murdered in the Holocaust, not only because he fought for this country, but because he continues to raise awareness of the awful crimes committed by the Nazis - crimes we should never forget, and must never be repeated. Whilst there may discrepancies in the precise details, I think he should be paid a lot more respect than he is being given here

Sat, 2011-11-26 06:42 — south pacific

Anglo-americans seem to have an endless need to put themselves forward as having been heroes in WWII.

Even umpteen years after the war ended.

I am just waiting for one that claims he shot Hitler dead in his bunker.

Or that he captured Napoleon at Waterloo hiding in a drain.

I am amazed that in a country full of heroes there are still ordinary people around.

PS. I live in one of Britain's former colonies and know all about "British heroes."

Wed, 2012-01-25 19:19 — Carolyn Yeager (not verified)

To Phil Boyd --

Debates about history are pointless when there is no one checking facts ... when people consider "their interpretation" the only one.

What is undisputed is that you have not given me even two measly examples from the "hundreds" you claim exist, of "confirmed and crosschecked" SS atrocities against a camp inmate. And YOU have to show the confirming and crosschecking that was done.

This is what you get for making wild claims about what is "proven." None of it is proven.

Thu, 2011-11-17 20:16 — Phil Boyd (not verified)

Unfortunately - there are far more than a few discrepancies, and in many places in his story.

These would be okay in themselves, of course - time wounds all heels - but the fact that his story has actually *changed* so many times is the kisser; it's far more than just "precise details" that are under question.

Which is of course sad - that we have to question those details; but what is far more sad is the possibility that his account is indeed not true - for as I noted above it would then be very disrespectful of those millions who died under that brutal regime.

I personally would like to see it proven correct JUST as much as I would like to see it proven otherwise...but it's that *proving* that's vital at the moment.

Wed, 2012-01-11 03:14 — Phil Boyd (not verified)

No, historians should not - look at the work of the German Historical Commission in re-evaluating many wartime events such as the Bombing of Dresden forn the sake of accuracy - but I do think it's perfectly fair to enquire after their *motivations* for doing so - which is a very different thing.

And I certainly don't have any problem with revisionism *for the sake of knowledge and accuracy*....but the problems arise when this is NOT the case ;)

Mon, 2012-01-23 21:15 — Phil Boyd (not verified)

Now that people have had their moment jumping up and down....

I tried on four separate occasions to reply to Dave, and I'm about to try again...

Thu, 2011-11-17 20:47 — Ade-oh (not verified)

Phil Boyd is right. There are many things wrong with the book and this includes his account of his activities in the desert before his capture. It doesn't mean that Denis Avey is a bad man, but like many old soldiers he has a tendency to tell tall tales and exaggerate his role in events. If he was spinning a yarn to his grandchildren, nobody would mind, but people are being asked to fork out for a book which they have a right to assume has been thoroughly researched and authenticated.
Furthermore, Holocaust deniers are already sneering at this book as - supposedly - more 'evidence' that the Holocaust itself is a fabrication.

Denis Avey had an honourable war and did the decent thing when put to the test in 1944: providing Ernst Lobethal with cigarettes which he could have kept for himself. What he didn't do was 'break into Auschwitz'.

Mon, 2012-01-23 21:23 — Phil Boyd (not verified)

"And should Yad Vashem decide what can or cannot be researched about the holocaust?"

This is a straw man; I didn;t EVER say they *should* ...I recommend you contact them because THEY, along with holders of Holocaust material around the world such as the USHMM, deal with issues such as this every day and could give you the "expert" answer - which is surely what you want?

"We can suspect a motive, but we cannot prove a motive, because there is no way of knowing what someone is thinking."

Of course you can prove motive...sadly if only post-event. But "by their deeds shall they be known" - would you for instance allow a David Irving to research in a Holocaust archive, given his propensity forremoving or adding material to historical archives and sources to support his positions?

"Should the historian restrict their research to satisfy orthordoxy, or should they seek the truth wherever it may lead?"

They should - and DO do...both, but they in turn then have an obligation as to the *effects* of unpalatable truths if they are the ones broadcasting them.

Wed, 2012-02-01 18:31 — Phil Boyd (not verified)

"Friedrich cites the 1951 edition"

Incidently - does he cite it accurately I.E. does he provide a page number....or is it just "peekaboo" referencing? Or as Douglas Peifer says, does "the lack of clear references included makes it unverifiable"?

There's EXCELLENT German-origin material out there...even Friedrich's earlier books are regarded as exemplary...but not "The Fire".

And I'd still like to know what casualty figure Friedrich gives for Dresden in February 1945...

Thu, 2011-11-17 21:04 — Phil Boyd (not verified)

That is of course another issue entirely - that there are SO many strains of Holocaust Denial already; we don't need *another* method gifted to them.

I've seen just SO many ways of minimising or denying the Holocaust - that the SS offciers who ordered it/administered it were in the main highly educated people, so there can't have been much wrong with it (!!!) That anti-semitism in Europe had a longstanding history, and there was nothing new about it, it had been done EVERYWHERE...that the German people as a whole were law-abiding and educated, so how would THEY countenance something like the Holocaust....that just look at the medical advances that came out of experiments by the likes of Mengele, so how can it have been all bad???...etc., etc.

We can't really afford to give them another avenue of approach.

Mon, 2012-01-23 21:37 — Phil Boyd (not verified)

Moving on....

"CHECK OUT THE CASUALTY FIGURES FOR BRITAIN IN THE WAR, AND IN WHICH BRANCH THEY TOOK PLACE, AND COMPARE THEM WITH GERMAN CIVILIAN DEATHS AND SERIOUS INJURIES; ALSO HOMELESSNES AND REFUGEE STATUS. HOW MANY BRITISH CIVILIANS WERE KILLED?"

YOUR point was that "they fought the war from the air"; that is patently NOT true, the British engaged Nazi Germany on land, at sea and in the air. Do you really know THAT little about WWII?

"GIVE ME A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES OF A "CONFIRMED AND CROSSCHECKED" ACCUSATION OF SS ATROCITIES AGAINST CAMP INMATES AND LET ME HAVE A GO AT IT."

Feel free - http://www.holocaustmemoirdigest.org/, or http://www.azrielifoundation.org/memoirs/, or http://migs.concordia.ca/survivor.html, or http://www.thejewisheye.com/rl_memoris.html,want more?

"ALL sides fought the war from the air...and at sea and on land
MORE GENERALITIES FROM YOU. COME UP WITH CLEAR-CUT FIGURES ...IF THEY EXIST"

Why your preoccupation with numbers??? Are you *honestly* trying to argue that the war WASN'T fought at sea, on land or in the air?

Mon, 2012-01-23 21:44 — Phil Boyd (not verified)

"And yet, would a book reviewing false testimony or other accounts be welcomed?
I suspect not, because once you start looking, there is no knowing what you will find!"

Actually, by me at least such a book WOULD be welcomed, for *false* testimony HAS no place in history. Over recent years I've been involved in rooting out and discrediting a number of fake histories and confections, and I'll be the VERY first to say that yes, there have been many fake Holocaust memoirs and claims over the years. They too need to be expunged, just like any other false testimony...otherwise they taint the experiences and suffering of the real victims.

Sun, 2011-11-20 18:09 — Phil Boyd (not verified)

John T - as I noted above, I would very much like Avey's account to be found to be correct - more so than to find it proved otherwise.

But I'm afraid that the simple fact that they've been put down on paper doesn't guarantee they're accurate...or factual. There have been literally dozens of faked memoirs over the years....even Hitlers! It's not by any means a new phenomenon.

Here's a question for you - *as an ex-serviceman*...what would your opinion of his account then be if he WAS indeed proved to be lying???

Wed, 2012-01-25 20:53 — Dave (not verified)

*Phil Boyd

Churchill began the bombing of civilian targets. He ordered the repeat bombing of Berlin to coincide with a visit by the Soviet Foreign Minister.

This bombing led to the Luftwaffe switching from bombing airfields to cities too.

Britain did declare war on Germany for invading Poland, but did not declare war on Soviet Union for doing same.

And then after 'winning the war' allowed Soviet Union to occupy all of Poland!

After WWI germany was saddled with the blood libel of 'starting the war'.

After WWII the new blood libel was 'the holocaust', but this was also directed at Christiandom in general.

50+ million christians died in WWII, but the 'holocaust' was all their fault. Perverse or what?

Sat, 2012-01-28 17:08 — Carolyn Yeager (not verified)

Tricky, tricky, tricky. You, Phil Boyd, definitely qualify for the "L" word.

Friedrich says May 18th and 19th, Bomber Command or 'war diaries' say May 17th. Maybe they are wrong, can we consider that? In any event, you are making a mountain out of a molehill over the exact day in order to cover for your denial of this in the beginning.

"Friedrich is *regarded* as belonging to the Germans-as-victims school ..." Regarded by whom? You and other flag-waving Brits? The Bomber Harrises of the world? No, he is purely factual, not sentimental at all. Not even political.

"And he only uses GERMAN sources...period sources, some of them recognised as being very thin - such as casualty rates when the only figures still available in many occasions are those that had already been massaged...by Goebbels' ministry." FALSE. He uses mostly British sources, and the final, official numbers that are recognized today (too low in my opinion). You are spouting British propaganda again.

"IF he's just copied it out of a May 1940 Voelkischer Beobachter, for instance...!!!! " You Phil, are hysterically insinuating, by using the word 'If', what you know not and is not true. All his quotes, etc. are referenced -- all you have to do is look them up. These figures are from Peters, "Zwoelf Jahre Bremen", p 194. I guess the folks on the ground in Bremen are the ones who know what happened. If you're going to doubt every figure from Germans, and trust every figure from Brits, then you are not worth talking to.

The rest of what you say is so foolish as to not merit a response. I have spent enough time on this. So long.

Wed, 2012-01-11 10:30 — Dave (not verified)

* Phil Boyd

I think you have given a Yes but No answer!

You say it is fair to enquire about motive, but would you be content with the reply, "to write an accurate historical record"?

Or would you, subjectively, attribute the wrong motives to an historian, and support thought crime prosecutions, to prevent research and free speech?

Bearing in mind that it is impossible to prove a motive.

Fri, 2012-01-27 17:10 — Carolyn Yeager (not verified)

Phil does not give sources for what he insists is true, except for "Bomber Command records and war diaries". He needs to give the necessary info for others to check it out. And Dave is right to say he should look further than official British war records. All through this comment section, Phil has said things that are not true, but insists that *he knows* and others should just believe him.

I'm still waiting for the two real-life examples of "confirmed and cross-checked" SS atrocities against conc. camp inmates.

However, Bremen WAS hit in May 1940 just as the author Jorg Friedrich wrote in his book, The Fire. Phil has this book too because he quoted directly from it earlier but did not give it as the reference. Should we look at what actually happened on the ground or what was written by Bomber Command in their records? Phil doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to defending RAF Bomber Command. And it was Phil who said: "Bomber Command's raids that night were on oil targets near Gelsenkirchen and Dorsten by six aircraft of No.77 Sqn., 4 Group, Bomber Command. No ops against Bremen or Hamburg I'm afraid....nor on the 18th the night before, nor on the 20th the night after."

So it was Phil that brought up Gelsenkirchen and Dorsten on those nights in question. But along with that, Phil admits that "Bremen and Hamburg were the target TWO FULl DAYS BEFORE THAT, *on the night of the 17th*, with a secondary target of Delmenhorst airfield. Both targets were attacked...while a third force of Wellingtons attacked a railway marshalling yard at Cologne."

As though a day or two difference matters. It matters to Phil when he can use it to confuse the "details." "Both targets were attacked" means Bremen and Hamburg. It also doesn't matter if BC log book says oil storage facilities were the target -- 17 civilian deaths don't occur when bombs fall only at an oil storage facility after midnight. These are "details," not just words in a log book.

Thu, 2012-01-26 18:38 — Carolyn Yeager (not verified)

False history from Phil Boyd.

Phil: "Allowed"? Given that the Red Army had fought their way across Poland, I fail to see how that counts as Britain "allowing" it!

The Red Army did NOT fight their way across Poland, but simply walked up to the new dividing line after Germany defeated Poland without the Russians participating --they only *did not interfere*.

Then Boyd has the nerve to ask for a source! He either doesn't give sources himself or they are no good.

Writing to me, Phil leaves out the bombing of Bremen and Hamburg on May 19, 1940. It doesn't matter what targets Bomber Command *says* they were aiming at, they were bombing cities inside Germany well before the Germans bombed Britain or London. Also, it's quite well known that Churchill *wanted* to bomb inside Germany to force the G.s to bomb London, thereby arousing an anger and even hatred for Germany in the British public that they did not yet have. Churchill WANTED WAR and strove to create war and it's all documented. It's foolish to say otherwise.

Tue, 2012-01-10 09:06 — Dave (not verified)

Does disputing Denis Avey's account make you a holocaust denier?

Sat, 2012-01-28 18:04 — Phil Boyd (not verified)

"He uses mostly British sources, and the final, official numbers that are recognized today (too low in my opinion)"

THEN HOW IS HE GETTING DATES WRONG??? ;)

"Friedrich says May 18th and 19th, Bomber Command or 'war diaries' say May 17th. Maybe they are wrong, can we consider that?"

Do you actually realise the amount of planning, preparation and dated and paperwork involved in and despatching a period bombing raid???

There is still even to day a VAST amount of this extant - let alone dated casualty returns for aircrew who didn't return from the continent etc.

" "IF he's just copied it out of a May 1940 Voelkischer Beobachter, for instance...!!!! " You Phil, are hysterically insinuating, by using the word 'If', what you know not and is not true."

In THIS case *I* was talking more generally about Friedrich....but all you've done is prove my point - HE was ALREADY using a TERTIARY source, which means Friedrich is at least FOUR times removed from actual events.

For instance - How do YOU know ***FRITZ PETERS*** is correct????

P.S. is it worth mentioning that the FULL title of Fritz Peter's work is "Zwölf Jahre Bremen, ***1921-1932***: eine Chronik".....and it was published ***IN 1938***???

"If you're going to doubt every figure from Germans, and trust every figure from Brits, then you are not worth talking to."

Do you honestly think I'm going to trust a reference of casualty figures from a book published THREE YEARS BEFORE the events we're discussing? Kindly tell me how come a history work dealing with the years 1921 to 1932 and published in 1938 mentions bombing casualties in 1940?

Thu, 2012-01-26 19:22 — Dave (not verified)

* Phil Boyd

For answers to your own questions, visit websites:

Britain bombs Berlin - Molotov
Britain betrays Poland
Christians to blame for holocaust!

This is all disputed history, which presumably could not be published unless historians have the freedom to be wrong?

Sat, 2012-01-21 12:55 — Peter Nockolds (not verified)

It's one thing to argue, as Avey's defenders do, that the discrepancies in the different versions are the result of Avey simply having confusing his memories of the camp. However the Donald Watts details show that his memory has become contaminated by things he has read since, because he cannot have heard about Watts in the camp. What assurance can we then have that Avey is not simply remembering what he read in Coward's book? I do not see how any reasonable person can consider his testimony completely reliable because of the Watts details and this is not an area where anyone should be given the benefit of the doubt. There should be no shame attached to anyone who may have accepted Avey's story in the past changing their mind in the light of the Donald Watts detail, I for one would admire anyone who did so.

By the way if Avey is worth a medal from the British government for procuring some cigarettes for Ernst Lobethal surely the Arctic convoy veterans are worthy of a medal of their own.

Fri, 2012-01-27 18:58 — Phil Boyd (not verified)

"After the fall of France, Churchill ordered the sinking of the French fleet to prevent peace talks"

Actually no; see Laurence Thompson's classic "1940" for the REAL reason why.

"The point is Britain adopted a deliberate policy of bombing civilian targets, that continued long after the Luftwaffe had collapsed"

No; Carolyn's points seem to be that the British started attacking them first, whereas they were actually attacking German infrastructure/capacity to FIGHT the war targets. Britain's decisions to specifically target civilians/urban areas arrived in early 1942 with the issuing of the new strategic bombing doctrine.

And what has the collapse of the Luftwaffe got to do with it??? Armed forces are for winning wars - not for simply stopping THEIR war when their *counterpart* is defeated!

"You say our Polish guarantee did not obligate us to declare on the Soviet Union.
If so the 'guarantee' was anti-German, rather than pro-Polish? Hence the 'betrayal of Poland'"

The theory of a "Western Betrayal of Poland" deals specifically with events of 1945; the 1939 events are different - Britain and France faced the major problem of actually GETTING there. Historically, the plan was to resupply the Poles and get them military aid via Rumania...*but noone asked the Rumanians!* Meanwhile - several ships laden with military stores and equipment WERE sent but had to be turned round when Poland collapsed...while Churchill as first lord of the admiralty had ordered work to begin on converting the three old "R" class battleships for a break-in into the Baltic...

Unfortunately, when the Poles crossed into Rumanian, the Rumanians disarmed them, confiscated *and re-used* the Polish Air Force, and interned Polish troops. So - no Polish defensive enclave based on their frontier with Rumania.

As for the guarantees being anti-German rather than pro-polish...well of course! Paris, London...AND MOSCOW!....had spent the last 20 years trying to fence Germany round with a series of defence pacts and guarantes, the Polish guarantee was simply a continuation of that political strategy.

Sat, 2012-01-28 19:42 — Phil Boyd (not verified)

SOme of you might enjoy this review of Friedrich's book -

http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/books-films-tv-radio/9721-new-book-bombing-...

;)

Fri, 2012-01-27 19:12 — Phil Boyd (not verified)

"Phil does not give sources for what he insists is true, except for "Bomber Command records and war diaries". He needs to give the necessary info for others to check it out."

You could do what *I* did - spend a few expensive years getting squardon diaries etc. from the RAF Museum at Hendon and the National Archive at Kew!

"And Dave is right to say he should look further than official British war records"
"As though a day or two difference matters. It matters to Phil when he can use it to confuse the "details.""

Well, why it matters is simple - you're standing on historical details and a tertiary historical reference that obviously is incorrect...
So how do you know he's correct in what ELSE he says? ;)

That MAY not seem important to YOU...

Fri, 2011-11-18 05:31 — Colin Sloss (not verified)

Guy, another good post. How can we live without you?

Sun, 2011-11-20 21:49 — John T (not verified)

Phil - Thank-you for an honest opinion. My answer to you question would be. Even if this old man has altered fact wither they be trivial or not. Why should we try (as some people have) to make him out to be some sort of Walter Mitty.
Can we not just appreciate that this man has yet enlightened us to what happened in those terrible places.
Having served myself I have seen it time and time again when other members of the same unit disagrees on what has actually happened. When people have been awarded high medals for bravery there is always someone on the sideline to say it didnt happen that way or he didnt deserve it.
Mr Avey has nothing to gain financialy at his age. Why do we have to scar this brave mans name?

It was only this month we marched in the streets of London to commemorate our brave soldiers, now we want to slate them.
This is only my opinion and I certainly do not want to offend anyone by it.

Mon, 2012-01-23 11:17 — Peter Nockolds (not verified)

The Hero of the Holocaust stipulation is something along the lines of 'selfless action which preserved life' As far as I can see Avey got the award for obtaining cigarettes for Ernst, not for breaking into Auschwitz. Most people seems to overlook the cigarettes aspect, Rob Broomby being an exception.

It's a shame that it is not possible to ask Ernst Lobethal more about the cigarettes, after all the majority Monowitz inmates survived the death marches. Also did he make any attempt to trace Avey after the war to thank him?

Wed, 2012-01-04 05:59 — Carolyn Yeager (not verified)

To John T especially -

Denis Avey is LYING. Rob Broomby and the BBC are helping him to do it, in conjunction with the HET and the British (Labour) Government. And of course Hodder and Stoughton. For some it's money; for others, it's more Jewish holocaust propaganda, or another "British Hero" from that very unheroic British war. In the end, they fought the war from the air, creating firestorms for German civilians to roast in. I know your misplaced, anti-German patriotism doesn't want to hear that.

There is no way, if you listen to what Guy Walters is telling you, that you can honestly accept any of what Avey says, including his accounts of witnessing atrocities by the SS, i.e. killing people for no reason. It just didn't happen.

The "argument" that he is an old man and should be treated with respect by pretending to believe him or giving him the benefit of the doubt is ridiculous in the extreme. As an old man who has carried resentment over the years for not being accorded the respect or *compensation* as a veteran and PoW he felt he deserved, he should be given counseling and comfort, maybe, but not credibility. He is being used by the others in this unsavoury mix as much as he is using them.

Well, you are all British folks posting here and love your WWII fables. I commend Guy Walters and his fellow writers for at least going after the worst of the worst ... for Britain's sake.

Sun, 2011-11-20 22:26 — Phil Boyd (not verified)

But John - what if they're not trivial??? ;)

You say -
"Can we not just appreciate that this man has yet enlightened us to what happened in those terrible places."

But what if he hasn't, so to speak?

The Holocaust is one of the most important events of WWII, for obvious reasons; what if somebody simply seeks to "make a buck" out of it? I'm NOT saying that's the case here...

But think hypothetically for a monet...IS the Holocaust something where the memories of so many people who died should be tainted by any degree of cashing-in on it?

Take a moment to look at *this* -

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/books/03arts-HOLOCAUSTMEM_BRF.html

or *this* -

http://www.military.com/entertainment/books/book-news/holocaust-memoir-s...

....as I said previously - historical fakery is nothing new, so SHOULD we really let things pass unchecked? ;)

Sat, 2012-01-21 17:54 — Carolyn Yeager (not verified)

Excellent point by Peter Nockolds. When it comes down to it, after all the lying he did, the only thing Avey can actually claim is giving some cigarettes to prisoner Ernst Lobetal. And even that was done by "Ginger." It is not definitely proven that "Ginger" is Denis Avey. But let's say he was, and Lobetal remembers being grateful to "Ginger." Did Ginger-Avey take a risk for himself in doing that? No. He pretends in his book that it was risky, but were cigarettes banned in the camp? No. Were prisoners allowed to get packages via the Red Cross? Yes. Were cigarettes hard to come by in the camps? Not really. Maybe British "Players" were a higher quality, that's all. The British government made Avey a "Hero of the Holocaust" when they were *believing* that Yad Vashem was going to award him with their own 'Righteous Gentile' title. But Yad Vashem, after examination, did not do so. Now Britian is stuck with their non-"Hero" and is trying to make the best of it.

Talk about egg on your face.

Where is Phil Boyd with answers to the questions put to him, based on his own statements? I would like just two examples of "confirmed and ccrosshecked witness statements" of atrocities by SS against a camp inmate.

Thu, 2012-01-26 06:10 — Carolyn Yeager (not verified)

Even though Phil Boyd has not answered about the "confirmed" atrocities, I will answer him by presenting this timeline. It shows definitely who started bombing enemy cities first.

10/5/1940: British prime minister Neville Chamberlain resigns and is replaced by Winston Churchill

11/5/1940: Britain bombs the region of Westphalia in Germany [Churchill could hardly wait - cy]

12/5/1940: Germany invades France
14/5/1940: Holland surrenders

19/5/1940: Britain bombs Bremen and Hamburg

20/5/1940: the German army reaches the English Channel
24/5/1940: Hilter halts German troops that have surrounded British troops in Dunkerque
26/5/1940: Britain evacuates 300,000 surrounded British and French troops from Dunkerque ("Operation Dynamo")
[very nice, no? Done by Hitler as a gesture of good will, hopefully leading to peace -cy]

27/5/1940: Belgium surrenders

4/6/1940: Germany enters Paris

27/6/1940: Romania is forced by Stalin to surrender Bessarabia (Moldova) to the Soviet Union

10/6/1940: Norway surrenders

10/6/1940: Italy enters the war on Germany's side and invades France

18/6/1940: the Soviet Union invades Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania

18/6/1940: Sweden allows Germany passage through its territory

22/6/1940: France surrenders to Germany and a new government, led by Philippe Petain, moves the capital to Vichy
28/6/1940: Britain recognizes the French government in exile of general Charles de Gaulle

10/7/1940: Germany bombs Britain

Britain bombed inside Germany on May 11 and May 19, 1940. Germany did not bomb inside Britain until October 7.

Thu, 2012-01-26 06:14 — Carolyn Yeager (not verified)

Sorry, not October 7, but July 10 for German bombing in Britain, two months after British planes crossed inside Germany and bombed cities.

Wed, 2012-01-11 18:19 — Phil Boyd (not verified)

"...and support thought crime prosecutions, to prevent research and free speech?"

I believe there is a great difference between historical research, whether for publication or not...and preaching/proselytizing under a waving banner or on a soapbox; there is a difference between historical research and unfettered free speech.

Remember - we *already* exist here in the Uk under the "burden" of laws that limit free speech - the laws on inciting racial and religious hatred...and the VAST majority of us simply never encounter their provisions. There IS no unlimited right of free speech in the UK as it is.

"You say it is fair to enquire about motive, but would you be content with the reply, "to write an accurate historical record"?"

Instead of asing me, why not go to the horse's mouth? Why not email Yad Vashem and ask THEM what their policy is for authorizing access to their historical records and documents? They deal with this every day - they should be able to give you a FAR better answer on that than *I* could.

"Bearing in mind that it is impossible to prove a motive."

An investigating detective or prosecuting Queen's Counsel in a murder case might disgree with you on that!

Sun, 2011-11-20 23:12 — John T (not verified)

Phil
Again thank you for your honest opinion.
I certainly understand what you are saying and I do believe it would be an absolute disgrace for ANYONE to be portraying themselves as a Holocaust victim.
Maybe it is that I am bias as an ex serviceman, but although I totally understand what you are saying can you not understand what I am trying to say. What if he is right, what if he did do what he has written about. Is it fair that we must judge this man, would it not be unfair without FACT. what stress will this man be under, and more so, God forbid, something happened to him while the jury was still out. Me personally, I have a conscious, it would make me feel so bad to think I called this man a liar, and he took it to his grave.
I remember reading an extract from the book Forgotten Voices, don't know if you read it but the story goes that this platoon goes over the top, they are being mowed down by enemy gun fire, the officer was mortally wounded, he tells his Sgt to go back for help, he refuses, the officer orders him, the Sgt obeys. The whole platoon was slaughtered that day apart from the Sgt. Do you know what happened next, he was branded a coward and shot. Please do you see what I am trying to get at. Sometimes the truth does get distorted, it may be intentionally or unintentionally.
I certainly do not want to be the man who judges Denis and get it wrong. But what I will say in the defence of your opinion, writers are in it for the money and things do tend to get exaggerated and romanticised as we seen with Braveheart who is made out to be a lovable hero, but none the less in history he was a barbaric mercenary who became a hero. Sorry I am digressing and ranting. Also I would like to thank you for your links, it made for a very interesting read.

Sun, 2011-11-20 23:59 — Phil Boyd (not verified)

Well, as I noted several times now - I'd like to see his account verified moreso than to find it disproved. But I just don't think it should be left unquestioned for reasons of his age...

After all, if we were to leave issues unaddressed because of age - *John Demjanjuk???*

And then again - we spend plenty of time re-evaluating and disproving the accounts of literally THOUSANDS of historical figures...who just aren't around anymore to defend themselves ;)For instance, should we stop trying to find out how Napoleon died...just because he IS dead???

"...they are being mowed down by enemy gun fire, the officer was mortally wounded, he tells his Sgt to go back for help, he refuses, the officer orders him, the Sgt obeys. The whole platoon was slaughtered that day apart from the Sgt. Do you know what happened next, he was branded a coward and shot."

...and we probably ONLY know that now BECAUSE people are still interested in the facts...or else it would have passed unremarked upon.

Look at the time and effort being expended HERE for example, by people with nothing to gain from it -
http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/1940/23173-durham-light-infantry-massacre-4...

Sun, 2012-01-29 02:23 — Phil Boyd (not verified)

let's look at some OTHER aspects of the last few days of posts.

Dave asked about motivation and how we KNOW it? Look at this part of the discussion since....

""Friedrich is *regarded* as belonging to the Germans-as-victims school ..." Regarded by whom? You and other flag-waving Brits? The Bomber Harrises of the world? No, he is purely factual, not sentimental at all. Not even political."

He's ENTIRELY political. It's just that one poster here couldn't *see* his motives at work...but that doesn't mean they aren't there ;)

I was also a bit concerned by THIS -
"Britain declared war on Germany..." and THIS
"Britain did declare war on Germany for invading Poland..."

Dave doesn't seem to understand the difference between a Declaration of War - and a CONDITIONAL Declaration of War...

NOR however does he seem to have taken on board that Germany invaded Poland without ANY form of a delcaration of war *until half a day later*...a breach of the Hague Cenventions and a war crime.

Thu, 2012-01-26 10:59 — Phil Boyd (not verified)

I'll deal with Dave's material first.

"Churchill began the bombing of civilian targets. He ordered the repeat bombing of Berlin to coincide with a visit by the Soviet Foreign Minister."

And *what date* was this that Molotov was in Berlin?

"This bombing led to the Luftwaffe switching from bombing airfields to cities too."

Actually - no; the Luftwaffe had bombed inside the Greater London limit THREE TIMES before Churchill ordered retaliation on Berlin.

It's worth remembering that HITLER had ordered that there be no bom,bibg inside Greater london; and the raids which strayed inside were in contravention of this order.

"Britain did declare war on Germany for invading Poland, but did not declare war on Soviet Union for doing same."

Britain's (and France's) guarantees to Poland were predicated on invasion from the WEST only; the Soviet invasion didn't breach the guarantees.

Despite this - both Britain and France planned long and often about carrying the war to the USSR as an "ally" of Nazi Germany...and were on the verge of bombing the Soviet oilfield at Baku when Hitler invaded the West on the 10th of may 1940. Google on "Operation Pike"....

"And then after 'winning the war' allowed Soviet Union to occupy all of Poland!"

"Allowed"? Given that the Red Army had fought their way across Poland, I fail to see how that counts as Britain "allowing" it!

"After WWII the new blood libel was 'the holocaust', *but this was also directed at Christiandom in general*."

Well, that's new one - can we have a source for that please?

Tue, 2012-01-31 00:51 — Phil Boyd (not verified)

Stephen, thanks for that clarification for everyone! I'd found that out BEFORE I put that on the blog - but I wanted to test the depth of *Carolyn's* knowledge! ;)

If you happen to have Friedrich to hand - what csualty figure does he use for **Dresden**???

Thu, 2012-01-26 11:47 — Phil Boyd (not verified)

Moving on...

"11/5/1940: Britain bombs the region of Westphalia in Germany"

Strange - there was me thinking we were discussing the bombing of German CITIES and urban areas...

The only target bombed by Bomber Command that day - actually the first raid by the RAF on MAINLAND Germany, was *a railway junction and marshalling yard* near Monchen-Gladbach, by six Whitley bombers of No. 51 Sqn, 4 Group Bomber Command.

"Sorry, not October 7, but July 10 for German bombing in Britain, two months after British planes crossed inside Germany and bombed cities"

Well, I've been through 4 Group's war diaries for the two months after 11/5 - and there's not a single raid aimed AT a *city*. Oil storage, oil refineries,oil plants *designated by the NEAREST city or town* were attacked by very small numbers of aircraft, often as few as four or six, as part of the so-called "oil Campaign". Also, there were attacks on rail junctions and marshalling yards....but attacks on the latter moved rapidly WEST into France etc. as the need to disrupt German logistics moved west,and from the end of DYNAMO were accompanied by raids on Sealion-related targets in France - arms dumps, troop concentrations etc.

I'm sure your next idea will be to say that these count as attacks ON German cities...

By THAT standard, the first German air raid on a mainland British "city" was actually on October 16th 1939.

Sat, 2011-11-19 17:37 — Phil Boyd (not verified)

"Guy Walters seems to get awfully worked up over minor discrepancies in an elderly man's tale, which don't prevent it from being the heroic account that it ultimately is."

In base terms - don't you grasp the difference between history and fiction?

If Avey's "tale" as you put it IS real....then it's a valuable additional insight into some of the most brutal events of the las century. But if it ISN'T...then it quite literally *is* junk.

When it comes to the written word, where events are set in amber, so to speak - it really does come down to whether ot not the account is real. It either has value - or it doesn't. It's fact - or it's fiction.

There isn't really a grey area here; for if ONE part of the account is fabricated or incorrect - how can we in all honesty accept the REST without question???

Tue, 2012-01-31 04:08 — Michael (not verified)

Phil Boyd - a know nothing who, like all such people, thinks he knows best...yet everything he has come out with is contradicted by standard academia, let alone self-styled revisionists. Embarrassing really -- or at least it would be if he had any self-awareness. Anyone debating him is, in my view, wasting their time

Fri, 2012-01-27 01:11 — Phil Boyd (not verified)

I'm afraid the only "false history" in today'exchange, as she puts it, comes from Carolyn - as I'll proceed to illustrate.

"Phil: "Allowed"? Given that the Red Army had fought their way across Poland, I fail to see how that counts as Britain "allowing" it!
The Red Army did NOT fight their way across Poland, but simply walked up to the new dividing line after Germany defeated Poland without the Russians participating --they only *did not interfere*."

Ahem....can I recommend you look back at WHAT I was answering??? *From Dave..."

"Britain did declare war on Germany for invading Poland, but did not declare war on Soviet Union for doing same.
***And then after 'winning the war' allowed Soviet Union to occupy all of Poland!***"

You see, the only time that the Soviet Union ended up occupying ALL of Poland, after a war Dave said Britain "won"...*WAS 1945!!!* Which was what *I* too was talking about.

And Dave confirms this by referring above to the "Western Betrayal of Poland" theory - which happened in 1945 and after, NOT 1940! ;)

If you're going to take up someone else's argument - at least make sure you're arguing about the right thing ;)

"Writing to me, Phil leaves out the bombing of Bremen and Hamburg on May 19, 1940."

Unfortunately this is a perfect example of when you should really check your "thin" internet sources ;)

Bomber Command's raids that night were on oil targets near Gelsenkirchen and Dorsten by six aircraft of No.77 Sqn., 4 Group, Bomber Command. No ops against Bremen or Hamburg I'm afraid....nor on the 18th the night before, nor on the 20th the night after.

"Also, it's quite well known that Churchill *wanted* to bomb inside Germany to force the G.s to bomb London"

I'm afraid that's just one of MANY theories; he was also VERY aware that the RAF's nighttime efences of the city were terrible during the Battle Of Britain.

"It doesn't matter what targets Bomber Command *says* they were aiming at, they were bombing cities inside Germany well before the Germans bombed Britain or London."

Of course it matters. If the material is coming straight from Bomber Command records and war diaries, it's a hell of a lot more reliable than YOUR thin internet sources that don't even put them in the right part of Germany on the right night.

For answers to your own questions, visit websites:

"Britain bombs Berlin - Molotov"

"Churchill began the bombing of civilian targets. He ordered the repeat bombing of Berlin to coincide with a visit by the Soviet Foreign Minister.
This bombing led to the Luftwaffe switching from bombing airfields to cities too.!"

Dave, I really don't know where you're getting your dates from; V. M. Molotov visited Berlin on the 12-14th of NOVEMBER 1940, long after the first RAF raid on Berlin...AND long after the Luftwaffe shifted from bombing airfields to bombing British cities.

The only raid on Berlin anywhere* near his visit was a full day *after* he left, on the night of the 15th...and there was NO "repeat bombing" - I've checked through the next week and Bomber Command went nowhere near Berlin.

Fri, 2012-01-27 23:39 — Carolyn Yeager (not verified)

Oh brother! ... tricky Phil is at it again. What a dodger he is.

As I pointed out, you, Tricky Phil Boyd, said "Bremen and Hamburg were the target TWO FULl DAYS BEFORE THAT, *on the night of the 17th*"

You had denied that Bremen and Hamburg were hit at all; when you learned Jorg Friedrich and I were correct that they were, you then try to make out that whether it was on the 17th rather than the 18th or 19th is A BIG DEAL, and makes me wrong instead of you wrong!

We are talking about May 1940 when the British killed civilians in Bremen, Germany. Whether they SAID they were targeting oil refineries carries no weight when 17 civilians are killed in their homes in the middle of the night and a hospital is hit too. Hospitals are not located amongst oil refineries!

Since the Luftwaffe did not bomb inside Britain (targeting industries too) until July 1940, I was correct from the start that the RAF bombed *inside* Germany before the Luftwaffe bombed *inside* Britain. How much more clear can it be? You want to keep changing the rules as you go along, but it makes no difference what the "claimed" targets were when you kill 17 civilians in one night already in Spring 1940!

Tue, 2012-01-10 17:25 — Phil Boyd (not verified)

"including his accounts of witnessing atrocities by the SS, i.e. killing people for no reason. It just didn't happen."

Unfortunately - that did happen. We have dozens, perhaps hundreds, of confirmed and ccrosshecked witness statements from the camps on that.

"In the end, they fought the war from the air, creating firestorms for German civilians to roast in."

ALL sides fought the war from the air...and at sea and on land.

Tue, 2012-01-10 17:28 — Phil Boyd (not verified)

"Does disputing Denis Avey's account make you a holocaust denier?"

Hi Dave - by no means! If anything, it preserves the Holocaust as the disaster and suffering it was...by taking attempts to cash in on it for "filthy lucre" OUT of the historical record.