A truly strange and fascinating story of forgery in a pro-Nazi cause - or, just possibly, an MI6 subversion - has broken this morning with the report in the Telegraph that:-

Documents from the National Archives used to substantiate claims that British intelligence agents murdered Heinrich Himmler in 1945 are forgeries, The Daily Telegraph can reveal today.

It seems certain that the bogus documents were somehow planted among genuine papers to pervert the course of historical study.

The results of investigations by forensic document experts on behalf of this newspaper have shocked historians and caused tremors at the Archives, the home of millions of historical documents, which has previously been thought immune to distortion or contamination.

The allegation that the SS leader was murdered, with the knowledge of Churchill and War Cabinet ministers, appeared in Himmler’s Secret War, published in May.

What made the claim stand out from other allegations over the years was that it referred to specific documents in the National Archives at Kew - usually an absolute guarantee of validity.

That guarantee was certainly accepted by Martin Allen, author of Himmler’s Secret War, the book that broke the story of the “murder” of the Reichsführer-SS by SOE agent Leonard Ingrams.  Allen, being a professional historian with a background in investigative research, a historical consultant for various television companies and a peripatetic speaker, has a reputation to salvage.  Interviewed live this morning for the BBC’s Today he was filled with remorse and clearly saw himself as the fall guy.  It is inevitable, however, that should a police investigation emerge from all this Allen will be questioned.

Assuming Allen has no responsibilitiy in the matter, the forger’s object was, it would seem, to make Winston Churchill and the British wartime military and political establishment the ultimate fall guys.  He went to quite a bit of trouble - the Telegraph expert’s forensic evidence report is available here (a PDF but I recommend you view it).  So who was he? In whose perceived interests was he acting?

On Today, SOE official historian Prof M R D Foot was quite clear that the deception was done in the interests of nasty and extreme right-wingers, whoever they may be. 

British historian and arch-revisionist, David Irving points one possible way:-

The article reveals how very much was at stake if the documents were not found to have been forged. So: a piece of clever damage-control by MI6?

I am keeping a VERY open mind on this. The discrepancies remain: how did Heinrich Himmler kill himself, if he in fact had no cyanide capsule in his possession at that moment, as we know from the records; why was the war diary of the unit holding him tampered with?

Which is the document that, according to The Daily Telegraph, was not forged? How would a forger know that Martin Allen was going to look in those particular files, when writing his book, of all the tens of thousands of files in the PRO? (Assuming that he is blameless).

Interesting that all of these experts, like (the very reliable, if short-sighted—he made no use of any German documentary basis in his official history The SOE in France) Professor M R D Foot, have kept very mum indeed until now, when they can breath a collective sigh of relief: why not a peep out of them before now?

Within a few days of our posting the first documents on the Internet, we began receiving emails from strangers suggesting they were fake—prima facie a very implausible explanation at the time.

Fortunately there are ways that the PRO can verify the original contents of the file: most such files will have been microfilmed at some stage, in their original condition; but will the PRO be allowed to come clean? We recall the very dirty role the PRO played in concealing documents from the defence counsel of Count Nikolai Tolstoy until the very day after he was ruined by Lord Aldington’s libel action against him (whose counsel was, believe it or not, Richard Rampton QC).

If the documents were forged, however, the PRO also has a computerised digital trail of every single person who has ever withdrawn a file, which would enable them to nail any forger if they can date the forgery (ink-oxidisation analysis will give a good date for the Bracken signature, if it is fake).

The PRO must now examine its procedures - and consider the unnerving possibility that this present deception may not be the only one of this kind perpetrated upon it.  Certainly, if further tests reveal that the forged papers were produced some years ago the implications for the PRO are quite startling.

There is a long way for this story to run.  How extraordinary and instructive that the strange history of those now far-off times still holds such sway over the public mind.

Himmler looks on as Adolf Hitler salutes SS troops parading in Nuremberg

Himmler in death