Writing by Dr. Dannielle Blumenthal

Search all annual diaries

Note: Content on this site is archived frequently to conserve space. Scroll to the Annual Diaries directly and click on the link for the best possible search.

Mengele’s Death Was FAKED, Said Peter Dale Scott (Covert Action Information Bulletin, 1986)

Scott was a distinguished Canadian-American poet, academic, former diplomat, and researcher known for his influential work on “deep politics.” A Professor Emeritus at UC Berkeley, he was also a prominent anti-war activist, co-founding peace studies programs and writing key books like The American Deep State, bridging literature and political science.

Summary of the Article

The article, “How Allen Dulles and the SS Preserved Each Other” by Peter Dale Scott, published in the Covert Action Information Bulletin (Winter 1986), argues that U.S. intelligence agencies, particularly the OSS (precursor to the CIA) under Allen Dulles, deliberately protected and utilized Nazi war criminals after World War II as part of anti-communist efforts.

It details how Dulles negotiated secret deals with SS leaders like Karl Wolff during Operation Sunrise (1945), leading to the preservation of SS networks for postwar use against the Soviets. This included establishing “Rat Lines” (escape routes) via the Vatican, Croatia, and Latin America, often with U.S. connivance or direct support.

The piece focuses on figures like Klaus Barbie, Walter Rauff, and Friederich Schwend, who were employed by U.S. Army Counterintelligence (CIC) or the Gehlen Organization (a Nazi intelligence network absorbed by the CIA), and later involved in arms dealing, drug trafficking, and right-wing repression in Latin America through the “Kameradenwerk” (a postwar Nazi network).

Scott portrays this as a symbiotic relationship: the OSS/CIA needed SS expertise and networks to justify their own postwar existence, while the SS sought amnesty and survival.

The article critiques official U.S. reports (e.g., on Barbie) as cover-ups, suggesting high-level complicity in shielding criminals, and links this to broader issues like neo-fascism, corporate looting, and the Cold War.

Highlights on Mengele Specifically

The article portrays Josef Mengele, the “Angel of Death” at Auschwitz known for lethal human experiments, as a beneficiary of U.S. intelligence protection and part of the Kameradenwerk network. Key points include:

  • Mengele was captured by U.S. forces in July 1945 at a POW camp, where his identity and crimes were known, and possibly arrested again in Austria in 1947 but released, despite U.S. Army Counterintelligence knowing his location in Bavaria as early as 1946.
  • Scott suggests Mengele’s escape was facilitated by the same OSS-SS deals that protected others like Barbie, Rauff, and Schwend, implying U.S. complicity in allowing him to “disappear” and resettle in Latin America (Argentina in 1952, Paraguay in 1954, where he gained citizenship in 1957).
  • In Latin America, Mengele is depicted as integrated into the Kameradenwerk, working in a restricted Paraguayan military zone with Ante Pavelić (Croatian dictator) and Rauff; financing operations through looted SS funds (e.g., via Alfons Sassen’s “Estrella” company, linked to Barbie and Schwend); and possibly involved in drug trafficking, as U.S. reports from the 1970s noted his ties to networks like Auguste Ricord’s.
  • The piece questions Mengele’s reported deaths (e.g., 1968 and 1985 in Brazil) as disinformation from a “well-organized conspiracy” by Brazilian police and the Kameradenwerk, involving planted skeletons to deflect searches. It compares him to protected figures like Walter Schreiber (a colleague in experiments, shielded by the U.S. for bacteriological warfare research and resettled via Argentina to Paraguay in 1952) and Shiro Ishii (Japanese equivalent, granted U.S. immunity).
  • Overall, Scott hypothesizes that Mengele was spared due to his value in a Dulles-SS arrangement, emphasizing disbelief in “credible” authorities and exploring “paranoid” alternatives like ongoing protection.

Contrast with the 1992 DOJ Report

The 1992 U.S. Department of Justice report, “In the Matter of Josef Mengele: A Report to the Attorney General of the United States” (prepared by the Office of Special Investigations, or OSI), directly contradicts many of the article’s claims about U.S. involvement and Mengele’s fate. Based on a multi-year investigation starting in 1985, including forensic analysis, witness interviews, and declassified documents, the report concludes:

  • On Mengele’s Death: It reaffirms that Mengele died by drowning in Brazil on February 7, 1979, based on the 1985 exhumation of remains (initially identified via forensic experts) and confirmed by 1992 DNA tests comparing samples from his family. This debunks the article’s 1986 skepticism of the 1985 death report as part of a conspiracy with planted evidence, treating earlier false death reports (e.g., 1946, 1968) as genuine errors or Nazi disinformation, not ongoing protection.
  • On U.S. Involvement and Protection: The report acknowledges that Mengele was detained twice by U.S. forces in 1945 POW camps but released due to bureaucratic oversights—his name was not on major wanted lists at the time, and he used aliases without his SS tattoo (which he had removed). However, it explicitly finds no evidence of deliberate U.S. protection, assistance, or deals to shield him, unlike the article’s assertions of OSS/CIA complicity via Dulles or the Gehlen Org. It states that rumors of CIA involvement (e.g., in his escape or postwar activities) are unfounded, and U.S. agencies did not knowingly harbor him. The report criticizes early postwar lapses in Nazi hunting but attributes them to chaos and incomplete records, not a systematic conspiracy.
  • Broader Contrasts: While the article portrays Mengele as actively integrated into a U.S.-backed Kameradenwerk involved in intelligence, arms, and drugs, the DOJ report focuses on his fugitive life in hiding (Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil), supported by family and Nazi sympathizers but without U.S. aid. It details his movements and aliases but finds no links to U.S. operations or high-level deals like Operation Sunrise. The article’s emphasis on disinformation and protection networks is reframed in the report as Nazi self-preservation tactics, with U.S. failures seen as incompetence rather than intent. The 1992 DNA confirmation provides scientific closure, undermining the article’s call for ongoing skepticism and “alternative hypotheses.”

What do you believe?

Sources

Written with the help of Grok AI.