Posts Tagged ‘honesty’

The Lies of Doctor Schleusener oder Die Lügen des Jan Schleusener

So how do I know that Dr. Jan Schleusener is a liar? Because, it is I of whom he lies! Also of Hans Heinrich Thyssen. But ‘Heini’ is no longer with us, so, as his biographer, I inherit a responsibility to question any libellous accusations concerning our personal and professional relationship, as well as about my credibility as an author.

The lies in question are contained in a book titled ‘The Expropriation of Fritz Thyssen’, written by Schleusener, published in March 2018 by Ferdinand Schöningh Verlag and funded by the Fritz Thyssen Foundation. In this book, Jan Schleusener states that ‘Heini’ and I ‘fell out’, due to his ‘cancellation of his commission’ for my writing his biography. Schleusener even gives the page numbers of the German edition of my book, ‘Die Thyssen-Dynastie’, on which he falsely claims I confirmed this situation. Furthermore, Schleusener insists that my book contains vast swathes of ‘polemic revenge’ against ‘Heini’ and that it was obviously NOT written ‘sine ira et studio’. He then asserts that while I studied many pertinent sources, I interpreted them one-sidedly and ‘took into account only those aspects’ that supported what he purports to have been my ‘intention to scandalise’.

The truth is that the cancellation was subsequently rescinded without ever having been the cause of friction. I got on incredibly well with ‘Heini’ Thyssen (as did Caroline Schmitz, my German ‘collaborator’) and had no reason to be vengeful; quite the opposite in fact. This is explained in some detail in my book, while Dr Schleusener made no attempt to contact me or clarify the situation when researching his book. So there can be little doubt that his accusations are not only false but also malicious and designed to damage my reputation and credibility as an author, and as such they qualify as libellous.

I would also assume that as he is an academic, albeit a junior and undistinguished academic, Dr Schleusener’s students, the relevant seats of learning who reward him and the Fritz Thyssen Foundation would all expect him to adhere to certain standards of honesty and professionalism, which he obviously isn’t respecting. This is of particular concern when it comes to his coverage of history relating to the Third Reich. So Dr Schleusener presumably considers lying to be an acceptable practice, regardless of the subject or period. This was manifest in his dismissive response to my e-mails demanding a retraction and apology, while his publisher saw fit to ignore my request altogether; which doesn’t bode well for the accuracy of their whole academic series of Thyssen books.

Finally, I would like to address Dr Schleusener’s accusation of my having ‘scandalised’ evidence, as I had no reason to do so; the story being quite sufficiently scandalous without the need to resort to exaggeration. As a point of interest, it was ‘Heini’ himself who suggested the cover line, ‘Shame and scandal in the family’ as a title. And as far as our friendship was concerned, I should remind Dr. Jan Schleusener of the last paragraph of my book: ‘In my role as Heini Thyssen’s confessor, it was a family I had become part of and would no doubt continue to do so. I would also never raise a glass of red wine to my lips without thinking of him.’ Hardly the reflection of a man bent on revenge.

 

 

Hans Heinrich (‘Heini’) Thyssen-Bornemisza and David R L Litchfield at Villa Favorita, Lugano, Switzerland, 1989 (photo copyright Nicola Graydon)

Weshalb ich weiss, dass Dr Jan Schleusener ein Lügner ist? Weil ich es bin, über den er lügt. Und ebenso über Hans Heinrich Thyssen. Aber „Heini“ weilt nicht mehr unter uns, und so erbe ich als sein Biograf die Verantwortung dafür, jedwede verleumderische Anschuldigung über unser persönliches und professionelles Verhältnis – sowie über meine Glaubwürdigkeit als Autor – zu hinterfragen.

Die erwähnten Lügen sind in Dr Schleusener’s Buch „Die Enteignung Fritz Thyssens“ enthalten, welches vom Ferdinand Schöningh Verlag im März 2018 veröffentlicht und von der Fritz Thyssen Stiftung gefördert wurde. In diesem Buch behauptet Jan Schleusener, es habe ein „Zerwürfnis“ zwischen „Heini“ und mir gegeben, nachdem er den Auftrag an mich für das Schreiben seiner Biografie „wieder zurückgezogen“ habe. Schleusener verweist sogar auf bestimmte Seiten der deutschen Ausgabe meines Buches „Die Thyssen-Dynastie“, wo, so gibt er fälschlicherweise an, ich diese Situation bestätigt hätte. Weiterhin besteht Schleusener darauf, mein Buch enthalte „in weiten Strecken“ eine „polemische Abrechnung“ mit „Heini“, und dass es „überdeutlich nicht sine ira et studio geschrieben“ sei. Sodann beteuert er, dass ich zwar „viele einschlägige Quellen studiert“ hätte, diese aber „einseitig“ auswerten würde, um meine „skandalisierenden Absichten“ zu stützen.

Die Wahrheit ist, dass die Absage später zurück gezogen wurde, ohne jemals Friktionen hervor gerufen zu haben. Ich habe mich mit „Heini“ Thyssen überaus gut verstanden (und genauso ging es auch Caroline Schmitz, meiner deutschen Mitarbeiterin) und hatte keinerlei Grund, irgend eine Rache an ihm zu üben; ganz im Gegenteil. Die genauen Umstände unserer Beziehung habe ich in meinem Buch geschildert, aber Dr Schleusener hat während er seine Studie erarbeitete weder versucht, mich zu kontaktieren, noch die Situation klar zu stellen. Es kann also kaum ein Zweifel daran bestehen, dass seine Anschuldigungen nicht nur falsch sind, sondern obendrein böswillig und darauf ausgelegt, mein Ansehen und meine Glaubwürdigkeit als Autor zu schädigen. Als solche sind sie als verleumderisch anzusehen.

Ich würde auch annehmen – da er ein (wenn auch bisher wenig etablierter Nachwuchs-) Wissenschaftler ist -, dass seine Studenten, die Stätten der Gelehrsamkeit, bei denen er in Stellung ist, und auch die Fritz Thyssen Stiftung, alle von ihm erwarten würden, dass er an gewissen Standards der Ehrlichkeit und Professionalität festhält. Dies tut er aber offensichtlich nicht. Das ist besonders bedenklich, wenn es um seine Forschungen zum Dritten Reich geht. So nehme ich an, Dr Schleusener erachtet das Lügen als eine zulässige Gepflogenheit, unbenommen des Themas oder erörterten Zeitraums. Dies wurde deutlich aus seiner abschlägigen Anwort auf meine E-Mails an ihn, in denen ich meiner Erwartung eines Widerrufs und einer Entschuldigung Ausdruck gab. Sein Verleger sah es als gänzlich unnötig an, mir überhaupt zu antworten. All dies sind keine guten Vorzeichen hinsichtlich der Genauigkeit dieser ganzen akademischen Serie von Büchern zum Thema Thyssen.

Schlussendlich möchte ich noch Dr Schleusener’s Anschuldigung behandeln, ich hätte gewisse Aspekte „skandalisiert“. In Wirklichkeit hatte ich gar keinen Bedarf, etwas zu skandalisieren, da die Geschichte selbst ohne jegliche Übertreibungen schon skandalös genug ist. Interessehalber: es war „Heini“ selbst, der den Titel-Slogan der englischen Ausgabe „Schande und Skandale in der Familie“ vorschlug. Und so weit es meine Freundschaft mit „Heini“ betrifft, so darf ich Dr Jan Schleusener an den letzten Paragraphen meines Buches erinnern: „In meiner Rolle als Heini Thyssen-Bornemiszas Beichtvater bin ich ein Teil dieser Familie geworden und werde es wohl immer bleiben. Und niemals werde ich ein Glas Rotwein an meine Lippen führen, ohne an ihn zu denken“. Nicht gerade die Gedanken eines Menschen, der auf Rache aus ist.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in The Thyssen Art Macabre, Thyssen Corporate, Thyssen Family No Comments »

The indispensability of “impertinence” or An explanation to a Berlin book blogger concerning Sacha Batthyany and the Thyssen-Bornemiszas (by Caroline D Schmitz)

The aggressiveness of the reaction of many German-speaking commentators following our article in the Feuilleton of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in 2007, „The Hostess from Hell“ (previously published in Britain in The Independent under the title „The Killer Countess“), has always shocked me deeply. Here was the powerful Thyssen dynasty, who not just kept quiet about their overwhelming participation in the National Socialist regime, but who had their role pro-actively denied through the propagation of misleading reports. And there were we, an English author and a German researcher, who chance had brought together in England in 1995 and who, through a very small number of outstanding personalities, namely Steven Bentinck, Heini Thyssen, Naim Attallah, George Weidenfeld, Frank Schirrmacher and Ernst Gerlach, were put into the lucky position of being able to pierce the narrative of the corporate-academic-media establishment on the subject of Thyssen and save the truth from being entombed.

From the beginning, we were „impertinent“ in the original sense of the word which is „not being part of (the establishment)“, and our research always took place at the original locations. We did not learn of the Rechnitz massacre on the Internet, but in Rechnitz itself and from Rechnitz people. At the time our article was published in FAZ, we knew nothing of Eduard Erne, who had made a documentary film on the event entitled “Totschweigen” (i.e. “Silencing to Death”) as far back as 1994 (and who currently works for Swiss television), or of Paul Gulda, who in 1991 founded the Rechnitz Refugee and Commemoration Initiative (Refugius). When we met them both at the Rechnitz-symposium at the Burgenland County Museum in Eisenstadt (Austria) in 2008, they too treated us in an unfriendly manner, which we thought could only be because they felt we had ignored their work on purpose. This was not the case and moreover, because of us, their work was now much more prominent than before. So why were they attacking us and protecting the Thyssens and the Batthyanys who had obviously rejected or ignored their work in the past?

Now, a decade later, a sizeable statement by a member of the dynasty, Sacha Batthyany, has been published in Germany in the form of the book „What’s that to do with me?“, and is due to be released in Great Britain by Quercus in March 2017 (translator: Anthea Bell) under the title „A Crime in the Family“, (a line remarkably similar to the cover headline „Shame and scandal in the family“ we used on our book „The Thyssen Art Macabre“, and which was a statement originally made to us by Heini Thyssen himself). Great efforts of promotion are being lavished on Mr Batthyany’s book, which is to be distributed as widely as Israel and the USA.

In his press work, Sacha Batthyany tirelessly pretends that it was „chance“ that he came across the negative sides of his family history and in particular the Rechnitz massacre. He says it was all „unknown“ until one day he started investigating things of which he knew absolutely nothing before, which he says is because he grew up in the „padded“ country of Switzerland, where one knows nothing, for instance, about the Second World War… This from a journalist, whose family was financially supported by the Thyssens’ wartime profiteering organised from Switzerland, who is a member of one of the most influential European (originally Austro-Hungarian) dynasties, has studied in Madrid, has worked for various big international newspapers (e.g. Neue Zürcher Zeitung) and spent a big part of his youth not in Zurich, but in Salzburg (although he admits the latter very exclusively only when he happens to be speaking in the major Austrian towns of Salzburg or Vienna – his press work does not seem to have led him to the Burgenland provinces of Eisenstadt or Rechnitz so far, whose mayor Engelbert Kenyeri, poignantly, does not seem to be too impressed by Batthyany’s book).

Even FAZ (Sandra Kegel), which during its original coverage of our story had to fend off huge ill will from Neue Zürcher Zeitung and others and without whom the German-speaking version of our book would not be available, now withheld mention of our impulse and, as so many others showered by the promotion of the Kiepenheuer & Witsch publishing house, praised Batthyany’s work as a heroic act of self-motivated honesty. And this despite the fact that his book would not exist if FAZ, ten years ago, had not had the courage to allow our „impertinence“, thereby exposing itself to the risk of serious reputational attack at the hands of their rivals in the media.

At the end of May, the Berlin book blogger „Devona“ (www.buchimpressionen.de), having reviewed 75 works of fiction, decided to review a non-fiction audio book for the first time in her life and chose „What’s that to do with me?“ to do so. In her review, she made statements about the role of Margit Batthyany nee Thyssen-Bornemisza in the Rechnitz massacre, which, according to the rudimentary state of her knowledge about the case, were not hers to make. For instance, she described the fact that Margit covered up for two main perpetrators of the crime after the war as mere „conjecture“. So we wrote a comment to her, pointing out the inaccuracy and coarse fatality of her statement. Even the statement concerning the Rechnitz massacre on the official website of the Batthyany family, which is still far from extensive enough, has been admitting for a few years now that this cover-up did happen. So why should an anonymous person, who is obviously not part of the family, disseminate contradictory information?

Devona reacted at great speed and very angrily to the content of our critical analysis. Then she revised her reaction. Now, it was no longer so much the content of our criticism that angered her, as our manner of expressing it, which she alleged to be „impertinent“. And then the author of „Buchimpressionen“ did something truly astonishing. She first took off the name of the German version of our Thyssen book („Die Thyssen-Dynastie. Die Wahrheit hinter dem Mythos“) from her platform, which had been part of our statement. She then accused us of not having provided the German public with a German-speaking version of our work. When she subsequently found out that a German version of our book has existed since 2008, she refused to recognise this fact, because, as she said, „to this day Wikipedia does not refer to a German version“.

The blogger now added that she would „not research to the ends of the Internet after every commentator“. But in truth she had not researched anywhere near the ends of the Internet, she had come to rest at its very first stop. Our book on the Thyssens exists in German, but for Devona it did not exist in German, because on Wikipedia it did not say that it exists in German. This was so indicative of German-speakers’ refusal to engage with the factual content of our book. Was this information handler just too lazy or did she not want to know about the correction? Devona’s statements, in their unfiltered emotionality, were highly revelatory. She had now also stopped addressing me and directed herself exclusively to „Mr Litchfield“, as if the book were the product of an Englishman only and not an English-German co-production.

Wikipedia as a reference point is problematic to us, particularly because FAZ in 2007, during the translation of our article from English to German, carried out several changes to our text, after, amongst other things, conversations with the presumptious head of the ThyssenKrupp archives, Professor Manfred Rasch, and after checking various Wikipedia-pages. The most important one of these changes is this: Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza did not settle permanently in Switzerland in 1932, i.e. one year before Adolf Hitler came to power, but only in 1938, as we found out during our research. The Independent article said 1938, but the FAZ article says 1932. People with adequate historical knowledge know what that means and the roles of Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza and of Switzerland during the Second World War have been explained at length in our book. To the less experienced we say simply this: it is a swap that might appear tiny, and which yet has a meaning that is both fundamental and monumental.

Devona thought of our comments to her as being „impertinent“, although they were merely strict. And she refused emphatically to look into the matter in a way that was befitting its gravity. The „impertinence“ of the matter, however, does not lie with us. The outrageousness and the aberration lies with the crimes that were committed in the name of the German people during the Second World War. The impertinence lies with the fact that the Thyssens (who had married into and financed parts of the Batthyany family) gave aid to the anti-democratic, grievously inhumane Nazi-regime, that they set the parameters in which the monstrous crimes against above all the Jews, but also against other people, including the crimes against the German people and their honour, could be carried out. It is impertinent that they have remained silent about it for 70 years, have denied their role and glorified their deeds. It is impertinent that they, in short, have misled the general public and that in large parts they continue to do so. It is only because of their behaviour that this book blogger at this time was still able to express her assumption of Margit Batthyany-Thyssen’s guiltlessness.

The families in question enjoy a comfortable supremacy in society, within the public discourse and in the „regard“ of people, based on their membership of both the world of the financially privileged and of the aristocracy. (NB: the latter is strictly long since defunct both in Germany and in Austria and can be accepted in a democracy only if it does behave in an impeccably democratic manner). Furthermore their status is due to the fact that ThyssenKrupp is still one of the major German employers and that the coal and steel industries, which the Thyssens were unfortunately allowed to continue to control after 1945, helped prevent a total collapse of the country following the Second World War (as Herbert Grönemeyer sings in his song „Bochum“: „your pit gold lifted us up again“).

In arch-conservative Austria, the Batthyanys (who Sacha Batthyany obviously considers himself part of and vice-a-versa, as he lets himself be and is pictured in their midst on their homepage – last row, second from right in the big group picture of the younger generation) continue to have a special status which derives from their long feudal history (the current head of the clan, Count Ladislaus Pascal Batthyany-Strattmann, is a Gentleman of the Papal Household!…).

In view of this, the general public continues „pertinently“ to content itself with its submissive role of being recipients of Thyssen and Batthyany misinformation. One member of the dynasty, Sacha Batthyany, has now written a book, which purports to be an honest examination of the past. But not everyone remains convinced (see in particular Thomas Hummitzsch in “Der Freitag”, but also Michael André on Getidan, and even Luzia Braun, Blue Sofa, Leipzig Book Fair).

Most of the commentators of the Rechnitz massacre say they agree that the graves of the victims have to be found. But while local people have claimed they know where the graves are and the original Russian investigations certainly located them, not everyone amongst the more powerful members of the community, both past and present, seem to be equally willing to contribute to such transparency.

While it appears to be utopic to hope that this might change, times have moved on rapidly since 2007, when our book first appeared. Thyssenkrupp is now an ailing colossus, whose name quite possibly might not exist in its present form in the foreseeable future, following a sale or take-over of all or parts. And German legislation concerning the prosecution of Nazi crimes no longer assumes automatic guiltlessness if a direct participation in acts of killing cannot be proven. A presence and role in the overall crime suffices, and an administrative office some distance away from a gas chamber is close enough for its essential contribution to the effectiveness of the killing machine to be proven. The same goes in the case of Rechnitz for the castle (which was requisitioned by the SS but continued to be financed by the Thyssens) and the Rechnitz murder pit of the night of 24/25 March 1945.

Today it is still mainly the small fish that get dragged before the courts, people such as John Demjanjuk, Oskar Gröning and Reinhold Hanning. But the clock of historical honesty is ticking relentlessly for the big fish too, who still are not working through their past voluntarily and comprehensively. Those Thyssens and Batthyanys, who played unsavoury roles during the Second World War, are dead. It is the democratic duty of their descendants finally to cut through the web of misinformation and stick by not only the positive sides of their history but the negative sides too. Only through their confession can the general public learn the last serious lessons from this history. Only then can permanent healing and reconciliation happen.

But the Thyssen-Bornemiszas and Batthyanys, it seems, do not wish this to happen, possibly because a free, enlightened, democratic public can be better controlled through unsettling, divisive manipulation. The history of the Holocaust could be comprehensively settled by now, if these families had not shirked their responsibilities. The German people could finally be released from a continuation of the drip-drip-drip of Aufarbeitung which is so bone-grinding and thereby effectively counter-productive, if these families did now come clean and accepted the fact that our book is an accurate, independent, historical record.

Deep in the souls of the German and Austrian people, the names Thyssen and Batthyany are inextricably linked to the feelings of honour and pride. However, these families (the Thyssen-Bornemiszas through their head Georg Thyssen, board member of the Fritz Thyssen Foundation and backer of the series „Family – Enterprises – Public. Thyssen in the 20th Century“ (which so far does not mention the Rechnitz massacre at all) and the Batthyanys through their head Count Ladislaus Batthyany-Strattmann, backer of the tomes „The Batthyany Family. An Austro-Hungarian Dynasty of Magnates from the End of the Middle Ages until Today“, which rejects outright any involvement of Margit Batthyany-Thyssen in the Rechnitz massacre!) fail to act honourably by avoiding independent scrutiny and controlling their cooperation in authorised historical publications.

Their shielding leads to a situation where even Germans and Austrians who are anti-Nazi, or purport to be so, cannot recognise the full extent of the Holocaust and thus unwittingly help cover up the true nature of some Nazi crimes, such as the Rechnitz massacre, a process that can all too easily appear to be that of a silent approval.

In the case of Germans and Austrians this is of course particularly devastating. But this kind of dodging is also especially contraindicated for citizens of supposedly „neutral“ countries such as Switzerland, and particularly for Sacha Batthyany. The number of statements he makes in his book and in his press work that are offensive, such as „Marga and Mirta had the Holocaust that they could hold on to. What did I have?“, is also inacceptable.

As long as Sacha Batthyany will continue to claim sympathy rather than guilt for the questionable honesty of his revelations, we will be persistent in this matter. And that is not an „impertinence“. It is our holy duty.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in The Thyssen Art Macabre, Thyssen Corporate, Thyssen Family No Comments »