By Peter David Orr
For some reason Lev Bezymenski’s book The Death of Adolf Hitler: Unknown Documents from Soviet Archives was not regarded with suspicion when it was published in 1968 and many people still swear by its contents as if written in stone. This Soviet ‘journalist’ and his famous book never deserved such deference.
Why not?
Since Bezymenski was a journalist and not a medical doctor, he relied on the expertise and input of forensic pathologist, Dr. Vladimir M. Smolyaninov. Smolyaninov explained and interpreted the autopsies to Bezymenski, who, in turn, joined the forensics with the interrogations of German eyewitnesses to various aspects of Hitler’s suicide.
On the surface, that sounds like a reasonable and honest approach. Was it reasonable? Sure. Was it honest? No, it wasn’t, because the sources were purposefully dishonest.
How so?
Bezymenski was working for Soviet intelligence while masquerading as an objective journalist-turned-historian. He later admitted this fact, as well as to falsifying parts of the ‘Hitler’ autopsy to conceal a bullet wound to the skull of the corpse presumed to be Hitler's.
Why did Bezymenski falsify evidence? To fit the narrative desired by Soviet intelligence that Hitler was too cowardly to shoot himself; he had only taken poison.
What about the other source, Dr. Vladimir M. Smolyaninov? Was he trustworthy?
No.
Prior to his involvement with Lev Bezymenski, he was the leading forensic expert of the Soviet’s “Katyn Commission” (1943). It had been his team’s job to ‘investigate’ the murder of 4,000 Polish POWs in Katyn forest. This commission issued an official report at Smolensk, January 24, 1944, which declared: “The evidence proves the Germans committed the massacre in early 1940”.
This demonstrates that Dr. Smolyaninov committed a fraud of epic proportions. And it wasn’t just one statement. A detailed report was issued, replete with detailed forensic evidence, diagrams, maps, measurements, photos, sworn testimony, chemical tests, and expert analysis. This medicolegal fraud destroys Dr. Smolyaninov’s credibility.
Of course, Smolyaninov didn’t craft the Katyn Commission lies single-handedly. He was the supervisor. Such complex forensic fraud required the connivance of others who supposedly performed legitimate autopsies, like Dr. P.S. Semenovsky.
If the name Dr. P.S. Semenovsky sounds familiar, it should. Semenovsky was the chief coroner for the second Soviet forensic investigation of the scene of Hitler’s death in April-May 1946.
If an autopsy report contains falsifications, and was composed by known falsifiers, it is tainted. At minimum, the entire document should be treated as suspect. It should never form the basis of a secondary investigation or finding, except with the utmost caution. For example, if a fraudulent autopsy report of cadaver X includes the statement that there were nine teeth found in the upper jaw, is that really a ‘fact’ upon which a future investigation or finding can be based?
No.
If a document is contaminated beyond repair it must be thrown out, lest future research and analysis use it as a source and are thereby tarnished or corrupted. If a researcher or historian is aware that they’ve drawn conclusion based upon falsified evidence, it is incumbent upon them to set aside previous conclusions until the extent of the contamination is clearly understood. That's why I wrote The Hitler Autopsy Fraud .
I leave you with the quote and question, below, about the second most famous autopsy of the 20th century.
