Nexus - 1501 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

A bridge too far that "a month ago we extracted one tooth [from Eva] in the upper Dr Bruck also told the foreign reporter that on the same jaw, the 6th one on the left". Since Eva apparently arrived in occasion Heusemann had told him that she had been shown "a Berlin in mid-April—the precise date does not appear to be female bridge from the lower jaw which contained four teeth". known—and Prof. Blaschke left the city on 20 April, the extraction "She identified it as Eva Braun's and said, 'We made it for her must have been performed during the period 15-20 April. In these only six weeks ago,' he related. She told the Russians the bridge circumstances, Prof. Blaschke must surely have known that Eva was made by a man named Eichmann [sic], who was a dental was in Berlin. What's more, since the bridge contained the false mechanic for Dr Blaschke." tooth to be inserted in the place of the extracted tooth, it made little However, the very information that initially seemed to confirm sense not to have established in advance when and where the the identity of the female corpse only ended up disconfirming it. bridge was to be fitted. There is something rather slipshod and On 11 May, the Soviets questioned Prof. Blaschke's dental unlikely about all this. technician, Fritz Echtmann. He was interrogated about Eva Then there is the problem that Prof. Blaschke already knew in Hitler's teeth on an unspecified number of other occasions in May early April that Eva would need a tooth extracted. It is not clear 1945, and again on 24 July 1947.*’ On the latter occasion, why he therefore did not remove the tooth then, rather than wait Echtmann admitted to his interrogator, a Major Vaindorf, that until the denture was ready. Perhaps he wanted to replace the "[a]t the beginning of April 1945" Prof. Blaschke had asked him tooth with the denture almost immediately. But if he waited a few "to make a small bridge for Eva Braun's right upper jaw". weeks until the denture was ready, why was it not fitted the day Echtmann seems to have been talking Echtmann sent it over to the Reich about the bridge which Heusemann told Dr Chancellery surgery on 19 April? Since Eva Bruck that the Soviets had shown her the day was in Berlin, Prof. Blaschke had ample before. Dr Bruck told the foreign reporter opportunity to insert the fitting, either the about this in May 1946. He can probably be . rH same day or the following day (20 April). believed: there is no obvious reason tht he The problems identified After aI. Prof. Blaschke's ‘ flight °: could have known about the existence of the here do not damn Berchtesgaden did not actually take place bridge requested by Prof Blaschke in earl . until the early hours of 21 April. April_-"the 1945 bridge", as I shall Heusemann's evidence, We therefore do not know what really subsequently refer to it—if Heusemann had but they do undermine happened to the ‘1945 bridge—whether Prof. not told him about it. Blaschke fitted it in Berlin and Heusemann There are two problems with this her credibility. had lied to (or simply misinformed) information, however. First, the bridge Echtmann, whether Prof. Blaschke took it on Heusemann described sounds more like the the plane with him to Berchtesgaden or If she knew that Prof. Blaschke had not fitted the 1945 bridge, why did she lead the Soviets to believe that it had been fitted? bridge that had been fitted in Eva's mouth by Prof. Blaschke—Heusemann says with her assistance—in the autumn of 1944. (For simplicity's sake, I shall subsequently refer to this as "the 1944 bridge".) The 1945 bridge was for only one tooth. The question, therefore, is why Heusemann told the Soviets—and Dr Bruck—that the 1944 bridge was the one that Prof. Blaschke had asked Echtmann to make only six weeks earlier. Second, why did Heusemann say this if she knew that the 1945 bridge had never been inserted in Eva's mouth? whether he left it behind in Berlin, perhaps for his replacement, Dr Helmut Kunz, to insert in Eva's mouth. The striking fact is that Hitler's Death—the recently published collection of documents from Soviet archives allegedly proving that the human remains which the Soviets found on 5 May had been those of Adolf and Eva Hitler—contains neither Heusemann's 10 May interrogation report nor Echtmann's 11 May interrogation report. What's more, although Dr Kunz took Prof. Blaschke's place on 23 April, his interrogation record yields no At some stage—exactly when is not clear—Echtmann told his information as to whether he worked on Eva Hitler's teeth after Soviet interrogators that Heusemann had told him it had never that date. Since it is hard to believe that the Soviets would not been fitted: have asked Dr Kunz whether he had performed any dental work "On 19 April, 1945, I called Professor Blaschke and told him on Adolf or Eva Hitler, it can safely be assumed that the editors of that the small bridge was ready. He told me it would be sent to —_—_ Hitler's Death have chosen to suppress this information. Berchtesgaden if Eva Braun was there. On the same day, 19 Without any more information to go on, it is not possible to say April, I sent the small denture to Professor Blaschke at the Reich what the real significance of the 1945 bridge was. What can be Chancellery. Later, in a talk with his assistant Heusemann I learnt said is that if, during his first interrogation on 11 May 1945, that Professor Blaschke had flown to Berchtesgaden on 20 April Echtmann revealed to the Soviets that the small bridge had never and had not fitted the small denture in Berlin.” been fitted, this would explain why, on or about 15 May, The problems identified here do not damn Heusemann's apparently without any advance warning, the Soviets took evidence, but they do undermine her credibility. If she knew that | Heusemann into custody.*! Prof. Blaschke had not fitted the 1945 bridge, why did she lead The fact that Heusemann was repeatedly interrogated by Soviet the Soviets to believe that it had been fitted? intelligence agents suggests that information was continually The problem is compounded by the information that on 19 coming to light that rendered her evidence problematic. On 19 April, Prof. Blaschke apparently had not known whether Eva was May, Lt-General Vadis interrogated her for nearly five hours.* A in Berlin or not. On 19 May 1945, Heusemann told the Soviets partial record of this interrogation does appear in Hitler's Death.” fitted the 1945 bridge, why did she lead the Soviets to believe that NEXUS + 41 Heusemann's evidence, but they do undermine her credibility. If she knew that Prof. Blaschke had not it had been fitted? DECEMBER 2007 — JANUARY 2008 www.nexusmagazine.com