The Test of Courage: (A Biography of) Michel Thomas

by Christopher Robbins

  First published in German in 1995, the book was translated into twelve languages, became an international best-seller and won prestigious literary awards all over the world. The US Holocaust Memorial Museum, in Washington, DC, sent its author on a six-city fund-raising tour across the United States. Serious critics were universally impressed, and the Los Angeles Times lauded the book as a ‘classic first-hand account of the Holocaust’.

  But a journalist writing in a Swiss paper exposed the book and its author as a fraud. The writer was never in the ghetto in Riga or the death camps, was not called Binjamin Wilkomirski, and was not Jewish. His actual name was Bruno Dossekker, the adopted Protestant child of a middle-class Zurich couple. Holocaust deniers and revisionists on the hard-right crowed over the fraud, declaring that the speed with which people had uncritically accepted the phoney account suggested much more about the Holocaust might be exaggerated or untrue. Left-wingers attacked the book as an example of Zionist propaganda. Those critics, reviewers and academics who had originally been enthusiastic about the book looked foolish, and became understandably fearful of being taken in again.

  Bold frauds who insult the memory of victims of the death camps demand exposure. I was aware that despite all my efforts to provide convincing documentation, there were undoubtedly readers and reviewers of Test of Courage who remained suspicious of such an extraordinary life story as that of Michel Thomas. Perhaps Rivenburg, I reasoned, was merely voicing the same reservations. In that case, he would be doing Michel a service. All we had to do, despite the reporter’s clumsy manner, was answer questions and keep providing proof of the book’s veracity.

  An Internet search of Rivenburg’s previous work for the Los Angeles Times, however, raised new fears regarding both his motivation and seriousness. He was a journalist who had previously written a short-lived ‘humour’ column, and specialised for a decade on trivia, except for a series of articles on partial-birth abortion. As a student of the Graduate School of Journalism, at Columbia University, New York, Rivenburg’s thesis was entitled Deliver Us From the Devil: Exorcism and Deliverance in America, and he has taught courses in subjects such as The Mechanics of Biblical Journalism.[258]

  A 44-year-old Roman Catholic of German origin, living in Orange County, Southern California ‘Without wife, children or pets’, more detailed research disclosed the reporter to be an accredited member of the faculty of the World Journalism Institute, a division of God’s World Publications, a Christian fundamentalist publisher located in Asheville, North Carolina, heart of the Bible Belt. The Institute, founded in 1998, is committed to providing a ‘focused, rigorous and highly theological journalism academy’ that trains Christian journalists from a ‘biblical worldview’ to infiltrate the mainstream media. Its mission statement is posted on the web: ‘In this age of mass secular media, the mission of the World Journalism Institute is to overcome the eclipse of God by providing a counter-thrust to the secular media and tepid Christian media. To this end, WJI must contend earnestly at the frontiers of human news and persuasion to uncover the currently obscured Word and truth of God. WJI must enlist technological means so the reading multitudes may hear the echoing voice of the incarnate Logos... By conditioning the public to accept moral decline, perversity and uncertainty, the secular media have aided the demonic concealment from the public of the coming judgement of a creator-God. In a sense, every Christian journalist is an evangelist.’[259]

  It seemed extraordinary that a reporter with this background should have been assigned by a paper like the Los Angeles Times to spend months writing a story on Michel Thomas. Alarmed, I made contact with Rivenburg and explained that Michel had been very upset at the way he had been questioned, and that in future I would answer any questions in writing. However, I agreed to organise a final conference call between the three of us. Rivenburg accepted this arrangement, but phoned Michel direct before the call could be set up. Among a number of aggressive questions, he asked Michel to prove that he had ever served with the US Army. Enraged, Michel put the phone down on him.

  I had already twice emailed the editor of the Southern California Living section of the Los Angeles Times, Bret Israel, to complain about his reporter’s conduct. I was assured in a written reply that anything published would be balanced and that my concerns would be taken into account. But after the latest outrage I wrote again. ‘This is the third time I have written to you complaining of the continued harassment of Michel Thomas. On the 20th of this month you sent me a note assuring me that my concerns would be taken into account. And yet on Friday your reporter called Michel once again and asked a series of questions that suggested he was a liar. Not surprisingly, Michel finally put the phone down on him and told him to write what he wanted.

  ‘May I ask what the hell you are doing? What is the editorial motivation in putting a journalist onto this story for many weeks? What, indeed, is the story? I am aware that there are frauds in the world feeding off the Holocaust, and that it is certainly the job of a newspaper to report on and expose such men. By anyone’s estimation - even your reporter’s - Michel Thomas is a million miles away from this category.

  ‘Your reporter says that he seeks to make Michel prove the events of his life. And that he will write a fair and balanced story, and is open to hearing “evidence” on behalf of Michel. Has the LA Times put him on trial?

  ‘From the beginning all questions seem to be aimed at discrediting everything Michel has done in his life. Your reporter asks for descriptions of buildings, stairwells, office doors, casino foyers last visited over sixty years ago. Rivenburg says that his methods are standard procedure for the LA Times - methods which include running checks on Michel for court cases against him, and demanding documentary proof for every aspect of his life. This seems to be a very different standard from the advance negotiations on questions and story content made with public relations companies when you want access to a film star.’[260]

  This was a reference to a known practice among the feature editors of the Los Angeles Times, where deals are made with powerful publicists prior to interviews with famous movie stars. The bigger the star, the more concessions made by the paper. The results are worthless puff pieces, but are carried because movie stars fascinate readers and sell papers. But clearly, Michel, as a Holocaust survivor and Second World War veteran, was to be held to a more demanding journalistic standard.

  To protect Michel, I continued to answer Rivenburg’s questions by email and provide documents. I gave him the names of people to interview who would confirm aspects of Michel’s life - Dr Ted Kraus, his CIC commanding officer in Germany; Professor Herbert Morris, of the School of Law at the University of California, Los Angeles, who had first-hand knowledge of his language skills; Serge Klarsfeld, a French lawyer and acknowledged expert on the experience of French Jews during the Second World War; Pierre Truche, a senior French judge who had prosecuted Klaus Barbie. I provided copies of CIC identity documents, Army documents, and much more.

  Ted Kraus, one of Michel’s post-war CIC commanders, was duly interviewed by phone. ‘During my phone conversation I disclosed several key events beyond dispute. Thomas’ persistence and vigilance resulted in our capture of SS Major Knittel, a priority war criminal... We visited the Grenoble area where during our stay he introduced me to a number of his former maquisards, who were delighted to be reunited with him.’ He also told Rivenburg that he had spoken to Michel in 1945 about his Dachau experiences, and saw the photographs - and had even asked for a set to be printed from his negatives. ‘Shortly before I was transferred to another CIC unit in Schwabisch Hall, I secretly tape-recorded several meetings at a Nazi-decorated locale in which Michel, posing as SS Dr Frundsberg, interviewed and infiltrated a post-war SS terrorist organisation. I later learned that leaders of this group were arrested and tried before a US military court.’ Kraus was disconcerted, however, by the persistently negative tone of the questioning. ‘I sensed where he was headed.’ Not a word of the interview would appear in the subseq
uent article.[261]

  Professor Morris, of UCLA, was also interviewed by Rivenburg over the phone. ‘It became clear to me, based upon his questions and statements, that the forthcoming article would be sceptical in character and that it would in all likelihood call into question the truthfulness of a number of Michel Thomas’s claims about his World War II experiences. Because I had become concerned about the negative tone which Mr Rivenburg had adopted during the interview I expressed strong reservations about the motives of the Times in what appeared to me an attempt at an expose. Specifically, I told Mr Rivenburg that I believed it was undisputed that Thomas had lost his parents in the Holocaust, that he had been in the French underground and interned in concentration camps, that he had served with US forces in Germany. Mr Thomas had lived an extraordinary life, simply granting these undisputed facts. Given this, I did not understand why he and The Times would want their readers to question Mr Thomas’s truthfulness and character.’ Professor Morris concluded the conversation by saying that what the Los Angeles Times and the reporter were about to do was ‘tragic’.

  ‘Rivenburg called back within ten minutes or so of our initial lengthy conversation to further justify what the Times intended to do. I reiterated my puzzlement that the paper would have an investment in searching out possible false recollections of certain events when I believed so much was remarkable and undisputed.’ Morris also confirmed - ‘without qualification’ - the effectiveness of Michel’s language programme from personal experience in taking a Spanish course.[262]

  I continued email contact with the reporter, growing increasingly exasperated by the petty, nagging quality of his questions, but answered them at length. ‘You insist that everything you have done - from searching for court cases against him, to suggesting Michel is a liar, to questioning his ex-wife - is standard practice for the LA Times. You seem unconcerned about the distress your clumsy method of interrogation has created in a man who feels the integrity of his entire life is being challenged. Does this man really deserve this sort of third degree?

  ‘If it were up to me, I would tell you to give it your best shot. Maybe you can earn your spurs as an investigative journalist and they’ll take you off the Silly Story beat. I at least hope you are bold enough to call Michel a liar in print, as you have persistently insinuated through your questions to everyone. Do not hide behind innuendo - that will not pass as fair, thorough and balanced in this context.’[263]

  Rivenburg replied that he was just being thorough in his job, and gave assurances that even though he was asking hard questions the final piece would be balanced and impartial. I continued to answer questions at great length, and faxed documents to Rivenburg. These included the top copy of the bill introduced to Congress by Californian Senator Helen Gehagan Douglas supporting citizenship based on Michel’s war record.[264] Among the others was a translation of a meeting with the French prosecutor, Pierre Truche, in Paris after the Barbie trial, two ordres de mission, one from Securité Militaire FranÇaise (French CIC), another from the Alpine Division. I also sent various CIC documents - authority to operate civilian vehicle, orders, and letters of commendation from Michel’s commanding officers.[265]

  ‘And now, surely, we all have spent enough time helping you with your story,’ I wrote. But no, it went on and on. As soon as one avenue of enquiry had been answered, another one was taken up. Rivenburg seemed intensely interested by the exact nature of Michel’s military service, dismissing all documentation shown to him as insufficient evidence. I wrote another email: ‘I do not understand why you are so focused on the ‘technical’ nature of Michel Thomas’s service in the US Army. Surely, the point is that he VOLUNTEERED and FOUGHT with the US Army for NINE MONTHS, during a period of intense combat in France and Germany. He then spent a further TWO YEARS AND THREE MONTHS with CIC, during which time he did much useful work, including the capture of the US Army’s most wanted war criminal.

  ‘The CIC card reproduced in the book is an official document issued by CIC identifying Michel Thomas in order that he may go about his work. He did, of course, wear the uniform of a US Army CIC special agent at all times. You may insist that a private from the typing pool in some Kansas Army base, who never saw combat or even went overseas, is somehow a more “fully fledged” soldier than somebody serving with GIs in battle. Few American veterans would agree with you...

  ‘You can save yourself this fruitless exercise in Jesuitical semantics by saying that Michel FOUGHT with the US Army and SERVED with CIC. As you know, he finds the idea that he was one of thousands of paid retainers highly offensive.’[266]

  None of my many queries regarding motive were answered either by Rivenburg, or his editor, Bret Israel, who was copied on every email. A period of silence followed, and I assumed the paper was finally convinced of Michel’s integrity. Perhaps some decent senior editor had reviewed the evidence, and heeded my complaints, but this proved to be wishful thinking, and when the article finally appeared the piece confirmed my worst fears.

  Headlined Larger Than Life[267], it dominated the front page of the Southern California Living Sunday section and covered an entire inside page. From the opening paragraph onwards, the thrust of the entire four-thousand-word piece was to sow doubt about Michel’s credibility. ‘“Everything is fully documented,” Thomas says, “Don’t take my word for it. Ask me how I can prove it.” Easier said than done. Many of his claims are impossible to prove - or disprove.’

  In fact, abundant documentary proof had been provided to support all of the major events of Michel’s life. The reporter employed the technique of interviewing and emailing various experts who had never met Michel and knew nothing of his life, and inviting then-scepticism by suggesting the Los Angeles Times had serious reason to doubt certain incidents. An example of the method, used with almost everybody interviewed, is the published response of an Army archivist when told that Michel claimed to be at the liberation of Dachau. ‘“Who wasn’t?” says Army archivist Mary Haynes, noting the proliferation of Dachau liberator claims in recent years.’ It seems no mention was made to the archivist - or to the reader - of twenty-eight photographs taken at Dachau, the negatives of which remain in Michel’s possession, or the signed reports from crematorium workers, or the subsequent arrest of Emil Mahl, Hangman of Dachau. This was all fully documented from verifiable, independent sources, but ignored.

  Questions were raised, and left unanswered. These focused on a number of specifics which seemed to have been well researched by the reporter. Had Michel been captured and released by Klaus Barbie on a raid on the Jewish refugee centre in Lyon in 1943? Had he really been at the liberation of Dachau? Was Michel really a CIC agent, or merely a civilian employed as an interpreter or investigator who had exaggerated his importance? Had he discovered the Nazi Party Master File at the end of the war? Was his language teaching method effective, or merely an over-hyped, over-priced rehash of old techniques? His personal honesty was also undermined by suggesting that he could never have won money by playing boule in the Monte Carlo casino because the machine mentioned never existed.

  The article sent Michel into a profound and uncharacteristic depression. He had received a body blow and it showed. ‘This is everything to me... he has denied my whole life.’

  The feature had not only been deeply wounding and personally offensive, but had also done Michel irreparable harm in Los Angeles, a town where he had spent a third of his life and enjoyed a considerable reputation. Worse, it had done him damage among those whose opinion he valued most - fellow Holocaust survivors and combat veterans from the Second World War, and the Jewish community in general. An invitation to speak at the Museum of Jewish Heritage, in Battery Park City, New York, mysteriously failed to materialise. Other institutions seemed to turn their backs, while old friends subtly changed their attitude towards him.

  The Wiesenthal Centre, in Los Angeles, which had always been friendly, turned icy. Numerous calls to various people at the centre from Michel, myself and researchers were
not returned. A librarian at the Centre, who had read the article, indicated she believed Michel to be a fraud. One statement attributed to Michel understandably offended everyone. ‘Other Holocaust victims could have escaped death too, if only they hadn’t given up.’

  This is a misinterpretation of a view, described in detail in this book and discussed at length with Rivenburg, in which Michel maintains that the stifling of hope of those interned in concentration camps was an indication of the ‘total collapse of human morality’ and ‘an unpardonable sin’. To write that he believes camp inmates who succumbed to despair were somehow responsible for their fate, and to apportion blame to the victims rather than their murderers, is the opposite of what he believes, and enraged him. It is also a remark, of course, guaranteed to alienate any Jewish reader. ‘I would hate anyone who made such a comment,’ Michel said. And the reporter’s casual statement, ‘His own family, he believes, died at Auschwitz’ disgusted Michel. ‘I do not believe they died there - I know they were slaughtered in Auschwitz.’

  After the publication of the piece I was challenged, as the author of Thomas’s biography, with words like, ‘But didn’t the Los Angeles Times expose him as a fraud?’ I found myself defending the veracity of the book as far away as London. I was told of a dinner party where one of the guests was a visitor from the Los Angeles Wiesenthal Centre. When Michel’s name came up in conversation, the guest declared him a phoney: ‘His dates don’t add up.’ This was clearly a reference to a statement in the article suggesting Michel did not find the cache of Nazi Party membership cards.

  When I later tried to find out the name of the guest I was met with stubborn evasion. I asked repeatedly to be put in contact, carefully explaining that my intention was not to embarrass or confront the person, but to elicit testimony of defamation from someone who clearly believed the article. Eventually, the unspoken truth was put into words: ‘People don’t want to get involved.’ Michel was being abandoned by his own.