Talk:Michel Thomas/Archive 2

message: Readers of this article should be aware that much of it has been drafted or edited by a former L.A. Times reporter who was sued by Michel Thomas for defamation, Roy Rivenburg, who has also made numerous comments on this discussion page. Mr. Rivenburg has repeatedly altered edits to the article so that it emphasizes "controversies" he insists deserve heavy emphasis in an an encyclopedia entry covering Mr. Thomas's life, in particular concerning Mr. Thomas's WWII service. No other major media outlet without a significant business relationship to the Los Angeles Times -- such as being owned by the same parent company, Tribune Group -- has seen fit to give credence to these alleged controversies, and many have challenged the L.A. Times' coverage of Mr. Thomas, particularly after he was awarded the Silver Star for his WWII service in 2004. 
The neutrality of the article has accordingly been put in dispute status by Wikpedia, and the article should not be relied upon as an accurate description of Mr. Thomas's life that meets Wikipedia's standards. For more information about the defamation suit against Mr. Rivenburg and the Los Angeles Times, please see http://www.michelthomas.org, or simply use a search engine with the terms "michel thomas" and "rivenburg"
The Friends of Michel Thomas
Facts@mt.org 05:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This Article is Disputed

message: Having taken Thomas's German course on tapes in preparation for a conference in Germany, and been quite impressed with his teaching method, I recently read his biography with interest.  I have now discovered this feverish to-and-fro here between this LA Times fellow and various persons who seem, shall we say, a bit more sympathetic to Mr. Thomas. 
Having reviewed it, I must say it strikes me that the reporter adopted an extraordinarily harsh stance on the late Mr. Thomas, and indeed it seems may have driven him to an earlier grave than nature would otherwise have done.  What's particularly striking, having read the reporter's original article in the Times, is that his editors would give so much space to an article that, viewed in the most charitable light to the reporter, found precious little that merited such sustained attention.  The rather insignificant contradictions seized upon by the reporter could easily be explained by minor slips of recollection by a near-nonegenarian, yet they were blown entirely out of proportion, and the man was in essence accused of being a liar about issues and events that have far less dramatic implications than the reporter would lead one to believe. Surely a newspaper intent on exposing significant frauds could find bigger game than "exposing" a well-documented Dachau liberator who could not precisely recall the landscape of the place nearly sixty years on. 
Given this, it is not surprising Mr. Thomas reacted with such furious vehemence, and took the assault on his character as a mean-spirited attack by a reporter whose judgment and motives certainly appear open to question.  The whole affair also seems to have inspired more than a few people, including his defenders here, to a state of passionate indignation. Hardly the sort of thing that should make an editor express "pride" for the dubious exercise of ridiculing a man of Thomas's background, (in what sounds like a flash of intemperance when faced with a surprisingly hostile question before a sympathetic audience.) 
If this experiment in encyclopedic publishing is to be taken seriously, I must say I agree that the reporter's freedom to tailor this article to his fancy should be restricted, in particular as he has had ample opportunity to express his views on this discussion page. 
Princetonian57 02:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Former "Student's" View  

message: Rivenburg "Supporters":
The following have been cited by Rivenburg as "supporters" of his published assertions, pre- and posthumously, that Michel Thomas was a liar and a fraud who exaggerated or fabricated significant facts about his WWII service:
1) "a U.S. Justice Department former chief Nazi hunter" (Allan Ryan)
2) "an Oscar-winning documentary" (Hotel Terminus by Marcel Ophuls)
3) "The Los Angeles Times" (Rivenburg's paper)
4) "Le Monde" (French newspaper whose 1987 article parenthetically mentioned Thomas' testimony against Klaus Barbie)
5) "Newsday" (sister newspaper to LA Times, owned by Tribune Group of Chicago)
6) "the prosecutor at Klaus Barbie's trial" (French prosecutor Pierre Truche)
7) John Carroll (former LA Times editor who made public comments supporting Rivenburg in February 2004);
8) WWII comrades who served with Michel Thomas (NONE)
Comments:
--Allan Ryan's 1983 report, "Klaus Barbie and the United States Government: A Report to the Attorney General of the United States" regarding the role of US intelligence agencies in protecting known war-criminal Klaus Barbie when they used him as a postwar "asset," had been criticized publicly by Thomas. Ryan responded to those criticisms in a 1983 press conference.  After their public confrontation about Barbie, Ryan and Thomas communicated privately and reached an amicable understanding.  Ryan was not contacted or interviewed for Rivenburg's 2001 article.
-- Thomas was referred to in less than 20 seconds of Marcel Ophuls' 1988 film "Hotel Terminus" as one of several witnesses against Barbie. Ophuls was not contacted by Rivenburg for his 2001 profile of Thomas.   
-- a 1987 Le Monde article parenthetically commented that Thomas's testimony against Barbie displayed "un goût trop prononcé de paraitre, de multiplier les détails."  Rivenburg quoted French historian Henri Rousso as stating that this Le Monde quote meant "a taste for make-believe" rather than the more accurate "a taste for emphasizing too much, of offering too many details." Contacted after Rivenburg's profile was published, Rousso stated he was not contacted by Rivenburg in 2001.  Regarding the French history program from which Rivenburg lifted this quote, Rousso added, ""My problem was not to comment on the testimony itself but to explain the atmosphere during the trial."
-- Pierre Truche met with Thomas in his office after the trial.  He made it clear that he did not think Thomas had lied in his testimony, but said he excluded it because it was complex and unlikely.  Truche said that as he listened to the evidence he was reminded of Boileau's line: "Le vrai peut quelquefois n'etre pas vraisemblable" -- "The truth can sometimes not be likely." Truche was not contacted or interviewed for Rivenburg's 2001 article.
-- re: Newsday: Rivenburg colleague and fellow Tribune-Group employee Ron Howell misleadingly quoted Thomas's investigator in a July 2004 article after interviewing him at the New York ceremony in which Rep. Carolyn Maloney presented Thomas with the Silver Star. Alone amidst otherwise universally postive press coverage of a ninety year-old receiving the Silver Star sixty years after having been nominated for it,  Howell's article recycled Rivenburg's alleged 'controversy' about Thomas's official status.  He did so by insinuating that the investigator's "admission" Thomas was never inducted was proof Thomas had lied about his CIC service.  He left out that the investigator made it clear that in Thomas's biography and the entire record of his public statements on the subject Thomas never claimed he was inducted, but rather stated that he had the unusual status of having served as a full-fledged CIC Agent in 1945-47 despite not yet acquiring his US citizenship;
-- John Carroll was asked before a friendly audience in February 2004 at UC Berkeley, why he had never replied to the more than 400 letters he had been sent regarding the Times article about Thomas.  His angry response indicated he did not know or recall fundamental aspects of Thomas's recently-concluded defamation case against the Los Angeles Times, including the fact that Mr. Thomas's biography was not an autobiography but was written by British author Christopher Robbins, that Thomas, not the author of the book, had sued the Times, and that the award of attorney's fees in the case did not reflect a punitive decision by the judge, but rather was mandated by California's anti-SLAPP statute. Nor did he mention that the Times attorneys were reprimanded by the judge for "rampant overbilling" and ordered to cut their fees nearly in half.
Thomas Supporters:
Public Officials & Institutions:
1)  Senator Bob Dole (R, KS), (pinned Silver Star on Thomas in May 2004 at US WWII Memorial)
2)  Senator John Warner (R, VA),(pinned Silver Star on Thomas in May 2004 at US WWII Memorial)
3)  Senator John McCain (R, AZ), (submitted 1944 Silver Star nomination & supporting documents to US Army)
4)  Senator Max Cleland (D, GA), (sent congratulatory note to Thomas in May 2004 calling him a "genuine hero")
5)  U.S.Representative Carolyn Maloney (D,NY),(submitted 1944 Silver Star nomination & supporting documents to US Army: hosted July 2004 ceremony in New York City where she pinned Silver Star on Thomas at the Armory before an honor guard and Thomas's friends and family)
5)  Ambassador of France Jean-David Levitte,(saluted Thomas as French Resistance fighter at May 2004 Silver Star ceremony);  
6)  US Army Decorations Review Board (researched Thomas's WWII service and 1944 nomination for Silver Star; granted Silver Star in May 2004);
7) Robert Wolfe (National Archives WWII Captured German War documents expert, wrote monograph concluding Thomas rescued Nazi Party worldwide membership card file from destruction in May 1945.  Wolfe also wrote about the role of American intelligence agencies, including the CIC, in protecting Barbie after the war here: http://www.archives.gov/iwg/research-papers/barbie-irr-file.html)
8) U.S. Justice Dept. current "chief Nazi hunter," Eli Rosenbaum, (head of Office of Special Investigations, attended 2004 Silver Star ceremony at WWII Memorial);
9) U.S. Justice Dept. "Nazi hunter" Gregory Gordon (senior trial attorney, Office of Special Investigations, wrote article crediting Thomas with rescuing Nazi Party membership file in 1945, United States Attorney's Bulletin, February 2006 "Taking the Paper Trail Instead of Memory Lane: OSI's Use of Ancient
Foreign Documents in the Nazi Cases" (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usab5401.pdf)
)
10) U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum (chief archivist and other museum leadership reviewed documents and photos Thomas took at liberation of Dachau, and interviewed him. The Museum publicly saluted Thomas as a Dachau liberator before a large crowd at its Memorial Day 2004 "Salute to Liberators")
WWII Comrades Who Served with Thomas:
1) Dr. Theodore "Ted" Kraus(CIC colleague & commanding officer of Thomas; interviewed by Rivenburg but never mentioned in profile.  Wrote letter complaining of this to LA Times and submitted sworn affidavit in Thomas's defamation suit against LA Times stating, "I do not understand why Mr. Rivenburg or the Los Angeles Times decided to ignore the information I provided to them.  The absence of this information implies that Mr. Rivenburg was intent on discrediting Mr. Thomas, despite clear evidence I provided him about Thomas’s military service."  Traveled from Connecticut home to California, Oklahoma, and Washington, DC to defend Thomas' reputation and celebrate his receiving the Silver Star; 
2) Walter Wimer, (CIC colleague from WWII; filed sworn Declaration in Thomas's defamation suit stating "the implication … that Michel Thomas was a civilian employee who merely worked as a translator or investigator inaccurately belittles Mr. Thomas’s service in the CIC … Mr. Thomas was sent out on missions by our commanding officers, in the same capacity and with the same duties and powers as the other Agents of our unit.";
3) Bedford Groves(CIC colleague and former 180th Regiment US Army comrade from WWII; submitted letter to US Army describing how Thomas "did the work of three [CIC] Agents."  Attended 2004 Silver Star ceremony in wheelchair.)
4) Henry Teichmann: (180th Regiment US Army WWII comrade; wrote 1944 orders releasing Thomas for CIC service; met Thomas at 2002 Oklahoma City 45th Infantry Division reunion, submitted letter to US Army in support of 2003 application for Silver Star)
All the sworn Declarations referred to above can be downloaded at http://www.michelthomas.org (Library section)
Experts Quoted by Rivenburg in His Profile of Thomas:
1)  Felix Sparks (led troops of 157th Regiment that liberated Dachau; signed statement that Thomas could easily have been at Dachau liberation without his knowledge, contrary to Rivenburg's quote in Thomas profile);
2)  Hugh Foster (expert on Dachau liberation; wrote detailed review of evidence Thomas was Dachau liberator, concluding he was one, and indicating Rivenburg may have misled him by withholding crucial evidence in order to elicit damaging quote);
3) George Leaman(compiled 1994 inventory of the Berlin Document Center, quoted in Rivenburg article that Stefan Heym's account of '45 rescue of Nazi files was 'more on the mark' than Thomas's; when interviewed in 2002, admitted he had not read Stefan Heym's accounts of rescue of Nazi files for more than 8 years, could not find copy of same in his files, and said his assesment of Thomas's account was based more on the biography's 'chummy accounts of womanizing' than on a detailed review of evidence regarding the discovery of the Nazi files)
4) Stefan Heym(US Army reporter in 1945 who later defected and became committed East German communist; stated in 2001 letter shortly before his death that he did not recall being contacted by Rivenburg, criticized "CIC boys and their ilk" in his response).
5) Conrad "Mac" McCormick (US Army archivist and CIC expert; interviewed at Ft. Huachuca, AZ after being quoted in Rivenburg's article, McCormick discovered mention of CIC "Agent Thomas" in the unpublished official history of the CIC which he was indexing.  Signed sworn declararation in Thomas's defamation suit stating that the LA Times published a "Letter-to-the-editor" from him, expressing approval of Rivenburg's profile, even though he never wrote any such Letter-to-the-Editor to the Times);
The letters from Sparks and Foster, and the signed McCormick Declaration, can be downloaded at http://www.michelthomas.org (Library section)
Press and Broadcast Outlets:
1)  US Army News Service: (http://www.defendamerica.mil/profiles/may2004/pr052804b.html);
2) CNN, Wolf Blitzer program: (Memorial Day 2004 broadcast re: Silver Star award, "Memories of War: WW II hero decorated 60 years later" ( http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/05/31/hero.decorated/index.html?iref=newssearch)
3) French National News Service: (Memorial Day 2004 broadcast re: Silver Star award) 
4) Spanish National News Service: (Memorial Day 2004 broadcast re: Silver Star award) 
5) Fox News, Bill O'Reilly Report: (June 8, 2004 broadcast, 'Unresolved Problems' segment; O'Reilly: "If Dole and Warner give the guy a Silver Star two weeks ago, I don't know. Last question, is there any reason to put this old guy through this? The guy looks like he's a hero, he gets the Silver Star. Is there any reason on Earth?"
6) Ha'aretz, Tom Segev: ("Moment of Truth for Michel Thomas" September 12, 2002; sample quote, "The Los Angeles Times reporter asked Thomas what color the party membership cards were - and Thomas did not remember. These cards were of a very special color, noted the reporter portentously.")
7) NBC Nightly News, hosted by Tom Brokaw(2004 taped segment by Mike Taibbi)
Others:
1) 130+ veterans of the US Army's 45th Infantry Division (sent signed cards protesting Rivenburg article to LA Times in 2002);
2) Flint Whitlock, (author of "Rock of Anzio" about 45th Division landing in Italy in '44), sent letter protesting Rivenburg article to LA Times;
3) Mortimer Zuckerman, (publisher US News & World Report, New York Daily News); sent letter protesting Rivenburg article to LA Times;
4) Warren Beatty, (actor, former Thomas language student), sent letter protesting Rivenburg article to LA Times;
5) Raquel Welch,(actress, former Thomas language student), sent letter protesting Rivenburg article to LA Times;
6) Emma Thompson, (actress, former Thomas language student), sent letter protesting Rivenburg article to LA Times;
7) Kevin Kline, (actor), attended 2004 Silver Star award ceremony in NYC, saluted Thomas
8) Walter Curley, (former US Ambassador); sent letter protesting Rivenburg article to LA Times;
9) Serge Klarsfeld, (Parisian attorney and Nazi hunter); sent letter protesting Rivenburg article to LA Times
10) Sherrie Mazingo (University of Minnesota Journalism professor and certfied expert witness in Federal defamation cases; wrote 2001 expert witness opinion stating that the article "fails the standards of accuracy, fairness, and balance" and "what is perhaps most grievously unethical about the article … is the overwhelming presence of editorializing, bias, superfluous information and cheap shots."
11) Herbert Morris, (former UCLA Law Professor and Dean of School of Humanities and Sciences; filed Declaration in defamation case stating that he spoke to Mr. Rivenburg prior to publication of his article and told him that he had "strong reservations about the motives of the Times in what appeared to me to be an attempt at an expose" and that "what Mr. Rivenburg and the Times were about to do was ‘tragic.’" 
12) Christopher Robbins, the author of Thomas's 2000 biography "Test of Courage" recently re-published as "Courage Beyond Words:; outlined a wealth of documentation he presented to Mr. Rivenburg during lengthy correspondence prior to publication the article.  Much of this was documentation already footnoted in his book.  Filed sworn Declaration in Thomas's defamation suit stating that Rivenburg "was not interested in reviewing any of my material.  His only interest seemed to be locating information which could be used to discredit Michel and Michel’s credibility", and, "From the start, it was clear to me that Mr. Rivenburg was intent on creating an issue where none existed."
13) Professor Robin T. Lakoff, (Dept. of Linguistics, University of California Berkeley; filed expert Declaration in defamation case.  Regarding Rivenburg's omission of the statements of Dr. Ted Kraus from his article, Prof. Lakoff stated, "Mr. Rivenburg's deliberate omission of that material from the article represents a form of non-objectivity, a conscious choice of material in favor of that which represents Mr. Thomas badly, against that which represents him favorably ... reportorial bias tending to cause a typical reader to disbelieve Michel Thomas can be discerned reliably not only from what is explicitly present in the story itself.  It is also discerned in what is absent, that, in a truly objective report, ought to be present: statements from both sides."
The sworn Declarations of Morris, Mazingo, Robbins, Lakoff, and Michel Thomas can be downloaded at http://www.michelthomas.org (Library section)
Facts@mt.org 23:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scorecard

message: Will someone please impose a dose of sense here? My grandfather was a CIC Agent in Germany and France during WWII and I've spoken to him about these "controversies" -- he dismisses the entire business being debtated here as ludicrous.  According to him, someone like Thomas, whom he vaguely recalls hearing about as a rather legendary fellow, would have been treated like gold by CIC big-wigs because of his language skills alone, not to mention his experience as a resistance fighter.  Most American CIC Agents spoke only English and were completely at sea trying to operate in Europe.  He says it's not a bit surprising that a person like Thomas was used as an Agent, and that only a petty bureaucrat would have objected to his not having been a citizen -- or been inducted.  And clearly the record of his accomplishments speaks to the good sense of those who took advantage of his talents. 
Per Grandfather, it was after the war that the bureaucrats and button-polishers took hold in CIC, and many if not most of the best Agents -- who were motivated by the fight against Hitler and the Nazis -- left the service and returned home to civilian life. 
The ones who took their places were the sort who might have resented a chap like Thomas, and tried to undercut him by whispering about his lack of formal status.  
Perhaps this history helps explain why Thomas's comrades rallied so forcefully to his cause when they heard of this reporter's petty and vindictive efforts, decades after the fact, to minimize Thomas's contributions by focusing on whether his paperwork was in order.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.221.79.70 (talk) 06:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ludicrous

message: The analogy above doesn't fly. The difference between the Thomas case and coverage of Vince Foster and Richard Jewell is the reaction of the journalism community. For Foster and Jewell, there was extensive hand-wringing and soul-searching: Watchdogs like Editor&Publisher and the Columbia Journalism Review weighed in. And numerous journalists dissected the mistakes and ethical lapses in coverage. The same thing happens any time a journalist screws up. When my former L.A. Times colleague Eric Slater was accused of fabricating a source, the paper investigated, apologized and fired him. Ditto for a photographer who doctored a photo. When New York Times staffer Rick Bragg fudged on a dateline, his colleagues pounced on him and he resigned. All of these cases -- and many others (Jayson Blair, Jack Kelley, Diana Griego Erwin, et al) -- received wide coverage in the general media and in journalism watchdog magazines. Nothing like that happened with Thomas. Despite the best efforts of Thomas' high-powered PR team, the mainstream journalism community rejected his claims as decisively as the legal system did. Yeah, Fox-TV's Bill O'Reilly took a swipe at Times editor John Carroll over Thomas, but O'Reilly never talked with the paper. It bears repeating: No journalist who has seen the evidence gathered by the L.A. Times has done a story about Michel Thomas or believed his claims about the article's integrity. In an era where even the slightest hint of journalistic transgression is ruthlessly scrutinized by the larger journalism community, the silence on Thomas speaks volumes. Rivenburg 20:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Vince Foster/Richard Jewell comparisons

message: LiquidF, I appreciate your vigilance in reverting the non-neutral edits of Thomas' legal team (NV Researcher and Facts@MT.org), but in the latest revert you left intact some statements that don't conform with Wikipedia policy. To wit:
:1) In the final week of World War II, Thomas and a CIC colleague recovered a cache of Nazi documents from a paper mill in Freimann, Germany. 
That is not settled fact, and any assertion that it's true is arguably original research. Except for Thomas' biography, which was written with his cooperation (including most of the "new" chapter, which originally appeared before his death) and a footnote in the U.S. Attorney newsletter (a source that hardly fits Wiki criteria for mainstream media), there are NO reliable published accounts backing up this assertion. Rather, in 1946, the New York Times and London Express credited Hans Huber with saving the files and alerting Allies to their existence. In 2001, the Los Angeles Times reached the same conclusion and the Washington Post reiterated the L.A. Times' findings in 2005. Wikipedia policy "requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as 'the truth.' " Your previous wording wasn't ideal, but it was better than the current version.
:2) In the 1980s, Thomas' well-publicized statements about Klaus Barbie caused controversy with the author of a report about Barbie from the U.S. Justice Department.
In fact, a 1983 L.A. Times article quotes at least TWO Justice Department officials challenging Thomas' account. Ryan is named; the other isn't.
:3) Documentation has since established that CIC did know of Barbie's involvement in various atrocities earlier than 1949, though "How high up the CIC ladder its officials were aware... is difficult to ascertain."
Including this is off-point. Ryan's criticism of Thomas was aimed at Thomas' claim to have written a memo about Barbie. Here's what Ryan said, according to Israel Today's 1983 article: "I find it pretty hard to put any credibility in what Thomas says," Ryan flat out declared. He insisted that if Thomas had really produced a memo on Barbie in 1947, he would have found it: "I found absolutely no indication that any such memo had been written." Furthermore, Ryan notes that Thomas made no attempt to contact him during the period he was working on the Barbie investigation.
Dan Morain's 1983 L.A. Times article also raised doubts about whether Thomas wrote a memo. Noting that when Ryan first began investigating Barbie, the Times ran a long article in which Thomas described his wartime capture by Barbie, Morain pointed out that Thomas "mentioned his work as a CIC officer after the war, but did not say he had written a memo about Barbie."
Bottom line: Including mention of this unpublished National Archives tidbit falsely suggests that it vindicates Thomas from the earlier criticism by Ryan and the Justice Department. It does nothing of the sort and should be dropped. 
4) Lastly, the "Defamation Case" section continues to be problematic. Both sides can find quotes from Judge Collins' ruling to cast their case in more favorable light. But ultimately all that matters is that four judges ruled that the implications which Thomas claimed were in the Times article simply didn't exist. Again, the Washington Post's obituary said it concisely and best: "Mr. Thomas filed a defamation suit against the reporter and the newspaper, which refused to admit an error in the article. A judge threw out the case and ordered Mr. Thomas to pay legal fees."  The current edit gives undue weight to a lawsuit whose claims were soundly rejected by the courts AND by the larger journalism community (see "Reply to Vince Foster/Richard Jewell comparisons" post above). I see no justification under Wikipedia policy on undue weight to say much more than the Post did. I doubt any other Wiki article gives so much ink to a lawsuit that was essentially ruled frivolous. Thank you. Rivenburg (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first two points I've reverted. As for point 4, I've altered it slightly from both NV Researcher's version and the version prior to that. The current wording gives a better indication as to what the hearing was about (to ascertain whether it should proceed to a jury). Point 3 I'm going to mull over for a short while. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 13:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I can see your point about not going into the judge's ruling in detail (i.e. just have "At a February 4, 2002 hearing to determine whether the case should be put to a jury, the judge dismissed the suit" with a mention of the unsuccessful appeal following). I'd perhaps be happy with that, but having experimented with how it might look I think it could give the impression that the judge was ruling on the facts of the dispute, rather than making a judgement as to whether there would be any hope of proving defamation were it to proceed to a jury. Do you think the current wording casts the LA Times in a worse light (or Thomas in a better light) than what was there previously? After all, it actually vindicates the newspaper, in that "no reasonable jury would find that the Los Angeles Times had intended to [defame Thomas]" and that "at most, a reasonable juror would find that [the] Defendants intended to raise questions about Thomas' story" - which I assume was the intention and if so a perfectly honourable one at that. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 12:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 11/28/07 edit vs. Wiki policy

message: My father was a member of the CIC. He served together with Mr. Thomas in the 307th CIC,Headquarters 7th US Army. What I cannot understand is how Mr. Rivenburg can categorically make so many assertions regarding Mr. Thomas. Truth be told, he doesn't really know what he is talking about.
I tried to get some information regarding my father's service and came up empty handed. Rivenburg could have researched every single document in NARA, and it would not make a difference, because the CIA has refused to declassify millions of documents: ( http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/international/europe/30nazis.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&oref=slogin )
   
 A report made public by the working group in 1999 said an initial survey by the C.I.A. estimated that more than two million pages of documents among records in the agency's files for the years 1947 to 1998 included "operational, personality, country, and project files; analytical products, source material, and biographic reports" related to Nazi war criminals. The agency estimated that an additional 2.1 million pages among the files of its predecessor organizations, including the O.S.S., from 1941 to 1947, could be covered by the group's mandate.(emphasis is mine).
Furthermore, there are photographs of Mr. Thomas in his biography wearing a CIC Agent's uniform with US tags, in which he is right by Special Agent Ted Kraus. Honestly I cannot think that Mr. Kraus would allow anyone to impersonate a US officer.
Until all documents regarding the Intelligence service are declassified, and thus prove that any assertions made above are either true or false, I will continue to view Michel Thomas as a man of honor, a loyal brother in arms of my father, and as a true hero who helped saved many American lives.
If Mr. Rivenburg had any sense of decency, he would be more interested in finding out the truth, rather than defending one of his articles. In other words, he could use his privileged position as a journalist and demand that those documents should be made available to the public.
                     Nico de Koenigsberg
Cruz del sur 04:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One ignored fact