The enigma of Rudolf Hess

Discussions on all aspects of the NSDAP, the other party organizations and the government. Hosted by Michael Miller & Igor Karpov.
User avatar
White Leopard
Member
Posts: 1128
Joined: 13 Jul 2002 02:50
Location: United States

Another Source

Post by White Leopard » 18 Aug 2002 01:06

Another interesting account of Hess in Spandau is:

Prisoner #7: Rudolph Hess by Col. Eugene K. Bird

Bird was assigned to the rotational shift of guarding Hess during his career in the Army. He managed to become friendly with Hess during his tour and was able to have lengthy discussions with the man. He describes Hess as being more intellegent than he expected. Hess, for instance, took great interest in the American space project and even designed a mechanism for Astronauts to excercise in weightless conditions. At other times, Hess was capable of behaving like a cranky, obstinate child. He could drive his guards to distraction with his antics. The book is a very interesting account of Hess and the other Spandau prisoners and is well worth reading.

Joseph J. Cacciotti
Member
Posts: 7
Joined: 20 Sep 2002 14:43
Location: New York, NY

Rudolf Hess

Post by Joseph J. Cacciotti » 25 Sep 2002 16:45

Those interested in this subject should try to get hold of a book entitled: "Hess, A Tale of Two Murders" written by Hugh Thomas.
As far as I know, it is only available in England. Dr. Thomas was a doctor in the British Army during the early 1970s and gave Hess a physical examination on one occassion and noticed that his body did not bear any of the scars from two WWI wounds. This sparked Thomas's imagination and led him to do a great deal of research which strongly suggested that the man in Spandau was not Hess, but a lookalike. The body of evidence that Thomas uncoverd to support his thesis is most impressive and quite convincing. Among other things the markings on the ME 110 that crashed in the Scottish countryside were not the same as the ones on the plane that Hess took off in from Augsburg. The aristocrat who Hess had flown to see knew immediately that it was an imposter who had landed, and advised Churchill of his impression immediately. At any rate Churchill decided to go along with the story that they had captured the real Hess because it might help draw the Russians into the war against Germany. Stalin, of course never believed the British story that the Germans were about to attack because Philby (one of only 4 persons who knew this man was not the real Hess) tipped his Russian pals off that the man was a phony. One of Hess' adjutants, who was captured by the Russians in the battle of Gdansk in 1944 was kept as a prisoner in Lubyanka until 1956 where he was tortured repeatedly as the Russians tried to get him to confess that the guy who took off from Augsburg was not Hess. Their prisoner however had been there and knew the real Hess did indeed take off in his ME 110. Poor fellow had been selected to be the messenger who delivered a letter from Hess to Hitler. After the letter was read, a furious AH had him arrested and thrown into Sachsenhausen where he remained until late 1943. At that time he was given a choice of of remaining in the K-Zed or joining a convict battalion because of the manpower shortage. All the while he was in Sachsenhausen, Bormann tried to have the man shot, but Himmler kept pulling those chestnuts out of the fire. I mention this point because if Bormann was spying for the Russians, would he not have wanted the one man that knew for sure that Hess had flown to England kept alive? Hess, or his imposter, was murdered at Spandau because too many Britons in high places would have faced treason charges had the real story ever been revealed. That's the long and the short of it.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 25 Sep 2002 16:58

Why wait so long to kill him? Why not just put poison in his soup and he dies of a bellyache? Some poisons are virtually untraceable unless one knows what to look for. And if the man held in Spandau or the Tower was not the real Hess, what happened to the real Hess? Where did the imposter come from? And why would he claim for almost half a century in prison to be the real Hess?
:)

LizardDC
Member
Posts: 6
Joined: 24 Sep 2002 22:45
Location: Germany

Post by LizardDC » 25 Sep 2002 17:08

mhm....

Hard to belive this myths!


I think, that people sometimes interpretate something into the 3rd Reich that has never taken place in the reality.


In Germany there are even some professors, who say that Hitler just started the war, because his Reich seemed to perish and because he had too less money left. And because of that he tried to cover his discomfiture he pushed the whole nation into a war :mrgreen: crazy, hum? :D



But I have another kind of question!

Would you say that Hess is a hero???
Someone who saw the horror of the war and the policy???
Someone who fought to end the war???


It´s just....I just want to know how you think about him...

or do you think he´s a criminal like the others ???

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 25 Sep 2002 19:05

I think Hess was an idealist who sacrificed himself to try to end the war. He saw that Germany and England had no real reasons to fight and that Germany's interests lay, if anywhere, in fighting the Soviet Union. As an ardent Anglophile, he just couldn't accept anything other than that Britain simply misunderstood Germany's intentions for peace when Hitler offered generous terms. Hess acted without orders in what could have been very damaging for the Germans if the Allies had been able to successfully exploit the matter of the defection in their propaganda. That was impossible since Hitler declared that his Deputy Führer must have simply gone crazy. You can't get much worse than that so it was perfect damage-control. Also, Hess ran a great risk of compromising the Barbarossa operation itself but the British already knew about it from signals intercepts, and the Soviets just didn't believe the story. Hess should not have been put on trial at Nuremberg and his captivity after the war was indescribably shameful. Yet, unlike the bourgeois or "patrician" Speer, who had the fear-of-God put into him at Nuremberg, Hess never denounced his chief; he remained loyal, the kind of stubborn and eccentric genius that you want on your side if you are ever being brainwashed in an enemy POW camp. I would take away Elie Wiesel's Nobel Peace Prize and give it to the Hess family.
:)

Ovidius
Member
Posts: 1414
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 19:04
Location: Romania

Post by Ovidius » 25 Sep 2002 20:56

Scott Smith wrote:I would take away Elie Wiesel's Nobel Peace Prize and give it to the Hess family.


Then the Anti Defasomething League would lynch you :mrgreen:

~Ovidius

User avatar
HaEn
In memoriam
Posts: 1911
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 00:58
Location: Portland OR U.S.A.

scars

Post by HaEn » 25 Sep 2002 21:55

Caldric wrote:Don't scars and such fade with age? And what is the real point of keeping a man a live for decades to just kill him later? Makes no sense, why not just hang him with his comrades.


Yes they do, but they inevitably leave SOME mark behind; mine are still there after 60 years. just an observation.

Why kill him "then" ? because he was about to be released, and whatever plot was brewed up would have been blown sky high. just another observation.

HN.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 25 Sep 2002 22:06

Scott Smith wrote:I think Hess was an idealist who sacrificed himself to try to end the war. He saw that Germany and England had no real reasons to fight and that Germany's interests lay, if anywhere, in fighting the Soviet Union.


Scott Smith wrote:I would take away Elie Wiesel's Nobel Peace Prize and give it to the Hess family. :)


In other words:

Hess tried to get England off his Führer's back so he could attack the Soviet Union undisturbed.

For which he should have been given the Nobel Peace Price.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Helly Angel
Member
Posts: 4661
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 20:00
Location: Venezuela (Southamerica)

Post by Helly Angel » 26 Sep 2002 00:09

Scott Smith wrote:Hess never denounced his chief; he remained loyal, the kind of stubborn and eccentric genius that you want on your side if you are ever being brainwashed in an enemy PO I would take away Elie Wiesel's Nobel Peace Prize and give it to the Hess family.
:)


This is CORRECT!

Hess was a HERO!!

Long Life Hess Martyr of Peace!

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 26 Sep 2002 05:11

Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:I would take away Elie Wiesel's Nobel Peace Prize and give it to the Hess family. :)

In other words:

Hess tried to get England off his Führer's back so he could attack the Soviet Union undisturbed.

For which he should have been given the Nobel Peace Price.

It may be that had England quit her stupid war against Germany that Hitler would have given up his Soviet option, which was as much a way out of a bad strategic situation as anything else. He might then have simply returned to his building projects.

Yes, if a Hate-monger like Wiesel, or a shrewd diplomat like Kissinger, is deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize, then surely Hess is. He tried to stop a war in the naïve believe that it was all just a misunderstanding that he could correct, and to try this he sacrificed his life.
:)

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 26 Sep 2002 10:16

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:I would take away Elie Wiesel's Nobel Peace Prize and give it to the Hess family. :)

In other words:

Hess tried to get England off his Führer's back so he could attack the Soviet Union undisturbed.

For which he should have been given the Nobel Peace Price.


Scott Smith wrote:It may be that had England quit her stupid war against Germany that Hitler would have given up his Soviet option, which was as much a way out of a bad strategic situation as anything else.


Very feeble, Mr. Smith.

Not only is there no evidence to support the notion that Hitler planned to attack the Soviet Union mainly or exclusively "out of a bad strategic situation" and would have given up his plans if that "situation" could have been otherwise removed, there is also none that Mr. Hess had such an outcome in mind.

And there is also no reason to assume that Adolf would have abandoned his goal of obtaining "living space" in Russia, which he had cherished since the days he had written Mein Kampf.

Scott Smith wrote:Yes, if a Hate-monger like Wiesel,


It's easy to understand what makes Wiesel a hate-monger in Smith's eyes if you know that Smith feels like a poor Gentile wronged by the perfidious accusations of those filthy Jews:

Scott Smith wrote:Here we have a monumental accusation made against Gentiles in general and Germany in particular, that harms the German people--except of course their leaders, and perhaps also the plastic-spoon generation of neo-Germans--and it harms all of the Palestinian people.


Thu May 09, 2002 6:58 am Post subject: POINTLESS.
http://thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/viewt ... 338adb8cad

Scott Smith wrote:or a shrewd diplomat like Kissinger, is deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize,


Do you think that Kissinger (A Jew, by the way. Coincidence?) deserved the Nobel Peace Prize for handing South Vietnam over to the Commies, Mr. Smith?

I don't.

Scott Smith wrote:then surely Hess is. He tried to stop a war in the naïve believe that it was all just a misunderstanding that he could correct, and to try this he sacrificed his life.
:)


Given the timing of his flight and what he knew about the imminent launching of Operation "Barbarossa", I think poor Rudy would have had some problems convincing the Nobel Prize Committee that he wasn't just trying to get England off his beloved Führer's back so that the man would not be disturbed in his destruction of the 'Judeo-Bolshevist state' and a substantial number of its inhabitants.

Ovidius
Member
Posts: 1414
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 19:04
Location: Romania

Post by Ovidius » 26 Sep 2002 12:17

Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Yes, if a Hate-monger like Wiesel,


It's easy to understand what makes Wiesel a hate-monger in Smith's eyes if you know that Smith feels like a poor Gentile wronged by the perfidious accusations of those filthy Jews


Even so, Wiesel is still a hate-monger, for saying that a Jew must hate "everything German"(if you wish the exact quote: Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate -- healthy, virile hate -- for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead.), this meaning that he should also hate you my dear Mr. Roberto Muehlenkamp :mrgreen:

Roberto wrote:Given the timing of his flight and what he knew about the imminent launching of Operation "Barbarossa", I think poor Rudy would have had some problems convincing the Nobel Prize Committee that he wasn't just trying to get England off his beloved Führer's back so that the man would not be disturbed in his destruction of the 'Judeo-Bolshevist state' and a substantial number of its inhabitants.


Considering the Communist character of the "Judeo-Bolshevist" state, its destruction could have been a contribution to the world's peace and prosperity :mrgreen:

~Ovidius

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 26 Sep 2002 18:56

Ovidius wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Yes, if a Hate-monger like Wiesel,


It's easy to understand what makes Wiesel a hate-monger in Smith's eyes if you know that Smith feels like a poor Gentile wronged by the perfidious accusations of those filthy Jews


Even so, Wiesel is still a hate-monger, for saying that a Jew must hate "everything German"(if you wish the exact quote: Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate -- healthy, virile hate -- for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead.), this meaning that he should also hate you my dear Mr. Roberto Muehlenkamp :mrgreen:


If he hates me, he's a sorry prick.

When did he say the above, and in what context?

Roberto wrote:Given the timing of his flight and what he knew about the imminent launching of Operation "Barbarossa", I think poor Rudy would have had some problems convincing the Nobel Prize Committee that he wasn't just trying to get England off his beloved Führer's back so that the man would not be disturbed in his destruction of the 'Judeo-Bolshevist state' and a substantial number of its inhabitants.


Considering the Communist character of the "Judeo-Bolshevist" state, its destruction could have been a contribution to the world's peace and prosperity :mrgreen:

~Ovidius


Except, at any rate, if the alternative was a National Socialist state.

In that case, give me the "Judeo-Bolsheviks" any day, especially if I'm a Jew, a gypsy, a Belorussian, a Ukrainian, a Russian, ...

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 26 Sep 2002 19:59

Roberto wrote:
Ovidius wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Yes, if a Hate-monger like Wiesel,


It's easy to understand what makes Wiesel a hate-monger in Smith's eyes if you know that Smith feels like a poor Gentile wronged by the perfidious accusations of those filthy Jews


Even so, Wiesel is still a hate-monger, for saying that a Jew must hate "everything German"(if you wish the exact quote: Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate -- healthy, virile hate -- for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead.), this meaning that he should also hate you my dear Mr. Roberto Muehlenkamp :mrgreen:


If he hates me, he's a sorry prick.

When did he say the above, and in what context?


My question has in the meantime been answered on another thread:

Charles Bunch wrote:Chuck wrote:

Ellie Wiesel is not in any way a hate peddler, which given his experiences and the experiences of many like him, is somewhat astonishing.


Smith wrote:

I've read his book and I think he is a fabulist and a Hate-peddler.


But then you always believe that about victims of the Holocaust. That's because you're a Holocaust denier.


Tell us, Mr. Bunch, about the "Zone of Hate" that Elie reserves for the German and what Germans personify
.

You make the same specious, and dishonest charge that Bradley Smith made in his propaganda campaign on college campuses.

I think John Silber, the Chancellor of Boston University, answered that charge best in a letter I asked him to write in rebuttal of Smith's ads.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/codoh/ ... r-01.shtml

[...]

4. Smith claims, "Elie Wiesel as an authority on 'hate' " and Smith says he counseled "on how to perpetuate a loathing for Germans." No fair-minded person can read Wiesel's "Appointment with Hate" and reach that conclusion. Rather, it is a penetrating analysis of his own reactions as he visited Germany for the first time following the war. He entered Germany hating Germans and ended his visit finding it was impossible to hate. In that article, he went on to explain why Jews are not inclined to hate and why they did not engage in acts of vengeance against the Germans.
Moreover, following his receipt of the Nobel Prize for Peace Elie Wiesel has used the substance of his prize to sponsor conferences in the United States and Moscow and elsewhere on "The Anatomy of Hate:" His consistent theme at those conferences, and I have participated in two, has been to denounce hate as a corrosive, destructive element in human nature that must be replaced with understanding and hope.

The quotation cited by Smith doesn't even support his libel. In the quote, Elie Wiesel does not say that every Jew "should set apart a zone of hate -- healthy virile hate " for Germans. Rather he said they "should set apart a zone of hate -- healthy, virile hate -- for what the German personifies and for what persists in the Germans." As the Nazi generation has passed from the scene, what Germans personify and what persists in the Germans has changed. What Germans personified in 1945 is not what a different generation of Germans personify today.

Elie Wiesel was invited by the President and Chancellor of Germany to speak in Berlin on January 27, 2000, the day of the remembrance of the liberation of Auschwitz. That address was notable for the absence of hate and the plea for remembrance and forgiveness on which reconciliation between Germans and Jews can be possible In that address Wiesel commented favorably on Germany's support of Israel, on Germany's compensation for the victims of the Third Reich, and on Germany's recent initiative in compensating those who were used as forced laborers. What is the motivation and purpose of Mr. Smith and his CODOH? Why do they find it personally important to deny the Holocaust and to abuse and denigrate Professor Wiesel? Isn't it relevant to ask? Bradley R. Smith and his Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust are a travesty and a repudiation of all that a university should stand for when falsehood is disseminated and truth is suppressed.

[...]

And why does he think that his suffering in the war was so special?


What a ridiculous question!

Why does anyone's suffering have to be "special", whatever that means, to impart a deep emotional scar? Certainly the experience of Holocaust survivors of Auschwitz was profound and unique even in the context of wartime Europe.

Why did the Germans allow him to recieve medical treatment for his foot when he was a "useless eater"?


Tell us about the nature of this medical treatment.

And why did he and his father volunteer to follow the Germans back to Germany, in what could have been a Death March (and was in some cases), instead of waiting to be liberated by the Russians at Auschwitz?


You know very well what the answer to this question is, since this denier canard has been discussed for ages. As Wiesel himself tells us, they believed that those who opted to stay were going to be killed by the Nazis. Now since this is clearly stated in his writings, why do deniers persist in asking this rhetorical question as if the very asking somehow is significant?

And remember, he is the one who made the fuss about Reagan visiting the German cemetery at Bitburg in 1985.


Many people made a fuss about it.

Yes, there were six members of the Waffen-SS buried at the opposite end of the graveyard. And even Jews are somewhat incredulous about his personal campaign to receive the 1986 Nobel Peace Prize.


And that makes him a hater, which was your original charge?

The fact is that deniers such as yourself hate Wiesel. You hate him because he has been effective, albeit in ways not everyone is comfortable with, in forcing people to look at the monstrous atrocity committed against European Jews during WWII. Your hatred manifests itself in the spreading of all these erroneous, distorted, and petty charges against Wiesel's character. What all of you have failed to understand is that the palpable hatred with which you and yours excoriate him exposes your motives, and reveals the despicable underside of your agendas.


http://www.thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/v ... 67165b1184

Martin Månsson
Financial supporter
Posts: 1023
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 11:59
Location: Sweden

Post by Martin Månsson » 26 Sep 2002 20:19

This has gone off-topic

Martin

Return to “NSDAP, other party organizations & Government”