German initiated peace talks in 1941 - Rudolf Hess

[Hop]

Not quite. Hess himself didn't want release on humanitarian grounds as he felt that had been wrongly imprisoned, which created difficulty for his son and the campaign to free him. But in 1979 he saw the reality of old age creeping up on him and agreed to appeal for release on the grounds of ill-health. It was denied.

In other words he was trying to get release on humanitarian grounds. He even went so far as to refuse treatment for his prostrate condition unless he was released. Wolf Hess was running a dual campaign, claiming both that his father should be released because he was not guilty, and that he should be released on humanitarian grounds. The argument varied by country.

In what context did Wolf Hess mean that the world should "honour his father" As a peace envoy between two waring Nations? Then yes, Hess would be worthy of some honourable mention.

Not really to the rest of the world. Hess wanted peace with Britain for a more effective attack on Russia. That's not very honourable.

Levin may have called the book shameless etc, I don't know, but there was a bit animosity by Levin toward Hess's son anyway. As far as I know Levin was supposed to have said "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree".

Levin said that in 1989, after another of Wolf's books argued the British had murdered Hess. Levin was all for releasing Hess on humanitarian grounds, he just didn't like Wolfgang's attempts to turn him in to some sort of hero/martyr.

The window was 1.4m (4.5 ft) from the ground. Hess would still have to TIE the cord securely to the window latch,

For the third time:

"According to Norman Goda the cord Hess used to hang himself was kept tied to the window catch"

Even if Goda is wrong, then you still can't argue Hess couldn't have attached the cord to the catch without knowing how it was attached. It could simply have been looped over the catch, it could have been placed over the catch with the plug acting as a stop, etc. Without some idea of how the cord was attached it's impossible to say Hess couldn't have done it.

and how could Hess "loop" the other end around his neck so tightly (as to cause strangulation) when he couldn't even raise his hands above his own head?

Source for the claim he couldn't raise his hands above his head?

No, it wouldn't. There would still be the typical V shape if Hess killed himself by suspension, using his own weight. There wasn't. Natural physics would make the cord draw upwards at the back of the neck

But he didn't kill himself by suspension. You'd have to be pretty short to fully suspend yourself from an object 4 ft off the ground. If you slump forward or sideways it's very easy for the body to assume an angle that keeps the cord straight on the neck.

But he wasn't "trusted", you keep saying this and it's completely false. The man was locked away for 46 years, his every move was monitored, his conversation restricted. That's not trusting Hop.

Speer smuggled his memoirs out of Spandau. Hess could have told him anything. Hess managed to discuss the secret protocol to the Nazi-Soviet pact with his lawyer, something the Soviets were desperate to keep secret. Hess' guards and warders had frequent contact with him.

The idea that Hess couldn't have spoken to anyone is absurd, because we know he did. What's even more absurd, though, is the idea that the British, in 1945, could have known he would never be able to reveal secrets to anyone. When he was in a mental hospital in Britain the government had a fair bit of control over him, but when they handed him over to the Americans in 1945 they lost that control. They had some say, but no absolute control over Hess.

At that point, when they gave up control, they either didn't care what he had to say, or trusted him not to say it.

Also, who was he going to tell in the 40's, when he spent the entire time as a closely guarded captive of the British or as a "war criminal" at Nuremberg?

The Americans who were guarding him at Nuremberg? Göring managed to make friends with one of them, after all. His Lawyer? What about just giving evidence in court and telling what he knew? What about the other prisoners he talked to?

In addition, Hess didn't get on with Speer, they barely spoke. In fact, when Speer was leaving Spandau, he went to say goodbye to Hess and Hess barely acknowledged him. But he did seem to start saying something and then ended with "Oh..forget it".

Well they did talk, even if not that much. But what you are asking us to believe is that not only couldn't they talk (which they did), but that the British would have known, back in 1945, that they wouldn't be able to talk.

And...it doesn't matter who was dead and how long it was between events. If Hess had important secrets about his peace flight to Britain, it could have caused a lot of worry for Britain's version of the historical record. Enough worry to justify the murder of a 93 year old cripple that few people even remembered.

But again the problem is it wasn't important enough to kill him in 1945, when it would have been much easier.

[tonyh]

Not quite. Hess himself didn't want release on humanitarian grounds as he felt that had been wrongly imprisoned, which created difficulty for his son and the campaign to free him. But in 1979 he saw the reality of old age creeping up on him and agreed to appeal for release on the grounds of ill-health. It was denied.

In other words he was trying to get release on humanitarian grounds. He even went so far as to refuse treatment for his prostrate condition unless he was released. Wolf Hess was running a dual campaign, claiming both that his father should be released because he was not guilty, and that he should be released on humanitarian grounds. The argument varied by country.

Not until the reality of ill-health caught up on him and his son had convinced him of the folly of holding out.

AFAIK, Wolf Hess's campaign was not that father was "not guilty" as such, but that in comparison to the other Nuremburg defendants, his father's sentence was unfair and his father ill-health should be reason enough for release. As said, only in 1979, did R. Hess finally agree to appeal on the grounds of Ill-health, which was refused by all four powers.

In what context did Wolf Hess mean that the world should "honour his father" As a peace envoy between two waring Nations? Then yes, Hess would be worthy of some honourable mention.

Not really to the rest of the world. Hess wanted peace with Britain for a more effective attack on Russia. That's not very honourable.

Well, we don't really know that. I am not sure how privvy Hess was to Hitler's future plans for the invasion of Russia. Hess may have been deputy but he had dropped down the foodchain in nazi circles. His role had become less and less important, to a point in 1941 when he really was a minor figure. It's unknown whether Hess had any knowledge of the Barbarossa plan, or whether it was part of his peace package with Britain.

The window was 1.4m (4.5 ft) from the ground. Hess would still have to TIE the cord securely to the window latch,

For the third time:

"According to Norman Goda the cord Hess used to hang himself was kept tied to the window catch"

Even if Goda is wrong, then you still can't argue Hess couldn't have attached the cord to the catch without knowing how it was attached. It could simply have been looped over the catch, it could have been placed over the catch with the plug acting as a stop, etc. Without some idea of how the cord was attached it's impossible to say Hess couldn't have done it.

Then Goda is wrong, or you're reading him wrong. The cord was an extension cord for a lamp. Without it the lamp could not be turned on, so I doubt it was "kept tied to the window catch". BTW, according to Melaouhi's statement, the cord that was said to have been used to "hang" Hess was actually plugged into the wall and the lamp was switched on when he arrived at the scene.

and how could Hess "loop" the other end around his neck so tightly (as to cause strangulation) when he couldn't even raise his hands above his own head?

Source for the claim he couldn't raise his hands above his head?

The book "Double Standards" and General Roland Blank (who believes Hess committed suicide) stated that Hess was terribly crippled with various ailments.

I have seen photo's of the scene and that extension cord was quite long. In fact it it looked about 6 or 7 ft by my estimate as it trailed across the floor. The "female" end was attached to the window latch (which is a mid window latch) and the "male" end was on the floor. Hess would had to have wrapped the cord several times around his neck in order to make a secure "strangulation" instrument or he would needed to have tied off a ligature of some sort.

Either way is quite doubtful for a man in his condition.

The situation also beggars the question as to why Hess would have chosen there and then to "commit suicide". When he could have done in the middle of the night in his own room, without the danger of anyone stopping him?

If we are to believe the "suicide" story, Hess waited until Anderson (a guard) was called away on a short telephone call and took his extremely limited opportunity (before Anderson returned and before he was to be joined by his orderly) to top himself.

His could have slit his wrists in his bath or done the deed in the middle of the night, if he had wanted to top himself and he could have done it for years.

Frankly, the whole "suicide" story doesn't add up.

No, it wouldn't. There would still be the typical V shape if Hess killed himself by suspension, using his own weight. There wasn't. Natural physics would make the cord draw upwards at the back of the neck

But he didn't kill himself by suspension. You'd have to be pretty short to fully suspend yourself from an object 4 ft off the ground. If you slump forward or sideways it's very easy for the body to assume an angle that keeps the cord straight on the neck.

But you say he used his own weight to "hang" himself...that's suspension. Either Hess wound the cord around his neck and held it there tight enough to bring about death with his 3 yr old child’s grip (which is impossible), or he used his weight to effectively "hang" himself (the official version) which would have naturally left the V shape that was missing from Hess's body according to Dr Spann.

Also, and this is from memory, Dr Spann mentioned that both Hess's left and right carotid arteries were very damaged, which further suggested "throttling". In throttling, there is more damage done to the victims neck than during hanging, which mainly damages the windpipe.

But he wasn't "trusted", you keep saying this and it's completely false. The man was locked away for 46 years, his every move was monitored, his conversation restricted. That's not trusting Hop.

The idea that Hess couldn't have spoken to anyone is absurd, because we know he did. What's even more absurd, though, is the idea that the British, in 1945, could have known he would never be able to reveal secrets to anyone. When he was in a mental hospital in Britain the government had a fair bit of control over him, but when they handed him over to the Americans in 1945 they lost that control. They had some say, but no absolute control over Hess.

But the British were expecting death sentences for the major nazis at Nuremburg. Again, who would Hess tell that would have made it worth telling to? Maybe Hess was threatened not to reveal anything about the peace deal with various danger to both him or his family. Also, your analogy with the 1939 Soviet pact doesn't really wash as both the British and Americans wouldn't have cared who he revealed that to and Hess wasn't the only one revealing it anyway.

And, actually, the British had the most control over Hess out of the 4 keepers. They were the ones who had sole responsibly for his medical health for instance.

Also, who was he going to tell in the 40's, when he spent the entire time as a closely guarded captive of the British or as a "war criminal" at Nuremberg?

The Americans who were guarding him at Nuremberg? Göring managed to make friends with one of them, after all. His Lawyer? What about just giving evidence in court and telling what he knew? What about the other prisoners he talked to?

Goring’s an exceptional case. No other inmates had that. Also, inmates conversations were very closely guarded, it would have been very difficult for Hess to be able to reveal anything substantial to anyone, including his lawyer.

Plus, Hess had no documentary evidence in his possession to back it up.

In addition, Hess had chosen to play the insanity card (to avoid prosecution) and avoid the other inmates. Hess had relatively little contact with any of the other Nuremburg defendants, in order to keep the act up.

Another thing, Hess was absolutely forbidden to speak about the flight to Britain, or his time there with his family throughout his incarceration in Spandau...even in the 70's and 80's...why, if there was nothing to hide.

In addition, Hess didn't get on with Speer, they barely spoke. In fact, when Speer was leaving Spandau, he went to say goodbye to Hess and Hess barely acknowledged him. But he did seem to start saying something and then ended with "Oh..forget it".

Well they did talk, even if not that much. But what you are asking us to believe is that not only couldn't they talk (which they did), but that the British would have known, back in 1945, that they wouldn't be able to talk.

Again, Hess had chosen to feign amnesia in a hope to avoid trial. He claimed not to remember anyone, including Speer and Goring. If he suddenly sat down and went into lengthy detail about his flight to Britain, the amnesia stunt wuld have been blown.

So, no, back in 1945 they wouldn't have been able to talk, lest Hess blew his cover and after he admitted to the trial he'd been faking, the inmates time together and freedom to discuss certain topics was extremely limited.

And...it doesn't matter who was dead and how long it was between events. If Hess had important secrets about his peace flight to Britain, it could have caused a lot of worry for Britain's version of the historical record. Enough worry to justify the murder of a 93 year old cripple that few people even remembered.

But again the problem is it wasn't important enough to kill him in 1945, when it would have been much easier.

If Hess hadn't turned up at Nuremburg, there would have been a lot of questions being asked by a lot of people and the worlds eyes were on Nuremburg in 1945-6. It would have proven very difficult to kill him then. Plus, most were banking on death sentences for the top nazis. In the end, Hess was given life in prison (which even Robert Jackson found extremely excessive), with very severe restrictions on what he could say and who he could talk to. So effectively he was contained and expected to die in prison (long before death actually came for him).

But with freedom, the press and TV would have been all over Hess like flies around shite. He really would have been free to say anything he wanted to regarding his flight to Britain, the reasons and who he actually was flying to meet.

That really would have been a very uncomfortable position for Britain, if Hess had any bombshells to drop.


Tony

[Andreas]

That is also the reason why Hess was murdered on 17th August, 1987. Why 1987 and not some earlier date?

Umm... right.

Topic is locked pending review.

Thanks.

Andreas

[Andreas]

After a review, I have decided to re-open this thread without removing any posts.

However:

1) There are two things being discussed here:
a) Whether there was a German attempt to make peace in 1940
b) Whether Hess was murdered, where the assumption is made that this was so, and that this then proves that a peace attempt had been made.

I'll spare myself the effort and time to go and explain why this is utterly tortous logic, and restrict my comment to this: Only 1a) is a legitimate topic of discussion in this section of the forum. Any further discussion of whether Hess was murdered, by whom, because of what, is completely off-topic, and posts containing it will be deleted on sight, in their entirety. If you want to discuss this topic, do it in the appropriate section of the forum, not here.

Here is a thread where this discussion can be continued: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=64548

2) There is a singular lack of sourcing going on here, and "I read it somewhere and paraphrase" is not an acceptable form of response to a legitimate question.

I point participants in the discussion to the forum rules: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6

In particular:

D. Topicality

The fifth rule of the forum is: "Keep the message on topic." There are two aspects to this rule. The first involves topics which may be discussed in this section of the forum. The second involves staying on topic when posting to a thread.

Permissible subjects for this section of the forum are the holocaust and twentieth century war crimes. If a thread isn't discussing something related to those subjects, it's off-topic.

Although there are occasionally exceptions, the forum management tries to keep a thread on a single topic. This makes it easier for readers to follow, and for researchers to subsequently locate, the discussions. If a poster would like to see further discussion of off-topic matters, please raise the subject in a pre-existing thread on that topic or, if there are no pre-existing threads, on a separate thread.

Non-complying posts are subject to deletion after warning.

2. Claims and Proof

The sixth rule of the forum is: "When quoting from a book or site, please provide info on the source (and a link if it is a website)."

If a poster raises a question about the events, other posters may answer the question with evidence. If a poster stops asking questions and begins to express a point of view, he then becomes an advocate for that viewpoint. When a person becomes an advocate, he has the burden of providing evidence for his point of view. If he has no evidence, or doesn't provide it when asked, it is reasonable for the reader to conclude that his opinion or viewpoint is uninformed and may fairly be discounted or rejected.

Also, undocumented claims undercut the research purposes of this section of the forum. Consequently, it is required that proof be posted along with a claim. The main reason is that proof, evidence, facts, etc. improve the quality of discussions and information. A second reason is that inflammatory, groundless posts and threads attack, and do not promote, the scholarly purpose of this section of the forum. For more on this subject, see the announcement at viewtopic.php?p=990676#990676

This requirement applies to each specific claim. In the past, some posters have attempted to evade the proof requirement by resort to the following tactics, none of which are acceptable here:

A general reference to a website, or a book without page references; citations or links to racist websites; generalized citations to book reviews; and citations to unsourced articles.

Noncomplying posts are subject to deletion after warning.

3. Opinions

Since the purpose of this section of the forum is to exchange information and hold informed discussions about historical problems, posts which express unsolicited opinions without supporting facts and sources do not promote the purposes of the forum. Consequently, such posts are subject to deletion after a warning to the poster.

The same reasoning applies to opinion threads.

As an example:

That is also the reason why Hess was murdered on 17th August, 1987. Why 1987 and not some earlier date?

This is an unsolicited opinions without supporting facts and sources, and therefore subject to deletion. My policy is to remove whole posts, and not to edit out offending elements of them. I believe this is the only way that the message gets through.

I suggest that everybody reads and digests these before making another post in this thread.

This post is the warning required by the forum rules. From now on offending posts will be deleted, on sight, and in their entirety.

If you have any questions regarding this post, you are welcome to use the PM system. Anything posted here will be treated as off-topic and deleted without a response.

Thank you for your attention. If the level of discussion in this thread does not improve, and if I am therefore forced to resort to deletions, I will reconsider my decision to keep this thread open. The next time I lock it will be the last time.

Andreas

[phylo_roadking]

See Fleming , Operation Sealion, for a good discussion of Hitlers's various peace overtures in 1940 - how they were made, what the reaction was.

[FarKenal]

That is also the reason why Hess was murdered on 17th August, 1987. Why 1987 and not some earlier date?

I'd just like to apoligise for this, it was never my intention to try and state this as a fact. As I said at the very start of the post that this was in, I copied sections of text from another source I had been reading, and in the two hours it took me to construct and reword elements, I forgot about this one sentence along with several others after a re-read, that I would of liked to of been worded a bit better for healthy discussions.

and phylo_roadking is "Operation Sea-lion" by Peter Fleming you think worth buying? also does it say why the offers were rebuked? thanks

Sorry again to all

[phylo_roadking]

Yes, it is. But remember it's very dated now, of course, there's been several definitive works on Sealion in the last decade, particularly on the German military preparations. But both Fleming's and Kieser's "Operation Sealion" titles are still worth buying. If only because they should be avalable second hand LOL Apart from anything - you have to factor in something that's not often remembered now, and you don't become aware of until near the end of the book...Fleming (incidently Ian (james Bond) Fleming's brother) was on the "inside" of British invasion planning and intelligence in 1940; he was the officer in charge of setting up the very first of the stay-behind "Auxiliary Units" in Kent before the idea was uptaken at Downing Street level.

The book actually deals MORE with the political and military background to the period than the hard prepearations for invasion on either side, so yes, it both details the various overtures and the reaction to them...and why they were rejected.

[michael mills]

The book "Grand Delusion" by the Israeli histroian Gabriel Gorodetsky contains a whole chapter on the Hess episode.

Gorodetsky concludes that Hess was not informed of the planning for "Barbarossa", and was taken by surprise when informed of the attack on 22 June. His reaction indicated that he may have heard rumours about an impending invasion, but did not have official knowledge, ie he was excluded from the circle who were fully informed.

Gorodetsky also concludes that Hess was not on a mission from Hitler, but had undertaken his mission entirely on his own intitative, without Hitler's knowledge or consent, for the purpose of winning back Hitler's favour by bringing about a peace agreement between Germany and Britain, something he believed he could do based on his conversations with Albrecht Haushofer.

While in British detention, Hess was asked to write down the proposals for peace that he had claimed to be bringing. These, according to Gorodetsky, turned out to very vague, and did not mention a German intention to invade the Soviet Union. The British interrogators concluded that Hess had nothing to offer, and was not an official peace emissary; accordingly there were no negotiations with him, apart from attempts to extract information about the German Government.

According to Gorodetsky's analysis, the contention that Hess had tried to make it easier for Germany to attack the Soviet Union by ending the conflict between Germany and Britain is false, since Hess had no knowledge of the plans for that attack.

[B5N2KATE]

Thanks to Andreas for clarifying "opinion" as opposed to "sourced logic"....

When dealing with a subject as complex and difficult as World War 2, one must have some kind of source base to center one's arguments around....

We are all guilty of providing unsolicited opinions on occasion.....I for one am pleased to see such close scrutiny, and avoidance of degeneration to invective, vitriolic, and slanderous comments....

I, myself, TRY to follow the rules as such. It's the only way to avoid a shouting match.

I suppose I had better throw my "two cents" on Hess....

Adolf Galland, when asked for comment about Luftwaffe activities on the night Hess dissappeared made it quite plain that he would not comment, shutting the door in the face of the researcher involved....

What this represents, I'm not sure.....

[Boby]

Mr. Mills

How is possible that by May 1941, Hess was not aware of the planned invasion?

It seems very unlikely.

[B5N2KATE]

Good question.....And here I thinl is the answer to the puzzle itself....

Hess feels that "Barbarossa" is a giant error....

Hess has the idea that Britain will negotiate.....

Britain may well have been sending peace feelers through channels Hess was aware of...

Hess, carried away by his own sence of "destiny", and feeling that if the Deputy Fuhrer suddenly turns up "on the spot", then peace overtures will be taken seriously....

So, he flies to England, literally on a wing and a prayer...

On capture, Churchill becomes aware of something he personally does not want to know, that members of his own goverment/administration/monarchy (who knows?) have been negotiating behind his back....

Instead of presenting a dis-united administration, they grill Hess about hitlers next move. It confirms what their codebreaking has told them, and what Churchill wants and has planned for all along....Barbarossa will go ahead after all..

They lock Hess up.....he stays that way...

Post war, he becomes just another Nazi prisoner....his life sentence at Nuremburg keeps him in prison.

Wolf Rudiger attempts to restart the debate, but with no access to ULTRA, he is unable to proove anything ...

Hess dies.....

Theres my THREE cents worth.....I'm probably wrong, but who knows?....Whatever Hess knew, if anything, it died with him.

[Andreas]

Let's stick to the facts.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

The book "Grand Delusion" by the Israeli histroian Gabriel Gorodetsky contains a whole chapter on the Hess episode.

Gorodetsky concludes that Hess was not informed of the planning for "Barbarossa", and was taken by surprise when informed of the attack on 22 June. His reaction indicated that he may have heard rumours about an impending invasion, but did not have official knowledge, ie he was excluded from the circle who were fully informed.

Gorodetsky also concludes that Hess was not on a mission from Hitler, but had undertaken his mission entirely on his own intitative, without Hitler's knowledge or consent, for the purpose of winning back Hitler's favour by bringing about a peace agreement between Germany and Britain, something he believed he could do based on his conversations with Albrecht Haushofer.

While in British detention, Hess was asked to write down the proposals for peace that he had claimed to be bringing. These, according to Gorodetsky, turned out to very vague, and did not mention a German intention to invade the Soviet Union. The British interrogators concluded that Hess had nothing to offer, and was not an official peace emissary; accordingly there were no negotiations with him, apart from attempts to extract information about the German Government.

According to Gorodetsky's analysis, the contention that Hess had tried to make it easier for Germany to attack the Soviet Union by ending the conflict between Germany and Britain is false, since Hess had no knowledge of the plans for that attack.

Thanks.

There is a contradiction between your first and your last paragraph. Hess may well not have been informed, but as Gorodetsky appears to acknowledge, that does not mean he had no knowledge of the plans, since he could easily have picked up information in the Berlin rumour mill.

Regards

Andreas

[B5N2KATE]

Well....it WAS only "my three cents".....yes, I will stick to the facts....trouble is, I just don't know them...Nobody does except Hess himself....and he's dead....I make no claim to knowledge on behalf of Hess, unlike other posters...

Sorry bout that.....I wish somebody would clear this up, though...

[Boby]

Here is an interesting article from Rainer F. Schmidt, Professor für Neueste Geschichte und Didaktik der Geschichte an der Universität Würzburg.

"Der Heß-Flug und das Kabinett Churchill. Hitlers Stellvertreter im Kalkül der britischen Kriegsdiplomatie Mai – Juni 1941", VfZ 42, Nr. 1 (1994), pp. 1-38

http://www.ifz-muenchen.de/heftarchiv/1994_1.pdf

And his book: Rudolf Hess: "Botengang eines Toren?": der Flug nach Grossbritannien vom 10. Mai 1941 (Econ, 1997)

http://www.amazon.com/Rudolf-Hess-Boten ... 66&sr=8-10

Boby,