This is an archive of past discussions about Rudolf Hess. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Added unreferenced section template to lead. Body of article looks good and thoroughly cited - an article this important should have citations in its lead though? Specifically, when using technical jargon like "neo-nazi shrine" please make sure that specific language is verifiable in the provided references, and is not merely colloquialism. Seraphimsystem (talk) 10:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
per WP:LEADCITE, citations are not required in the lead, because all information is already cited in the body. The citation for "neo-nazi shrine" is this article in TIME magazine. On Page 2, it says "The four wartime Allies announced last week that Spandau would be demolished to keep it from becoming a shrine for Nazi sympathizers." I have removed the citation needed tag. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I have found when looking for policies or guidelines, I can simply put the prefix "WP:" in front of the subject I am looking for and I will find what I need. For example, info on the lead section is at WP:LEAD; information about our copyright polict is at Wikipedia:Copyrights; and so on. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
killed in 1940s or not
I recall a radio book tour interview with a former doctor of the prisoner; I gather that's Thomas' 1979 book. I understand the British government has investigated and rejected, perhaps four times, the former doctor's claims. This has been partly discussed on this talk page. The article cites the book but without saying why. This topic, I think, is a controversy easily due weight for this article, unless there's another Wikipedia article on Hess, and apparently there is not (if there is, it should be linked to). A summary of the book's claims and of the government's response/s should be added to this article. If the doctor's claims are wrong, that is not ground for omission, but is ground for a proper editorial label, a practice used in other Wikipedia articles. That the British government investigated even if just once suggests that the topic was significantly controverted in the U.K. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Hess was not killed in the 1940's. The Hess in Spandau was the real Hess. In 2011 when the family had to exhume the bodies of the family members from Wunsiedel, a DNA test was conducted. This proved the case. (Source: Wolf Hess - grandson to Harris at Munich meeting 2015).Jtg harris (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Apologies for my awkward attempted addition to the Hess site, but this is largely due to trying to bring new information to the debate, within the confines of the structure of the existing posts.
The basic fact is that since 1992, we, (Richard Wilbourn and myself) have slowly been re-writing the history of the Hess affair. We have written 5 books on the subject and would now like to propose a major re-appraisal of the evidence that the Wikipedia site currently displays. The particular areas that should be re-visited are:
- the 1940 Haushofer letter to the Duke of Hamilton (intercepted by Censors and sent to MI5,MI6 and SOE.
- the role of Mary Violet Roberts (1864-1957).
- the role of Tancred Borenius in the affair.
- the part played by General Sikorski.
- the new information concerning the flight (see below category 7).
- the elimination of some conspiracy theories (Hess's family arranged for a DNA test when Hess was exhumed in 2011).
In short we believe it is time for a major re-appraisal. Not based on what we think, but on what we have learned and evidenced over the past 25 years or so.
I have a couple of problems with your addition. (1) You should not add material to this wiki that is sourced to your own book. (2) The wording you chose to add reads more like a conspiracy theory than a well-researched historical account. He visited a clinic; the rest is conjecture. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Hess visited the Zeileis centre at least twice (source letter to Harris from Martin Zeileis). This is actual. It is important because: 1) It provides further evidence as to Hess's use of alternative medecines, and 2) It is important because of the night of the flight Hess's adjutant Pintsch told Hess's chauffeur and security guard to drive there in an inconspicuous car. (Padfield mentions this) The two men were arrested. This too is important as it begs the question why members of Hess staff were sent to Austria? There is NO conjecture here at allJtg harris (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. However, if our work produces new information the it is difficult to not cite it. For example: We discovered that the Bf110 fuselage in Duxford did not have the necessary fitment to alow for an auxiliary oil plug.
Secondly, you accuse me of conjecture. The current wikipedia page is full of conjecture,eg.
"When he flew solo to Scotland in an attempt to negotiate peace with the United Kingdom....."
"Where he hoped to arrange peace talk with the Duke of Hamilton"
"After his death the prison was demolished"
"Hess did not build a power base or develop a coterie of followers"
"He and his friend Albrecht Haushofer"
"Hess... became increasingly sidelined from the affairs of the nation"
"Hess...by travelling there himself to seek meetings with the British government"
"Hess settled on fellow aviator Douglas Douglas-Hamilton"
"It was the last of several attempts...."
"Initially setting a course towards Bonn"
"When he reached the coast near the Frisian Islands"
"Hess continued his flight into Scotland at high speed and low altitude"
"But was unable to spot his destination, Dungavel House"
"He would have been closer to his destination..."
"Hitler ...considered it a personal betrayal".
"Questioning undertaken ...by Major Graham Donald..."
"He arrived at Maryhill barracks the next morning"
"Hess could speak English well"
"And was taken to Oxford to be stored..."
"One of which is at the RAF Museum London"
"The other engine and a piece of fuselage are at the IWM London".
"He hanged himself....."
I hope you can see that some of these are conjecture, some wrong factually. Are you content to allow incorrect information to stand? Eg. One engine is at Duxford, the other at East Fortune, Scotland. Neither are in London! The fuselage is also at Duxford.Jtg harris (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Additionally there are also the new points of relevance that have surfaced in the recent past that add substantially to the overall understanding of the affair.
What is the best way to proceed please? At present the article could have been written probably 20 years ago. It needs an update.
All the content in this article is sourced to reliable sources, including the 2011 book The Flight of Rudolf Hess: Myths and Reality, written by two historians and published in 2011. I would not consider your book as a reliable source, and the type of material you propose to add - random "facts" which you pull together to draw conclusions - is called original research, and we don't want it on this wiki, even if you've written a book of it. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree. While I find your research very intriguing, Mr. Harris, Wikipedia cannot be a forum for original research. It's just not permitted. Coretheapple (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
To put it another way, material added to a Wikipedia article must be supportable by independent reliable sources as described at WP:RS, and your own book is not an acceptable source. You are effectively adding your own original research, which is forbidden by WP:OR. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
How do you know my research isn't supported by independent reliable sources? In my view it is certainly more supportable than the nonsense such as the doppleganger theory (Thomas) and much of the completely unsupportable statements that I have listed above. Surely Thomas's work was 'original research' once and the fact that you are allowing the perpetration of a myth surely cant be right. Anyway, that is your call, so it would appear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtg harris (talk • contribs) 20:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I just wanted to mention that I removed text that you added to this page in various sections dating back several years, not signing them. If you wish to propose text, please put them together in one section at the bottom of the page, and please sign your name by typing ~~~~ at the end of what you write. That will automatically generate your name and timestamp. Coretheapple (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
How do we know that your research isn't supported by independent reliable sources? We don't, but since you haven't presented any independent reliable sources in support of it, at this point it's just your research, which we don't accept, per our no original research policy. If you've got independent reliable sources, please provide them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Dear Sirs
May I therefore test the system please?
1) The Wikipedia page currently shows an image of an Iron cross that purports to be Rudolf Hess's and is located at a Museum in Nova Scotia. There appears to be no reference for this assertion. To my knowledge the Hess iron cross was purchased by Stephen Prior (co author of Double Standards - Little Brown - 2000) and it was this purchase that got him interested in the Hess affair. McBride was at Eaglesham on 10.5.41. Quite where the Canadian reference comes from I have no idea. Stephen Prior is now dead, so the medal may have been purchased post demise, but it is the first I have heard about Canadians being anywhere near Eaglesham. Jtg harris (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I took the photo of the Hess cross that is part of the Parks Canada collection at the Halifax Citadel in Halifax, Nova Scotia. They claim the cross belonged to Rudolf Hess. I have no way to verify that. Parks Canada could probably be contacted. I think the story was that it fell into the hands of a Canadian soldier that brought it back to Canada. Hope this helps.--Hantsheroes (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
2) The article states,
"As the war progressed, Hitler's attention became focused on foreign affairs and the conduct of the war, to the exclusion of all else. Hess, not directly engaged in either of these endeavours, though he felt qualified to do so, became increasingly sidelined from the affairs of the nation and from Hitler's attention."
3) There is no mention of the January 1941 trip to Geneva by Tancred Borenius. In turn the meeting with Carl Burkhardt and the record of the discussion were relayed to Albrecht Haushofer. See the diary of Ulrich Von Hassell (First published in 1948) for full details of the potential terms for peace. (Source - Von Hassell, Ulrich - The Von Hassell diaries 1938-44. Hamish Hamilton - London 1948) Jtg harris (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
4) There is no mention of the fact that General Sikorski flew into Prestwick in a Liberator bomber on the morning of 11.5.41, a few hours after Hess had crashed 15 miles away. This is evidenced in / copied by a number of sources, following our initial discovery back in 1999. Sikorski was a colleague of Tancred Borenius (see above). Borenius was secretary of the Polish relief organization. (See London Metropolitan archives who retain the minute book).Jtg harris (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Specific reference A/FWA/C/G/08/002.Jtg harris (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
5) "Hitler ...considered it a personal betrayal"
This is nonsense and where did this statement come from? If true why did he grant Ilse Hess a pension from state funds?Jtg harris (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Specific refrence - Padfield - Hess: The Fuehrer's disciple - Cassell & Co - London 2010 - page 233Jtg harris (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
6) There is no mention of to whom the Haushofer letter of 23rd September 1940 was addressed to. This is important because the addressee, Mrs. Mary Violet Roberts was the Aunt of a leading member of SOE based at Woburn Abbey. We also know that the letter was intercepted by the Censor and was sent to MI6, MI5 and SOE. In other words, by November 1940 the Intelligence services were aware that Hess was attempting to contact the British. (See: Rudolf Hess, The British Conspiracy - John McBlain - Jema - Moulton 1992).
7) The issue of the Bf110 auxiliary oil tank has been explored above separately. Has any conclusion been reached?
"To my knowledge" ... "I have no idea" ... "Surely" ... "A number of sources" ... "This is nonsense" ... "We also know"So, you were asked to give supporting references, and you have almost completely failed to do so. Even the sources you refer to have no specific citations, just a hand-waving "see..." Once again, if you expect the things "you know" to be included in the article, you must provide specific references to specific reliable mainstream sources, especially since your thesis appears to be antirely on the fringes of generally accepted history. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Dear Ken
I will add supporting references later today. But surely this works both ways? I know you will be unable to do so for the issues I have listed, so what happens then? Do you allow inaccuracies to stand?
1. The photo was taken by User:Hantsheroes and he is still an active contributor. If you wish to question the validity of the photo that would be the place to start.
"To the best of his knowledge the medal is genuine" - Why is he allowed to cite original research? (The medal may be genuine, but it isnt Rudolf Hess's).Jtg harris (talk) 09:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
2. Each statement in the article is sourced to at least one reliable source. As part of bringing this article to Good Article status, which is a formal review process, I personally re-wrote all the content top to bottom using several books, which are listed in the bibliography. Multiple sources were checked for each point in the article and cross-checked against the other available sources to verify. The citations for your point #2 are Evans 2008, p. 167; Shirer 1960, p. 837; Sereny 1996, p. 321. The books are listed in the bibliography.
(Sorry, it cant be, there are just errors of fact. The engines and fuselage for example) 22:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
How do these authors know what Hess was thinking? He was either dead or in Spandau when the books you cite were being written.Jtg harris (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
You may consider them reliable, that is your shout. However, how on earth can you then conclude that "(Hess ......'felt qualified to do so'). I would suggest that the only person who could express that opinion was Hess himself, and he certainly has not been cited, being at Spandau at the time. What you are doing is interpreting the contents of the books you mention to come to your own conclusion. This is surely original research of your own.Jtg harris (talk) 09:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
3. You have not made it clear what the relevance of this trip is or how it relates to Hess. One of the Good Article requirements is that we stay on-topic, so this information would not be included for that reason.
This trip is wholly on topic as it is a specific peace proposal that was discussed both by the German resistance and Rudolf Hess, through the intermediary Albrecht Haushofer. The specific refrence is yet again the Von Hassell diaries which I have cited above.Jtg harris (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I don't agree that this info is relevant enough to include. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC) I suggest you read the Von Hassell Diaries. Your opinion may then change.Jtg harris (talk) 09:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
4. You have not made it clear what the relevance of this is or how it relates to Hess.
You are quite right, it may be a coincidence that the leader of the Polish Government in Exile flew into Prestwick the morning after Hess had crashed no more than 15 miles away. However, when one then analyses the highly dangerous nature of embarking such a flight one might think it worthy of at least a mention.Jtg harris (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I don't agree that this info is relevant enough to mention. If we mention it, it looks like we are drawing the conclusion that the events are related, and we're not allowed to draw conclusions. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC) BUT, you do draw conclusions, see 2.aboveJtg harris (talk) 09:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
5. Sereny 1996, p. 240. In other words, Albert Speer told this to Gitta Sereny during their hundreds of hours of interviews. I don't know the answer to your question about the pension; what we can't source we can't include. Speer is not Hess. Jtg harris (talk) 09:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually, looking closer, I see that the source you provide for the other letter is your own book, and we can't use that as a source. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, please refer to Motive for a Mission by James Douglas Hamilton -Hamish Hamilton, London 1970. This deals with the Haushofer / Duke of Hamilton correspondence in part.Jtg harris (talk) 09:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
7. Only parts of the aircraft are still extant; one engine is at the Royal Air Force Museum London, and another engine and a piece of the fuselage is at the Imperial War Museum in London. You personally examined these scraps and made a determination; that's called original research. We can't include it, as our policy does not allow us to do so. Each statement in the article must be supportable by independent reliable sources as described at WP:RS. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 12:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
This was a mess, and I sensed that Jtg harris was losing his cool, so I have refactored and cut out some shouting. I understand there is a discussion here about sources and the exact content of the article. Jtg harris disputes your last statement about the engines, Diannaa. Going forward, how will we solve this disagreement? --John (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Please refer to the photographs of the crashed aircraft that are present in the article. There's more at commons:Category:Messerschmitt Bf 110 3869. In particular File:The Flight of Rudolf Hess To Britain 1941 H9553.jpg shows the disastrous condition of the aircraft in situ at the crash site. It's obvious from these photos that not all of the pieces, especially of the fuselage, ended up in museums. The location of the two engines and the main piece of fuselage were sourced to Nesbit and Van Acker, page 72-73 and I have double checked. The book states one engine is at the Royal Air Force Museum London which is located inside the former Hendon Aerodrome. It states the fuselage and the other engine are at the IWM in London. The photos at the Commons show one engine and the fuselage at the IWM London as of 2011, but the photos indicate the other engine was at the National Museum of Flight in East Lothian, Scotland as of 2008. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry but this is nonsense. Dianna is yet again citing out of date information. In around 2012 the IWM in London was refurbished and the Hess engine and fuselage was moved to Duxford. It was there that we made our discovery about the oil tank so to be told that the parts were not there is pretty frustrating. We have also seen the other engine at East Fortune and sundry parts at RAF Stafford. There are other odds and ends in a Police Museum in Glasgow and the RAF Museum in Hendon. We have traced the provenance of most of the parts, for instance the Scottish engine came from the old Science Museum in Newcastle. The rear tail plane is also at East Fortune, but not on public display. I do have a photograph.
Throughout the Hess affair there has been misinformation and this just makes the refining of the truth more difficult. I had hoped Wikipedia would not be guilty.
I would still propose an update of the article, but why do you choose to believe the Canadian chaps medal story ( which is also wrong) but not me?
If you are prepared to consider my suggestions then I will contribute in full. Otherwise you can continue to display an outdated, inaccurate and incomplete version of events. Jtg harris (talk) 07:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I was able to confirm that the fuselage and one engine are at Duxford; see http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30083938. Searching the website for the East Fortune museum (https://www.nms.ac.uk/national-museum-of-flight/) turns up nothing. Searching the Royal Air Force Museum London website (https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/) also turns up nothing. I have removed the location of these items from the article as it appears to be out of date. Per our verifiability policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, content added to the encyclopedia has to be cited to a verifiable published source, so we can't take your word for it as to the location of these items. That's not how Wikipedia works. Likewise, we can't accept your original research on the oil tank question, because to do so would violate the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No original research. I have been thinking about one of your other points, which was the statement about how Hess felt. I found it in Evans but he doesn't say where he got the information so I decided to take it out. I have removed the image of the medal, as we have no way to verify its authenticity. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 08:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
To resolve the above issues why not have a separate section on 'Alternative theories'? I would be pleased to write a draft and given the Hess affair is well known for them I would have thought it should add to the site, not detract?Jtg harris (talk) 09:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
We don't typically give fringe theories the same weight as the more established explanations, and I don't agree with including an 'Alternative theories' section. And at the risk of sounding like a broken record, let me repeat that adding theories based on your own research is not permitted per our policy prohibiting original research. The three points raised since I last commented here on the talk page have already been dealt with: namely, I removed the photo of the medal; I removed Evans's speculation on Hess's feelings raised in point #2; and I removed the information about the location of the engines and fuselage, since it's clear that the information present in the article was out of date. Sourcing to a Commons photo is not a reliable source, because it's a wiki. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you, Diannaa. I wasn't offering the photo as a possible source but as a data point that places our previous statement about the engines' location in doubt. I'm glad you've removed it. I don't actually think the whereabouts of the different parts of the Bf 110 are all that essential in the article. I also agree with you on not wanting a controversy section. Jtg harris, if other respected authors start referring to your theories we could give them some substantial coverage in the article. If not then it's a mention at best, and maybe not even that. On the other hand, I am sure with your knowledge and attention to detail you could help prune out and hone the article some more. --John (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I thought it was an interesting detail but if they're going to be moving the stuff about it's better to leave it out. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
questions over cause of death
There are a number of claims hess was murdered on August 17, 1987,It all started with a BBC broadcast on February 28, 1989, in which Abdallah Melaouhi, who had been Hess’s medical attendant at Spandau since August 1982, contradicted the official suicide statement. Melaouhi said that when he entered the temporary summer house in the garden where Hess was said to have hanged himself, he saw that “everything was topsy-turvy, yet the [lamp] cord was in its normal place and still plugged into the wall.” Two Americans in uniform were also there, further arousing the Tunisian orderly’s suspicions. Hess’s son, Wolf Rüdiger Hess, and Alfred Seidl, Rudolf Hess’s lawyer at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials. They noted that the elder Hess was in poor shape, medically speaking, and that the arthritis in his fingers was so bad that he could not even tie his shoes, let alone fashion a noose made from a lamp cord. They also asserted that a suicide note was forged.In addition, in their minds, the two Americans in uniform were, in fact, two secret British MI6 agents who strangled Hess to death.The Hess family, too, remained suspicious about the official story of how the 93-year-old prisoner died, and so hired Dr. Wolfgang Spann to perform a second autopsy. Spann’s detailed examination of the marks on Hess’s neck reportedly revealed a different cause of death than that of the Four Powers’ pathologist, J.M. Cameron. Spann’s report noted that Hess had died from strangulation, not by hanging with an electrical cord! However, Spann publicly stated, “We can’t prove a third hand participated in the death of Rudolf Hess. I think it highly unlikely Hess killed himself, shall we say his suicide has been debated. Amy foster (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Is there a reliable source that buys into this theory? The BBC just reported it, which is not the same thing - we need a reputable historian(s) who thinks the story is plausible, otherwise including it is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Not exactly. What it says is that a single individual reported a complex conspiracy theory involving a fake Hess, and SAS assassins dressed as American servicemen, that the British authorities did not find "much of substance" in the claim, and that, after an investigation, there was found "no cogent evidence" to support it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Photos taken by a British Spandau guard in the 1980s show that Prisoner Seven was, unmistakably, Rudolf Hess and no one else. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5301897/Last-pictures-Hitler-deputy-Rudolf-Hess-note.html (No apology for citing the Mail, because you only have to look at the pictures, which include the notorious summer house, and you can see who it is.) The British government, far from wanting Hess silenced, had been pressing for his release since as early as 1956. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40647291 There is no reason to suppose that Hess held any information compromising to the British government. Had Churchill, or the King, been offering peace terms to Germany in 1941, this sensational news would have been known to Hitler's circle, yet Goering and Speer had never heard of any such thing and nor had anyone else. The claim that Hess might not have hanged himself was made by a pathologist privately hired and paid by Hess's family who wanted that particular finding made, and, as when the defence in a criminal trial hire an expert to say what the defence requires, the person paying the piper calls the tune. All conspiracy theories are always false. They are a psychological tactic pursued by narcissists to make themselves feel clever and superior. If they were not false, everyone would agree to them and the narcissists would have to move on to some other, more unacceptable theory in order to feel special.Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Red Revolutionary
According to the article on the Bavarian Soviet Republic "Hess was actively serving in the Bavarian Red Army, telling his parents in an April 23, 1919, letter not to worry, and that his unit was not experiencing "any unrest at all. Yesterday we had an orderly march with red flags, nothing else out of the ordinary" and said statement is cited. Now I haven't actually read the book cited but that presents a very different picture from this article, which mentions him as being a member of the "right-wing" Thule Society and the (presumably) right wing Freikorps in that year. It seems to me that there should be a separate section dedicated to the post-war, but pre-Hitler phase of his life - that could offer some more information on the subject and inform the reader why he was a member of both the Thule Society and the Red Guards, which, at least to the general public, would seem to be very much at odds with one another. Either this article is misleading or that one is - I admit I don't know enough on the subject to say which or I would make the edits myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyndane5 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, we had better take a look at the book (Thomas Weber, Becoming Hitler: The Making of a Nazi (2017)) first, not only to verify the information presented in the other article, but also to try to straighten out any timeline issues. I know that Goebbels was a leftie before he met Hitler, but I've never heard that of the young Hess. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, I have the book in hand, and the citation from it does not support the contention that Hess was in the Bavarian Red Army. It says:
Yet soon afterward, a sense of normalcy returned to Munich. For instance, Rudolf Heß, Hitler's future deputy, who recently had moved to Munich and now lived on Elisabethstraße, close to the barracks in which Hitler resided at the time, did not think the Soviet Republic was something worth getting upset about: "Going by what the foreigh papers are writing, there seem to be the most Neanderthal rumours about Munich. – However I can report that it is and was wholly quiet here," Heß wrote to his parents on April 23. "I have not experienced any unrest at all. Yesterday we had an orderly march with red flags, nothing else out of the ordinary."
As you can see, it says nothing about Hess being in the Red Army, and his statement "We had an orderly march" does not mean that he was a participant in such a march, but that such a march took place in Munich, much as I would say "We had the New York Marathon yesterday" or "We had snow last week." I have removed the claim and the citation from the Bavarian Soviet Republic article, and a whole lot more as well, as the article was full of WP:FRINGE claims which are not, to my knowledge, accepted by the community of historians. I invite other editors familiar with the subject to go over the article with a fine-toothed comb. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, kudos to you, BMK for investigating the claim. Also, I wanted to add that Thomas Weber as a resource of Hitler's young life (WWI) and the time thereafter, needs to be cross-checked with other RS sources when he is used as I have found RS historians who do not agree with all of his conclusions. But, a greater problem seems to be how Weber is used in articles by POV-pushing editors. Kierzek (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, maybe I'll back off from that statement a bit. After updating People's State of Bavaria and Bavarian Soviet Republic by going through a bunch of books in my library (Shirer, Kershaw, Bullock, Fest, etc.), I find that they all pretty much agree on what happened, and who did what when. When I started skimming Weber's Becoming Hitler, he seemed to be telling a very different story. I'd have to actually read it to be certain, but for the moment I'm not putting any faith in the book, as it appears to be an outlier. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Last year I made some suggestions as to the Hess page, including what were deemed to be 'original research' and so were completely ignored. I also made some incidental comments which eventually were reflected in amendments to the page.
This years attempt starts as follows:
1) What authority is being used to evidence that Hess committed suicide in 1987?
2) Why is he described as being 'the third most powerful man in Germany?'
3) Hess flew a Bf Me108 prior to the war. What evidence is there that he 'learned to fly the more advanced aircraft that were coming into development?' Hitler had banned Hess from flying for a year in September 1939.
4) Why was he going to 'arrange peace talks with the Duke Hamilton'? The Duke of Hamilton wasn't in a position to talk peace with anyone. He was a serving officer in the RAF.
5) What evidence is there that the Soviets blocked his release?
6) No mention of Borenius peace mission - January 1941.
7) Proof of statement that Hess had never met Hamilton?
8) Proof of statement concerning the route towards Bonn?
9) You are describing the discredited flight plan drawn in 1942 and quoting it as gospel.
10) The statement about it not being dark so Hess zizagged is nonsense. This action was as a result of Hess' use of the ELEKTRA system of navigation (which is not even maentioned).
11) He did not head to the Clyde to orientate himself. If this was the case why did the West Kilbride ROC record him as being at sea level?
12) No mention of the role of the RAF Ayr Defiant of Cuddie and Hodge.
13) The description of Hitler's reaction is not as evidenced. The initial reaction was muted until the outcome became apparent.
14) We need to check reference 74.
15) Why grant Ilse Hess a pension if he really ordered Hess to be shot on site? Reference?
16) The initial interrogation was by Roman Battaglia, a Polish intelligence officer. Not Major Donald.
17) There is evidence that the Duke of Hamilton left his base during the night of 10th / 11th May.
18) Hess could not speak English well. He could understand it and Ilse Hess was fluent, but he was not.
19) Evidence of plane being taken to Oxford? It was actually taken to Liverpool for study after a prospective round Britain exhibition was cancelled whilst AT Oxford.
I hope these questions are enough to start with. In short the current article is outdated and still has errors of fact and interpretation. What is the best way to debate the above please? Jtg harris (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Unless you've got some new sources to present the outcome of this will be the same as last time. Thanks though for the tip about content sourced to Sereny 1996 page 240; I have the book here and the citation doesn't check out. I have removed it. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The 'outcome' as you choose to call it, was that on virtually every point I made you eventually changed the article itself. You still refuse to countenance the research that Richard Wilbourn and I have conducted over many years, but that does not mean it is wrong, simply that you will not consider it. That is your shout.
"...the research that Richard Wilbourn and I have conducted", big issues right there, to start; WP:POV and WP:OR. You need WP:RS secondary sources from historians that back up things you believe should be added or changed. Kierzek (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
You can find the answers to most of your questions by reading the books used to prepare this article. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Dear Diana, if we read the same books as you we would come to the same flawed conclusions that you seek to perpetuate.
So, addressing issue no.1. Wikipedia states categorically that Hess committed suicide.
Counter evidence:
Hess died on 17th August 1987. On 19th August 1987, Professor JM Cameron, MD PhD FRCS FRCPath conducted an autopsy.
On 21st August Professor Doctor MED.DOCTOR MED.HC Wolfgang Spann (Professor Emeritus of the University of Munich, Institute of the Forensic Medecine, 80337 Munich Frauenlobstrasse 7a) conducted a second autopsy, together with Professor Doctor Eisenmenger. Also present were Alfred Seidl (Hess's lawyer at Nuremberg) and Police officer Nefzger of the Munich criminal investigations department.
The conclusion to the second autopsy was,
"We are of the opinion that the diagnosis of death stated in the death certificate is by no means established. Although we agree that the cause of death was asphyxia due to compression of the neck, we do not consider that suspension has been proved to be the cause of death. Our findings indicate rather that death occurred as a result of throttling".
As a result of the second autopsy an application was made on April 24th 1995 to amend the death certificate that had been issued on the basis of the Cameron autopsy. Accompanying the application were various affadavits by Professor Spann, Wolf Hess and others in support of the application.
The reaction of the British Registrar of Births and Deaths (Overseas Section) was made on August 2nd 1995.
It was decided that the original death certificate had been incorrectly issued and was being cancelled. This sidestepped the issue.
Unfortunately, Wolf Hess died before mounting a formal request to the amend the death certificate, which could have led to a judicial review.
The other issue that should be addressed is why this became a British matter when the USA were in charge of Spandau in August 1987, by reason of the usual rotational basis.
So, come on Diana, I hope that there is much more to this issue than simply stating that Hess committed suicide.
(Sources: Rudolf Hess and Germany's Reluctant war - Alfred Smith - The Book Guild - Lewes 2000 - see Appendix 8 (pgs 450 - 456) for full autopsy report)
Please read WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia does not investigate, and we do not speculate, we report the views of the consensus of established experts on a subject. When you provide a litany of reliable sources to support your contentions, then they can be considered, but as it is, what you've got is conjecture, speculation, suspicions, and conspiracy theorism. These are not sufficient to warrant inclusion in a Wikipedia article, and will continue to be insufficient until the majority of historians who specialize in this subject agree with your suspicions. Until that happens, we will continue to report that Hess committed suicide. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry ken, but this is nonsense. The above are facts, not speculation. Are you saying the autopsy did not take place and the application to amend the death certificate did not take place? Are you saying that the original death certificate is still in situ?
You are welcome to your beliefs, but the consensus of historians does not agree with you. What you have is a theory, one that is not subscribed to by mainstream historians. If you wish to publicize it, I'd recommend starting a blog, because your theory won't be advanced in this article under any circumstance other then that it is generally accepted by experts in the field. That's the way we work, and it's not going to change for you.I'm also going to gtive you fair warning: please read WP:NOTAFORUM. If you continue to push your theory on this talk page, without providing the requisite citations from multiple reliable sources which shows that your speculation is accepted by the majority of expert historians, your comments will start to be deleted as being in violation of Wikipedia policy.I hope that's clear. What we need from you is not more disconnected "facts", not your own "research", not personal beliefs, speculation and conspiracy theories. The one and only thing we need from you is proof that your ideas are widely accepted among subject experts. Anything else is subject to deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
What I believe is irrelevant. What I have done above is quoted from a published autopsy. An autopsy that was carried out by a leading German Professor. I fail to see why Wikipedia discount his findings. It is nothing to do with personal beliefs, speculation and conspiracy theories.07:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Jtg harris (talk) 07:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
What you have done is a prime example of WP:SYNTHESIS. You have drawn conclusions from a smattering of "facts", but we can't (and won't) accept that for inclusion in our article. You need to have an expert draw those conclusions, not you. Your continuing to argue otherwise is going to get you nowhere, except to continue to alienate people. 21:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Point No2. "He was the third most powerful man in Germany".
This statement appears to refer to 1933, when the Nazi's had first assumed power. I presume that the writer thought Hitler and Goering to be No.1 and No.2, with Hess as third. However, what about Roehm, or Himmler? Intellectually, possibly Rosenberg or Goebbels? Much depends upon your definition of power I suspect.Jtg harris (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I think that is a reasonable objection, and since the statement is not referenced in the lede, and is not repeated in the body of the article. I have tagged it with "citation needed". It may simply need to be deleted, as rankings of who is most powerful are necessarily subjective (with the exception of Hitler himself) and fluxuate over time.As to the alternatives for #3 you propose, at the time of the seizure of power, Himmler was not nearly as powerful as he would eventually become, while Rohm's power was fairly limited to his ability to cause disruption via use of the SA. Rosenberg was influential for a time, but never that powerful except in the cultural field (where he struggled with Goebbels), and Goebbels himself would not really accrue personal power until later, when the "Total War" campaign began. Even Göring at #2 would lose that placement once his Luftwaffe failed to defeat Britain and then couldn't resupply the surrounded army at Stalingrad, not to mention the abject failure of the Four-Year Plan he headed. At some point Himmler has to be considered the second most powerful man in Nazi German, and perhaps Speer as #3 -- but, as I said, these "rankings" are subjective. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Having thought about it a bit, I think the point that was attempting to be made was that Hess was second in line to suceed Hitler, after Göring, a point which is covered in the body of the article, so I have rewritten the statement in the lede to clarify that. That totally eliminated the subjective ranking of who is "most powerful". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Hess and flying
Point Number 3
"Hess flew a Bf Me108 prior to the war. What evidence is there that he 'learned to fly the more advanced aircraft that were coming into development?' Hitler had banned Hess from flying for a year in September 1939."
At the very least a citation is required here. Hess was banned from flying from September 1939 to September 1940 so how did he 'learn to fly the more advanced aircraft that were coming into development?" The Bf Me108 he was flying was a civilian aircraft.
Point No 4
"Why was he going to 'arrange peace talks with the Duke Hamilton'? The Duke of Hamilton wasn't in a position to talk peace with anyone. He was a serving officer in the RAF."
This is a very important statement that has been made, but one that bears very little scrutiny indeed. There are two options. It is correct or incorrect. If correct (a citation should be provided) an explanation should surely be given as to why Hess needed to fly to Scotland to 'arrange peace talks'. That could be done remotely. If correct, how was Hess to meet with Hamilton? Why was he to land? How was Hamilton going to arrange peace talks?
If incorrect, then what was Hess doing?
This statement should at the very least be caveated or cited by a 'leading historian'. It is too important to get wrong.Jtg harris (talk) 07:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Point 5
What evidence is there that the Soviets blocked his release?
This is an interesting issue in that the usual (un-cited) assertion is that it was the Russians who denied Hess his release on account of the disastrous effects of Barbarossa. Quite understandable. BUT. This was the case in the early days of the Hess imprisonment. Quite understandable.
However, in 1987, the attitude changed. Russia was running out of money and on 31st March 1987 Wolf Hess met with Vladimir Grimin, Ambassadorial adviser to the Soviet Embassy, East Berlin. There was talk of a release. At the same time, Margaret Thatcher was meeting Gorbachev in Moscow and again indications of a release started. Then in August 1987 Hess died.
In short, initially there was the obvious reason for Russia to block Hess's release. Quite understandably. However, in 1987, the time was changing, Russia was running out of money. So, please advise where the quotation comes from.Jtg harris (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The problem with the wikipedia approach to Rudolf Hess
I can quite understand that Wikipedia will not allow any random character to inflict their own views on a particular subject. Nor should they, particularly when the subject is as sensitive as the Hess affair. However, the problem with the Hess case is that the German government statement of 13th May 1941 (Hess went mad and jumped in an aircraft) still is essentially setting the Agenda. Consequently, this is not an easy subject to decipher. There has been misinformation, secret service involvement and a plethora of interpretative nonsense occasioned by the fact that there has never been a Government statement (US, Russian, French or UK) explaining what happened and why. Never an enquiry, never a press release.
Consequently the references that Wikipedia cite and quote are actually as much in the dark as anyone else, save for the fact that they published their books first. There has certainly never been an explanatory work by say an Oxbridge academic. Why? Simply because Hugh Trevor Roper showed the dangers of getting it wrong (when wrongly authenticating the Hitler diaries in 1983). It can blight careers.
However, to disregard factual information simply because it does not come from a previously quoted reference must be wrong. The issue of the second autopsy is a case in point. The autopsy took place and its findings have been published. That is not speculation nor a random fact. So, to not even refer to evidence that casts doubt on the wikipedia suicide statement must be wrong. Moreover, John Harris did not conduct the autopsy, trying to make a particular point, a reputable professional did.
All that is happening at present is that the wikipedia approach is simply perpetuating an explanation that simply does not stand scrutiny. I will continue my list of questions. Surely wikipedia has a duty to its readers?Jtg harris (talk) 07:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia's duty to its readers is to present the views of reliable sources and not random facts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC) But surely history is a continuing series of facts that sometimes combine to create memorable events? Jtg harris (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Why is the doubt surrounding Jeffrey Epstein’s death allowed to be recorded on Wikipedia, yet that surrounding Hess’s death (which is clearly documented ) is not? Jtg harris (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Point 5 - Tancred Borenius
Any number of works quote the correspondence that followed the meeting between Hess and Karl Haushofer on 31st August 1940. (Motive for a Mission - Hamilton, The truth about Rudolf Hess - Hamilton, Flight for the Fuhrer - Padfield). This was essentially an attempt by Hess to write to the Duke of Hamilton, via a letter dated 23rd September 1940. It was sent using the Thomas Cook postal system and so was addressed to PO Box 506, Lisbon.
We also know that the letter was retained by the censor and copies sent to MI5, MI6 and SOE.(PRO INF 1/912). That was November 1940. In January 1941 Tancred Borenius, a Finnish Art Historian was sent to Geneva, to speak with Carl Burckhardt, then a leading member of the International Red Cross. We know this from 4 sources:
- The Von Hassell diaries (first published 1948).
- The archives of the Polish Relief fund (housed in the London metropolitan archives)
- The Haushofer report to Hitler on the Hess affair, dated 12th May 1941
- An interview John Harris had with Borenius's son, Lars.
The contents of the meeting between Borenius and Burckhardt are documented in the Von Hassell diaries as is the fact that Burckhardt then passed the information on to the anti-Hitler resistance, including Albrecht Haushofer. The diaries make clear that this took place no later than 10th March. This is not speculation or theory the diaries are quite clear and wikipedia has a detailed article on Von Hassell, so are presumably content in this regard too.Jtg harris (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
So, there is no doubt that Borenius travelled to Geneva in January 1941 to talk peace. That much is clear. However, in addition to this task, we also know from the Cazalet Diaries (now housed at Eton College, Windsor) that Borenius was in contact with both Cazalet (the British / Polish liaison officer) and General Sikorski himself, in part by reason of Borenius' position as secretary to the Polish Relief fund. Given that Sikorski also flew into Scotland on 11th May 1941, this is a significant coincidence at the very least.Jtg harris (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
If Wikipedia are really interested in the truth should there not be a response? Any response? You can guarantee that were I to edit the main page on that basis all hell would let loose......... Jtg harris (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
False implication being added to article
An editor is adding language to the article which implies that the Nazis' gains in the elections of July and November 1932 led inevitably to the appointment of Hitler as Chancellor. This is, in fact, not the case. The Nazis did become the largest party in the Reichstag in the July election, but they did not have a majority, merely a plurality, and they subsequently lost some seats in the November election. Despite being the largest party, they were unable on both occasions to forge a coalition with another party which would result in a majority. If they had been able to do this, Hitler would have become a parliamentary chancellor, but that is not what happened. Had it occurred, then it would be proper to state the causality between their electoral success in July 1932 and Hitler becoming Cancellor.
With no parliamentary majority possible, Hindenburg would (as he had done for some time) appoint a presidential chancellor, but he was utterly opposed to Hitler being that chancellor, especially considering that Hitler had just run against him for President. At one point Hindenburg offered the vice-chancellorship, but Hitler turned this down. It took back room dealings, conspiracy, and the bribing of Hindenburg, all orchestrated by former Chancellor von Papen and other conservative nationalists, for Hitler to finally be appointed, grudgingly, by Hindenburg. It is those negotiations and horse-trading that lead directly to Hitler's appointment, not the Nazi Party's gains in the 1932 election.
Adding language which implies a direct connection between the two events is deceptive to the reader, unless the entire circumstance is spelled out, but that is not the subject of this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I believe that the aspect ratio of the infobox image in this article is such that presented at the infobox's default value it is too large, the visual equivalent of SHOUTING. I suggest that the current size is more appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Interesting! Now we can debunk this old yet popular theory. According to the source:
And this wasn't just a crackpot theory. President Roosevelt doubted Hess's identity, as did Allen Dulles of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and Hess's Spandau prison doctor Hugh Thomas, who claimed that the prisoner didn't have Hess's chest scars and that his dental work was different. Though much of the physical evidence has since been refuted, the question of Hess's identity still had a question mark over it.
It had some very notable and important believers. Historic even. Our article fails to mention any of this. -- GreenC03:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
This is notable enough for a mention. See WAPO for a mainstream news source. It shouldn't be more than a few sentences, though. Zerotalk01:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
naming error "Deputy Führer" vs "Deputy of the Führer"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is a repeating naming error in the article. In Nazi Germany, only Hitler was called "Führer". Therefore his deputy Rudolf Hess was called „Stellvertreter des Führers“ (StdF) which would translate into "Deputy of the Führer". HistoryTransparent (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Sources describe him as "Deputy Führer" and that would be the usual way for us to translate his title. The literal translation is not as relevant as what the source documents have to say. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@Diannaa: The Wikipedia articles about the Nazi time seem to have some misconceptions, one being the misconception about the position "Führer", see also my comment at the talk page of "Nazi Party", link Talk:Nazi_Party#naming_error_"Führer"_vs_"Chairman". I don't know how it happened that nobody complained having three persons mentioned as "Führer" in the info box of the Nazi Party article. I can only assume that this is a Wikipedia vicious cirle, like people learn about Nazi history by reading Wikipedia articles and therefore misconceptions can spread. I can assure you that every history professional would instantly comment that it is inconceivable to have different persons listed for the position "Führer". Concerning the translation "Deputy Führer" in this article, maybe you could be so kind to name or cite those sources using this translation. Maybe those sources are dated after the creation of Wikipedia and even influenced by Wikipedia. At least I can assure you it is a less than optimal translation.--HistoryTransparent (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The sources for this article are right there in the citations. Wolf Rüdiger Hess, Shirer, Evans 2008, and this source all use the terminology "Deputy Führer". If you've got sources that describe Hess as "Deputy of the Führer" please post them below. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be a Wikipedia Glossary of Nazi Germany that lists the translation “Deputy of the Führer”.
Also there are abundant sources using this translation, like: 1948: Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, Proceedings / Raul Hilberg 1971: Documents of destruction; Germany and Jewry, 1933-1945 / Jeremy Noakes and Geoffrey Pridham 1983: Nazism, 1919-1945: State, economy, and society, 1933-1939 / Ute Deichmann and Thomas Dunlap 1999: Biologists under Hitler / Roderick Stackelberg 2002: The Nazi Germany Sourcebook / Detlef Muhlberger 2004: Hitler's Voice: The Volkischer Beobachter, 1920-1933 / Ulfried Geuter 2008: Cambridge Studies in the History of Psychology: The Professionalization of Psychology in Nazi Germany )
Maybe it is easier to see it like that I was merely giving a hint including reasoning what translation would reflect history and what seems to be a misconception. The answer that “sources would describe him as ‘Deputy Führer’ “ would only help if one neglected those sources that say the opposite, like the sources above. The claim that it would be the usual way for “us” to translate Hess’ title doesn’t help either as it sounds like there is an “us” who knows the truth and others (me?) who wouldn’t understand or know it.
Perhaps it helps if I explain it from another angle: If the translation “Deputy Führer” reflected correctly the historical meaning of Hess’ position, then the German original would have been “Stellvertretender Führer” what would be the normal German language way to describe any organizational “deputy” position. But this wasn’t the case as there was no normal organizational position “Führer”, as “Führer” meant only the person Hitler himself. That is the reason for the unusual and more complicated German name “Stellvertreter des Führers” instead of “Stellvertretender Führer”.
You could also translate it correctly into “Führer’s deputy” as I don’t have a personal preference.
But the translation “Deputy Führer” would mean that there is a normal position “Führer” (whoever holds it) and then there is a deputy to that position (and not to the specific person Hitler). This would be consistent with the misconception in the article “Nazi Party” as I mentioned earlier.HistoryTransparent (talk) 11:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
It is easy to find each of "Deputy Führer", "Deputy of the Führer" and "Führer's Deputy" many times. I don't think the consensus of sources is clear on this. If there is a source that discusses the issue, that may help. Zerotalk19:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I have added the actual German terminology and showed this as translating to "Deputy of the Leader" because "Führer" is not actually an English word (though most people know what it means). I think many historians use "Deputy Fuhrer" as a kind of shorthand. Several translations are possible. Google translates it as "Deputy Leader". — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for acting, I didn't want to change this without previous discussion or "agreement". Historic reality should now be better reflected, hopefully also the basis for any missunderstandings should have been reduced by this HistoryTransparent (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
What must be remembered is that English translations of German titles and words used herein can be subject to more than one translation as shown when used in WP:RS sources. What Diannaa cited is therefore not wrong, but with that said, at times discernment and consensus comes into play. Kierzek (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Nobody who speaks English as their native language would use the phrase "deputy to the leader" when "deputy leader" would do. They both have exactly the same meaning in English. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
The content in this article is sourced to Evans 2003 page 194, which I have here, and have verified. The content at Beer Hall Putsch has no sources and appears to have been copied from de:Hitlerputsch, which cites Mein Kampf as the source of the number and the list of dead. I have a copy here, and the list is from the dedication page (page v in my edition). Shirer says 16. Bear says 16. So I think we should change it; looks like Evans got it wrong. I will go ahead and do that now. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
It was Hess's mistaken belief that Hamilton could do that. Hess believed Hamilton was the leader of a British opposition party and had the ear of the King, but Hess was wrong about these things. Hamilton was not actually a powerful person; he was an MP but not a party leader. See Nesbit and Acker page 30; Shirer page 836.— Diannaa🍁 (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, but Hess was not stupid and moreover given the flight was at least 6 months in the making, how did he know/ think that the Duke might conveniently be at home on 10th May 1941? Sorry, this doesn’t wash.
Nesbit and Acker page 30 describes the flight as "unexpected"; it states on page 33 that Hess and Haushofer had received no reply to their letter of the previous November. Nesbit & van Acker says this on page 61: Hess's flight had been achieved with quite remarkable accuracy, but now the flaws in his previous intelligence began to show up. Perhaps he hoped that he would simply be able to knock on the door of Dungavel House and be ushered into the Duke's presence by the butler. However,...his potential host was not at home. Hamilton was on duty at RAF Turnhouse near Edinburgh when Hess arrived. Hess did meet with Hamilton at Maryhill Barracks the next morning (Nesbit & van Acker 2011, pp. 61–63). Shirer describes the flight as a "bizarre incident" and Hess as a "muddled man" and "deluded" (page 835). Evans (2008, pp 167-168) describes Hess as "never the sharpest of the Nazi minds", "resentful and befuddled", "mental confusion and lack of realism". — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry Diannaa, but what if Nesbit and Van Acker are simply wrong? We are being led to believe that Hess risked his life on a whim? Jtg harris (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Jtg, this is a forum and not a page for endless WP:OR discussion. You have received detail WP:RS responses from Diannaa, so either cite some on point counter RS or I would suggest moving on. There is not always a nice neat logical answer that fits like a bow tie, especially when dealing with people and history. Kierzek (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
The simple fact is that the current Wikipedia page does not make sense it stand scrutiny. The choice is stark; it either wishes to persist with a false version of events, or instead consider alternative evidence. That is why I am posting on the talk page. Hopefully we may eventually then lead to the truth. Jtg harris (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I am very happy to give alternative evidence;: I have written 6 books on the subject and have plenty of reliable referenced evidence. Unfortunately Wikipedia classify it as ‘original reearch’ And so will not allow. Consequently we are left with a version of events that just do not stand scrutiny, largely based on the NSDAP communique of 12.5.41. That was issued prior to Hitler knowing if Hess had been successful. Sorry to bang on but this is important. Jtg harris (talk) 08:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry Dianna, but we are odds again. You have just allowed a load of hogwash to be printed with regards to the Hess / Haushofer meeting on 31st August 1940. The meeting was not at Haushofer's house, it was in the Grunwald Forest, south of Munich and was between Hess and Karl Haushofer. No one else. This is all as clearly stated in the American Archives and also the Haushofer papers in Koblenz. The flight description is also nonsense. James Douglas Hamilton makes the point in his works (Motive for a Mission etc etc).
This site needs a major rethink or else you are just going to perpetuate nonsense, unless of course that is your objective.User:jtg harris —Preceding undated comment added 20:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea where your correspondent has obtained the apparent fact that Hess and Haushofer 'met at Haushofer's house' on 31st August 1940 for 'most of the day'. This is nonsense, like much of the site I am afraid. If Dianna chose to look at 'Motive for a Mission' by James Douglas Hamilton she would find the Haushofer transcripts of the meeting that were clearly stated as being in the Grunwald Forest and between Hess and Karl Haushofer (only). These papers were taken by the American at the end of WW2 and ended up in Alexandria, Virginia, where they were archived.
This is very basic stuff and the Haushofer papers have been available since 1947. I would be interested to learn how Dianna was happy to allow the meeting to have taken place in a different location between different people?
At present this site is a mess. It is currently a reflection of inaccurate information (such as above),together with citations that are based on books, some long out of date, or themselves based on information that was speculation at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.129.74.45 (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Jtg harris (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)jtg harris 22.5.2020.
I haven't read any of the Harris-Wilbourn books, but an Amazon review of the most recent one suggested that it is not properly written or referenced, severely limiting its value as history. Neither of the authors is an historian and they appear to be floating a bizarre conspiracy theory that the Polish government-in-exile was colluding with the Nazis (of all the unlikely eventualities), and with the connivance of the British royal family, in a coup to oust Churchill and install a pro-Nazi British government. There is no actual evidence of this. James Douglas-Hamilton, Baron Selkirk of Douglas (younger son of the 14th Duke of Hamilton), mentioned above, in fact takes the view that Hess's flight was what it appeared to be: a personal initiative by a deluded individual. Hess was completely mistaken as to the nature of British society and the British constitution. The leading Nazis were, by definition, cranks, and they had cranky ideas. Ribbentrop actually tried to call King George VI as a character witness at Nuremberg, to testify to Ribbentrop's 'desire for peace.' (Oddly enough His Majesty declined the invitation.) Hess, from conversation with Haushofer, imagined that the Duke of Hamilton was the leader of some 'party' that could use its influence with the King to bring down Churchill and make an Anglo-German peace treaty on Hitler's preferred and oft-repeated lines: Britain could retain its empire as long as it allowed Hitler a free hand in Europe. This was an absurd proposition and the duke, in his interview with Hess, made clear that there was 'only one party' in Britain. (With the National Government in place, and Labour and Liberal as well as Conservative MPs largely obliged to support Churchill, this was pretty much true, and the King could not dismiss Churchill while Churchill commanded the confidence of the House.) Hess, according to the Foreign Office summary arising from Ivone Kirkpatrick's debrief, claimed that the British were certain to lose the war if it continued, which was not a view the British ever subscribed to. Hess said there was no truth to the rumour that Germany was about to attack the Soviet Union, yet the attack went in just six weeks later. Harris and Wilbourn seem to think there was some credible threat of a German invasion of Britain in summer 1941, but there wasn't. The Blitz was ending, the Luftwaffe had failed to gain air superiority over southern England and the British had signals intelligence that the German forces were concentrating in the east. Hess simply made a fool of himself. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh dear. Whilst Khamba Tendal and Dianna continue to uphold the accepted nonsense I fear for Wikipedia as a source. Please let us know:
- why did Hess target Scotland? A London airfield would have been so much easier?
- what was Tancred Borenius doing in January 1941?
- ‘Hess simply made a fool of himself’. Nonsense.
- Instead why not ask why Britain went to war in 1939?
- where were the Poles in spring 1941?
-don’t you think that may have also had enough of mass slaughter?
- I suggest you read our books before pronouncing. You may learn something. The Wikipedia content is very poor indeed. Jtg harris (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
To quote the most relevant response you've already ignored.
"Jtg, this is a forum and not a page for endless WP:OR discussion. You have received detail WP:RS responses from Diannaa, so either cite some on point counter RS or I would suggest moving on."
Sorry, but there is no point as ours is original research, which apparently doesn’t count. Typical of this site is Khamba Tendal, who states, I haven’t read the Harris/Wilbourn books......and then goes on to tell us what they say!
Of course there was good reason. The Bf110 could only fly for 4 - 4.5 hours without an auxiliary oil tank. There was no such tank fitted. The fuselage at Duxford has no oil line fitted and so there was no oil tank fitted. This means that there would have to have been an inflight landing to prevent engine seizure. That is good reason in itself and I would invite Dianna to Duxford to show her the fuselage.
Dianna, just because it isn,t in the books you read does not mean it did not happen. Please extend your reading list to 'Rudolf Hess: A new technical analysis - History Press 2014' Jtg harris (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
IP user, you will need to provide at reputable source for that, in order for it to be included in the article. I concur with Diannaa as I can't find a reference to Hess landing anywhere en route to Scotland. I even checked a Hess biography published in 1962. I'll have a look at the then-Duke of Hamilton's account of his father's conversations with Hess, to see if anything is mentioned there.--FeralOink (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
The preceding section and the response from the mediator is typical. Just because the mediator hasn't read widely enough on the subject any view that counters her own is disregarded and deleted. This is dangerous because it perpetuates the myth of the solo flight theory. One day...... Jtg harris (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not have mediators as such. And you make a big mistake about the nature of this place. In order for something to appear in the article, it absolutely must be confirmable in a reliable published source. Furthermore, it has to pass a WP:WEIGHT threshold; we are writing a concise summary here, not an extended analysis. You provided no evidence of weight at all, not even a reasonable argument (which would not be enough anyway). If he could commandeer a plane to fly to Scotland, what difference does it make if he stopped for more oil on the way? It would prove absolutely nothing about his mission. Zerotalk12:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Dear zero,
Your argument stands no scrutiny. The NSDAP statement of 13th May 1941 stated that Hess, being delusional had stolen a plane and flown to the enemy. If however, he had seen the need to land enroute to fill up with oil and also make use of the latest Luftwaffe navigation system- Elektra, then the Nazi justification doesn’t stand scrutiny. If it doesn’t stand scrutiny then what was Hess doing? A secret, pre planned mission perhaps? That is the reality of the situation. I suggest you learn a little more before you decry (and presumably edit two topics into one). Jtg harris (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
You can find out who edited what by looking at the page history. If Hess stole a plane he could have landed where he liked and commanded the local airstrip staff to give him what he needed. No mere mechanic would have refused oil to such a senior Nazi. But, again, what you or I think may have been the case is irrelevant; we go off published reliable sources only. Zerotalk22:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Dear Zero
I do not wish to be rude, but you are just digging a deeper hole. Had you really have studied the Hess affair you would have known that Hess was dressed as a Hauptmann (captain), certainly not as the Deputy Fuhrer. Why he chose this is interesting in itself, but he certainly could not have 'landed where he liked and commanded the local airstrip staff'. Moreover, had he done so, it would hardly have been a secret mission?
The book, Rudolf Hess: A new technical analysis deals with the flight in detail, has been well reviewed,has been out since 2014 and has recently been released as a paperback. I suggest you read the same before further excavation. Jtg harris (talk) 07:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I have not asked to use original research, I know not to waste my time. Someone has started a conversation and I have merely responded to that. One day, the Hess affair will be seen for what it actually was; a meticulously planned attempt at overthrowing the 1941 Churchillian government. It only failed because Hess crashed (he certainly was not targetting Floors Farm, Eaglesham) and was captured by the government agencies of the Home Guard and Police. Wikipedia is currently about 10-15 years behind current thinking. 213.129.74.45 (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Navigation
Has anyone ever wondered how RH managed to fly from Augsburg to Scotland without getting shot down? If he was truly mad how long would he likely have flown for? 213.205.192.140 (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. These forum-like posts appear to infringe WP:TALK and seem unlikely to lead directly to improvements in the article. Of course it is possible that the editor has not yet read WP:TALK but if not then they should, right now, and desist from this. If it goes on apparently without understanding then eventually I would be happy to see an admin take action. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Why not just answer the question? ‘The case of Rudolf Hess by JR Rees (Heinemann 1947), details the drug experiments carried out on Hess and details the drugs used. Needless to say the Wikipedia article makes no mention of this. JR Rees was Hess’ consultant whilst in British captivity so was well placed to know the truth. He was awarded an OBE post Nuremberg. Why not engage, rather than just disparage? Jtg harris (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
My removal of content - Is it off topic? and the source doesn't support it either in my opinion
I have removed an addition with this edit; the addition was "By a provision in the Law to Secure the Unity of Party and State[49] aimed at interlocking the leadership of the Party and the government,... ". I think that the addition is a little off-topic for this article and adds confusion rather than enlightenment. Looking deeper, I see that the citation provided does not actually mention Hess or his appointment as a minister without portfolio to the Hitler cabinet. So I think it needs to stay out. Discussion welcome. — Diannaa (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
I believe the edit well illustrated Hitler's intent, in the early days of his regime, to seize more control over the levers of government by interlinking his trusted Party leadership with the government. By placing his Deputy Führer in the cabinet, he was sending a strong message. With regard to the sufficiency of the source, true, it does not mention Hess by name, only by position as Deputy Führer. At any rate, his appointment to the cabinet was already in the article and supported by a separate source. If re-phrasing could help clarify the point, that is welcome, but I believe the main point concerning the motivation behind the appointment is germane and is worth retaining. Historybuff0105 (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
I will explain it a different way: The law itself mentions the deputy Führer but it does not state that he will be added to the cabinet. It doesn't mention the cabinet at all. So tying his cabinet apppointment to the Law to Secure the Unity of Party and State is not supported by the citation. So we can't add it, so sorry. — Diannaa (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Dear Dianna
I note that the talk page has been cleared, save for the above, which appears to me to be akin to dancing on the head of a pin. In my opinion you would be providing far more of a service if you allowed debate on the following:
- Why did Hess fly to Scotland?
- Where was he heading?
- What went wrong?
- What prior communications had taken place to give him the confidence to fly?
- Who was he meeting?
- What precisely was he hoping to achieve?
- How did he fly to Scotland? Did he land en-route?
- The role of Tancred Borenius is not mentioned, or debated.
- No mention of the second autopsy.
In short I am afraid that the Wikipedia version of history actually stands little scrutiny when compared to the facts that you seemingly will not allow to appear.
The talk page has not been cleared. Sections over a certain number and of a certain age are archived but still available. You can find them by following the links above. Also, you can't expect a section to remain forever if there is no traffic. Zerotalk06:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Hess flew to Scotland because he was crazy, because he shared Hitler's inordinate admiration for (and fear of) the British and because he thought he could achieve fame by securing peace with Britain in the West before the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union and before the British could drag the Americans in. It's not mysterious at all, it's just that Hess had gone mentally peculiar and imagined he could do it all by himself, and he had sufficient authority to commandeer an aircraft and sufficient skill to fly it. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Good luck if you believe that Hess was 'crazy'. Crazy people do not fly the fastest planes in the world for very long. If he wanted to make peace why fly to Scotland and not England?
I cannot access the source, but the recent addition of an unqualified claim that Hess's mother, Klara came from a Greek family seems a bit dubious when names and places are so German (Klara, was the daughter of Rudolf Münch, from Bavaria). There was a substantial Greek diaspora in Alexandria of course, but they maintained linguistic, religious and cultural 'Greekness'. The claim seems ripe for checking as to whether it needs qualifying or removing in any way. Pincrete (talk) 07:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
I am able to view the source, but I have removed the claim. It does not seem plausible. The full book title is "Vintage Alexandria: Photographs of the City, 1860-1960". The source says Hess was "son of a prosperous import-export merchant and his Greek wife". — Diannaa (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
He flew to Scotland to "keep Britain out of the war"? But it had already been at war with Germany for two years. Did the writer mean to keep the USSR or the US out of the war? 23.248.5.75 (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't have access to the source book locally any more so I will bring it in on inter-library loan. This could take several weeks. — Diannaa (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I cannot help with either the precise wording, nor the precise meaning, but point out that this is the prosecution, rather than WP's argument. "The prosecution's case against Hess was presented by Mervyn Griffith-Jones … … He pointed out that the timing of Hess's trip to Scotland, only six weeks before the German invasion of the Soviet Union, could only be viewed as an attempt by Hess to keep the British out of the war." Whether his intended meaning is to keep Britain out of support in THAT war, (ie the Eastern front) or to TAKE Britain out of the war I cannot say.Pincrete (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
It's on page 163. Griffith-Jones considered Hess's visit to have been timed to get Britain to sign a peace treaty prior to the German invasion of the Soviet Union, so as to prevent them from getting involved on the Eastern Front. So I have changed it to read "... to prevent the British from interfering" — Diannaa (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
