PDA

View Full Version : Should Rudolph Hess have been kept in Prison for all his lfe?



Valkyrie
06-25-2010, 06:38 AM
Hess remained in prison until his death.The question I pose is,was this right? All other inmates of Spandau Prison;Donitz,Von Schirach,Speer,were all released after serving their time and it can be argued that they had a greater impact on the war than Hess.Should Hess have been released after serving a specific number of years?

forager
06-25-2010, 08:07 AM
I have no suggestion as to time served, but it certainly is a curious subject.
The Russians wanted him dead.
From all appearances, the man was insane.

Rising Sun*
06-25-2010, 09:34 AM
Hess remained in prison until his death.The question I pose is,was this right? All other inmates of Spandau Prison;Donitz,Von Schirach,Speer,were all released after serving their time and it can be argued that they had a greater impact on the war than Hess.Should Hess have been released after serving a specific number of years?

It was at least as 'right' (in the sense of being inexplicable) as not executing Speer.

Maybe the question you should ask is: Why did the Allies keep in prison a nutcase who left Germany well before the invasion of the Soviet Union and well before the Holocaust moved into top gear, yet they released Speer etc who were much more directly involved in war crimes and crimes against humanity?

I have no idea what the answer is, but it makes no sense that Hess should have been regarded as a greater war criminal than Speer etc.

I don't like conspiracy theories, but if one looks at Hess from the moment of his capture in Scotland and the subsequent gaps in his custody and interrogation records then one has to wonder what the hell was going on from the very beginning and why he served more time than many others who did a lot more than him in the way of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Typokitty
06-29-2010, 04:06 AM
Hess was imprisoned for "crimes against peace" According to wiki : A crime against peace, in international law, refers to "planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing" [1]. This definition of crimes against peace was first incorporated into the Nuremberg Principles and later included in the United Nations Charter. This definition would play a part in defining aggression as a crime against peace.

An important exception to the foregoing are defensive military actions taken under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Such defensive actions are subject to immediate Security Council review, but do not require UN permission to be legal within international law. "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations." (UN Charter, Article 51) The Security Council will determine if the action is legally the "right of individual or collective self-defense", or it may appoint another UN organ to do this.

So lets look at this : The only thing that Hess could have been POSSIBLY held partially to blame for was the breech of Barbarossa .

kurt
06-29-2010, 11:34 AM
Hess was imprisoned for "crimes against peace" According to wiki : A crime against peace, in international law, refers to "planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing" [1]. This definition of crimes against peace was first incorporated into the Nuremberg Principles and later included in the United Nations Charter. This definition would play a part in defining aggression as a crime against peace.

An important exception to the foregoing are defensive military actions taken under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Such defensive actions are subject to immediate Security Council review, but do not require UN permission to be legal within international law. "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations." (UN Charter, Article 51) The Security Council will determine if the action is legally the "right of individual or collective self-defense", or it may appoint another UN organ to do this.

So lets look at this : The only thing that Hess could have been POSSIBLY held partially to blame for was the breech of Barbarossa .

Crimes against peace?, which was the purpose of Hess flight to England in the first place?,as it has been generally regarded ,he was looking for a peace treaty with Britain, whether it was Hitler ofert or an insane Hess dream is secondary. Hence, crimes against peace is a ludicrous accusation.
I think he knew many things very uncomfortable for the official history and dangerous for some politicians involved in negotiations with Hitler's Germany on those days.

Firefly
06-29-2010, 03:48 PM
Well, if he really knew too much about possible peace negotiations with the allies, conspiracy against the uk government and all, then surely it would have been much easier to have him accidentally expire before 1945.

In that sense, it doesn't make sense, if I'm even making sense now?

Typokitty
06-29-2010, 04:25 PM
The whole situation leads to lots of other unanswered questions - like why was Stalin and FDR not tried for war crimes along with Hitlers men ? Stalin himself carried out ,blow by blow , many more war crimes against his own people than Hitler IMO. Hess was indeed only a minor character in this theater. The Russians wanted him dead and so did FDR/ US Government as Hess was the only one living whom could have shed a light on the crimes involved in WW2. Hess was a public figure and even after the war - still had a TON of credibility amongst the people. They couldn't just kill him, nor could they afford to release him.

kurt
06-29-2010, 07:03 PM
The whole situation leads to lots of other unanswered questions - like why was Stalin and FDR not tried for war crimes along with Hitlers men ? Stalin himself carried out ,blow by blow , many more war crimes against his own people than Hitler IMO. Hess was indeed only a minor character in this theater. The Russians wanted him dead and so did FDR/ US Government as Hess was the only one living whom could have shed a light on the crimes involved in WW2. Hess was a public figure and even after the war - still had a TON of credibility amongst the people. They couldn't just kill him, nor could they afford to release him.

It is a great mistery indeed, paying the expenses of one hundred people to mantain a jail fortress for and old, sick , insane prisoner during 40 years, while Speer and others who had more responsibility and participation during the war were released in 1966. Doesnīt make any sense, but it was a great cruelty IMO.

Uyraell
06-30-2010, 12:40 AM
As I have noted elsewhere on this forum, I do not believe the "Official story" regarding Hess.
My neighbour for many years, now deceased, actually saw Hess emerge from the Me. 110 he had flown to Britain, and landed in Yorkshire, NOT Scotland.

Why was the Me.110 subsequently described as having been "shot down and crash landed over Scotland"?

It would have been simplicity itself to have had a Test-Pilot from AEE fly the Me. 110 to where it was shot down, and have another Test-Pilot fly the aircraft from which the bullets were fired to destroy the Me.110.
It would have been equally simple to have shot the Me.110 up on the ground, then blown it up with demolition charges to simulate an air-to-air attack and "defeat". Photographs of "The wreckage of Hess's Me.110 aircraft" could then have been taken and published.
This would then lend "authenticity" in the public mind, as to the cover story devised to obscure not only Hess arriving in the UK, but his reasons for doing so, and the subsequent reasons for keeping him alive, yet imprisoned.

Subsequent writing up of these events would have been simplicity itself as well, due to the "D Notice" Legislation in enforcement at the time. Expressed at it simplest: Nothing the UK Government did not want published EVER appeared in print at all, during WW2, with the well-known and coincidental exceptions of the "Overlord" Crossword puzzle episode, and one or two other lesser cases.

All of which brings us to the puzzling question of motive, NOT on the part of Hess ( albeit that itself is not sufficiently explained, even to this day), but rather, on the part of the UK Government in particular for wanting Hess kept both alive and imprisoned.
My own thoughts on the UK Government motive in this have traversed many areas, over the years.
I'm no "conspiracy theory" buff: gods know, there are enough of those running loose.
However: the Hess case may very well be that rare, and genuine exception that "proves the rule", as`twere.

I have three major thoughts regarding the UK Govt. motive. None makes for pleasant contemplation.

Thought A:
Hess brought with him a list of known NSDAP sympathisers, in UK, USA, France, Spain, USSR, and possibly other parts of Europe and South America.

Thought B:
Hess brought with him a list of names among whom were those later to be associated with Philby, Burgess, Maclean and Blunt (Cairncross et al, as alleged by Chapman Pincher in various books).

Thought C:
Hess brought confirmation of some key details of "The Oslo Letter" which itself gave details of planned German technological developments, including Enigma (The Cypher machine), the A4 (which is commonly called the V2 rocket), the Fzg 76 (which is commonly called the V1, "Buzzbomb" or "Doodlebug), and various other technological research.

Any one of the above would be more than sufficient to keep Hess imprisoned, but yet left alive for later reference or interrogation if required.

Which of the above thoughts may prove to be the case, is yet to be proven, and may never be.
I freely admit that.
However, they seem to be the most logical, and most likely, which is probably as close as anyone on this forum is likely to get to whatever truths may be known of the matter. I humbly present them accordingly, for the consideration of my fellow Forum members.

As to "Should Hess have been kept imprisoned all of his life?" : I do not now, nor have I ever believed he should have been. It was painfully obvious by 1970 that the man was No threat to anybody, least of all any of the Allied Governments. Hess, even as a free man, would never have gathered sufficient support to re-invigorate NSDAP-style beliefs in any population-group. Nor, despite his association with Adolf Hitler, would he have had the commanding presence necessary to accomplish that.
In my view, Hess should have been released in 1976. He'd at least have had some kind of life as a decent human being, even if as has been said, he was not a particularly shining example of decency. It would have been an act of Clemency worthy of the Victors, to have released Hess at that stage.

Kind and Respectful Regards, Uyraell.

heimwehr danzig
01-09-2011, 05:05 PM
I rather suspect that had Hess been released alongside the other inmates he would have withdrawn into quiet obscurity. I do not know whether he would have been seen in TV interviews like Albert Speer, but I am quite certain that no 4th Reich would hae grown up around him. As it was, the conspiracy theories surrounding his death have allowed him to be seen as the last of the Nazi martyrs, in a line stretching back to the Beer Hall Putsch. That is why he is venerated by Nazi groups today.
When one considers the somewhat dubious legal basis for the Nurenberg trials (i.e. breaking of laws that were not written at the time of the offence) surely a little clemency, even a little late in the day, would be no bad thing.

Iron Yeoman
01-09-2011, 07:23 PM
Subsequent writing up of these events would have been simplicity itself as well, due to the "D Notice" Legislation in enforcement at the time. Expressed at it simplest: Nothing the UK Government did not want published EVER appeared in print at all,


Ah the good old 'D' notice. Exists for very good reasons, and if they decided that Hess's landing and subsequent internment needed to be suppressed then its all for the best.

That aside and returning to the original question should Rudolph Hess have been kept in prison for all his life?

Did the SS put people in concentration camps (i.e. political prisoners)? Yes
Did the Nazis 'liquidate' the mentally ill and disabled? Yes
Was he a senior Nazi? Yes
Was he head of the SS? Yes

Therefore he was a scumbag like the rest of the Nazis/SS and he deserved life, and yes I know there were some good SS men but he was head honcho (until he flew to the UK) and therefore is responsible for their crimes.

Deaf Smith
01-11-2011, 06:03 PM
Hess was a top Nazi.

Should he have been in prison for life?

No. He should have been hung with the rest.

heimwehr danzig
01-12-2011, 12:51 PM
Forgive me sir, but I see no justification whatsoever for hanging Rudolf Hess. A top Nazi he may have been, but by the time of the most condemned actions of the regime he was already languishing in Britain. Not to mention that he may even have lacked sufficient mental faculties to stand trial in the first place. That is the difficulty with the victor sitting in judgement over the vanquished, they often have more interest in making examples that seeing justice done.
Perhaps Hess could have been confined to an asylum, but hanging would be entirely vindictive and unjust, as indeed was a lifetime behind bars.
There is no harm in a little magnanimity in victory.

Deaf Smith
01-12-2011, 09:28 PM
Hess knew well about the death camps. Millions died. So where is the magnanimity for them?

See if he had killed just a few as part of a common robbery you could give him death, but when millions die, why that number just kind of numbs many people.

They don't even comprehend so much suffering.

Many Nazis never got what they deserved. But when you have them in your jails, give them what they deserve! At the minimum do it to send a message to all would-be tyrants.

Deaf

Nickdfresh
01-13-2011, 02:45 AM
Hess was a senior part of the Nazi dictatorship in any case. Whether he was directly involved with the Holocaust or not--or other Nazi crimes--he certainly knew about the criminal persecutions of his own countrymen, Jews, and of atrocities committed in Poland and the occupied West. Whether or not it was an injustice for him to have served life in prison, I could give a **** about him! He was far better off than many of the victims of the National Socialist movement that he was so much a cog in the machine of. I think a better question is whether or not it was a waste of taxpayer money to keep this POS alive for so long...

heimwehr danzig
01-13-2011, 02:03 PM
I don't see how Hess could have known about 'death camps' when he flew to england in May 1941 and camps like Sobibor and Treblinka didn't even exist at this time, and the Wannsee conference was several months away. It is commonly accepted that despite the many cruelties inflicted upon Jews in the Reich and occupied territories the 'Final Solution' did not come into place until after the invasion of the USSR, by which time Hess was a prisoner.
You make a fair point about the number of deaths though. I myself cannot invisage 6 million dead, let alone the total death toll of the war. Was it not Stalin who said "one death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic"
Also, I do not feel that simply because the Nazis inflicted suffering on others then it should automatically be inflicted upon them in return. Justice is not the infliction of suffering, that is vengence.

Deaf Smith
01-13-2011, 09:27 PM
Operation Barbarossa started in June 1941, BUT was planned long before that. And the Einsatzgruppen started long before Barbarossa, back in September 1939 (Poland.)

He, being number two man, "Deputy to the Fuhrer", had to know what had happened if not being part of the planning himsef. He was also very instrumental in the creation of the Nuremberg Laws, that is "The Laws for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour".

Hess had alot more to do with what happend than most people think. He just had the misfortune to believe he could talk the British out of the war (and not a month later they invaided Russia... and I bet he was hopeing England would be out of the war before they did that.)

Deaf

Rising Sun*
01-14-2011, 07:05 AM
But if Hess deserved to be executed for his sins, why wasn't Speer executed for his greater and later sins?

How did Hess become the forgotten prisoner and Speer became the 'good Nazi' when clearly Speer was up to his eyeballs in all the worst aspects of the Third Reich?

Hess seems to have been terribly unfairly treated compared with Speer.

Why was Hess held and Speer released?

If I had to rank Nazis worthy of execution, I'd put Speer a long, long way ahead of Hess.

Uyraell
01-14-2011, 07:37 PM
But if Hess deserved to be executed for his sins, why wasn't Speer executed for his greater and later sins?

How did Hess become the forgotten prisoner and Speer became the 'good Nazi' when clearly Speer was up to his eyeballs in all the worst aspects of the Third Reich?

Hess seems to have been terribly unfairly treated compared with Speer.

Why was Hess held and Speer released?

If I had to rank Nazis worthy of execution, I'd put Speer a long, long way ahead of Hess.

Which, my friend,is precisely why I posit the three reasons I did in My earlier post (post #9, this thread) about keeping Hess alive.

There must within those three thoughts I expressed, or some very similar reason, be cause to have retained Hess alive for later reference where Speer was not in possession of the same information.

Speer may have been more worthy of execution, but he plainly did not have the same information Hess was kept alive for. Yet, Speer was primarily industrial information, whereas Hess was primarily personalities information.

Kind and Respectful Regards RS* my friend, Uyraell.

Deaf Smith
01-14-2011, 09:31 PM
Maybe they hoped Hess would lead them to other Nazis that escaped after the war.

Whatever the reasons, they did what they did. Love to see the archives open on this just as they did the Soviet ones not to long ago.

Deaf

Uyraell
01-14-2011, 09:42 PM
In all honesty, I don't expect to see those archives opened nor made available in either my lifetime, nor those of my children.
I'd predict it will be something like 2095 before the information is ever seen, if then.

The information is, after all, recorded on paper, and the paper is of LOW quality, which means the paper itself most likely will not physically last long enough to be examined as to information content.
In parallel with this is that the information on the paper is most likely certain to NOT ever be recorded digitally.
It will thus be lost forever, and disappear from history, and human memory.

This will have been achieved quietly, without the attendant cries of "barbarism" as would have arisen from the academic and historiographic communities had the paper and information been destroyed by Govt. fiat in 1945.

Kind and Respectful Regards Deaf my friend, Uyraell.

Rising Sun*
01-15-2011, 02:07 AM
Perhaps it wasn't so much what he knew that could be of value to the Allies which value, if any, had to diminish steadily as the war moved into the past, but knowledge which could be damaging to the Allies, or one of them.

In the absence of the relevant classified papers it's just wild speculation, but Hess was the only senior, and possibly only, Nazi alive after the war who had had close contact with the former and reputedly pro-Nazi King Edward VIII before the war. Perhaps Edward or his wife made indiscreet comments which would have been damaging whenever they were revealed.


Following Edward's accession, the German embassy in London sent a cable for the personal attention of Hitler himself.

In part, it read: "An alliance between Germany and Britain is for him (the King) an urgent necessity."

Alan Lascelles, Edward's private secretary, gave his own harsh judgment of the situation.

"The best thing that could happen to him would be for him to break his neck."

Within the year Edward, pressurised by the Church of England, the government and royal courtiers, decided to abdicate.

In October 1937, Edward and his wife - by now the Duke and Duchess of Windsor - visited Nazi Germany.

They met Hitler, dined with his deputy, Rudolf Hess, and even visited a concentration camp.

The camp's guard towers were explained away as meat stores for the inmates. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2701965.stm

Or maybe, and probably more likely, it was just that Hess had been the 2iC in Nazi Germany before and during the early part of the war so he was a figurehead who had to be kept in gaol as an example, even if the Allies couldn't pin a capital crime on him.

Deaf Smith
01-15-2011, 10:10 PM
In all honesty, I don't expect to see those archives opened nor made available in either my lifetime, nor those of my children.

Have hope Uyraell, for even alot of the American Civil War documents survived, crude as the paper used was back then.

But no doubt over mans long violent history much has been just left alone for everyone's sake. We tend to try to leave our nightmares in the dark.

Your friend,

Deaf

Uyraell
01-16-2011, 06:16 PM
Deaf my friend, my problem is that even if the paperware records survive, I do not truly believe the UK, German, or US or Russian Governments would conceive of any reason why the public should be told a truth or series of truths after so many decades of silence as to amount to a century or more of outright lies.

I am sufficiently cynical and mistrustful about/of ANY Government that I never believe it has the best interests of history nor its' own citizens at heart.

Rather, a government will lie, prevaricate, obfuscate, deny, and generally serve the purpose of lining its' own politicians' pockets: all the while deceiving the citizenry by saying it is caring for their interests and needs.

I've never believed otherwise of any Government, especially those that in My lifetime have lined the politicians' pockets in NZ.

All of which cynicism goes a mighty long way to explaining why I have no hope of ever seeing the UK Hess records, or the UK Pearl Harbour records, for that matter.

Kind and Respectful Regards Deaf my friend, Uyraell.

Wizard
01-18-2011, 12:55 AM
...When one considers the somewhat dubious legal basis for the Nurenberg trials (i.e. breaking of laws that were not written at the time of the offence) surely a little clemency, even a little late in the day, would be no bad thing.

This is incorrect.

Most of the charges brought against the Nazi hierarchy at Nuremberg were based on international laws, treaties, and customs and conventions of war which were in effect prior to WW II, and which had been ratified by the German government.

Smoking Frog
01-21-2011, 01:35 PM
I've just finished reading the chapter on Hess in "Hitler's Henchmen" by Guido Knopp.
Before that I didn't know much about him except his flight to Britain.
I never realised that alliance with Britain was written as a 'must-have' in Mein Kampf. Maybe he really was trying to stop the anglo-german hostilities, even if only so Germany could concentrate on Russia.
I don't think he should have stayed in prison all his life, because I think he was out of the war before the Nazis crimes reached their nadir. I got the impression that when the Einsatzgruppen were conducting mass shootings he was no longer a key player in the leadership, so they wouldn't have involved Hess in that decision.
Maybe if he had shown remorse at Nurenberg he would have gotten out earlier, but then if he was mad I suppose he didn't know what he was saying.

Deaf Smith
01-21-2011, 10:09 PM
Smoking Frog,

Do remember this. Part of punishment is not only to punish the wrong doer, but to MAKE AN EXAMPLE OUT OF THEM.

And they made an example out of Hess.

Deaf

horst
01-24-2011, 03:11 PM
This is incorrect.

Most of the charges brought against the Nazi hierarchy at Nuremberg were based on international laws, treaties, and customs and conventions of war which were in effect prior to WW II, and which had been ratified by the German government.

Under which law or jurisprudence is it possible to condemn a man to life imprisonment for the crime of seeking peace, risking his life and sacrificing his personal freedom? You can consider his act as a product of courage, naivety or insanity, but never a crime. Moreover, does this accusation justify covering the expenses of a prison-fortress for an old and sick prisoner?
In my humble opinion, this history only lacks an iron mask for being a perfect anachronism,

Respectfully,

tankgeezer
01-24-2011, 04:50 PM
I dont know under which he could be, would you be so kind as to tell me under which he could not?
Further Horst, if you wish to post in a thread, do try to keep it original , your last post (#28) looks to be a rehash of a post made by another member (oddly enough banned ) Ref. #8.

Wizard
01-24-2011, 05:10 PM
Under which law or jurisprudence is it possible to condemn a man to life imprisonment for the crime of seeking peace, risking his life and sacrificing his personal freedom? You can consider his act as a product of courage, naivety or insanity, but never a crime. Moreover, does this accusation justify covering the expenses of a prison-fortress for an old and sick prisoner?
In my humble opinion, this history only lacks an iron mask for being a perfect anachronism,

Respectfully,

If I understand the events correctly, Hess, as a member of the Nazi Party was not tried for any of the acts you cite, but for an act you conveniently fail to mention; being a member of the Nazi Party and thus conspiring to commit aggressive war in violation of the Kellogg-Briand Pact to which the German government was a party.

I have absolutely no sympathy for members of the Nazi Party and only regret that any lived to be old enough to become frail and sick.

Deaf Smith
01-24-2011, 08:35 PM
Under which law or jurisprudence is it possible to condemn a man to life imprisonment for the crime of seeking peace, risking his life and sacrificing his personal freedom? You can consider his act as a product of courage, naivety or insanity, but never a crime. Moreover, does this accusation justify covering the expenses of a prison-fortress for an old and sick prisoner?
In my humble opinion, this history only lacks an iron mask for being a perfect anachronism,

Respectfully,

horst,

He was not condemned for his parachuting into hostile territory to broker a peace deal. He was condemned for his actions as part of the Nazis.

Do not mistake his actions at one time as exoneration for his other deeds. He sure was no Oskar Schindler.

Deaf

horst
01-25-2011, 08:56 AM
If I understand the events correctly, Hess, as a member of the Nazi Party was not tried for any of the acts you cite, but for an act you conveniently fail to mention; being a member of the Nazi Party and thus conspiring to commit aggressive war in violation of the Kellogg-Briand Pact to which the German government was a party.

I have absolutely no sympathy for members of the Nazi Party and only regret that any lived to be old enough to become frail and sick.

The Soviet Union was also adherent to the Kellog-Briand Pact of 1929, the URSS invaded Finland and two weeks after Hitler, Stalin invaded Poland, but he was not indicted at any Tribunal, he was funded and armed through the Roosevelt's Lend and Lease Law, covered by Roosevelt and Churchil in his horrendous crimes ( Katyn) and supported in snatching the eastern part of Poland as was revealed by a BBC documentary not long ago. How would you explain that?


Regards,

Rising Sun*
01-25-2011, 09:26 AM
The Soviet Union was also adherent to the Kellog-Briand Pact of 1929, the URSS invaded Finland and two weeks after Hitler, Stalin invaded Poland, but he was not indicted at any Tribunal, he was funded and armed through the Roosevelt's Lend and Lease Law, covered by Roosevelt and Churchil in his horrendous crimes ( Katyn) and supported in snatching the eastern part of Poland as was revealed by a BBC documentary not long ago. How would you explain that?

The USSR was an adherent to but not an original signatory to the Pact.

Germany, Japan and Italy were original signatories.

In the end it doesn't matter much whether a nation was an original signatory or a subsequent adherent.

But, if you want to quibble about who breached a pact which had no sanctions, what about Japan's aggression against the USSR in the Nomonhan conflict, several months before the Soviets attacked Finland?

France, like Germany, was an original signatory. What justifies Germany's attack upon it's war-renouncing cosignatory France?

Poland was an original signatory. What justifies Germany's attack upon that co-signatory of a pact renouncing war?

Czechoslovakia was, with Germany, an original signatory. What justifies Germany's attack upon that co-signatory?

How about just accepting the fact that Hitler and Stalin were a pair of stunningly ruthless ****s who had no regard for international law, or humanitarian considerations, which stood between them and their ambitions?

Rising Sun*
01-25-2011, 09:58 AM
Under which law or jurisprudence is it possible to condemn a man to life imprisonment for the crime of seeking peace, risking his life and sacrificing his personal freedom?

None, I hope.

That is, after all, the ideal for which the Allies fought. And died.

Which was exactly the opposite of the regime of which Hess was the 2iC.


You can consider his act as a product of courage, naivety or insanity, but never a crime.

If that is so, then it follows that his boss and the Party his boss led, and of which Hess was deputy, should be considered "as a product of courage, naivety or insanity, but never a crime."

It's a pity that this thread already has a poll. Because I suspect that if I started one on whether or not all Nazi bosses deserved to be imprisoned or executed, the scale would go off the page on the 'Yes' vote.

tankgeezer
01-25-2011, 12:04 PM
The Soviet Union was also adherent to the Kellog-Briand Pact of 1929, the URSS invaded Finland and two weeks after Hitler, Stalin invaded Poland, but he was not indicted at any Tribunal, he was funded and armed through the Roosevelt's Lend and Lease Law, covered by Roosevelt and Churchil in his horrendous crimes ( Katyn) and supported in snatching the eastern part of Poland as was revealed by a BBC documentary not long ago. How would you explain that?


Regards,

Horst, I call it tangential distraction, please keep to the topic of this thread.

Wizard
01-25-2011, 12:09 PM
The Soviet Union was also adherent to the Kellog-Briand Pact of 1929, the URSS invaded Finland and two weeks after Hitler, Stalin invaded Poland, but he was not indicted at any Tribunal, he was funded and armed through the Roosevelt's Lend and Lease Law, covered by Roosevelt and Churchil in his horrendous crimes ( Katyn) and supported in snatching the eastern part of Poland as was revealed by a BBC documentary not long ago. How would you explain that?


Regards,

I explain it by reminding you that Hitler, Hess's leader, attacked the Soviet Union and contrived a situation where the Western Allies were forced to choose a course of action where they temporarily cooperated with a bloody tyrant (Stalin) It would have been nice if Stalin and Hitler had been able to fight WW II supported only by their respective political parties but history seldom presents with such conveniently just opportunities.

Had Stalin, by a quirk of fate, not ended up on the Allied side, it's quite possible that he could have wound up in the prisoner's dock at Nuremberg. But just because one guilty party escapes justice is no reason to let all guilty parties off the hook.

I stated that I have no sympathy for the Nazi Party members and I don't, but I have even less sympathy for Communist Party members and I have, in the past, put my life on the line fighting them. I would have done the same in WW II fighting against the Nazi's and their brethren, the Japanese militarists, had I been alive at that time.

horst
01-26-2011, 08:50 AM
Wizzard wrote:
"..It would have been nice if Stalin and Hitler had been able to fight WW II supported only by their respective political parties but history seldom presents with such conveniently just opportunities.."

Offering that convenient opportunity was exactly Hessīs mission when he flew to England.

Regards,

Rising Sun*
01-26-2011, 09:19 AM
Wizzard wrote:
"..It would have been nice if Stalin and Hitler had been able to fight WW II supported only by their respective political parties but history seldom presents with such conveniently just opportunities.."

Offering that convenient opportunity was exactly Hessīs mission when he flew to England.

Could you expand upon how it "was exactly Hessīs mission when he flew to England"
(stricly, Scotland, but perhaps that was a navigational error) and that his 'mission' was endorsed by Hitler and Co?

Wizard
01-26-2011, 11:05 AM
Wizzard wrote:
"..It would have been nice if Stalin and Hitler had been able to fight WW II supported only by their respective political parties but history seldom presents with such conveniently just opportunities.."


Offering that convenient opportunity was exactly Hessīs mission when he flew to England.

Regards,

Please explain that comment. It would not have been within anyone's power to arrange something like that.

Nickdfresh
01-26-2011, 01:11 PM
"Hess' mission" was one of a lone, mentally ill Hitler-sycophant. What bloodshed would "peace" have spared in the extremely remote event the British somehow decided to unseat Churchill and negotiations proceeded? At best, it would have been a cynical attempt to prevent a two front war and isolate the USSR prior to Germany's violation of the Nonaggression Pact, which inevitably resulted in the deaths of millions of Soviet citizens and soldiers. A battle Hess must have known all-too-well would be prosecuted with the utmost ruthlessness and almost no consideration, nor provisions, for the civilian population and Red Army prisoners captured...

Uyraell
01-26-2011, 05:50 PM
@ Nick:

Which was a large part of Hess' point: in his eyes, there was no need for the German and English "cousins" to be at war whilst the communists sought to rule the east.

I don't share his view: few sane people would. Nonetheless, his idealism certainly outweighed the practicalities involved in the matter, as you sagely point out.

Warm, Kind, and Respectful Regards Nick my friend, Uyraell.

Wizard
01-26-2011, 06:05 PM
@ Nick:

Which was a large part of Hess' point: in his eyes, there was no need for the German and English "cousins" to be at war whilst the communists sought to rule the east.

I don't share his view: few sane people would. Nonetheless, his idealism certainly outweighed the practicalities involved in the matter, as you sagely point out.

Warm, Kind, and Respectful Regards Nick my friend, Uyraell.

But from an English perspective (and indeed the perspective of most of the Western Allies), the "values" which the Nazi's sought to spread throughout Europe held no attraction and were, in fact, far closer to those of the Communists themselves than the ideals of Britain or the United States.

Uyraell
01-26-2011, 06:39 PM
That is a completely different topic, withal and albeit I Agree with you, Wizard.
In High School our history teacher and class spent an entire week in discussion of the very point you make.

I was focused on Hess' intent, rather than the ideology he espoused.

Kind, Warm, and Respectful Regards Wizard my friend, Uyraell.

horst
01-27-2011, 09:04 AM
Wizzard wrote:
"..It would have been nice if Stalin and Hitler had been able to fight WW II supported only by their respective political parties but history seldom presents with such conveniently just opportunities.."



Please explain that comment. It would not have been within anyone's power to arrange something like that.

My apologies for the delay, there is no internet at the amazonian forrest,
I think Hess had the power, as Rising Sun said, he was the 2iC of the Third Reich.
Following the former idea:

This is an extract of Wikipedia information on this matter:
According to the source*, British Secret Service agents had intercepted the correspondence to the Duke ( Hamilton), which had been brought from Germany by an "eminent diplomat", and had begun responding in the Duke's name and handwriting. Thus encouraged, Hitler sent Hess to propose an accommodation that would reverse German gains in the west in exchange for a free hand in dealing with the Soviet Union in the east. This was a month before Germany attacked the Soviet Union, breaking their non-aggression/neutrality pact.
*"The Inside Story of the Hess Flight" The American Mercury compendium volume CX-CXI Spring 1974 page 18 p. 22

If the Hess affaire is just a case of a lunatic acting on his own, why the secrecy of British files?? (not to be revealed until 2017)
On the other side, if Hess was in fact insane and Hitler didn’t know about his intentions , my opinion is not too different from Churchill’s:

Reflecting upon the whole of the story, I am glad not to be responsible for the way in which Hess has been and is being treated. Whatever may be the moral guilt of a German who stood near to Hitler, Hess had, in my view, atoned for this by his completely devoted and frantic deed of lunatic benevolence. He came to us of his own free will, and, though without authority, had something of the quality of an envoy. He was a medical and not a criminal case, and should be so regarded.

WC, The Second World War Part III,


Respectfully,

Rising Sun*
01-27-2011, 09:14 AM
My apologies for the delay, there is no internet at the amazonian forrest,

Well, obviously, you're not there or you wouldn't be able to post.


I think Hess had the power, as Rising Sun said, he was the 2iC of the Third Reich.

Which, by itself in any English speaking country, was more than enough to earn a life sentence by the time he landed in Scotland. Fortunately for him, Scotland was, and is, not an English speaking country. ;)


Following the former idea:

This is an extract of Wikipedia information on this matter:...

Wiki is not accepted here as a reliable source, although it is at times a useful starting point for unverified information.

Wizard
01-27-2011, 11:05 AM
...I think Hess had the power, as Rising Sun said, he was the 2iC of the Third Reich...

Respectfully,

Then you didn't understand the point of my statement.

I said, "..It would have been nice if Stalin and Hitler had been able to fight WW II supported only by their respective political parties but history seldom presents with such conveniently just opportunities.."

My intent was to indicate that only members of the Nazi Party and Communist Party should have been required to fight and shed their blood in WW II in support of their respective monstrous ideologies and that ordinary Germans and Russians should have been able to have been left in peace, as well as the citizens of the Western Democracies who clearly had no wish to participate in such an insane war. Of course, given the realities of national politics, this happy state of affairs was not within anyone's power to arrange.

royal744
02-21-2011, 12:28 PM
Not sure or positive that Hess really was insane, which is a rather broad brush category in any case. There seems to be ample evidence that Hess's flight was done in full collusion with Hitler (Quest Searching for the Truth of Germany's Past, Frank Brandenburg, (with numerous citations in the book). It would have been a very cheap way for Hitler to avoid having that "unsinkable aircraft carrier" off Europe's shore. The ONLY way for Hess to make the flight was to know the top secret "open lanes" in Germany's anti-aircraft defenses and this knowledge would only have been available to him with Hitler's permission. When the British dealt with him as if he didn't exist, Hitler and Goebbels possessed the necessary plausible deniability to say that he was off his rocker - but then, wasn't nearly everyone at the top Nazi leadership "off his rocker"? He may have been unbalanced, but insane? I doubt it.

Should he have been imprisoned so long? Probably not.

DVX
02-21-2011, 04:00 PM
I agree with Raising Sun. Probably Hess knew things that could not be revealed. He had is responsabilities in what happened since 1933 to his "crazy" flight over Scotland in 1941, and at the time he was the no. 2 of Nazism, but other German leaders with no less blame had better judgement.

Deaf Smith
02-21-2011, 05:34 PM
My intent was to indicate that only members of the Nazi Party and Communist Party should have been required to fight and shed their blood in WW II in support of their respective monstrous ideologies and that ordinary Germans and Russians should have been able to have been left in peace, as well as the citizens of the Western Democracies who clearly had no wish to participate in such an insane war. Of course, given the realities of national politics, this happy state of affairs was not within anyone's power to arrange.

Reminds me of that show, TROY, with Brad Bitt. When Achilles said to King Agamemnon, "Imagine a king who fights his own battles. Wouldn't that be a sight."

Yea, imagine Hitler and Stalin having a knife fight.

Deaf

Rising Sun*
02-22-2011, 05:13 AM
Reminds me of that show, TROY, with Brad Bitt. When Achilles said to King Agamemnon, "Imagine a king who fights his own battles. Wouldn't that be a sight."

Yea, imagine Hitler and Stalin having a knife fight.

Deaf

Which takes many of us back to childhood when we couldn't understand why the bosses didn't fight the wars they started.

But after a bit of life experience we realised that the bosses are bosses because they get others to do the work, whether it's war or commerce (and the two tend to overlap for the super bosses).

Rather than Hitler and Stalin having a knife fight, imagine what would have happened or, more accurately, not happened if millions of youths and young men had said in countless wars "No! We're not fighting. We want to live in a world without war!"

Hard to work out which is the greater fantasy, but if nobody fought the world would be a better place.

Justice
02-22-2011, 05:48 AM
Rather than Hitler and Stalin having a knife fight, imagine what would have happened or, more accurately, not happened if millions of youths and young men had said in countless wars "No! We're not fighting. We want to live in a world without war!"

Hard to work out which is the greater fantasy, but if nobody fought the world would be a better place.

Good point,

John Lennon’s "Imagine" comes to mind.

From a different perspective I have heard that the Palestinians and the Israelis would end their wars when they love their children more than they hate their enemies. You could substitutes the two countries or nations mentioned here with others.

I remember learning at university that Economists make the two assumptions (1) people make decisions based on perfect information and (2) people make rational decisions.

As Rising Sun's signature suggests, neither of those assumptions are true.

Rising Sun*
02-22-2011, 06:01 AM
The little girl saw her first troop parade and asked, 'What are those?'

'Soldiers.'

'What are soldiers?'

'They are for war. They fight and each tries to kill as many of the other side as they can.'

The girl held still and studied. 'Do you know ... I know something.'

'Yes, what is it you know?'

'Sometime they'll give a war and nobody will come.'

Carl Sandburg

Rising Sun*
02-22-2011, 06:19 AM
I remember learning at university that Economists make the two assumptions (1) people make decisions based on perfect information and (2) people make rational decisions.

Yes, (1) The sharemarket works on perfect information which, to the extent it exists, is confined to insiders (which makes it rather pointless for the regulators to get upset about insider trading as that's what makes the profits) and (2) the herd mentality in a rising or falling market overwhelms any semblance of rationality.

Talk about the dismal science!

Adibach
03-06-2011, 10:19 PM
he was the second in line in the Nazi party...his dropping into Scotland spared him the rope IMO.