Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
Hess' Secret.
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by oldbess (U13929099) on Tuesday, 26th May 2009
My son asked me today, why Hess spent so long in prison, and why he was never released.I have my own theory about that, but would be grateful for any other thoughts on the matter.
Was he a double Agent perhaps? -
Message 2
Posted by JB on a slippery slope to the thin end ofdabiscuit (U13805036) on Tuesday, 26th May 2009
It was because he was held in Spandau Prison in the British Sector of West Berlin and the Russians vetoed his release so they could have a little march up and down.
-
Message 3
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 26th May 2009
"...Was he a double Agent perhaps?..."
A double agent for whom ?
And why would that lead to him being sent to prison for the rest of his life ?
The Hess story is a bizarre one with an un-satisfactory ending (he should have hung in 1945, not decades later at his own hands). It says much about the ramshackle nature of Nazi power structures. But, as a conspiracy theory, it does not hold much water. -
Message 4
Posted by Parti-NG-ton Blue (U13898629) on Tuesday, 26th May 2009
I heard a theory once that I don't think holds much water.
That is that he helped with the rounding up and convictions of others. Giving information where needed in return of his own life. The British and Americans would have released him years before his death as part of this deal. Unfortunately the Russians would never have allowed his release and the British and Americans would never announce such a deal was in place and so he was left to rot. -
Message 5
Posted by oldbess (U13929099) on Tuesday, 26th May 2009
Yes, I cannot understand why he was not executed
---and a forty years or so interogation(?S?)
seems a bit iffy. I have often wondered why he did not manage to take his own life during this time.
As I say, it was a question my son posed me,and it just got me thinking.But why not a Double Agent? Perhaps he was under the Protection of the Allies, and not a prisoner of them.
so many questions unanswered! -
Message 6
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Wednesday, 27th May 2009
"...Perhaps he was under the Protection of the Allies, and not a prisoner of them...."
Stretches the imagination a bit, I am afraid.
If he was being 'protected' they did it in exactly the same manner as they would a prisoner. Also, the war time allies swapped over, so he was, from time to time, being 'protected' by the Soviets.
Far easier to release him, as they did the others, including Donitz and Speer.
What were they all protecting him from ? Irritating questions about his bizarre flight to britain perhaps.
The closest I get to a conspiracy is that the Soviets refused to release him so that they could keep their foothold at Spandau Prison, as JB has said. But as this is really a one sided decision, it does not amount to a conspiracy really.
Unfortunately, as the last of the top Nazis, Hess is used by far right loons who promote any idea to make him a martyr. That is not something I will go along with. -
Message 7
Posted by oldbess (U13929099) on Wednesday, 27th May 2009
As I say, I am no expert! I often wonder if he had been released, and another of his co-horts
had been kept imprisoned, would they have managed to either escape, or commit suicide?
Perhaps the simplest answers are the best, and it was all down to the Russians.
but as Tim Track says, he was one, if not the top Nazi next to Hitler---and on those grounds, you would have thought he should have faced the Hangman.
Guess we'll never find out the truth.
thanks for your input. -
Message 8
Posted by oldbess (U13929099) on Wednesday, 27th May 2009
OOps meant to say commit'suicide' earlier in his imprisonment. finally googled up info. on him ,and it would seem that he did,at the age of 93,decide to end it all?
-
Message 9
Posted by Mike Alexander (U1706714) on Wednesday, 27th May 2009
If Hess was a double agent he would probably have been put straight on the payroll of the CIA, like many other Nazi spies throughout Europe!
-
Message 10
Posted by Parti-NG-ton Blue (U13898629) on Wednesday, 27th May 2009
Would he be too high profile to release though. It is one thing to agree to keep him alive and another to let him go. What kind of a life did he lead in prison? I am presuming that if he made it into his 90's that it wasn't arduous.
-
Message 11
Posted by Ratbones (U13981844) on Wednesday, 27th May 2009
Hess was known as 'prisoner number 6' in Spandau. I believe Spandau stood on the border between East and West Germany, and was the only foothold The Soviets had in the Western sector. The Soviets therefore opposed his earlier release as they would then have lost this advantage.
-
Message 12
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Friday, 29th May 2009
hi ratbones
i think you are correct - spandau was in the west and the ussr had a foothold via hess - he was no danger - and defected before the nasty bits happened
its pathetic that the ussr had this absolute paranoia that they took out on an old helpless man
st -
Message 13
Posted by Mr_Gregor (U5298579) on Monday, 1st June 2009
Too bad Hess was not hanged together with the other Nazi-GERMAN criminals.
-
Message 14
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 2nd June 2009
"...I am presuming that if he made it into his 90's that it wasn't arduous..."
He was not made to perform physical work, but his life does seem to have been incredibly tedious. It does not seem to be the sort of 'protection' I would want. Once you add up the reality and compare them to the conspiracies, it really does not add up. -
Message 15
Posted by Parti-NG-ton Blue (U13898629) on Tuesday, 2nd June 2009
"Too bad Hess was not hanged together with the other Nazi-GERMAN criminals"
Is there a particular reason you put German in capital letters? Or is it that they deserved more of a punishment than say Austrian criminals such as Eichmann or any other nationality that were just as guilty? -
Message 16
Posted by oldbess (U13929099) on Tuesday, 2nd June 2009
I still do not understand why he waited until he was 93, and probably on the point of being released on humanitarian grounds, before he hung himself.
-
Message 17
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 2nd June 2009
What on Earth makes you think they were about to release him ?
-
Message 18
Posted by oldbess (U13929099) on Tuesday, 2nd June 2009
From the mid-seventies, Amnesty International was
petitioning for his release.After which there was a groundwell of opinion he should be released on Humanitarian Grounds. -
Message 19
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 2nd June 2009
'Groundswell' ?
That would be about 10 Quakers and a couple of Nazi fantasists. There was no 'groundswell'. -
Message 20
Posted by Mr_Gregor (U5298579) on Tuesday, 2nd June 2009
Yes, there is a reason. Lately have German newspapers and TV-stations been talking about Polish KZ-camps and so on. Such things as Polish KZ-camps have never existed. So why allways write Nazi, but Russian or Polish in bad terms? I just wanted to underline the German connection with nazism.
-
Message 21
Posted by oldbess (U13929099) on Tuesday, 2nd June 2009
Sorry to argue with you, but the U.S France, and
Britain all fought to have him released on Humanitarian grounds, hardly a couple of Quakers
and some Nazi fanatics. Even Churchill pleaded his cause.
Anyway, as I said in my original post, I was asking on behalf of my son, and I am no expert,nor am I saying he should have been released--- -
Message 22
Posted by U2133447 (U2133447) on Tuesday, 2nd June 2009
I think the reason why he was not released is as given by some above ie that the Russians did not want to lose their foothold in West Berlin. Knowing this the West could easily campaign for his release knowing full well there was no chance of it happening and of them having to face the backlash if he were released.
I remember when I was very little and on holiday in Berlin. One day we went to Spandau and it struck me as most odd that there was this massive prison for one man, even then when I asked I was told it was so the Russians could keep their foothold there.
As to why he never committed sucicide earlier I think I am right in saying he was never looked after by guards from only one nation at a time to avoid the possibility of that nation arranging a "suicide". Indeed at the time of his death there were a number of conspiracies as to who had done it, none of them answered satisfatorily -
Message 23
Posted by Splinter55 (U14020899) on Saturday, 6th June 2009
Is anybody sure that it was Hess in prison and not a doppleganger
-
Message 24
Posted by oldbess (U13929099) on Sunday, 7th June 2009
Well---I suppose you could argue that! After, all other leaders had 'doubles' that were trotted out from time to time!
But, I still do not understand why this man, who was so frail, and needed a nurse to tie his shoe-
laces due to Arthritis in his hands, suddenly decided to end it all, and managed to get electric flex, and hang himself. Where were all the guards? -
Message 25
Posted by Jill (U13906676) on Sunday, 7th June 2009
I lived in W Berlin with RAF for six years, it was a very complex situation from ALL points of view.
I used to travel on a double decker bus to Spandau regularly and I saw him in the garden of the prison (over the prison wall). It wasnt a high wall and he could see the buses go by I'm sure amongst other things. He was walking in the garden and looked like any other old man walking and pondering...let's hope he had some regrets.
I know I thought that it didnt look so bad for someone who was responsible for wrongdoings.
Just my view on it. -
Message 26
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 9th June 2009
"...Is anybody sure that it was Hess in prison and not a doppleganger..."
Yes, great theory.
Step 1 - Find a 'doppelganger'.
Step 2 - Tell him that he will spend the rest of his life in prison pretending to be one of the most reviled men in history. Happens every day. -
Message 27
Posted by clankylad (U1778100) on Tuesday, 9th June 2009
In the film I’ve seen of him at the Nuremberg trial he appears to be mentally ill.
-
Message 28
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 9th June 2009
He was most definitely odd. I suspect he was hamming it up at his trial though.
-
Message 29
Posted by U2133447 (U2133447) on Tuesday, 9th June 2009
by TimTrack
"...Is anybody sure that it was Hess in prison and not a doppleganger..."
Yes, great theory.
Step 1 - Find a 'doppelganger'.
Step 2 - Tell him that he will spend the rest of his life in prison pretending to be one of the most reviled men in history. Happens every day.
Ìý
..... well maybe not everyday but there is a long history to the theory that it was not the real Hess in Spandau
-
Message 30
Posted by oldbess (U13929099) on Tuesday, 9th June 2009
Yes, I believe a few week after his trial, he suddenly regained his memory!
-
Message 31
Posted by slimdaddy (U14035560) on Monday, 15th June 2009
I’ve always thought Hess a bit of an enigma. And to be honest I’ve felt he was treated badly by the victors. A few contributors have already commented that he should have been hung after the Nuremberg trials and I’d be interested to know how they arrived at this outcome. Hess flew to Britain early on in the war, certainly well before the Germans introduced their policy of mass slaughter of the Jews. At the time of his flight the Germans were certainly ethnically cleansing large areas of the German Reich and of some conquered territories in the East but, the real slaughter did not start until later. Hess was certainly involved in a bit of gerrymandering and went about trying to ‘legalise’ the Nazi’s highly odious policies in the East but, he seemed (to me at least) an outsider within the ranks of the Nazi hierarchy. His flight to Britain – however misguided, was done in the spirit of making the German Reich and Britain at peace – noble sentiments, though completely detached from reality on the ground. His crimes seem to be vague concerning the creation of dodgy legal documents. It could be argued that it was a dodgy legal document (the treat of Versailles) that got us all into that position in the first place.
-
Message 32
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
"...A few contributors have already commented that he should have been hung after the Nuremberg trials and I’d be interested to know how they arrived at this outcome..."
Hess was a senior figure in the Nazi Party who also held a senior post in government. I accept that he fell from favour as time moved on, but that does remove his guilt.
He knew and understood that war was a necessary result of Nazi policy. He believed in and worked towards this war even before he entered government. It was a part of his reason for entering politics with the Nazi Party. As such, he was quite clearly guilty of carrying out and causing wars of aggression. The Deputy Fuhrer can't escape that guilt.
His insane flight to Scotland is, to my mind irrelevant. I suspect that this was an attempt to turn Brirain against the USSR. In other words, a mere attempt to win the war. So what ? -
Message 33
Posted by slimdaddy (U14035560) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
Hess was a senior figure in the Nazi Party who also held a senior post in government. I accept that he fell from favour as time moved on, but that does remove his guilt.Ìý
Guilt of what? You cannot lock a man up for life because he belonged to the Nazi party. By that rational even the present Pope would be guilty of some vague war crime.
Hess flew to Soctland in Jan... 1941. this was after the German invasion of France and Benelux countries, after the Poland campaign, but before Barbarossa. I, in know way defend the Nazi Govt's actions here, they invaded nuetral countries, broke with the terms of the Versaille treaty and as you say, Germany was guilty of carrying out "wars of aggression." Undeniable facts. However, it should be noted that these points metioned were hugely popular with the German population at large. A population demoralised by losing the FWW and blighted with hyperinflation. A population burdened under the terms of Versaille who craved a strong leader to stave off the increasing threat of Communiusm.
Hess as you say "believed in and worked towards this war even before he entered government", but so did many Germams at this time. The German nation at time were more or less united behind their Fuhrer. I accept that the Nazi policies of this time were barbaric (though of course they got much, much more depraved and inhumanne as the war progressed) but in essence it seems that Hess was a top Nazi, therefore we must goal him; is this not a victors justice? if he employed slave labour as Speer did, I would say yes - he used slaves - a clear war crime, he should face justice. But he didn't - he was guilty of supporting "wars of aggression".
I can think of a recent Prime Minister of the UK and recent President of the USA who pursued a number of what could be described as "wars of aggression" and did not (do not) have to face jury.
You state:
I suspect that this was an attempt to turn Brirain against the USSR. Ìý
Given that the Russian campaign was a long way away, how can you possibly back this statement up?
I could just as blithly state:
I suspect Hess thought Hitler had gone too far and wanted to sue for peace. I cannot back this statement up either; therefore we should keep our suspicions to ourselves and focus on the facts as we do know them. -
Message 34
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
You ask what he was guilty of, then go on to list the war crimes in which he was implicated.
We are not talking about a minor party apparatchik, we are talking of the Deputy Fuhrer. He was found guilty of involvement in starting a war of aggression. that is un-justifiable however much of the nation is behind, though it is un-true that Germans generally supported the war. The historical reports state that they greeted the news in stunned silence. The Nazis supported the war. They got 33% of the popular vote. It is un-true to say that the German population understood the outcome of party policies.
Operation Barbarossa was not 'along way away', it was the following month. The flight was in May 1941, not January. Hess is believed to have seen Hitler shortly before his flight.
Even if your counter-factual proposal were true, that he had gone to Britain to sue for peace, that would be too late. A crime cannot be 'un-committed'. As it is, we can only go on what happens. Germany attacked Poland. Germany attacked the Soviet Union. Those are the facts upon which theories must be based. -
Message 35
Posted by slimdaddy (U14035560) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
Hi TimTrack,
I very much enjoyed your response and I think we both agree on many of the same points. My viewpoint however is that Hess as a leading member of a corrupted Govt does, not necesarily imply he is guilty and deserves life imprisonment. Why did Speer for example recieve a lighter sentence?
Hess was a member of the Nazi hierarchy, but that was not in itself a crime.
He was found guilty of involvement in starting a war of aggression. that is un-justifiableÌý
OK - fair point. But he was not involved in what we would term 'war crimes'. His crime, as such was as you said - starting a "war of agression". But if we were to give a life sentence to everyone who had started a war, why did we not gaol the Kaiser in the FWW, or General Gailtaire (excuse my spelling - the leader of the Argentine Govt during the Falklands crisis). Why not seek to gaol Stalin who was certainly just as guilty of invading Poland (to say nothing of the rest of Eastern Europe he 'liberated') Napolean (that old warmonger) himself was merely given exile. And no-one can deny his 'wars of aggression'
In the Bosnia war, the war criminals sought by the Hague have are sought because of their deeds (ethnic cleansing, rape, etc) not because they were members of this govt or that govt. I noticed you did not respond to my mention of Tony or George in my last posting.
It's not the starting of wars that is a war crime, it is the deeds involved in those wars and the excesses of the military that deserve punishment.
You state -- The nazi party got "33% of the vote", The Reichstag election of July 1932 saw even more spectacular success: 13.7 million German electors, some 37.3 per cent of all votes cast, opted for the NSDAP, making it the largest party. This story of electoral success certainly forms the background to Hitler's appointment as Chancellor in 1933. Furthermore, any literature you read about those times will tell you that after the Rhineland was re-occupied, after the Sudetenland was won, the Nazi party attained huge respect and kudos from the length and breadth of Germany. Hitler inspired millions and was practically worshiped. Germany had regained it's pride, Versaille had been over-turned and the German army proved to be the strongest in the field. When Hess bailed out over Scotland, the Nazi party were at the peak of its powers. It's name was not yet besmirched by the terrible, terrible deeds attributed to it later.
You state:
Hess is believed to have seen Hitler shortly before his flight.Ìý
Implying that Hitler was in cahoots with Hess over his flight. I've read elsewhere that Hitler was in the dark over this flight by Hess and flew into a complete rage when it came to light. According to 'the Hitler book' (by his two bodyguards taken into Soviet captivity after the war, whose German names I can't remember) Hitler forbade anyone to mention his name around him again and arranged for Hess to be slandered. This was evident post war when Hess was shunned by other high ranking Nazi's at Nurumberg. -
Message 36
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Wednesday, 17th June 2009
Slim,
Several comments :
I certainly agree that Nuremberg represented a degree of '"Victors' justice". The Soviet Union certainly committed mass crimes. This is not good, but it was the best to be done in the circumstances. Putting Stalin on trial, whilst morally proper in itself, would have cost several million lives.
The biggest philosophical problem with the trial was that the laws were retrospective. New laws were written, and applied to past events. But that goes for all the defendants.
The political atmosphere when the Kaiser was deposed was somewhat different to 25 years later. The Kaiser was simply in a different era.
Speer ? Well, the more I know of him, the less I like him. He was lucky in that the West needed 'friendly' rehabilitated Nazis for propaganda purposes.
General Galtieri and the Falklands is not a good analogy. Although I do not accept the claim, the Argentines do have a flimsy historical case with regards to the Falklands. A better analogy is Chile's former dictator, Pinochet. His little local difficulty while in England demonstrated that crimes against humanity by national leaders are not above the law (nor above medical convenience).
Finally, you mention messrs Blair and Bush (it is difficult to cover every point sometimes !). Actually, I think that you would find it difficult to show they committed a crime in Iraq. Iraq was in breach of UN resolutions. In any event, contrary to popular opinion, a UN resolution is not needed to go to war. That war was a political mistake, not a crime, in my opinion. The lower level crimes committed in prisons or against civilians by individual soldiers are not high level war crimes. They are individual acts. For these to be considered war crimes for which a national leader can be held responsible in court the national governments would have to condone the crimes. I do not believe they did. -
Message 37
Posted by U2133447 (U2133447) on Wednesday, 17th June 2009
by TimTrack
In any event, contrary to popular opinion, a UN resolution is not needed to go to war.
Ìý
Isn't that a rewriting history? The people who say there should have a resolution do so in the belief that they had been given the understanding when the previous resolution was passed that military action would not start without a new resolution. That was certainly the French understanding of how things stood. -
Message 38
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Wednesday, 17th June 2009
TimTrack I certainly agree that Nuremberg represented a degree of '"Victors' justice". The Soviet Union certainly committed mass crimes. This is not good, but it was the best to be done in the circumstances. Putting Stalin on trial, whilst morally proper in itself, would have cost several million lives.Ìý I've come to think of international tribunals - Nuremberg in particular - as a very strange form of justice. Indeed, about the only part of the Nuremberg that would muster overwhelming consensus is the crimes against humanity part. Yet, the list of those on trial was hardly representative of that. Stranger yet, some of the witnesses - not to mention prosecutors, particularly in the Red Army uniform - seemed to be better suited for the accused bench. Parts of the trial were clearly staged to flatly manipulate facts on the ground, such as Katyn massacre, which the Soviets attempted to blame on the Nazis.
Somewhat related and certainly very ironic is the prevailing attitude to the public trials conducted in the 30s and late 40s by Stalin's henchman Vyshinsky (the Soviet master mind for Nuremberg as well) against the old Bolshevik "guard." Yuri Felshtinsky in his book "Made Leaders" argues that, contrary to the popular belief, the charges brought against Bukharin, Tukhachevsky, etc, etc were largely fitting. The accused were not only mass murderers of their own people, they indeed were implicated in assassination attempts and conspiracies against their peers. Yet, those very public trials are largely lauded as Stalin's greatest crimes by the indignant academia, when in fact the same man was personally involved in orchestrating genocides and the Second World War – by his own strangely and persistently overlooked admission.
Perhaps this wanders way off topic, and I am sorry about that, but the point is that the so-called justice produced for the media of one form or another (newspapers then; TV and internet streams now) is but the form of politics. -
Message 39
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Thursday, 18th June 2009
Suvo - Interesting comments.
NE Juan - I think your comments confuse politics with law. UN resolutions are really, I contend, politics. The people of Britain certainly wanted a UN resolution. I think some 85% or more were against the war without a resolution. But the reasons for that, within Britain, were mixed. Some thought it was legally necessary (wrongly, I think), others that it was more democratic. The idea that the UN is democratic is itself flawed. However, it is the best we currently have. I wanted a resolution primarily because I did not want the war at all and thought the resolution un-likely. I think that was also France's position in reality.
You may note that I contended a in a previous post that Argentina had not committed a crime in 1982 in the Falklands. I say that despite the fact that no UN resolution supported them.
Now, as I say, I opposed the Iraq war. But the legal position within international law on when war is justified is a mobile, woolly concept. If situations change between votes, and remember how international alliances do not always operate to morality (or law), then it may become legal to go to war despite the absence of UN resolutions. -
Message 40
Posted by U2133447 (U2133447) on Thursday, 18th June 2009
Hi Tim,
Thank you for your reply. I accept that there was\is no requirement for a UN resolution to go to war. It was exactly because in message 36 you seemed to imply that that was the view that I made my post ie
"The people who say there should have a resolution do so in the belief that they had been given the understanding when the previous resolution was passed ...."
ie I wanted to emphasise that the people calling for a UN resolution weren't doing so from a legal standpoint but from a "moral" standpoint based upon a "previous disputed assurance".
However, its now clear we are on the same wavelength
-
Message 41
Posted by Penske666 (U9181113) on Thursday, 25th June 2009
"Hess was known as 'prisoner number 6' in Spandau"
Bit of a tangent but does this bear any resemblence to Patrick McGoohans character in 'The Prisoner'?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.