Talk:Rudolf Höss/Archive 1

SS Career
I am unclear why Hoess's SS career summary keeps getting cut from the article. It contains exact dates of rank and all of his awards. A user posted in the edit summary that Hoess is a war criminal and therefore doesnt need or deserve to have this section, or words to that effect. However, rank and award summaries are common on sveral other pages, among them Reinhard Heydrich, Colin Powell, Chester Nimitz, Dwight Eisenhower. Why should a career summary not be in this article if it is on all those others? -Husnock 04:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * if this is your only argument then i say, i start here with taking it out or shortening it and will come to the others later. his career in the ss is covered in the article. the exact specifics; when he was ober or unter something are trivial, and matter to nobody but ss and military fetishists. giving all these ranks this much space to me is like valuating the system of a criminal organisation. it is trivial, it may be covered in the article about the ss (and i azm sure it is).trueblood 12:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that rank summaries appear in at least six military figure articles (and probably many more), to remove them as trival and saying that to have them "validates a criminal organization" to me just doesn't seem like a very good reason. I suggest getting the opinions of other editors. For now, I feel this section should stay since it appears its removal is based on some personal feelings instead of actual harm to the article. -Husnock 13:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Rectified useful information on Hoess - however, I agree with Trueblood that this article needs improving with more information - Trueblood, would you be willing to help do this rather than bulk deleting factual stuff? I am also interested in helping and trust me have no pro-Nazi POV - but we need to respect facts on WP also. MarkThomas 21:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * i reverted that. please look a bit closer. you reverted a lot of changes that made sense: i removed hoess first involvement with the nsdap from the section early life and wwi and put it into the section nazi party and ss, i removed his marriage from the section on his trial and put it somewhere were it made more sense. i removed some inaccuracies: hoess was not involved with the administrative side of the holocaust (as one might say heydrich was or eichmann) put with the practical side of actually getting people killed in a most efficient way, it was in ausschwitz were he introduced zyklon b not when working in berlin.

and i shortened all the ss rank stuff since their is a whole section with every bloody rank he hold. does not have to be in the article twice. if you are not satisfied can you look a bit closer and give reasons, why you don't agree with a particular edit? trueblood 22:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, will go through it all in detail when I next get time. From a quick surface inspection it would appear that you are wholesale deleting facts but I will check in more detail. MarkThomas 22:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * TB is actually being a trooper. He compromised and didnt edit war both now and before.  Good for him, we all should follow the examp. -Husnock 23:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Expanded History
Unfortunately, some think that expanding the history in certain key places is wrong. However, the information given is accurate and is of a type found in most encyclopedias. I have consulted the "vandalism" section of the Wikipedia FAQ and found that changing the information to give more depth is NOT considered vandalism and is perfectly acceptable. If you do not agree with the expanded information, that is unfortunate. It will continue to be placed within the article every day until it is not edited out.

Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deddolly (talk • contribs) 01:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Old Discussions
The number of 2.5 million deaths caused by Hoess is vastly exaggerated: all Auschwitz camps together saw only about 1.1 million deaths, and he didn't even lead the camp for the whole time of the extermination campaign. AxelBoldt 09:27, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Are you a Holocaust denier?
 * Hoess confessed under oath to administrating 2 million deaths at the Auschwitz during his tenure, and testified further that he understood the total number as being 3 million. He also stated in his autobiography that he was severely beaten by the British during the time of his capture and internment. His autobiography was first published in Polish, not German. It was later translated into English, and presumably from Polish into German since the original German text was never made available. Hoess's signed statements at Nuremberg are mostly in English, though by law and convention they should have been in German. Many of the Nuremberg statements contain handwritten changes in English; there is no evidence that Hoess could speak, read, write, or understand either English or Polish.


 * According to Höß in his autobiography, the number of more than 2 million stems from Eichmann. Höß thought it more likely to be between 1 and 1.5 million. This he also wrote during his internment in Nuremberg on the 24th of April (he appeared as witness on April 15th) as a reaction to Göring's doubts about the technical feasibility that Gustave Gilbert had told him about. Except Eichmann, nobody were to keep documents. The German edition of his autobiography is not a retranslation. It was published by Martin Broszat on the basis of photo copies, first in 1963. http://img122.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rudolfhoesskommandantinpt2.jpg Only on the cover spelled Höss. Thirdly, also from his book, he self-taught English during his prison time.80.130.35.129 15:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Reading the Nuremburg testomony of Höß, it seems quite clear that he was proud of what he did, as he saw it, for the Fuhrer and the Fatherland. But in reality the true figure for the deaths at Auschwitz seems to be somewhere between 1.1 and 1.6 million. Do we really feel that a death toll of 1.1 million is a lesser crime than a toll of two million? Or three million? Please, let us not argue over this sort of insignificant difference. The important thing is that we should recognise that the Holocaust happened, abhor it, and do all that we can to prevent anything like it ever happening again. Beside this basic imperative, trivial objections from Holocaust deniers must pail into insignificance. Yes, I do feel strongly about it, and no, I am not Jewish.--Anthony.bradbury 22:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently the campaign by "revisionists" is having some effect. No one discusses seriously many of the allegations that formerly were taken as absolute fact, to wit, the human lampshades, bars of soap, tattooed serial numbers, etc. The Auschwitz museum finally admitted that the "gas chamber" on view for so many years had been reconstructed after the war. The existing "gas chambers" are piles of rubble. Documentary evidence is supposedly in "code", as if the Nazis were too scared to speak out loud to one another. The many testimonies on which much of the holocaust history is based were provided by people who had been brutalised, indeed, but their testimony is rife with irreconcilable inconsistencies and outrageous claims. Much of the documentary evidence has never been made public, some of it locked away in Israel and the former Soviet Union. Everyone should have the opportunity to review all the evidence and make up his or her own mind. -unsigned anon user 7May06

This a typical revisionist comment. The gas chamber at Auschwitz I was built in 1941, and between then and 1942 was used to kill about 60,000 people. With the building and use of four much larger gas chamber/crematorium complexes at Auschwitz-Birkenau the need for the chamber at Auschwitz I vanished, and it was used until the end of the war by the SS as an air-raid shelter. It was never demolished, so did not need reconstruction, and exists today in its original form. I have stood in it. The associated crematorium was dismantled, but was reconstructed in 1946 from the original components, which remained on site. I recognise that some holocaust deniers simply cannopt grasp the magnitude of the Holocaust, and some may have political reasons for denying it. I ask them to go to Kracow, go to the Auschwitz site, and then come back and tell me that they don't believe it.--Anthony.bradbury 22:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the lampshades and the soap, but the tattooed serial numbers is a FACT, not some speculative allegation. I have personally seen the tattooed numbers on the arms of more than one survivor. Sh76us 04:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have personally seen both the lampshades and tattooed numbers. OK, I cannot vouch for the provenance of the lampshades, although the Nuremburg testimony is compelling. But I can speak of first-hand accounts of the tattoos. Incidentally, Hoess weas not hanged in front of the entrance to the crematorium; he was hanged beside the gas chamber/crematoriun complex, but on the other side thereof. I have been there and seen the site.--Anthony.bradbury 22:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, nice to hear some interesting opinions. Sorting through all the above, the only thing I have any desire to comment upon is that Hoess did speak English.  His SS service record contains a language test where he qualified as an English speaker. -Husnock 19:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Frankly I don't know whether he spoke English or not. One website (Mazal) gives his testimony at Nuremberg where he says he understands "some" English. Presumably he hadn't had much opportunity to use it since high school. In any case, the normal procedure would be for him to sign documents only in his own language. Sign me anonymous.


 * In his autobiography Hoess writes "During my free time I eagerly studied the English language, and had books of instruction in it sent to me. Later I arranged for a continuous supply of English books and periodicals, and consequently I was able, in about a year, to learn this language without any outside assistance.I found this a tremendous mental corrective". Hoess learned English whilst he was in prison. Welkinridge 13:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Höß's autobiography was translated from German by Constantine Fitzgibbon. I think the originals are now held in the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum. Welkinridge 17:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * After being replaced as the Auschwitz commander by Arthur Liebehenschel on December 1, 1943, Höß assumed Liebehenschel's former position as the chairman of Amt D I in Amtsgruppe D of the SS Wirtschaftsverwaltungshauptamt (WVHA), where he introduced Zyklon B as a means to carry out the camp's mass murders; 

Something is wrong here. Extermination in gas chambers with Zyklon B started in Spring 42 in Auschwitz Birkenau. Or does the sentence mean that Liebehenschel introduced Zykon B? AxelBoldt 09:34, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In his auto-biography (previously acknowledged) Hoess asked that it would never be published. A recent edition, which can be bought freely, is forwarded by the poet Primo Levi and proceeds of the sale are donated to the few remaining survivors of Auchwitz. Hoess describes himself as a duty-oriented man with a passion for farming and his family. His unswerving adherence to Himmler's ordering of him to help perpetrate "The Final Solution" and to search for a convenient method of its execution (eventually gassing using the same Zyclon B that was used to destroy the camp vermin) shows that the man was not the humanitarian he portrays himself as. The book is a powerful, harrowing "must read" personal account of one of the most infamous members of the SS.


 * He asked the parts not to be published that concern his wife, children, and his inner stirrings. This was complied with insofar as the letters to his family members were not published.80.130.35.129 15:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The common name of this Nazi in English is Hoess. I will change the name accordingly. gidonb 20:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Did you really have to include other wiki's than just the Dutch one in your crusade against diacritics and the ß? Greetings, Minuteman 21:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Just waiting to see what action gidonb is going to take at the German language wikipedia. Please accept the transliteration guidelines. Besednjak

Please note our guideline for naming articles: ''Convention: Title your pages using the English name, if one exists, and give the native spelling on the first line of the article. If the native spelling is not in the Latin alphabet, also provide a Latin transliteration. Only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form.'' gidonb 04:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed. The question is which spelling is used more frequently. From December 2003 till July 10 2005 the title Höß was not considered to be questionable. I have the impression that you renamed it just recently in order to use it as "proof" in your cruisade against diacritics at the Dutch wikipedia. I do not agree with the title change but I can live with your missionary work if you respect the fact that the man was officially named Höß and that this is respected in the text. Besednjak 10:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I disapprove of your allegations, such "cruisade against diacritics", here and at nl.wikipedia. I have never taken a stand against diacritics in general. In fact, I favor using them in most cases. I believe it would be good practice to review some of your texts, for example the one on my Dutch user page. Why first blame then ask? I think Elly pointed out to you that the question mark is also an important symbol that actually is part and parcel of one’s basic keyboard. gidonb  19:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You first stated the ß was abolished, then you said the use of ß has vastly dimished, then you said the ß can be replaced with ss (though not stating under what conditions, i.e. if the ß cannot be written because of technical constraints) and then you said German nazis do not deserve their surnames to be spelled in their most original form. Some more research from your part would have done no harm... Besednjak 16:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

If you do not want to face the facts, that is fine with me. gidonb 23:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I find your attitude quite unusual indeed. You first stated the ß was abolished, then you said the use of ß has vastly dimished, then you said the ß can be replaced with ss (though not stating under what conditions, i.e. if the ß cannot be written because of technical constraints) and then you said German nazis do not deserve their surnames to be spelled in their most original form. Besednjak 11:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Also please note that at the bottom of the page there are four links, out of which one in German and four in English. The one in German is the only one to use the ß, which is hardly ever used in English. (just as an aside: it is not commonly used throughout the entire German speaking area either. In Switzerland and Liechtenstein its used was abandoned in the 1930s. In Austria and Germany its use was more recently reduced). Important for the English spelling, four of the linked documents in English use Hoess and one (at the Jewish Virtual Library) uses Höss. Umlauts (and other diacritics) are in fact frequently used in English, when no other spelling has become prevalent. gidonb 20:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your point of view that implies that the ß and ss can be used equally in German. You state that quite frequently, but it is nevertheless untrue. If the surname of a German individual is written with a ß in his birth certificate, this fact has to be respected. Equally one should note that spelling reforms in Germany do not touch surnames (nor geographical names). Please note that your reference to the reform of spelling in German has no effect on Surnames whatsoever! Furthermore, the ß may be replaced with ss only if the ß is unavailable for technical reasons. The new rules concerning ß/ss simplify its use, they do not significantly reduce the use of it. The real question is: do we use names in articles in their most irginal form or do we transfer them into English. It is fine with me to take these into English, but then please do not state that the transfer is even conform with its writing in the German language because it is not. Besednjak 15:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * If you do not want to face the facts, that is fine with me. gidonb  23:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Please respect that ß and ss cannot be used equally in Germany. The German spelling regulations states clearly: "Die amtliche Regelung der deutschen Rechtschreibung" - A Laut-Buchstaben-Zuordnungen - 0 Vorbemerkungen - §3.2.  and thus excludes surnames from the ß reform - ß cannot equally be replaced with ss.
 * If you do not face this fact, that is fine with me.
 * The reason why you do never give proof for your "facts" and why you never respond to quotations from official documents like above is simply because you would have to acknowledge that your assumption (ß and ss can be used equally in German) is wrong. Besednjak 11:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Who moved this article to "Rudolf Hoess"? This article should either be "Rudolf Höss" (with the diacritics) or "Rudolf Höß" WhisperToMe 23:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Commandant at Auschwitz
I believe this needs to be addressed more clearly in the Auschwitz page and also this one. Londo06 11:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Surprised that neither the article or the discussion page tempers his "confessions" with the knowledge that he appears to have been drugged - alcohol - and beaten. Much of his "confession" was also obviously false - it appears that his interrogators didn't read English too well themselves.

A published biography of Hoess on Amazon has an interesting review. I have seen internet sites that say how Hoess got 1941 and 1942 mixed up. In one case he confessed to executing - gas - a year before the camp system was even in operation. In the other - new with this autobiography ( it must be hard to write an accurate fictional biography if you don't have a photogaphic mind and have read every piece of paper on the subject in existence - and hope no more papers are found) Hoess mentions meeting HImmler in 1941. It turns out he didn't meet Himmler that year - explained away as a slip in memory so it had to be 1942. However, Himmlers 1942 scheduling calendar has been found and they never met in 1942 - nowhere near each other, etc. Hoess' confession gets softer and softer with time. Question - is Hoess' confession - number he killed - only for his tenure at a camp or does it include deaths for other commandants tenure. The numbers have problems either way it appears - more trivia.159.105.80.141 17:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have a source - link, etc - to Hoess' daily reporrts to Berlin ( in code, decoded by the Enigma codebreakers everyday )from Auschwitz?159.105.80.141 18:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding his confessions and his treatment by the authorities. In his autobiography Höß says that he was initially treated badly by the British when he was arrested and evidence was obtained by beating. However when he was transferred to Nuremburg he was treated well although he found the interrogations unpleasant psychologically. In May 1946 he was flown to Cracow where he was put in a Polish prison. There, after initially being treated well, he was treated badly by being starved but later things improved and he was treated well again. He was then transferred to Warsaw for trial and his autobiography was written while he was there, before he came to trial. He wrote that he would not have written his biography but for "...a disarming humanity and understanding that I never dared to expect". Welkinridge 18:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see any Hollywood movie on the subject. Torturing the Boogie Man is a good thing. No one would believe the man wrote those pages of sentences under the brutality of torture and shadow of a noose though. Just reading those sentences, paragraphs and pages of sentiments, you know that the writer was not the object of torture. He just signed his name to protect his family. Please repeat after me.... "torturing the Boogie Man is a good thing."

Move to Rudolf Höss

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The gross S is incomprehensible to most Anglophones; it is not a simple diacritic but a ligature. Jd2718 12:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The convention is to "use the 30-letter German alphabet in proper names, in line with the broader Wikipedia convention…", although editors are encouraged to explain alternatives (Höss, Hoess, Hoss). The current title is clearly mandated. --Stemonitis 13:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not a member of Wiki Project Germany, but I do note that this part of their naming convention page (which otherwise seems common-sense, or makes good choices) is in direct contradiction to the German alphabet article, which does not call the (is it "sharp S?) a letter, but agrees with me that it is a ligature. Words with "ß" are alphabetized as if they were "ss", pronunciation is not altered, etc etc. And unlike "ü", "ß" provides not a clue to pronunciation for the monolingual anglophone, the most likely user of this encyclopedia. Jd2718 14:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure they're well aware of that, but chose to simplify the situation slightly. In fact, ß is a little more than just a ligature, and acts more like a letter in some ways. Pronunciation does vary (at least since the German spelling reform of 1996) between "ss" and "ß", and predictability of pronunciation is a weak argument anyway, because an English speaker is just as unlikely to get "ü" right as "ß" (and indeed much more so after they've read the opening line of the article). The English-language Wikipedia is de facto a global resource, so although it must be in English, it need not be (and to my knowledge, is not) tailored exclusively to monoglots. You may be unaware of it, but this is all old argumentation, which has been gone over repeatedly. Proposed guidelines which would have effectively outlawed ß have failed to achieve consensus, and hundreds of articles use ß in titles (almost all of the ones which would under German spelling rules, in fact). The arguments were well known to the people at WP:GER, I'm sure (I wasn't involved), when they drafted their guidelines, and they made a conscious decision in favour of diacritics and correct German spelling. A very strong case would need to be made why this article should eb an exception to that guideline, because the same old arguments are unlikely to be enough, I suspect. --Stemonitis 21:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems strange to leave the decision to precisely the group of people on English Wikipedia who have no difficulty deciphering the strange symbol. Most Anglophones would render it as "B," not close in any way to its pronunciation (unlike the u/ü conflation, where the wrong sound is a related vowel). "Hard to pronounce" and "unpronounceable" are not the same thing. It's a nice thing about Wikipedia that it is possible to correct past mistakes. Further, the wrong convention in 100 articles does not necessitate the wrong convention be used here. Jd2718 01:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * These are still the old arguments, which have been considered and considered insufficient. You have also fallen into the old trap of using excessively emotive language; phrases like "deciphering" and "strange symbol" are readily replaceable with "read" and "character". If you want a blanket ban on ß, then please do not try to achieve it one article at a time, but try to get a consensus elsewhere. The current naming conventions (and WP:RM is based very largely on current naming conventions) are for articles to include ß as appropriate. Look around the German-related pages on Wikipedia. There is a clear consensus to spell German things the German way. It's just another part of a growing trend in the world's media towards nativisation of proper nouns of people and places. --Stemonitis 06:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like a B. And no kidding that the members of WP Germany have no problems reading it. And that would be "non-Latin character," btw. Jd2718 07:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * cf. list of Latin letters. --Stemonitis 08:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This should be renamed because
 * 1. It is not English = ß -> ss
 * 2. It is not a Latin character "ß" will be interpreted as "B" or &beta;
 * 3. This is not the German language Wikipedia
 * 132.205.44.134 21:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly feel the title should stick with the original, especially since it is a name. There is a template for these cases that alerts people to foreign characters and their alternatives that could be used on top of the page after the original (German) title (Template:Foreignchars):

That way people unfamiliar with German spelling will know that the "B" or "beta"-like character is actually a double-s in German. I've seen this template used on quite a few German pages and it does serve the purpose of clarifying those letters to people who are unfamiliar with them. So instead of moving the page, I'd suggest just adding that template for clarification. - tameeria 15:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Looking at the redirects linking here, the following are plain wrong spellings: "Rudolf Höss" is semi-correct, but inconsistent because it only converts one of the two German-alphabet letters in the name, but not the second one. "Rudolf Hoess" converts both letters and would be the correct way of rendering it in non-German alphabet. - tameeria 15:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Rudolf Hoss
 * Rudolph Hoss
 * Rudolph Hoess

I agree with the usage of Template:Foreignchar and Template:Foreignchars to express the different variations instead of changing the article title. Olessi 18:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * One could make this argument for everything, since there are various romanizations for Korean, etc. It would be a stronger argument for Korean. 132.205.44.134 19:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 06:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Constant blanking of rank chart
I've followed this article for awhile now and have noticed that a single user (User:Trueblood) keeps vandalizing the page by removing the section on Hoess's dates of rank in the SS. The user has been approached about this, but had never really offered an explanation except that he doesnt care for the chart being on the page. When asked to cease blanking the chart, the user has ignored these requests and in the most recent case, has actually admitted to vandalizing the page. I've restored the chart and ask what can be done if this user keeps on removing it? -OberRanks 19:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * i want the chart gone for reasons i have given above, i will continue to take it off, i called that sloppily vandalism in my own edit summary. i am okay with replacing it with a list of his ranks although since they are also covered in the article i find that slightly redundant. the chart might be of interest for ss rank fetishist like yourself but not of general interest. i thought wanting it gone for esthetic reasons might be enough, i have contributed constructively to the parts of the article that matter a little bit more as you will see if you take the time to look at the part of the discussion page you are refering to. can you say the same?trueblood 16:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It is very hard to follow your broken english, but from what I gather you object to the pictures in the rank chart but not the actual ranks themselves. If that is what this about, then taking away the pictures would be fine.  When I came across this article, I found what looked like an unending edit war followed by you making statements that you were vandalizing the rank chart on purpose.  When you did not respond to the message above, but instead simple blanked the chart once again, I thought we were dealing with a straight forward vandal.  Now that I understand what you are trying to accomplish, it makes a lot more sense.  And please be careful about personal attacks.  Calling another user an "ss rank fetishist" clearly is against WP:NPA. -OberRanks 16:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * people usually understand what i have to say, although some people need to point out if i make mistakes, the way you do that and that you manage to remind of the need to stay polite in the same contribution is very charming. what is offensive about calling you a ss rank fetishist? the ss rank part or the fetishist part? before reporting me as a vandal you could have adressed me personally on my talk page. some anon did but that anons last edit was this [], do i need to take him serioustrueblood 16:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The policy of No Personal Attacks is that users should make comments based on the contributions and not the contributor. Calling another user a "fetishist" is point blank calling someone a name and it shouldn't be done.  As for me not approaching you on your talk page, I thought the talk page of the article would be a better place.  As far as that other user you are referring to, it appears to be an open account with multiple users so it's doubtful (although not impossible) that the same person who made that offensive remark was the same one who contacted you on your page.  But, I can't say I blame you for not taking seriously an anon account.  Anyway, the pictures are gone from the article as you requested. -OberRanks 17:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * nice trueblood 17:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * i will henceforth refrain from calling you a ss rank fetishist and leave at ss rang enthusiast.trueblood 19:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Switch redirect/target
As this is english language wikipedia, the correct title should be Hoess, with Höß as a redirect, shouldn't it? --NEMT 02:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Name: Spelling variants
The spelling Hoeß is used on his assignment order, which represents a contemporary, primary source. Unless we assume his superiors didn't know how to spell his name (which is not impossible - ö vs oe is not obvious as some names exist in both variants), it's among the best sources we have. The spelling is not due to the typewriter; the same document contains several ü. Thus, the variant should be included among the others. Admittedly the very best primary source I found, his own signature on his confession, definitely uses ö. Huon 23:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Or, since we're using the English language wikipedia, we could use the English language spelling, Hoess. --NEMT 01:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether the article itself should be named Rudolf Höß or Rudolf Hoess is discussed at length above, with consensus apparently favoring the current position. This also seems to be in line with precedents, compare Gerhard Schröder. Naming conventions (use English) suggests to use the most commonly used spelling, and while Google is unreliable (because it's smart enough to return hits with spelling variants, too), there seems to be no great preference either way.
 * Anyway, I was merely suggesting we should mention a spelling variant which we have proof of contemporary use for. Huon 06:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Undelete Request
To whoever has the power, please undelete the following image:

"Image:Auschappoint.jpg" ‎

It was from the service record of Rudolf Hoess on file with the National Archives and there was no reason for its removal from this article. The image was one of several swept up in a massive deletion campaign. I will investigate and clarify the copyright claim when and if this article should be put back in but it should be a work of the US goverment, copy of a record page on file with the National Archives. -OberRanks 12:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest one of two courses of action: Either go to WP:DRV to have the deletion reviewed, or simply upload it again, this time immediately clarifying the image's copyright status. Huon 13:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"See Also"
I am removing the see also section because its purpose is served at the top of the page where it says: not to be confused with Rudolf Hess. Just wanted to provide an explanation. --DerRichter (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, it was redundant. WilliamH (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There's Hoss' Auschwitz diary published
I was reading this years ago. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What language version was it or was it the original--196.207.47.60 (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)?

I have an idea
Let's move the Mao Zedong article to 毛泽东. Isn't that a great idea? Why bother with silly ideas like USING ENGLISH LETTERS IN TITLES OF ENGLISH-LANGUAGE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES? Vidor (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. You should remove the match from your shift-key, or you won't find many people who are interested in what you have to say. — Mütze (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. The use of non-English letters in English-language articles is profoundly stupid. Vidor (talk)


 * Firstly, Wikipedia is not tailored for monoglots. Secondly, 毛泽东 is chinese characters, so such a comparison isn't relevant - we're dealing with latin characters here, and accordingly, for proper German names, "the Wikipedia convention is to use the 30-letter German alphabet." This has been discussed endlessly, consistently asserted by resonably clear consensus. You've beaten this horse for a long time to no avail - I reckon you might be better off dropping the stick. WilliamH (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a fun stick to wield. The Chinese comparison is precisely on target.  The little German squiggle we are using to represent the last two letters of Hoess' name is not a Latin character, and using non-English letters in English-language article titles is really, really silly.  Vidor (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a stick of inconsequentiality. The Chinese comparison is irrelevant because that little squiggle you refer to is a Latin character. Wikipedia is not tailored for monoglots. WilliamH (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

George Washington signed his name with the long s. Let's move his article to "George Wafhington" or some approximation thereof. Vidor (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ...but since there are only 24 Google hits for "George Wafhington" president, compared to 4.7 million for "George Washington" president, that isn't how reliable sources refer to him, so Wikipedia shan't either. Secondly, George Washington is not subject to German naming conventions, so further comparison still isn't relevant. Please, drop the stick. WilliamH (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * ß is a Latin alphabet ligature. Jared Preston (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with all those who prefer the article title to remain as it is. His name was Rudolf Höß.  It's a matter of learning a couple of simple shortcuts on a computer keyboard, and "Rudolf Hoess" links to here anyway, so get over it.  Lexo (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Or, we could type the article's name in the English alphabet, as appropriate for the English Wikipedia. Sometimes this place is very strange. Vidor (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was moved to Rudolf Höss -- Aervanath (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Propose Rudolf Höß → Rudolf Hoess

I do realise this proposed move has been discussed before without consensus.

First of all, there is potential for conflict between Naming conventions (use English) and WikiProject Germany/Conventions. But if there is a conflict, the former must prevail since it is an accepted convention, whereas the latter is only a proposed policy, so it essentially has the status of a guideline.

Naming conventions (use English) states: "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works)." On google scholar, "Rudolf Höß" yields 265 hits, the majority of which are written in German. "Rudolf Hoss" yields 292 hits. "Rudolf Hoess" yields 406, indicating that it is probably the most favoured spelling in academic works written in English. Encyclopedia Brittanica uses "Hoess". The English-language translation of the autobiography of the person is currently published under the name "Rudolf Hoess".

WikiProject Germany/Conventions states, "The Wikipedia convention is to use the 30-letter German alphabet in proper names, in line with the broader Wikipedia convention of using local Latin alphabets." The page offers no evidence of such a convention beyond stating that it is so. As stated above, this position does not accurately reflect the current Wikipedia convention, which is found at Naming conventions (use English). WikiProject Germany/Conventions aspires to become convention, but until it is, the current conventions should prevail.

Finally, note the spelling of other notable people with names that have similar German spellings. As the most obvious example, the page is found at Rudolf Hess, not "Rudolf Heß". — Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support IIRC, there's also a policy page that says that other than diacritic modified versions of the 26-letters, no other letters should be used in page titles. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Actually, we have a guideline page that says "Wikipedia has no rule that titles must be written in certain characters, or that certain characters may not be used." Jafeluv (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. The current title reads as "Rudolf Höb" to anyone who doesn't know German. Also, as Good Ol'factory points out, "Hoess" seems to be the more common spelling in English language sources. Jafeluv (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to enter the realm of personal attacks, but you created a page called Ismo Alanko Säätiö! I have no idea what that would come out to in English. I don't know Finnish but I do know that it is a proper noun so why would I attempt to transliterate those symbols. So what is the difference? --DerRichter (talk) 03:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehe, nice finding! The difference is that in the few English sources we have for the band, its name is written as "Ismo Alanko Säätiö" (, |ALANKO&sql=11:kjfoxqrhldhe~T1). "Ismo Alanko Saatio" might be a possible variant, and that's how English-speaking people would read the name anyway. The version with diacritics is used because that's the way reliable sources write the name. It then comes down to this: how do English language sources write "Rudolf Höß"? Jafeluv (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as usage. The sentence from WP:GERCON Where an English form of name for a king or prince is in common use, Wikipedia employs that as the headword for an article should be extended to all personal names; why not? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Very much against a move for the simple reason that "Rudolf Hoess" was never in any way the guy's actual name. He never wrote it, spoke it, or signed it that way and the spelling was actually a creation by 1950s historians of the US and UK to make it easier for non-German readers to understand.  A note about the english version of the name should be in the article, but this article should in no way be moved. -OberRanks (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Editors with actual Sprachgefühl would have capitalized English correctly. This should be given as much attention as a request to move de:Kalifornien to its "real" name of "California" would be given at the German Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that making comments about another editor's typing skills and/or grammer unrelated to the actual conversation about the article is in violation of WP:CIV. This is a vote, so I voted.  And, as far as my knowledge of this, I am a World War II historian with 21 years of study into the SS and SS service records and speak fluent German.  Every serious text about this man spells his name the German way which is why I oppose the move. -OberRanks (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your fluency in German is evident - and irrelevant. This is the English Wikipedia, and fluency in English is what we seek. Books that use Hoess in English include both Hoess's autobiography, Commandant of Auschwitz, recently reissued, and Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich p 967. (The other translation, Death Dealer, uses Höss, not Höß; that would be second best.)  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is irrelevant (didn't mean to wave it around like that). I'll give you that "Höss" is equally as common, if not more.  Maybe move it to that instead.  Its 3 to 1 now so the move probably will happen like you want it. -OberRanks (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Partial Support for Höss. I was on the fence with Hoess, however Höss seems more appropriate than the current title. Although it does indeed still have a character not common in the english language, I think it's the best of both (translates better into english without being too controversial about it not being his "official" surname). Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be okay with a move to Höss and in fact think that would be the bext choice here. -OberRanks (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose per previous discussion on this page, because a Rudolf Hoess never existed. The English Wikipedia naming policy even states that Google hits are not to be trusted. I don't know why they would ever be considered reliable. And this is not the place to take up a crusade against diacritics when Lågøya, František Palacký, Jan Žižka, and Provençal all use them in the page title. I used these examples just because they were easy to find but also because it shows the problem exists with Romance, Germanic, and Slavic languages. I mostly oppose changing this page when all others remain the same because I think we should either be consistent or just leave the issue alone. Just for the record, I completely support helping lay readers understand the diacritics, but I think that redirects in combination with this line do the job: The title of this article contains the characters ö, and ß. Where they are unavailable or not desired, the name may be represented as Rudolf Hoess.--DerRichter (talk) 03:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment why is it that German has a favored status on Wikipedia when compared to other non-English languages, like Greek which English monoglots would more likely know the lettering to since it appears in Math and Physics classes. This seems like a systematic bias on Wikipedia with the appearance of Western/Central European exceptionalism. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know a clear answer to that. I would hope that its not a systemic bias but I think in this case, I actually was trying to point out that the use of diacritics is not just an issue with proper nouns from German but lots of other languages with Latin alphabets. If you think this bias is pervasive, I apologize and support you in addressing the issue on a Wikipedia-wide basis. I'll admit it probably doesn't look right that my username is derived from German literature, but we should probably keep the rest of the discussion here on the proposal at hand. --DerRichter (talk) 08:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The anon ip speaks with wisdom. German articles do kind of get special treatment here.  In fact, Nazi articles on Wikipedia are better than some textbooks I've read.  For myself, I think its a fascination about how evil these men really were.  The fact that the SS even existed -  a vast state run organziation devoted to the sole purpose of evil, is a remarkable example of what humans are capable of. -OberRanks (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's by no means just the Germans who get their letters used in article titles. We have Icelandic, Polish, Turkish, Vietnamese and Serbian examples, and one could dig up many more. We even have at least one article title written completely in cyrillic letters. That's because there's "no rule that titles must be written in certain characters, or that certain characters may not be used". Jafeluv (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I normally support using diacritics for titles that are personal names. However, diacritics are different from extensions.  Diacritics (e.g., "ö") can be "read through," i.e., ignored when read by someone unfamiliar with them, but extensions (e.g., "ß," "ð") cannot normally be.  (I once expanded this argument here.)  By these criteria, the target should be Rudolf Höss.  But if Rudolf Hoess is overwhelmingly more common in English sources then go with that.  —   AjaxSmack   15:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Rudolf Hoess is better than Höß. (says someone with a name that is more confusing than informative) Þjóðólfr (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment (nominator). Some have expressed support for Höss over Hoess. I would be fine with either, and I agree that while non-English "letters" are almost always avoided, diacritics are not avoided in the same way. I chose "Hoess" only because it seemed to be more common in English sources, not because I viewed it as somehow superior. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Most everyone who has opposed the move has said that "Höss" would be an acceptable move as it gives reference to the German texts and the subject actually did sometimes write his name this way. I would say that the way it stands now, there is consensus for "Höss" but not for "Hoess" since Rudolf never wrote or spoke his namke the second way.  We might actually be able to close the debate and move the article if that's okay with everyone. -OberRanks (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Too many photographs ?
The Wiki contributor who took the pictures of the current state of the place where Höss was hanged and released the pictures to the public domain is to be commended. But we might one too many! These are two nearly identical pictures. I propose that the first picture is deleted and only the second one is left, i.e. the one where the commemorative plaque is shown and the hanging gallows itself can be seen in the background. In fact, this would be the caption of the sole picture, i.e. "Here is the commemorative etc etc. In the background is the gallows etc". -The Gnome (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

birth date
User:Oldfirehall has changed the year of birth from 1900 to 1901 a couple of times now. It is given as 1900 by the Jewish Virtual Library, among others. Seems to be sneaky vandalism. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  12:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Not having been familiar with all the academic work on Auschwitz I missed Fritjoh Meyer rediscovery of an important footnote from the Irving trial ( van Pelt's written testimony). Van Pelt's discovery of a memo shows that Hoss testimony was seriously in error. Meyer, a proHolocaust historian/editor...., seems to think that most of Hoss' confessions were enhanced by torture - just because they were impossible in light of the testimony in the Irving trial from Lipstadt's witnesses. 159.105.80.103 (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

He wasn't hung or executed, He died in Spandau Prison — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoliceOfTweets (talk • contribs) 14:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe the previous commenter is thinking of Rudolph Hess (Heß), Hitler's onetime deputy, and not Rudolf Höss (Hoess, Höß), the Auschwitz commander. It was Hess who flew to Scotland in 1941 and who spent 40 years in Spandau Prison. --- OtherDave (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Replaced "hoff"
"Timeline of promotion / Dates of rank": Because I didn't find an English meaning and neither does the word exist in German, I suppose the rank "SS-hoff" to be a typo or something. Therefore, I replaced it by "aspirant", since "Anwärter" is the expression given in the German article, and that translates to "aspirant". Best wishes, Tubifex (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, what's up with "Höß"
Wikipedia blows my mind sometimes. Anyplace else on earth, editors would understand that an English-language publication should use the English alphabet. "Höss", people. These questions aren't hard. Vidor 01:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree totally. The average English speaker does not know how to type "Höß" on his keyboard. (I had to cut and paste.) And heaven help anyone trying to look up a name from a country that does not use the Latin alphabet. --The Four Deuces (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. So long as the other spellings redirect here, what is the problem? --John (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that IT ISN'T ENGLISH. The title is incorrect. I would move it myself, only there appears to be some kind of administrative block that prevents the article from being moved. Vidor (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I just looked up "Germany" and it says "Deutschland redirects here". In English Wikipedia, I would expect all proper nouns to appear under their English spellings, just as the German Wikipedia would use German spellings such as "Amerika" and "Frankreich". Is there any reason why this article should be an exception? --The Four Deuces (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And would someone care to explain that if this article needs to be called Höß, then why, par exemple, is the article on Zhukov entitled "Georgy Zhukov" instead of "Георгий Константинович Жуков"? kovesp (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally have no understanding of Lågøya, František Palacký, Jan Žižka, or Provençal. They clearly are not English.  These signs mean nothing to me.  This proves that this problem is a wikipedia-wide one and not one exclusive to this article.  Would people be upset if I renamed these aricles Lagoya, Frantisek Palacky, Jan Zizka, or Provencal with no understanding if these are the correct translations?  Probably.  In addition, none of those articles use this:   It clarifies the transliterations for everyone at the top of the article, clearing up any confusion.  This discussion should be moved to somewhere that they discuss policy on Wikipedia.  For future reference, to type an Esszet (ß) when one is editing, use the big box of characters underneath the edit summary section.  This tool will probably reduce one's need to cut and paste.--DerRichter (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Worth repeating: IT ISN'T ENGLISH  End of discussion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.69.81.2 (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * great points, Vidor, kovesp, The Four Deuces. big agreement! Cramyourspam (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

what is star-shaped uniform decoration?
i keep seeing a star-shaped decoration on his uniform in some photos, but never any explanation of it. any clues? it is worn on the pocket opposite of the usual one for their decorations. see him second from left in this photo.


 * Its World War I Turkish War Medal http://gmic.co.uk/index.php/topic/696-turkish-war-medal/. --216.172.135.204 (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * many thanks! i'd long wondered. Cramyourspam (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Nuremberg trials
Hoess only appeared at the IMT he did not appear at any of the NMTs, I've corrected this several times, always for it to be deleted and the incorrect theory that he testified at the Pohl & Farben trial propagated. HE WAS DEAD BEFORE THE FARBEN TRIAL EVEN STARTED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.142.186 (talk) 00:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Leaving Auschwitz
I glad to see the commandant of this page has finally stopped insisting Hoess appeared at NMTs 4 & 6. Some form of revisionism I see.

Hoess' affidavit 3868-PS (and these parts were read by Amen to Hoess in the witness box) states: - "I commanded Auschwitz until 1 December 1943" - "I personally supervised executions at Auschwitz until first of December 1943" - "On 1 December 1943 I became Chief of Amt I in Amt Group D of the WVHA" - Hoess also stated that morning at the IMT: "I was commander at Auschwitz from May 1940 until December 1943." http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/04-15-46.asp

Yet this page claims, with no source—contradicting Liebehenschel's page—that Hoess was replaced on Nov 10, 1943.

Who is the commandant of this page? Colonel Klink! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.142.186 (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What is with the Final Quote?
All the previous quotes and explications of writings of Höss in the article state clearly and unequivocally that he had full knowledge, executive power, and first-hand experience of the mass murder that was carried out in his camp. But the final quote says "Most of the terrible and horrible things that took place there I learned only during this investigation and during the trial itself." and that these "terrible and horrible things" were carried out only "supposedly" under his orders, *as if* he did not clearly and directly order mass-murder at all. Is this an appropriate quote to end with? Should it not at least be glossed to explain that the "terrible and horrible things" here referred to are things even more terrible and horrible than the (to Höss) routine murder of tens of thousands of people? As it stands it reads as if he is saying he was unaware of mass murder - comprising most of terrible horrible things from a sane perspective. I am not sure what the explanation of the final quote is, and I am sure that there could be many, but to end the article with this quote seems inappropriate. --Timtak (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hoess's capture
According to Episode 5 of the BBC's documentary, Auschwitz: The Nazis and 'The Final Solution', Hoess's capture and the circumstances surrounding it played out a little differently. There is already sufficient information on his capture in the previous paragraph, and there is no need for such depth when there are contradicting stories from reliable sources.Hoops gza (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Error in Dates of Rank
It's noted that he attained the rank of SS-Hauptscharführer on March 1st, 1935. However, it is listed out of chronological order with the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.182.93.82 (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Execution
I noticed that there were mistakes in the description of his death, missing citations and the location where he was hanged. I have uploaded some images I have taken which hopefully will also provide a solid reference for the corrections I have made, sourced directly from the text on the board in front of where he was hung. Bungle44 12:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

About the exact method of his execution: In the book written by the nephew of Alexander who captured him, it seems to indicate that he was climbing on a stool and then he would drop through a trap door. But the photo looks like he was just going to drop from the stool and that's it -- i.e., he would be hanged by the "short drop" method. So two questions: 1. Is it true there was no trapdoor and 2. Was a short drop specifically part of his sentence?

It appears that sometimes the sentences of war criminals were hangings intended to kill the victims severing the spinal cord -- I think most top nazis were hanged in this way but Höss may have had a sentence designed for a slower death by short drop. Editorial comment: Please, let's stop killing people judicially, especially by methods that make me sick to type about.--Jrm2007 (talk) 11:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

First sentence
I don't want to bring up the lemma discussion again. You english guys should use the letters which you are capable of (although I don't understand why you do not use "oe" instead of "ö" but "ss" instead of "ß"). But I think at least the first sentence should clearify the situation. "Rudolf Franz Ferdinand Höss (also spelled Höß, Hoeß, or Hoess) (25 November 1901[2][1] – 16 April 1947)". His only real german surname was Höß not Hoeß or Hoess. This should be pointed out somewhere in my opinion.--Ickerbocker (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I won't object but why should it? As long as it stays in - I've seen him referred to as "Hoess" many times. 18:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prinsgezinde (talk • contribs)

WHy C and B class?
Howcome this article is only is given C class as military history article, and B class as biography article? What is missing for improving its quality? (I am asking because the corresponding Swedish article is suggested for the "good article" classification.) Mange01 (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is a highly political page due to the significance of Auschwitz in the Holocaust. Therefore it can not be 100% accurate, as it could land many Europeans who link to it, in court on a Holocaust denial charge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.142.186 (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Idiotic troll posting - old, but please ignore.68.19.7.35 (talk) 09:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

To the editors of this page. This is an incredibly important page. Please have it all corrected, edited and looked over, as it pertains to the Holocaust. Thank you.172.14.56.129 (talk) 06:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Why does Hoess exaggerate the death toll?
Hoess says he was responsible for killing 2.5 million. Newer research indicates that the figure was closer to 1 million. Why would he exaggerate? In the interview with Hoess by psychiatrist Gustave Gilbert's colleague Leon N. Goldensohn there may be a clue to this.

NOTE: The Norwegian edition is all I have at hand. The quotes below are approximate re-translations from Norwegian to English, so if they are ever used for anything, someone has to check them (and the page number) against an English edition.

About 7 pages into the April 9th 1946 interview (p.436 in Norwegian edition) Hoess is quoted as saying: "Eichmann told me, before he left to [report to] Himmler that in Auschwitz alone 2.5 million people were killed by gassing." When asked whether perhaps he thought the number was higher, perhaps 3-4 million, he answers: "No, I think 2.5 million is too much, but I can't prove it."

It seems to me that it is not Hoess, but Eichmann who is exaggerating. And he is doing so because he is preparing his report to Himmler, and he is hoping that the higher number will ingratiate him with his boss. This is supported by the impression that Hoess seems a strangely detached, calm, objective reporter. Why would he suddenly exaggerate? Eichmann, on the other hand, has a motive. Hoess, in his dogged, plodding manner, feels duty-bound to accept Eichmann's number, and this is as close to a protest against him that he can get... Filursiax (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not allow Original Research, which is what your speculation is. Without Reliable Sources, you're just wasting space. 68.19.7.35 (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation request
A pronunciation of his full name at the beginning of the article would be a considerable improvement to the article. If a native German speaker could please add this, it would be greatly appreciated.Hoops gza (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As a very rough guide the German name 'Höss' is pronounced similarly to the English word 'hearse'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.233 (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Rudolf Höss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.exberliner.com/features/people/an-auschwitz-heritage/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Torture
Hoess was severely beaten, whipped, force fed large amounts of alcohol and then two British officers (Butler and Jones) prodded him with axe handles for several days until he signed a confession in English, a language he did not understand.

Since he was hanged, his 'confession' hasd been found to be completely false - he even mentioned a concentration camp that never existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.97.124 (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you have any sources to back this up? See WP:V. clpo13(talk) 22:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have 2 following sources: --Logicalgenius3 (talk) 05:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah.... no.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Zyklon B
Does anyone have a citation to verify the lead language Höss introduced Zyklon B - this point is not trivial, and a secondary source with quotation to verify it is needed. Seraphimsystem (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Peter Longerich (2012) Heinrich Himmler. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-019959232-6. p. 548ff: "Experiments were carried out with poison gas Zyklon B, which was already used in the camp for the purpose of disinfection. The first of these [experiments] occurred at the beginning of September [1941], when 600 Soviet POWs and 250 sick prisoners were killed with Zyklon B in a cellar of Block 11. Later in the middle of September, 900 Soviet POWs were murdered in the same way in the morgue of the crematorium. By the end of the year it can be assumed that a number of small groups of prisoners - in all likelihood exhausted Jewish forced labourers from Upper Silesia - had fallen victim to the Zyklon B experiments in Auschwitz." P. 563ff: "For this purpose, during the spring and summer of 1942 - following the experiments with Zyklon B on non-Jewish prisoners the previous autumn - the camp authorities constructed gas chambers in two farmhouses that lay on the edge of the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp. The process of transforming it into a proper extermination camp with four more gas chambers and crematoria had not even begun yet. On 20 March 1942 the first of three converted farmhouses, the so-called Red House or Bunker I, was used for the first time for murdering Jews from the Schmelt camps who were 'incapable of work'. During the following weeks and months it was above all Jews from Upper Silesia who were being gassed here." Carlotm (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Obviously, I'm not disputing that Zyklon B was used as a weapon in Auschwitz, I don't think that needs a quote. - the above quote seems to address this pretty thoroughly, but it does not address my point. I have been unable to find a clear quote about who introduced it - Himmler, Heydrich, Eichmann, Höss, Farben - perhaps the language "Höss introduced Zyklon B" may be too strong. Seraphimsystem (talk) 12:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, its not a major issue, and I don't have any plans to reword it, but I think it would be stronger with a direct quote from a secondary source "Höss introduced Zyklon B" - this part of the record can be confusing when you look at the primary sources Seraphimsystem (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is covered in Pressac, Jean-Claude; Pelt, Robert-Jan van (1994). "The Machinery of Mass Murder at Auschwitz". In Gutman, Yisrael; Berenbaum, Michael. Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, page 209, and Browning, Christopher R. (2004). The Origins of the Final Solution : The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy, September 1939 – March 1942, pp. 526–527. We don't have these books locally; to provide you with a quotation I would have to bring them in on inter-library loan, which would take up to 8 weeks to arrive. I can attest that the material is present in these books, which I have personally used as sources many times in the course of my Wikipedia editing. I already added Browning as a citation on March 28 and added Pressac & Pelt just now, along with a little more detail. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Nikolaus Wachsmann (2015). Kl: a history of the Nazi concentration camps. Macmillan (Kindle ed. by Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN 978-142994372-7). p. 270: "Commandant Hoess himself had briefed Adolf Eichmann from the RSHA about his experiment with Zyklon B, and both men agreed to use it for the genocide of Jews." Carlotm (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Diannaa also added some references and a link to Karl Fritzsch in the lead that I think will help anyone interested in doing further. Seraphimsystem (talk) 05:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Threatened with deportation to the Soviet Union?
The article says: "His wife, who feared that her son, Klaus, would be shipped off to the Soviet Union to be imprisoned or tortured, had told the British where he was" and cites the source as well, but in the source this isn't mentioned. I would like concrete evidence that the British threatened Klaus with deportation to the Soviet Union, otherwise this sentence has the same credibility as a random revisionist youtube video linking to the ihr or vho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:500:A700:81D4:38D8:701E:B87E (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rudolf Höss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/67I7qwRSU?url=http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/hoess-memoirs/ to http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/hoess-memoirs/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hoss signed a confession in a language he didn't understand after being tortured
An article in the Wrexham Leader (October 17,1986)

"Mr. Ken Jones was then a private with the fifth Royal Horse Artillery stationed at Heid[e) in Schleswig-Holstein. "They brought him to us when he refused to cooperate over questioning about his activities during the war. He came in the winter of 1945/6 and was put in a small jail cell in the barracks," recalls Mr. Jones. Two other soldiers were detailed with Mr. Jones to join Höss in his cell to help break him down for interrogation. "We sat in the cell with him, night and day, armed with axe handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to help break down his resistance," said Mr. Jones. When Höss was taken out for exercise he was made to wear only jeans and a thin cotton shirt in the bitter cold. After three days and nights without sleep, Höss finally broke down and made a full confession to the authorities."

The torture isn't mentioned at all. This wiki article states "In his affidavit made at Nuremberg on 5 April 1946 Höss stated" but doesn't mention that he merely signed what was written for him, in English. Hoss couldn't read or ahve written the confession he signed. Isn't that intellectually dishonest not to mention these two facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:74C5:8C00:6190:9E1C:C9D0:CD09 (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What is the evidence you have that proves Rudolf Hoess could not understand English? I hope it is more than "uhh...he was a German dude". Fun fact is Hoess DID understand English, he had learned it while in prison for murder during the 1920s. He writes: "In my free time I eagerly studied English. I even had textbooks sent to me. Later I had them regularly send me books and magazines in English, so that in about a year I learned this language without anyone helping me. This was terrific discipline for my mind." from page 74 in “Death Dealer,” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.110.119.111 (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit
Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "update infobox; swap images; c/e; rm excessive links". I also moved the detailed info about the subject's book from lead into the body. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * SS-Sturmbannführer Rudolf Höß.jpg

About sources and the translation of Höss' confession
In addition to the entire source cited, this is why I felt the need to  Megmck1239's : the user was citing a scholarly-like sermon, which was clearly meant for theological reflection, rather than using a peer-review source in a WP history article (WP:HISTAR). All this, done at the expense of a plethora of other more scholarly sources (WP:HSC). Of course, I and returned the page to its former version once user:Megmck1239.

In most cases, the Gerety lectures should not replace peer-reviewed publications, particularly when dealing with the historical translation of a text (WP:HISTRW). Doing so, is like disregarding the writings and renditions of better reviewed works for expediency, just because Hughes’ source is readily available online. Yet I have to admit that Hughes’ translation is more readable, though not as accurate as Tenenbaum’s, for example (that's an opinion, of course, but backed by the peer-review process).

Still, the fact that the works of the much cited Tenenbaum (to which Hughes makes reference) or that of more recent specialists (like Eric Kurlander) are not noted on this article, seems to show a shortage here. The foundations of a history entry in WP should always rest upon a tiered and first-class peer-review material, particularly when dealing with subjects like the Holocaust, which are prone to heated debates (WP:HISTRS). And sites like Famous Trials, should be used mostly for the convenience in reaching them (like for External links), but not for substituting more reliable sources. So, I suggest including Tenenbaum’s source and translation as an additional source, not to replace Hughes, but to support it. I am open to your thoughts. Caballero / Historiador⎌ 21:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

WW I service
No much credit should be given to his claims regarding service in WW I. Especially, like stated here, that a 17-year-old should be promoted to Feldwebel - then senior rank of NCO in German Army...(hello, experts, btw, "Feldweibel" is false spelling, anyway) --129.187.244.19 (talk) 12:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)