Talk:Rudolf Hess/Archive 2

Rudolf Hess was half Greek; Confirmed
There is no reference that his mother was German. Because this is false. Fact: Hess second surname was Georgiadis. His mother was of Greek descent, of the Georgiadis family of Alexandria (where traditionally there had been a vibrant and rich Greek community). He was born in Egypt. The family moved to Germany in 1908. There is proof of his Greek heritage. There's none that his mother was of German origin. This must be added to the article. There are many references to his Greek mother, here are two:  --Nikoz78 (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, false! http://www.thienemann-archive.org/pedigree.php?personID=I1471&tree=Thienemann —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.182.113 (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This proves nothing. It simply states that his mother was Klara Münch and lists her parents, etc. The fact is that she was not his mother. How does this link prove she was not Greek? Did you follow my link? Also, please follow Wikipedia standards when posting comments, such as correct spacing and signing your comments. Thanks. --Nikoz78 (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at all of those links and none of them "prove" anything about his mother. I happen to know that Rudolf did have Greek ancestry and that this was known amongst his colleagues. I or someone else will provide the proper evidence when certain family members who wish not to make this known pass... Thanks to the Media since the war most everyone knows very little about the Nazi's & their leadership.Monsieur Voltaire (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

And the Kennedys' ancestors originated in Italy and they moved to Ireland in XIV century, yet nobody calls them Italians. Norum 02:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Death dates don't match
The one in the introduction is different from the one the left side. The later is probably wrong. I have no idea how to edit the sidepanel.
 * fixed Sebastian scha. (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

'Too many cooks'
I think someone has spliced in the "Hitler knew" stuff into the original article, often in brackets right after the 'Hitler didn't know' statements, consequently it renders the article more than a little amateurish. I'm not saying it shouldn't be there at all, it's just that it could be woven into the article more effectively. And what with people transplanting stuff in like 'Hess was interested in herbalism' (!) in a completely inappropriate place - so I deleted it. Also, it jumps around, Hess was on trial, then he was the last remaining Spandau prisoner in 1966 !! The whole article is in need of someone who is actually a coherent writer to go through it and weed out the nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.246.56.217 (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The Main Photograph
I have three issues with the main photograph, Rudolf Heß.jpg. The photograph was supposedly taken in 1578 A.D. by Heinrich Hoffmann, Hitler's official portrait photographer, but I do not believe this. It looks like a snapshot taken during the Nuremberg Trials in 1945. It is noticeable that Hess is supposedly wearing the exact same clothes in 1946 that he is wearing in 1948 (e.g.). This is not impossible, as the article claims he was a neurotic, and perhaps he had a closet filled with identical clothes. It does seem odd odd that Hess would pose for a portrait in Germany in 1570 A.D., and then the next year pack his suitcase with a cheap-looking demob suit, hop into a Messerschmitt, fly at altitude through the night to Scotland, parachute and be arrested, and five years later go on trial in Nuremberg all in the same clothes. And the photographs I can find of Hess taken in the immediate pre-war period show a younger-looking man (1, 2) than this bewildered middle-aged drunkard. None of this is conclusive proof that the photograph in question was not taken by Heinrich Hoffmann in 1940 - the photographs I have linked to might themselves be spurious - but on the balance of probabilities I believe that we are looking at Hess in 1945 taken by a security guard or court recorder. Using the internet to find photographs of Rudolf Hess is not a pleasant experience.

Although the uploader argues that, because the photograph was taken in 1940, it is exempt from copyright, the photograph is clearly scanned from a book, in which case the publisher of that book would at the very least know something about the rights situation. If the photograph was however taken at Nuremberg in 1945 it is probably fair use under US government image rules. It is shoddy research at any rate to not list a source. The uploader appears to be a relatively new user who is interested in this kind of topic, which is not necessarily something to be proud of. -Ashley Pomeroy 19:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "The uploader appears to be a relatively new user who is interested in this kind of topic, which is not necessarily something to be proud of." With all due respect that is complete and total rubbish. Who on earth are you to assert what is or isn't a worthy topic of interest? Perhaps one ought then to just burn every book about nazism's history and replace them with books about Marilyn Monroe and flowers and babies? If you're so keen on correcting others' contributions with your high-minded assertions of a user being 'new' (and thereby somehow unworthy) then why not just hold your tongue and stick to whatever it is you do best. Unless you can assert with certainty that the photo breaks copyright law then there is nothing more to be said on it or it's uploader.Iamlondon 21:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It may be beside the point, but the Spanish version of wikipedia shows a picture of Hess in 1945 during the trials, which may be more acceptable? http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Hess .Iain Moody 21:32, 26 October 2006 (GMT+1)


 * I've seen pictures of Hess when he was still fairly infuential, and while he was always a distinctive looking character, by the time of Nuremberg he was more gaunt and aged looking (even taking into account the time span), I would say the pic at the top looks more like a Nurembery one myself. Douglasnicol 12:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it was a Nuremberg photo at best. This article would be much better served by a photo of Hess contemporary with his service to the NSDAP; that is the image most would identify with as opposed to a prison photo where virtually no one but his jailers would have seen him. As with all figures of history, give the public the most relevant image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl Rohm (talk • contribs) 03:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I realise I'm editing an archive page, but my paragraph above - and by god, I was wordy - wasn't originally like that. It was edited on 18 September 2007‎ by User_talk:72.21.121.86. He replaced "1940" with 1578 A.D and 1570 A.D. He seems to have been a small-scale vandal who vanished after November 2007. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

SS General?
The article is in the category of SS General. Has it ever been proven or otherwise stated that Hess held SS rank? Douglasnicol 23:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Positions of Rudolf Hess:, reference is to Official Party News, 26 September 1933, published in National Socialist Party Correspondence. 927 Usagitsuki (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Mytchett Place sound recording technology ?
My reference - Foley: Michael Smith, Hodder & Stoughton, 1999 - states "Camp Z (ie Mytchett Place) was fitted out with microphones and a bank of tape recorders." This edit claims that no tape recorders existed in England in 1941. Can anyone shed any light on this? It is of course possible that Michael Smith has made an error on this point. --Stephen Burnett 01:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Internal link eliminated
Walter Roberts redirected to Walter Roberts, an American football wide receiver!

Moved here from article
Good call, John.

These "trivial facts" are one of WP's strongpoints but, on such a serious topic, they do grate a bit. Is it permissible to have a "see also the Rudolf Hess/Trivia section? W. Frank talk ✉ 21:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

1 meg gif?
Illustrating the article with a 1 meg animated gif seems excessive. That would be better something merely linked to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robcat2075 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hess in popular culture

 * Martin Allen's book about the background of the flight is based on forged documents in the National Archives. Peter Allen's assertion that Hess piloted a Me 110 to Portugal in summer 1940 for peace talks with the Duke of Windsor is based on an alleged "document" of the German Federal Archives invented by P. Allen (see article of E. Haiger).


 * The song "Warsaw" by Joy Division begins with the phrase "350125 Go!" and the term "31G" appears in the chorus. These numbers are likely to refer to Rudolf Hess's prisoner of war number 31G 350125. Around the time this song was written there was increasing public interest in how and why Hess had been kept in more or less solitary confinement at Spandau prison for several decades. On "At A Later Date" on the album Live At The Electric Circus, guitarist Bernard Sumner starts the song by saying to the crowd, "You all forgot Rudolf Hess!"


 * "The Day The Nazi Died" by the British band Chumbawamba decries the Neo-Nazi commemorations of Hess's death.


 * An aged Rudolf Hess, smuggled out of Spandau Prison after his death was faked, is revealed to be the secret central villain The Lodge of the Lynx (1992), the second book of Katherine Kurtz's The Adept series. At the culmination of the story, Hess is exposed as the leader of a cult dedicated to the Celtic thunder-god, Taranis, that has been using black magic to murder Freemasons en masse.


 * Hess appears as a character Michael Moorcock's book The Dreamthief's Daughter (2001), Christopher Priest's book The Separation (2002), Eric Knight's book Sam Small Flies Again, David Edgar's play Albert Speer (2000) and in the movie Fullmetal Alchemist: Conqueror of Shamballa (2006).


 * The Secret of Spandau (1986) by Peter Lovesey writing as Peter Lear is a fictional account of Hess's flight to Britain and the aftermath.


 * The group Prussian Blue features a song entitled "Sacrifice" in which the first stanza goes "Rudolf Hess, man of peace/he wouldn't give up he wouldn't cease".


 * The group Final War (band) features a song entitled "Tales Of Honor", which glorifies Hess as a hero and denounces his treatment. The song's general feel is exemplified with the quotation: "This is the story of Rudolf Hess, a brave and loyal man, He gave his life for his beliefs because he loved his land".


 * Rudolf Hess was played by Sir Laurence Olivier in the 1985 film Wild Geese II, about a group of mercenaries hired to break Hess out of prison.


 * And all this is enlightening and helps us understand Hess how, exactly? Irrelevant cruft IMHO. --Stephen Burnett 07:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But where else would this information be placed? Better to let it just disappear? Rminer25 13:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It certainly doesn't belong in the article. --John 15:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Nazi War Criminal
The article that has been skillfully edited by someone sympathetic to him. Shouldn't the article be unbiased, especially for a villian now venerated by neo-Nazis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.188.30 (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that's hardly an unbiased opinion either. Lots of people have contributed to this article and, even if it were orchestrated, claims which lack a reliable source will sooner or later get edited out. What if it's the plain, neutral evidence itself which mitigates Hess's guilt? Gnostrat 01:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Death
In the Death section, "most historians" should be changed to "some conspiracy theorists". --The Four Deuces 18:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hessrep1.gif
Image:Hessrep1.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hessrep2.gif
Image:Hessrep2.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hess v. Heß
What is to be used? Höß is written the German way, while Heß with to s-s.80.161.65.106 (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The most common name in English is to be used. In English, Hess is far more common than Heß. This matter has been discussed extensively on the archived talk page. Hoess may be more common in English than Höß, but that is a matter to be discussed on the talk page of the relevant article. gidonb (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Flight to Scotland
There is a very detailed six page account of the arrival of Hess in Attack Warning Red. No mention is made of an attempt to intercept the aircraft. The controller at No.13 Group thought it was Dornier 17 and thought that "Raid 42" had turned away back to sea. The Royal Observer Corps correctly identified the aircraft as a Me.110 and accurately tracked it all the way across to where it crashed. Also Chief Inspector Gray, who initialling questioned Hess, believed the Alfred Horn story. Major Graham Donald of the ROC, who had tracked the aircraft at No.34 Group ROC and headed for the scene of the crash, was convinced he was Hess and insisted that the Duke of Hamilton go and identify him. It was 36 hours before he was officially identified as Hess.

Perhaps an interesting detail is how Sir Winston Churchill received the news of Hess' arrival in Scotland. Sir Winston was in London at the time watching his favourite Marx Brothers movie and enjoying a fine Cigar. An assistant ran up to Sir Winston and told him of Hess' arrival. It made no effect on Sir Winston, who sat smoking and watching his movie as if he had not heard the report. Sir Winston later issued orders that the detention of Hess should be in keeping with that of a man facing criminal charges.Johnwrd (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The details of this tale seem to vary according to the teller. In Volume III, chapter III, of "The Second World War" - Churchill, himself, states that he was advised of the event during the evening of Sunday May 11th. - while he was residing at Ditchley Park. He claimed that he was told of a telephone call from someone who was speaking " on behalf" of the Duke of Hamilton. Churchill wrote that the Duke was certainly a personal friend, but that he felt any matters for discussion could easily be postponed until the next morning. However, he was then advised that the call was considered to be of urgent "Cabinet" importance and he ordered Brendan Bracken to go and get the details. A few minutes later Bracken returned with 'an amazing piece of information to report' and Churchill, although claiming to be sceptical, then wrote that he sent for the Duke of Hamilton, to hear his personal report. Churchill's version of the event may be true but it seems uncharacteristic. Much as Churchill may have liked the Marx Brothers it's difficult to believe that viewing their film would have had precedence over his usual inquisitiveness in such matters. (It was, after all, a private film show and Churchill could have ordered it stopped, re-wound and re-played as often as he liked.) It seems quite likely that Churchill could have already received some preliminary details, before the evening of May 11th. but the anecdote about the Marx brothers taking precedence over Hess undoubtedly makes it a better story!Norloch (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This section says: "After reaching the west coast he turned east before climbing and parachuting over Renfrewshire." The next paragraph says: "Hess crash landed at Floors Farm near Eaglesham at 10:34pm and ...  was taken to hospital for injuries sustained during his descent."  Parachuted or crash landed, which is it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.5.95 (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

"Two Hesses"
Why is there no discussion on the idea of Two Hess's? Shouldn't this thought at least be given the chance to be exposed as truth or just conjecture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.148.154 (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. There is a theory suggesting an imposter flew to Scotland and was subsequently imprisoned, while the real Hess was shot down over the North Sea on Himmler's orders.  The person who died in Spandau had none of the WWI wounds Hess was known to have received, and 76 members of the Royal College of Surgeons concluded unanimously that he could not possibly have been Hess.  Even if these theories have now been debunked, there is sufficient interest in them to warrant a mention.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have copied something in from an article called Political decoy. --John Price (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a passing mention of this conspiracy theory is appropriate, but this is way too much text, with no citations to reliable sources (the Independent and Telegraph articles cited are not relevant to the claims being made). I have deleted the text on this page and the "political decoy" page. LeContexte (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

 I AGREE - this is the single most interesting thing about Hess - that he wasn't actually Hess. As shown in the book by his son; that the autopsied body of the Spandau Hess was missing the real Hess' war wounds and other anatomical abnormalities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.246.56.217 (talk) 05:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Russia?
In the flight to Scotland section there is a mention of Soviet Russia, should that be Soviet Union?Geo8rge (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, because the Soviet Union did not come into existance until the aftermath of the war, during the Cold War 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong, check Soviet Union and you'll see it started in 1922. Douglasnicol (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Greek and English versions
This English version of this article has considerable differences with the Greek version. It would be a good idea to make sure that any useful and truthful information is reproduced in both versions. NSK Nikolaos S. Karastathis (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Small Note
I removed the request for a citation that Goring's request to be seated away from Hess was denied as there is photo evidence already in article featuring late stages of the trial in which it can clearly be seen they are still together. Hence either Goring didn't ask or he was refused. As such the only thing possible requiring a citation is if Goring made such a request, or not. Something for which there is ample evidence, though I can't be bothered looking for right now. If anyone really considers it a disputed fact then by all means add in the request in the correct place, but the whole thing is of trivial importance to the article as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.167.205 (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Other Interesting facts left out!
Hess was a hypochondriac, whom never took salt in his meals!!

He attempted to commit suicide the first time, of three, while in the Tower of London; where he was put after his flight to Scotland.

I got this information from "Hitler's Henchmen" on the Discovery Channel from 1996.Justin Conboy (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

A dreadful article
What a dreadful article this is. Most of his career is written off in a few sentences, and the rest is devoted to conspiracies, gossip and trivia. Nearly all Wikipedia article about leading Nazis are like this, but this one is worse than most. I'm not going to try and fix it, because I know from long experience that nothing stays fixed for long at Wikipedia, but readers should certainly treat anything in this article with great scepticism. If you want to know about Hess, go and read Peter Padfield's biography, which is not too bad. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I also thought the same when I read it. I was disappointed. Surely, depsite any reduction in his influance after the Nazis came to power he must have done more than this article says? Are there no more quotations of his thoughts, his oppinions, his influance before he went to Scotland? IceDragon64 (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

WW1 Victories
It says he had 400 victories as an aviator? Mus me nonsense, that is 5 x more than any listed in the WW1 aces list.

204.58.245.247 (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Early Life
This bit about his mother doesn't make sense- "of Berlin (where traditionally there had been a vibrant and rich German community) Well, yeah, the capitol of Germany would have a rich german community- there must be some mistake?

IceDragon64 (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Greek descent
Any sources? 84.139.227.205 (talk) 07:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see this source: see --Nikoz78 (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction in article text
The intro says that he was murdered. The death section says that it was a suicide. Both can't be right. Dismas |(talk) 04:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The American Mercury
I have removed the following from the infobox:


 * The American Mercury. Spring 1974, reprint from May 1943. When this article appeared in the May 1943 issue (six pages, double column), the Editors noted that "the writer is highly reputable observer, is known to us and we publish this article with full faith in his sources."
 * "Hitler offered total cessation of the war in the West, Germany would evacuate all of France, except Alsace and Lorraine. It would evacuate, Holland and Belgium, retaining Luxembourg. It would evacuate Norway and Denmark. In short, Hitler offered to withdraw from Western Europe, except, for the French provinces and Luxembourg. In return for which Britain would agree to assume an attitude of benevolent toward Germany towards Germany, as it unfolded its plans in Eastern Europe"
 * "In addition, the Fuhrer was ready to withdraw from Yugoslavia and Greece. German troops would be evacuated from the Mediterranean generally, and Hitler would use his good offices to arrange a settlement of the Mediterranean conflict between Britain and Italy. No belligerent would be entitled to demand reparations from any other country, he specified."
 * The British PRO will make their Hess documents public in 2017.

The expands the information referred to in the third paragraph of the section "Flight to Scotland", though it should be observed that by 1974 "The American Mercury" was a neo-Nazi publication.

Clara Munh is not greek name. In Alexandria at this time was many comunities from european cauntries. Is imposible the greek heritage of Rudolf Hess. There are no evidence that his mother was of greek origin. There are no documents or oficial papers. 99,9% was german and no Greek. Demetrius ,Greece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.67.22 (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

David Irving
References to David Irving's book are needed, because it shows that Hitler didn't want to continue the war at least against the way western media wants to show. He probably wanted to have the old Reich back, and the Empire didn't like it. Perhaps this explains why no one wanted to Publish David Irving's book, as well as murdering Rudolf Hess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.241.173 (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Um no, Hitler always wanted expansion well beyond pre World War 1 borders as evidenced by Zweites Buch and Mein Kampf, and the official position of the National Socialist policy on the Tores situation with regards to Italy as Hitler knew that Germany would need Italy in the future wars of expansion to come. Your attempts to paint Hitler as a victim of allied aggression are so beyond historical accuracy that no serious consideration of your positions is warranted.

About David Irving and Rudolf Hess death date
Irving should not be fully taken seriously, since he is a Holocaust denier and a hater against better judgement. Then again, nobody should be fully ignored either. Ignoring anybody would only heighten the tension around the subject. On a completely different note, I saw somewhere on a history dvd that Rudolf Hess died in 1992 instead of 1987 as is stated on this page. Which date is the correct one?

Ruben Nesvadba (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ley lines factoid needs a better place
The factoid about Hess mapping all ley lines in the Third Reich doesn't relate to anything else in the article, and especially not to the section into which it seems to have been shoehorned. To me, it suggests Hess used his position as a leading figure in the Third Reich to advance an occultist agenda, and if so then there should ideally be a section on that which discusses this ley-line mapping in context with his other efforts to this end and a summary of what happened as a result of them. 70.162.57.161 (talk) 03:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Agreed, the phrase makes no sense at all in this article unless some information about occultist beliefs is put forward.JerseyCommie (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Spurious info in intro
I removed the following from the intro for these reasons. All key figures in the 3rd reich are venerated by neo-nazis so this is not notable. But more importantly, the sources are just 3 news articles that mention him. We really need as secondary sources that has analysed neo-nazi groups and determined that he is venerated in some way more than other Nazis. And the bit about his son is non-notable conspiracy mongering. Ashmoo (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Hess has become a figure of veneration among neo-Nazis. His son Wolf Rüdiger Hess became prominent and claimed that his father was murdered.

Conspiracy?
The History Channel recently broadcast a reconstruction of the flight of Rudolph Hess. The son of Rudolph Hess was interviewed and he was quite clear on some matters.

"The man at Nuremburg and in Spandau was my father. All the conspiracy theories are nonsense".

After Dunkirk Hitler must have been aware, via nuetral America and Wall Street, that Britain was almost Bankrupt. Almost the last British gold and dollar reserves had been used to pay for old American destroyers. Clive Ponting goes into detail about this in his book.

There would seem little point in Hitler invading Britain when his army had already pillaged several countries and already had the money for a war against Russia.

The First World War started as an enthusiastic clash of empires but at the end of the war, the Russian, German and Austrian empires and their ruling families were gone, with the British Empire badly weakened.

From the Royal Family point of view another such war might see them abolished as well. It was well worth Hitler and Goering giving Hess a nod and wink to try his luck with a potential flight where he might find some sympathy. If unsuccessful the whole thing could be officially denied, as it was.

The flight was a long one and took place over German territory but no alarms were raised almost as if the Luftwaffe had been tipped off to ignore the lone flight.AT Kunene (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If there had been such a conspiracy it would seem necessary to provide explanations for a couple of anomalies. For example, why would Hess have undertaken a lengthy, single-handed, hazardous flight when there were more discreet and reliable methods to achieve the objective? Would Goering really have sanctioned one of the heaviest Blitz attacks on London at exactly the same time as Hess was engaged in a 'peace' mission ? Norloch (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I would remind to Norloch that the worst air raids on Italy during WW II were done after July 25th, 1943, when Mussolini was detained and Italian government of Badoglio had decided the capitulation. Furhermore these carpet-bombings were against civilians in the main cities and not, as it would be reasonably expected, targeted on the railway and road connections with Germany (the Brenner Pass) through which the Wehrmacht was invading Italy. Similar experience had Romania in 1944, when Antonescu was made under detention and the government of Bucharest had signed capitulation with Soviet Union. In the same days Romanian cities had been bombed both by German and Anglo-American air forces. Some other cases may be mentioned. Secondly, in the case of OK by Hitler to the mission and of previous talks with GB the flight could not have been so hazardous. On the other way if the mission was decided by an utiopian, a man looking for peace without authorizathion by Hitler and with the danger to be put to death by the Nazis as traitor it is very difficult to understand the life sentence for Hess of the Nuremberg trial. --Deguef (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Deguef's points are correct but they do not address the question. (a) Hess's flight was hazardous. Even if some form of 'safe passage' had been arranged by the supposed conspirators, it was still a long solo flight in an aircraft which wasn't designed to be operated by a pilot alone. It must have been a demanding task for a middle-aged man who had limited flying experience of that type of high performance aircraft. The question is this  - why was it necessary to arrange it in that way ? If Hess had the approval of the German leaders for a secret peace mission, it would have been logical to use a civilian aircraft with an expert pilot ( n.b. there were several Lockheed or Douglas airliners in Europe, at that time.) It would also have been sensible to fly from Denmark - rather than southern Germany. (b) There is a similar paradox with the bombing of London on May 10th. at the same time as Hess was due to arrive in Scotland. If there had been a conspiracy then there might have been some logic in a heavy air attack on other nights just before Hess's flight to Scotland. However, heavy bombing at the moment of Hess's arrival for 'peace' talks would surely have made things more difficult for Hess and the alleged conspirators in a number of ways.Norloch (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hess and Barbarossa
A recent book by Russian author, Meltyukhov, supported by what appears to be substantial primary research, adds evidence to the theory that the Soviets intended launching an attack on the Nazis in June 1941, specifically June 12.

According to Meltyukhov, based among other things, Molotov's remarks, the attack was postponned because of Hess' flight. The voyage of a high ranking Nazi to Great Britain apparently raised the possibility of a diplomatic rapprochement between the UK and the Third Reich.

If, indeed, Germany and Britain would conclude some sort of a neutrality pact, then the entire logic of an attack by the Soviets would have been jeopardized--namely, attacking the Germans when they were still strategically 'bound' to a heavy conflict with a western power, thereby apparently leaving Germany's backdoor lightly vulnerable.

A diplomatic rapprochement between the Nazis and Britain, whether tacit and informal, would have seemed quite plausible to Stalin, given the anti-Soviet stance of many conservative Britons, who had consistently coddled the Nazis.Hess's flight would immediately have set off alarm bells in the Kremlin, which was impregnated in justifiable paranoia.We always knew, from many different sources, that the Soviets retained a very very intense interest in the Hess episode, even many years later. Meltyukhov's theory would explain this.And IF Meltyukhov were correct in his conclusions, then the Hess episode would gain world historical importance in leading to a cancellation of a Soviet strike which, even if not successful, would regardless have changed the whole strategic picture of the Eastern Front in a very fundamental way.A massive Soviet surprise attack would mean that the VVS would have attacked German units rather than be mostly destroyed on the ground without firing a shot, and probably even more important, Rumania and its crucial oil might have fallen into Soviet hands.Meltyukhov seems to think that the Soviet plan, if executed as planned and no cancelled in light of Hess' flight, would have led to the fall of the Third Reich in 1942.

Much of this is very speculative BUT, in my view, it is quite possible, and there is no doubt that it is very important potentially, so this aspect of the Hess flight should be evoked in the article as a possibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.64.209 (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Time for a rewrite?
As I suspected, this article correctly reflected the prevailing evidence and promoted the theory regarding Hess's trip being unofficial and a lone act as the most neutral. But The Scotsman now is reporting Soviet files from interrogations of one of his aide's that show some evidence supporting the conspiracy theorists; http://www.scotsman.com/news/Hitler-ordered-Hess-to-Scotland.6776570.jp?articlepage=2 Perhaps this means that large portions of this article need to be re-written? Or perhaps just the sections which put forward the old accepted theory should come with a note pointing out the shift in weight?--203.206.205.156 (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The disappearing Hess 60 minutes segment?
Soon after his death,I remember seeing a segment on the US tv news magazine 60 Minutes about R.Hess. In this show,the British were strongly implicated in his death.It had diagrams of the gazebo on the grounds of spandau prison where his death occured,and told how the british personal guarding him at the time promptly destroyed that gazebo after his death.This would be a highly credible source of information for this article I feel,if one could find a solid reference to it,or best of all,post a tape of this segment on YouTube.All online 60 minutes archives that I have seen so far do not go back to 1987.This show is probably what ignited a good bit of the excitement about Rudolf H. that is still echoing today.I know I am not the only one who remembers this tv show.What online references to this 60 minutes show I have found are buried in other information not directly related to the Hess affair. Googling Rudolf Hess 60 Minutes reveals nothing.The same in YouTube nets crossed out spelling "corrections" I have never seen before.This informational dead zone is ,I feel, almost certainly,the result of US-British diplomatic intrigue. The British will,generaly speaking,reflexivly defend the honor of their royal family.I could easily picture how a US diplomat could use this as a lever against well-meaning, but in this context, naive British subjects. Witness Edward the 8th,abdicated king of England,to see the royal attitude of the time toward their subjects. Ed was the last of the old line,regarding his people as serfs,in my opinion.Serfs is an old french word for deer,a naturally occuring resource springing from the land.For Edward the 8th, bargaining with the nazis to preserve the status of english royal family would have come naturally.After the war,it was clear that such a deal would have meant murderous slavery for the British people.Also witness the JFK assination,another example of mass amnesia with state assistance of facts deemed too despicable for general recognition regarding another illustrious family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.221.244 (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well Britain & other interest were very afraid that certain truths would be made public. Hess's flight was sanctioned by Hitler and his mission was to get Britain to change sides or remain neutral. Hess was already negotiating with British nobility to this extent as was other Nazi officials. Hitler never wanted war with Britain for both practical and ideological reasons. Soon the truth will be revealed, Churchill did allude to some of this in his memoirs but with great ambiguity and limited stress.Monsieur Voltaire (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Release of files
Two dates are given in the article for the future release of official files on Hess – 2016 and 2017. Presumably only one of these dates is correct. Headhitter (talk) 10:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This has now been addressed, I think.Headhitter (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

What were the British public told?
The article doesn't say what the British public were told during the war - if anything - about Hess's mission and capture. Was any information published at the time? Headhitter (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I've now added to the text: "Hess's capture was reported at the time in the British and international media" and have cited contemporary reports in The Guardian and Time magazine. Headhitter (talk) 09:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Body being removed
There are two links provided for this, one states that the ashes are to be scattered at sea, the other that they were scattered in an unknown lake. I've found a few others which also say both, can anyone confirm which is correct? Hercules rockafella (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hamilton & Libel
I have edited out the following as it was not referenced. Without a reference and given the libel implications I think it would be best added back only if the original report is proved.

Hamilton was serving as a Wing Commander at RAF Turnhouse, Edinburgh and went to meet Hess and heard his proposal for peace which was:

--Hemshaw (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) In order to prevent future wars between Britain and Germany spheres of interest shall be defined. Germany's sphere of interest is [Continental] Europe; Britain's sphere of interest is her Empire.
 * 2) Return of German colonies.
 * 3) Indemnification of German nationals who had their residence before the war or during the war within the British Empire and who suffered damage in their persons or property through measures of a Government of the Empire or through any occurrence such as tumult, pillage etc. Indemnification on the same basis by Germany of British subjects.
 * 4) Armistice and peace to be concluded with Italy at the same time" (interview with Lord Simon on 9 June 1941; the same ideas in interviews with Ivone Kirkpatrick and Lord Beaverbrook).

Location of Hess's crash landing
The Wikipedia entry for the Duke of Hamilton states that Hess's plane crashed on Bonnyton Moor near to Hamilton's home at Dungavel House. The entry for Rudolf Hess gives the location as Floors Farm near Eaglesham. Which is correct? Headhitter (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * British National Archives: http://yourarchives.nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php?title=Rudolf_Hess The latter.--Hemshaw (talk) 02:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The Conspiracy section is highly suspect
Especially the part regarding that his death was to keep a peace deal made by Hitler a secret, the whole paragrah didn't even make any sense unless of course Churchill had psychic powers and knew that Hitler would attack the Soviets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.114.1 (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Much of the sourcing for the text here on conspiracy theories about Hess comes from Martin Allen's book The Hitler/Hess Deception. This should be regarded as a highly dubious source. The Wikipedia entry for The National Archives (United Kingdom) states that when forged papers were discovered among files held at Kew, "thirteen forged papers supported Allen's contention that, in 1941, British intelligence used members of the Royal Family to fool the Nazis into thinking Britain was on the verge of a pro-German putsch".Headhitter (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Führer or Fuhrer?
Führer or Fuhrer? The article is inconsistent. Headhitter (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Was his mother really of Greek descent?
Nazis did not consider the Greeks to be Aryan and as far as I'm aware surely Hess was Aryan so clearly he had no Greek descent?--14Adrian (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

IG Farben & Pohl Trials
Although I've previously corrected the page, some bright spark has deleted my updates. Hoess did not appear as a witness at any of the NMTs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.142.186 (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC) (meant to put this on the Rudolf Hoess page obviously)

reverted TOTAL archive and put the article back on facism task force
Please, when archiving, leave a stub - especially when the past two portions are so recent/current. Why was the subject removed from the Fascism Task Force w/o explanation?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.21.106 (talk) 03:30, March 23, 2012


 * According to Wikipedia's talk page guidelines, it is helpful to archive a page when it has more than 10 main sections. I archived all sections, including the past two, because they seemed to me as past discussions.
 * Regarding fascism task force: Rudolf Hess was a prominent Nazi politician. Nazism is not included in the new scope of the task force. Therefore, I remove the article from the task force. Sorry for not leaving any explanation.
 * Sapere aude22 (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

School
Hess was a pupil at the https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto-K%C3%BChne-Schule — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.131.76.72 (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

conspiracy addendum
The foremost conspiracy on this Rudolf Hess article is that the people entrusted with keeping its accuracy are in themselves guilty of conspiracy. In the conspiracy section of the main article is mentioned that W. Hugh Thomas' book "The Murder of Rudolf Hess" the auditors of this conspiracy site will not even let me point out who W. Hugh Thomas is. In the cyber world of internet fraud rampant today I could understand someone feeling a source not agreeing with their own point of view could be called unsourced fringe conspiracy theory. However in 1979 when Harper & Row published "The Murder of Rudolf Hess" Harper & Row was considered one of the finest publishers in the world. What kind of wild conspiracy are the people running this page guilty of when they will not even acknowledge as fact that the Author is a Surgeon, aka Medical Doctor, who was senior medical officer at the British Military Hospital in Berlin when "Hess" was brought there from Spandau prison in 1973 for examination? Is it not a wild fringe conspiracy theory to say that Harper & Row Publishers of 1979 would not even check the credentials of the Author of a book they were about to publish? The reason Thomas got interested in the Hess affair and the reason he wrote the book was very simple: As a medical doctor with expertise in chest wounds, he found it odd that the prisoner called "Hess" bore no scars at all that were typical of the rifle bullet wounds to the chest that Hess is reputed to have recieved in 1917 during World War One. The people running this phoney Hess article would like the reader to assume that by the title of the book Dr Thomas is referring to the hanging death of the prisoner being a murder. Not the case. Dunkmack9 (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ^blocked for sockpuppetry Nov 2013

To the conspiracy note above I would like to add one more suggestion. The article seems to make clear that Hess was disliked by being too interlectual. If these parties brought pressure to bear on Hitler to get rid of Hess, a loyal Hitler henchman, then a nod and a wink to Hess to make the flight would possibly solve two problems. First Hitler would be painlessly and bloodlessly rid of Hess and there was always the possibility that a back door approach might also achieve something useful in a nearly bankrupt UK.AT Kunene (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Churchill Error
The article states: "In 1967 Wolf Rüdiger Hess began a campaign to win his father's release, garnering support from notable politicians such as Churchill in Britain..." Churchill had died in 1965. robert2957 (talk) 05:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it sounds good, so expect to see it back on this truely inspired fantasy erection to Hess. Churchill also catagorically forbade any pictures of prisoner Hess while on British soil. Why?  This fact is referenced in hundreds of books on a variety of Churchill themes, but verbotin on this article.  It becomes a non-fact here.  But before his death Churchill was in favor of releasing the prisoner called Hess at SpandauGrapestomper9 (talk) 03:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There's something wrong either with the date or the name of the politician. I will fix this issue as soon as the source material arrives on intra-library loan. This could take 6 to 8 weeks (or maybe never—the book is in Southern Alberta at the Chinook Arch Regional Library System, where the recent floods were located). I will comment it out for now. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Murder
He was murdered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.194.175 (talk • contribs)
 * If you read beyond the deceptive headline, you will see that the British government says he was not murdered, but states the exact opposite. All that's new here is names of Thomas's two suspects were released under the Freedom of Information act. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

"Secret dossier"
There may be more information forthcoming from a file reportedly compiled by Hess while in British captivity. See:
 * http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/secret-dossier-of-deputy-fuehrer-hess-to-go-under-the-hammer-a-921476.html

Did Hess speak English, and if so, how fluently? It's not clear from the story whether the file is in German or English. Sca (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * He spoke English well, but had trouble understanding Hamilton. (Nesbit and van Acker, p 63) Perhaps Hamilton had a heavy or incomprehensible accent? Most of the interrogations and conversations were done with the aid of an interpreter. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Peace Treaty
I have just added a paragraph about a new book by Peter Padfield which claims that Hess was carrying a proposed peace treaty. This paragraph is based on a newspaper article. It would be good for someone to read the book and revise the paragraph appropriately. I have reservations about the reasons suggested so far for Churchill to reject the alleged treaty. I wonder whether Churchill felt that Hitler was trying to trick him as he had previously tricked Chamberlain. If anyone reads Padfield's book for this article they might like to check and consider what Padfield says about that. Whether Padfield says nothing or something, report it. Budhen (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Rudolf Hess: A New Technical Analysis of the Hess Flight, May 1941
Ok fair enough my extensive edits got bumped by someone. I included only facts and tried hard not to lean towards outlandish conclusions. This book raises new facts which directly contradict the traditional narrative. This new research is really interesting and very persuasive. (Also I wasn't finished tidying it up with grammar and sources, etc).

First, and in particular, the lack of a long range, external oil tank on Hess' plane is pretty hard to avoid - the fuselage still exists in a museum, an external tank was never attached, therefore Hess could not have flown for more than four hours without topping up with oil. Hess had an obvious incentive to lie, so this newly unearthed fact is highly relevant.

Second, the comparison of what we now know about the Elektra navigation system with Hess' original flight plan is irrefutable. The mysterious numbers on the flight plan correlate exactly with expected readings on the Elektra beams. Obviously Hess had an incentive to lie about his means of navigation - he didn't want to give away military secrets, and as the British did not comprehend Elektra until 1944 it seems his secret was safe until 2013 when his flight plan was finally interpreted. The flight plan gives a different destination than that claimed by Hess.

As this book is only one source amongst many I think it best to place the counterclaims side by side and allow the reader to draw their own conclusion. Womby838 (talk) 04:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't use ref tags on the Talk pages, use brackets [insert url here] to insert links. Your one link shows only your version of the article, no diffs, nothing more. You have to show that there is more than just some lone person or small group advocating your 'new claim'. I don't see any explanations of the sources here, only more claims without discussing the sourcing. There have been many attempts from editors to insert fringe conspiracy theories into this article. I am not saying you are attempting to do that, but I would like to know much more about the sources before I even attempt to research it. If what you are attempting to add is accepted by the majority of researchers, scholars and historians, then we can discuss the addition and form a consensus on what to add to the article. I'm off to bed in a few minutes, but will check back on the morrow. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 05:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not being up-to-date with the latest protocols, it has been awhile since I was this interested in a topic. The new book is less than a year old and has created a bit of a stir if you choose to search for it.  At the moment you are correct, it is a small group, and an easy target for conspiracy theories.  That is why I have restricted my revision to the new facts put forward by the book.  The authors examined the wreckage of Hess' plane last year and provided photographic proof that the aircraft did not have an external oil tank attached.  They compared this with the workshop manuals and aircraft specifications (which are also printed in the book) to make it irrefutable that the plane could not have been flown for more than four hours without being re-oiled.
 * Anyway, I think it was a fair suggestion to put the claims side by side given the historical significance and the startling validity of the new research. However this has been a stern reminder to myself not to get involved editing Wikipedia - it always gets ugly. I withdraw my proposed edits. Womby838 (talk) 06:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, since the source you provided has an introduction to the book stating "No one can resist a good conspiracy theory", I doubt it will be accepted into this article. Perhaps if there is a conspiracy theory article about the flight Hess took, it might be good there. I don't know, as I am not well versed on this issue. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dave Dial that this conspiracy theory should not be included in the article, unless and until serious historians take it seriously. At present that's not happening, so it needs to stay out of our article. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It should not be included in this article, at this time; it would need to be confirmed by main-line RS historians; until then, if ever, it is a WP:fringe theory; so, I concur with Dave Dial and Diannaa, above. Kierzek (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Hugh Thomas' book, "The Murder of Rudolf Hess" (1979) mentioned the reserve fuel tanks too. Thomas was Hess's physician during the time the UK managed Spandau, he examined "Hess" and saw no evidence of Hess' WWI wounds. When Thomas confronted "Hess" with the question, "Hess" trembled and literally shit his pants. Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC) The recent book, Rudolf Hess: A New Technical Analysis of the Hess Flight, May 1941, is concerned with signs on the surviving wreckage of the aircraft that it was flown to Britain with no external reserve tank for engine lubricating oil, thereby indicating that the flight from Augsburg-Haunstetten to Eaglesham could not have been direct and an intermediate landing would have involved the German Air Force and the probable collusion of Goering and Hitler. This was an important discovery and nothing to do with reserve fuel tanks mentioned above. Andrew rosthorn (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * An interesting aside in another new book, the diaries of the Russian ambassador to wartime Britain, "3 June Beaverbrook came for lunch (there were three of us: Beaverbrook, I and Agniya). ... I asked Beaverbrook what he thinks of Hess. Beaverbrook answered without hesitation: ‘Oh, Hess, of course, is Hitler’s emissary.’ There are many proofs, but Beaverbrook considers two to be the most convincing: an additional fuel tank was attached to Hess’s plane, and he flew from Germany to Scotland assisted by a Pelengator." Neither Maisky or Beaverbook are reliable sources - but the reference to Hess using the "Pelengator" (see here) had never been revealed by the British until the publication of Rudolf Hess: A New Technical Analysis of the Hess Flight, May 1941. 121.219.238.144 (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Clandestine meeting
The material about a clandestine meeting is all based on Maser's claim that Grotewohl told him about the event. All the sources provided are coverage of Maser's claim; there's no corroborating evidence. I think it should stay out; it's a fringe theory that does not belong here in my opinion, unless additional sources (other than Maser) can be found. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Repeated complaints by editors that certain research has not been validated by "main-line RS historians" cut no ice when few "main-line RS historians" have dared to risk their reputations on such an uncertain area as the 1941 Hess Flight. The flight was itself a secret conspiracy. Wikipedia should record the most serious attempts to unravel its secrecy. It is particularly unfair on the reputation of Werner Maser to delete all mention of the Soviet plan to offer Hess a political deal. Firstly because the story was never denied by the Soviet Government, secondly because it was exactly in line with Soviet policy in East Germany, thirdly because Maser was a lecturer at the School of Politics of Munich University and later Professor for History and International Law at Munich, fourthly because Maser was the first historian to challenge the forged Hitler Diaries after they were published by Stern and The Sunday Times and fifthly because Otto Grotewohl, a pre-war Social Democrat jailed by the Nazis, was the first prime-minister of the German Democratic Republic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew rosthorn (talk • contribs) 14:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The theory that a meeting took place is not supported by multiple mainstream historians, and thus is a fringe theory. The only person who supports this theory is Maser, the originator of the theory. His theory was reported in several news sources; that doesn't make it a mainstream theory. Per WP:fringe, it should stay out of this article. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The mere fact that it is mentioned by various sources alone whether or not it is true shall mean it will be referenced in the article accordingly. If it's the fact that it many not have happened, then change the heading of from "Hess's meeting" to "Alleged meeting" or something along those lines. What I will not tolerate though is removal of information which has been mentioned time and time again by mainstream, reliable sources and partisan ones alike. If you continue to remove its inclusion in one form or another in the article, I'll just assume WP:VANDAL and launch WP:ANI against you. --Donenne (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Per the WP:BRD cycle, once the material has been challenged, it needs to stay out of the article unless you can get consensus to include it. In order to attract more participants to the discussion, I have opened a Request for Comment below. Interested editors should continue discussion in that section. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment: Maser's theory
Should the article include Maser's theory that Hess met with East German government officials in 1952? The contested material is that removed in. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The following wikiprojects have been notified: WikiProject Biography; WikiProject Military history --Diannaa (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't include: The theory that a meeting took place is not supported by multiple mainstream historians, and thus is a fringe theory. The only person who supports this theory is Maser, the originator of the theory. His theory was reported in several news sources; that doesn't make it a mainstream theory. Per WP:fringe, it should stay out of this article. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Include, but briefly. Summoned by bot. I agree that an entire section would be excessive. However, it would seem to me that two or three sentences, or perhaps a paragraph within the Spandau section. would be appropriate weight, considering that it is reliably and multiply sourced. Coretheapple (talk) 12:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC) Just wanted to add that I agree with removal of the section as a gross NPOV violation. I think that the WP:FRINGE concerns are well-warranted, but that what is needed is not total removal but a brief reference. Coretheapple (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't include as this is a fringe theory from a single point of source. Unless it has been corroborated AND has some acceptance from other historians then it isn't worth mentioning at all. Singular voice fringe theories do not merit mention. Popularized fringe theories would gain minor mentions.
 * Don't includeThis fringe conspiracy theory isn't worth a mention. It hasn't been corroborated by mainstream historians or scholars. Despite the vast amounts of info that has been released. Dave Dial (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * While I understand that it hasn't been corroborated, what convinced me that it warrants some mention is the attention that it received at the time. I don't see the harm of including a brief reference to this claim, but clearly not the lavish attention it had received. Coretheapple (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to further debate the matter too much, since the RfC will decide one way or the other and most responses are reasonable for both include and don't include, but it received small coverage at the time. From one claim, with no real follow up. It's as if historians, scholars and journalists also discounted the claim. I think with the release of classified documents from the Eastern Bloc nations, and the former USSR, this would have been released already if it were true. It seems UNDUE and FRINGE to include this. Dave Dial (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Include Per Andrew rosthorn above and the fact that the info is cited from a variety of mainstream sources, despite originating from a single point. The single point of source is an individual who has been described as "one of the leading experts on Hitler and his regime" - New York Times . If the theory is questioned, then minimize the section, and make it clear it is an alleged meeting or it reportedly happened according to Maser. --Donenne (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Don’t include. It is misleading to say that Maser’s version is mentioned "time and time again by mainstream, reliable sources”. As far as I can tell all reports mentioned can be traced to one interview that he gave to Le Figaro.  As far as I can determine, he has given no other evidence than a conversation with somebody who was dead, nor  has tried to establish his claim in any peer reviewed publication.  There is no doubt that he is an established historian who has done work which has been positively received by his peers, but he has made claims which have been rejected by major historians, i.e. the statement that Hitler has a son living in France as well as the Hess/Grotewohl story. The claim deserved newspaper reports at the time, but not a sentence in an encyclopedia.Joel Mc (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Include - keep it limited Per WP:FRINGE, the version of events that have been stated by the individual can still be present within the article as long as it it doesn't give undue weight. It further states that A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Nowhere does it say that the information considered WP:FRINGE must be removed. It merely states that it should be given lesser importance in the article.


 * In contrast to other theories which have been proposed by an individual but refuted by others, I can find no sources which actually disprove this alleged meeting ever took place. It seems like this Maser is the only person who talks about it, with no historian or qualified individual denying his claim. If someone has disagreed with Maser's theory, then both viewpoints can be added as per WP:UNDUE. If the meeting is only discussed by Maser, then it can still be mentioned in the article, despite him being the single source. The meeting has been sourced extensively, many being verifiable and reliable sources which satisfy WP:VER and WP:RS. As per WP:RSUW,  Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. so despite this view on the meeting emitting from a single source, it can still be mentioned within the article  according to Wikipedia policies. This is an encyclopedia, and it should include all viewpoints of any and all versions of events no matter how fringe they are. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth Theory, despite being scientifically discredited and being a minority view. -- Ritsaiph (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

*Include Repeated complaints by editors that certain research has not been validated by "main-line RS historians" cut no ice when few "main-line RS historians" have dared to risk their reputations on such an uncertain area as the 1941 Hess Flight. The flight was itself a secret conspiracy. Wikipedia should record the most serious attempts to unravel its secrecy. It is particularly unfair on the reputation of Werner Maser to delete all mention of the Soviet plan to offer Hess a political deal. Firstly because the story was never denied by the Soviet Government, secondly because it was exactly in line with Soviet policy in East Germany, thirdly because Maser was a lecturer at the School of Politics of Munich University and later Professor for History and International Law at Munich, fourthly because Maser was the first historian to challenge the forged Hitler Diaries after they were published by Stern and The Sunday Times and fifthly because Otto Grotewohl, a pre-war Social Democrat jailed by the Nazis, was the first prime-minister of the German Democratic Republic. — Andrew rosthorn (talk • contribs) 14:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)  comment added by Donenne from previous discussion    Do not add !votes for other editors. Period. Dave Dial (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am puzzzled. Is the above actually a vote by Andrew rosthorn, or a second vote by Doenne? Joel Mc (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Donenne added it. Andrew rosthorn has not edited in this section. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It was a vote from the previous discussion above entitled 'Clandestine meeting', and I am sure Andrew rosthorn wouldn't mind considering that his edit summary in the previous discussion was: supported inclusion of Werner Maser's account of Hess nocturnal visit to GDR in 1952., diff here His input is still valid, even if it was from a previous discussion on the same topic and it should be taken into account. He should not be excluded just becuase this discussion was conveniently started after his input. --Donenne (talk) 04:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a bit disingenuous to call his comment a “vote”. I did spend some time responding to his comments in explaining my vote. By reposting his earlier post he is unable to take that into consideration.Joel Mc (talk) 08:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Andrew's comment should be removed as he did not weigh in on this RfC. Coretheapple (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment If WP:Consensus cannot be reached in this WP:Rfc, I will request WP:Thirdopinion. --Donenne (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, but it's only just gone out on the bot. I'd give it the full month; there's no rush. The subject matter is interesting and the issue is fairly simple, so my guess is that you're likely to get a good turnout for this RfC. Coretheapple (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't include, too much speculation and conjecture; it should not be included per WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Kierzek (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Include, don't give undue weight. Per arguments raised by Ritsaiph. The material has been heavily referenced and although it may be considered WP:FRINGE, as long as it isn't given undue weight, it does not violate Wikipedia policy or harm the integrity of the article in having it included. StanTheMan87 (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't include, WP:FRINGE. Most sources given are sensationalist reporting from when the claim first came up, all dependent on the Le Figaro article. The book Myths and Legends of the Second World War by James Hayward reports the incident as a fanciful story that seems somewhat far-fetched. I would like to see more sources discussing this before even including it as a notable myth. —Kusma (t·c) 18:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't include - sources do not give concrete evidence that this happened. It could just be a rumor for all we know.  Not supported with enough historical detail.   Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 16:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't include Unsubstantiated information from a controversial historian about an event that he heard about years before and did not tell anyone at the time and has only been covered by news media is not reliable to be presented as fact and is too obscure to present as a mainstream opinion. Also, the last paragraph is sourced to a holocaust denial website.  Whatever the outcome, please do not use sources like that.  TFD (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment As per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, Wikipedia is not a democracy and WP:CON denies voting as being a substitute for a proper consensus. Whatever the decision is, it should be based around the validity of the arguments, not the regurgitation of the same bs by multiple editors. The fact is that Wikipedia policy doesn't advocate for the complete removal of any mention whatsoever regarding Maser's account of what happened with Hess in 1952. This is borderline censorship. I admit that it shouldn't have received the attention I gave it when I made the paragraph, but for all mention of it to removed doesn't conform to WP policy as previous editors have argued. --Donenne (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We are not obligated to include everything that can be sourced; leaving out fringe theories is not censorship — it's good editing. The content guideline WP:fringe says that "A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources." We don't have any independent reliable sources; the only source for the theory is the primary source: Maser himself. He outlined the theory in an interview with Le Figaro in 1987, and it was picked up and reported by several news outlets. There's no independent reliable sources presented so far that corroborate Maser's theory.-- Diannaa (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in WP:FRINGE does it state the content must be removed entirely. If you only briefly mention it without giving it undue weight, you do not make the theory "appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is", according to WP:FRINGE. Secondly, according to WP:FRINGE, "If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." This completely makes the argument that WP policy, and especially WP:FRINGE supports the removal of such material as null and void. Notice the "must not be given undue weight". It does not say that the material "must be removed". --Donenne (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It does not say the material may not be removed, either. The sources provided are terrible -- news reports from the time of Hess' death and a holocaust denial website. I found a secondary source that dismisses the theory as far-fetched, but I don't think it deserves an extra "myths" section. And there seems to be no evidence that it is anything other than a myth. —Kusma (t·c) 18:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Even mentioning it is undue weight, if it has received very little coverage. The theory that world leaders are reptilians for example as received far more coverage, but that does not justify inserting it into articles about world leaders.  TFD (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Kusma, WP:FRINGE clearly says the content it is permissible. But I know what you're now thinking "It does not say the content is not not permissible" or some cop out argument like the one you posted above. How about you link this 'secondary source'. And don't try and pull the old "I can't find it at the moment" bs --Donenne (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Fortunately I already did my homework when I first commented above. To repeat myself, the book Myths and Legends of the Second World War by James Hayward dismisses the story. —Kusma (t·c) 18:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent, now its one historian's word against another. This still doesn't quality for the material being removed and, per earlier comments raised by Ritsaiph. --Donenne (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Fringe" says it should only be included if it is "significant", which it is not. TFD (talk) 11:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The only mention of the rumor in reliable sources since the original time of the Le Figaro interview is in a book called "Myths and legends" and dismisses the claims. Apparently they are so insignificant that other modern sources don't even discuss them. If you want to continue to argue for the inclusion of this myth, please provide further sources; otherwise there seems no point in continuing this discussion. —Kusma (t·c) 12:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Include but only if the conspiracy that the person in Spandau is not the real Hess is mentioned too. Hess's son is "skeptical but doesn't explain why" he doesn't believe the meeting happened because he realizes that the imposture is not his real dad and was mentally ill. Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not include - Entirely too speculative, based almost completely on a single source, not supported by mainstream historians, WP:UNDUE. BMK (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This RFC needs to be closed. Kierzek (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Should Hess be included among "Holocaust perpetrators"?
The extermination policy was formalized in the 1942 Wannsee Conference; mass killings of Jews began on the Eastern Front after the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941. Rudolf Hess (not to be confused with Rudolf Hoss, the Auschwitz Commandment) was arrested by the British in May 1941, and was detained till the end of the war. Despite his role in institutionalizing anti-semitism in Germany, it seems to me unfair to call him a "Holocaust perperator" when we can't know for sure whether he would have gone along with the extermination policy. Steeletrap (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's kinda borderline. Killings started with the invasion of Poland in 1939, but not on the scale seen later on. -- Diannaa (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree. TFD (talk) 07:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In the Nuremburg Trials he was found not guilty of crimes against humanity, so the answer would appear to be no. Coretheapple (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with all above. Kierzek (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Russian Jews began to be murdered--simply for being Jewish--in June 1941, by einsatzgruppen killing squads; but throughout 1941, we see einsatzgruppen commandos saying things like "we can't kill German Jews." In January 1942, the Nazis had decided to exterminate the Jews of Europe wholesale: not just Russian and Polish Jews, but French, Dutch, German, and other European jews. (Before then, the policy was one of emigration, and Hitler/Himmler had rejected calls for extermination; why they changed their mind remains a historical mystery.) Hess cannot be guilty of this, since he was captured in May 1941, before the extermination policy was developed. Steeletrap (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * He doesn't seem to be cast as a holocaust perpetrator in the article itself. If he was, with an RS, then fine; but without it I agree that the cat should not be used. Obviously Hess was hardly pure as the driven snow in the history of Nazism, but "holocaust perpetrator" is a very specific charge which the article currently seems not to support. DBaK (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Scroll to the bottom of the article; the tag "Holocaust perpetrators" is attached to Hess. Steeletrap (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I must be missing it as I don't see it listed. Kierzek (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Never mind: The tag It was removed by a user who participated in this discussion. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Hess&diff=696153973&oldid=696125041 Steeletrap (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Steeletrap I think you may have misunderstood me. I was commenting on the article text as justification (or lack of) for the category. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)