Print this post Print this post

Rudolf Hess Viewed As a Member of the German Opposition

Landing site memorial in Scotland

Landing site memorial in Scotland

1,919 words

A case can be made that Rudolf Hess, Deputy Führer to Adolf Hitler from 1933–1941, can be viewed as a de facto—I stress de facto, or in effect—member of the German opposition by the time of his quixotic (in retrospect) 1941 flight to Scotland on a failed mission to forge peace between Great Britain and Germany. Though he remained loyal to Hitler, Hess’s unauthorized flight and peace proposal were clearly acts of high treason, assuming Hitler did not authorize them. 

Like many in the German resistance, Hess foresaw war with both the United States and the Soviet Union, and desired to avert the carnage.

In August 1940, British aircraft dropped the first incendiary bombs on the German capital of Berlin, and Hitler put out peace feelers to Britain through various channels. This included asking Hess to establish secret contact with his “aristocratic friends” in Britain. (I haven’t seen evidence that Hess actually had influential friends there.)

Hess immediately discussed possibilities with his old professor, Karl Haushofer, the well-known exponent of geopolitics, with whom he had remained close. Haushofer, who maintained contacts with Left-wing socialists, advocated an essentially German-Russian (i.e., Communist) alliance. His wife, a half-Jew, was protected by Hess, who saw to it that she was granted “honorary German” status.

Karl Haushofer informed his son Albrecht about Hess’s approach, and between September 1940 and Hess’s surprise May 10, 1941 flight to Scotland, the two worked together in an effort to establish contact with British (and, on Haushofer’s part, American) officials.

Albrecht Haushofer—like his father a close friend of Hess’s—taught Political Geography and Geopolitics at the Berlin School for Politics from 1934, and at Berlin University from 1939, while simultaneously working for the German Foreign Ministry staff. Throughout the 1930s Albrecht served as an adviser to Hess. Under the Nuremberg Laws, Albrecht, a quarter Jew, was, like his mother, classified as a mischling (Jewish-Aryan hybrid). But Hess saw to it that a German Blood Certificate was issued to him.

In a letter to his mother in 1939, Albrecht wrote that Germany was run by “criminals and fools.” His scholarly work, focusing on current international affairs with a partisan edge but published in prestigious academic journals, was so outspoken according to historian Peter Hoffmann, that hardly anyone in Germany was able to speak as freely as he could—thanks to Hess’s protection.

Albrecht Haushofer maintained contact with three internal anti-Nazi groups: the Hassell-Popitz-Langbehn group, the Kreisau Circle (Left-wing), and the Red Orchestra (Communist) whose Berlin leader Arvid Harnack taught at the same institution as Haushofer. Working from within the system while posing as a patriotic and trustworthy German, Haushofer surreptitiously used his influence whenever possible to undermine the regime and attempt to establish contact with Allied-Communist officials.

A historian has written that after November 1940 Haushofer successfully made contact with Britain, acting as an unofficial emissary with official cover and at the same time as a representative of the opposition.

In his dealings with Hess, Haushofer openly disparaged Hitler. Peter Hoffmann, the German-Canadian historian of the resistance movement, described one meeting between the two men as follows:

Hess had said that it must be possible to find someone in a responsible position in Britain who would be prepared to accept Hitler’s desire for peace, but Haushofer had replied that “practically all Englishmen in this position regarded any treaty signed by the Führer as a worthless scrap of paper.” Hitler had broken too many treaties to be considered trustworthy; in the Anglo-Saxon world he was regarded as “Satan’s representative on earth” who must be fought. (The History of the German Resistance, 1933–1945, trans. by Richard Barry, 1977, p. 209)

Haushofer tried to dissuade Hess from meeting with the Duke of Hamilton, the Scottish nobleman and Air Commodore Hess ultimately parachuted into Scotland to see, and did in fact meet. Haushofer suggested that he, Haushofer, would make a better contact, for, “like many Englishmen [sic] H is extremely reserved with people he does not know personally.” Hitler biographer John Toland characterized Hamilton as Haushofer’s “own closest English [sic] friend.” Toland described Hess as a member of the “opposition within Hitler’s inner circle” to the invasion of Russia.

Ultimately, Haushofer did dispatch a letter to Hamilton at Hess’s request, which apparently reached its target. This was separate from a letter to Hamilton drafted by Hess himself, which was intercepted by British intelligence.

In Peter Hoffmann’s words, “Hess wished to help Hitler conclude peace with Britain; Haushofer wished to exploit the resulting possibilities of contact for the benefit of the opposition, to create the external conditions for a coup d’état” (p. 207).

According to Hess’s son, Wolf Rüdiger Hess, who died in 2001:

Just a few days before his flight, my father had a private meeting with Hitler that lasted four hours. It is known that the two men raised their voices during portions of their talk, and that when they were finished, Hitler accompanied his Deputy to the ante-room, put his arm soothingly around his shoulder, and said: “Hess, you really are stubborn.”

Hess’s May 10, 1940 solo flight to Scotland—an amazing feat executed with extreme technical precision—caught Albrecht Haushofer, who had nothing to do with it, as well as Hitler and everybody else in Germany, by complete surprise. As a consequence, the Haushofer family lost their protector and gradually fell into disfavor.

After reading the private letter Hess had written to him before taking off, Hitler was reportedly enraged. “Hess is first of all a deserter, and if I ever catch him, he will pay for this as any ordinary traitor.”

But ultimately the Führer’s attitude softened. David Irving reports that one of Hitler’s secretaries, Christa Schroeder (whom he knew and interviewed), said Hitler told her after the flight that in retrospect he could see what was going on in Hess’s mind during their long conversation a few days before. John Toland adds:

Irate as he was, Hitler confided to several intimates that he respected Hess for his willingness to sacrifice himself on such a dangerous mission. On reflection he realized that his deputy had made the hazardous flight for him. Hitler did not believe that Hess was mad, only foolish not to have seen what a disastrous political mistake he was making.

This more sober judgment was corroborated some months later when he consoled Frau Bruckmann on the death of her husband: “We all have our graves and grow more and more lonely, but we have to overcome and go on living, my dear gracious lady! I, too, am now deprived of the only two human beings among all those around me to whom I have been truly and inwardly attached: Dr. [Fritz] Todt [builder of the Westwall and Autobahn] is dead and Hess has flown away from me!”

“That is what you say now and to me,” reportedly replied Frau Bruckmann, who had a reputation for frankness, “but what does your official press say? Year after year we all go to Bayreuth and are deeply moved, but who understands the real meaning? When our unhappy age at last produces a man who, like the Valkyrie, fulfills the deeper meaning of Wotan’s command—seeks to carry out your most sacred wish with heroism and self-sacrifice—then he is described as insane!” She expected the Führer would retort sharply but he remained quiet and thoughtful. “Is it not enough, what I have said to you—and you alone—about my real feeling?” he finally said. “Is that not enough for you?” (Adolf Hitler, 1976, p. 666)

Albrecht Haushofer was arrested two days after Hess’s departure and taken to Adolf Hitler’s mountain residence, the Berghof, in Bavaria in southern Germany near the Austrian border. There he was questioned (though Hitler refused to see him) and wrote a self-serving account for the Führer entitled “English Connections and the Possibility of Using Them.” After eight weeks of detention, he was released.

The Gestapo arrested and interrogated Hess’s entire staff and everyone associated with him—adjutants, orderlies, secretaries, chauffeurs, and his brother Alfred. The interrogators walked on eggshells, however, for if Hitler had in fact authorized the flight, the organization did not want to get involved; but if Hess acted alone he’d committed high treason.

Albrecht Haushofer eventually concluded that Hitler must be killed. After the failed July 20, 1944 bomb plot he went into hiding, but was arrested at a farm in Bavaria in December and incarcerated in Berlin’s Moabit prison. He was executed by the SS as Communist troops entered the city in April 1945.

Albrecht’s father Karl Haushofer was also imprisoned by the Gestapo for eight months, but released. Following the conquest of Germany he was interrogated by a Catholic priest attached to the Allied-Communist forces in order to determine whether he should stand trial at Nuremberg for war crimes. On the night of March 10–11, 1946, he and his wife committed suicide.

Within two weeks of his arrival—and arrest—in Great Britain, Hess knew that his mission had failed. The remainder of his life was a long, strange saga worthy of an Orwellian order whose rulers are completely deranged. His ordeal—which you must study in order to comprehend—really cannot be described any other way.

Hess was imprisoned in the Tower of London (the last prisoner to be held in the 900-year-old fortress), endlessly interrogated, confined in electronically bugged cells, injected with sodium pentothal (“truth serum”), tried as a “war criminal” before the kangaroo court at Nuremberg where he remained steadfastly loyal to Hitler and contemptuous of the proceedings, and imprisoned for decades at Spandau, situated in the British sector of Berlin deep inside Communist East Germany under barbarous conditions, where he finally died, ostensibly a suicide, at the age of 93 in 1987.

To this day Britain has not released its files on Hess.

The reason Hess may be thought of as part of the resistance, in addition to his close association with the treasonous Albrecht Haushofer, is that opposition to Hitler existed throughout the entire period of the Third Reich, was not exclusively Leftist, and included numerous people of the highest rank, especially in the Wehrmacht (armed forces) and Abwehr (military intelligence). Even war hero General Erwin Rommel was a member.

Many participants were not philo-Semitic, pro-Communist, or anti-white, but concerned, rather, that Hitler was taking Germany over a cliff. Given the rigid governmental structure, it was not possible to express dissenting views or exert any influence over policy. (Just like today, only now there is no high level opposition.)

It also explains, in part, why elites from the beginning have had such a bizarre, irrational fixation with Hess the symbol.

Two weeks after Hess’s death, Spandau was leveled to the ground to prevent it from becoming a shrine. For 20 years following the release of Albert Speer and Baldur von Schirach in 1966, Hess had been the huge fortress’s sole occupant. To ensure its complete erasure, all materials from the demolished prison were ground to powder and dumped in the North Sea or buried at the nearby Royal Air Force base in Spandau borough. The site itself was transformed into a parking facility and shopping center.

How to erase history: Hess family grave in Lutheran cemetery before and after its midnight elimination

How to erase history: Hess family grave in Lutheran cemetery before and after its midnight elimination

In 2011, Rudolf Hess’s remains were secretly exhumed at night from the family burial plot in the Bavarian town of Wunsiedel in southern Germany. The decayed body was cremated and scattered at sea in a secret operation. According to the Daily Mail (UK), “Holocaust survivors [Jews] welcomed the move. ‘There is now one less place of evil in the world,’” said New York City’s Elan Steinberg.

The family gravestone with the epitaph “Ich hab’s gewagt” (“I have dared”) was destroyed.

 

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)
This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

54 Comments

  1. Leroy
    Posted March 26, 2014 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

    The exhumation of the remains of Hess was truly a satanic thing considering the implications that it has along with cremation in jewish mysticism.

  2. me
    Posted March 25, 2014 at 8:11 am | Permalink

    Does Andrew Hamilton have a comment about this book

    http://www.barnesreview.org/rudolf-hess-his-betrayal-murder-p-590.html?cPath=80_48 ?

    • Andrew Hamilton
      Posted March 25, 2014 at 10:31 pm | Permalink

      me’s link is to a good webpage about the book Rudolf Hess: His Betrayal and Murder by Tunisian Muslim Abdallah Melaouhi, who served as male nurse to Hess at Spandau from 1982 until his death in 1987. The page includes a personal statement by Melaouhi as well as a short review of the book.

      That people like Melaouhi and Spandau Commandant Eugene K. Bird, who also knew Hess personally, had the high opinion of him that they did should tell us something. Melaouhi writes:

      “During the five years in which I daily cared for Mr. Hess, I was able to obtain a clear and accurate impression of his physical capabilities. I do not consider, given his physical condition, that it would have been possible for Mr. Hess to have committed suicide by hanging himself, as was later published by the Allied powers. In my view, it is clear that he met his death by strangulation, at the hands of a third party. But when I voiced my objections, I was threatened with professional ruination—or worse. For years I kept silent. But now I have told the entire story of my time with my friend Rudolf Hess, a man of great vision, intelligence and compassion.”

      In his YouTube talk(s) on Hess, David Irving mentions Melaouhi and his book, which, he joked, “For obvious reasons will not become a bestseller”—i.e., it is essentially banned and suppressed.

      Irving speaks very highly of Melaouhi and regards him as entirely trustworthy. It is clear from his general comments that Irving, too, believes Hess was murdered. He offers a few speculations about motives, which are all very down-to-earth, but does not think there is sufficient evidence to determine why it happened as opposed to the fact that it likely did happen.

      The American guard Tony Jordan mentioned by Melaouhi, who evidently hated Hess, was a Negro. Melaouhi does not mention this, but Irving does.

      It is interesting that in one of the color photos in Irving’s book about the Nuremberg Trials several Negro GIs are conspicuously guarding the German leadership before they were killed by the Allied-Communist tribunal. This appears to have been done purposely.

      I have every reason to believe that Bird’s and Melaouhi’s books would be quite informative and reliable. The only question is whether the editors at Secker & Warburg, an Establishment publisher, may have removed material from Bird’s book that he originally included, toned it down.

      • Walter
        Posted March 26, 2014 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

        I will try to read the book by Peter Hoffmann; but not without the uneasy feeling I have about all the writings coming out of the occupied Germany, be it that something was written by people who were in one way or the other opposed to Hitler’s revolution from 1933-1945, or socialized in the re-educated Germany after the war. The topos “Resistance” is very popular in the current Germany and always distorted to fit the ideology of the hypocrites who feign humility but practice hard-fisted power politics as long as it somehow humiliates and destroys their power basis of Germany. Such writings are not to be trusted-Graß, Jens and Augstein come to mind as former SS-members who practice violent and shameful re-casting of a reality they were enthusiastic participants of.

        The general idea expressed in books, films, education, official history is that Hitler had all the power and Germany was but the rigid mefhanism of his will. Everyone knows that that can’t be, but it is still the subliminal assumption of all the discourse and understanding in the official post-war world.
        In reality the National Socialist Revoluiton was made by people and it was carried forward by strong personalities. That dissens in the movement was natural is logical. I suppose one can call such dissens in some instances “resistance”, but I wouldn’t use this term for Heß, who was an ardent national Socialist and friend of Hitler’s. After reading the article above, I am not as certain anymore that Heß acted as Hitler’s envoy to be disavowed in case of failure, as I believed till now.
        He might very well have acted on his own in a desperate attempt to turn around events. I do not believe that Hitler wanted to attack the SU, but saw no other way to defeat the deadly encirclement forces tightening their grip around Germany and their steadfast refusal to listen to any of his suggestions to end the war.
        We don’t know what would have happened if the SU had not been attacked; the evidence suggests that it was a pre-emptive strike, and had it not occurred, Europe might be under the rule of Bolshevism to this day.
        Had Heß convinced the British to end the war (it was their decision to start, and it would have been their’s to end it), the SU might have not continued its troop build-up in the West at an unprecedented level in world history and the situation might have relaxed.

        • Andrew Hamilton
          Posted March 26, 2014 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

          Well, Hoffmann lives and teaches in Canada. I believe he was born in Germany, and the first edition of his book was written and published in German in 1967. Only later was it translated into English. I should emphasize that my comments relating to his book are based on the first English language edition. It has been revised since, but I have not read that.

          He’s pretty objective, though anti-Nazi. Given the date at which he wrote, there is no mention of the “Holocaust,” much less “gas chambers,” if for no other reason because the Holocaust religion had not yet been fully socially constructed in its current simple, clean, dogmatic form.

          The Holocaust is a socially constructed, state-sponsored religion. That’s why many WNs experience psychological, emotional, and moral resistance to examining Germany or Hitler or NS objectively. They cannot help this; it is implanted in them because the Holocaust is a living religion. Historic Christianity, on the other hand, is socially moribund. Nobody is afraid to kick it around or, indeed, needs to be. The Holocaust is another matter entirely.

          Hoffman does refer to the Nazis at times as “evil,” and occasionally invokes their persecution of the Jews, primarily what he calls their crimes on the Eastern Front. This is a reference to the Einsatzgruppen.

          But his history is by no means ludicrous. His work is extensively documented. At times he made judgments in the text that I immediately had reservations about, but provided enough discussion and data in the footnotes that it was easy to draw a different conclusion. At other times the supplementary information forced me to lean more toward his assertion.

          Even though Hoffmann’s book has nothing to do with Revisionism, “revisionist” is the word that kept going through my mind as I read it. To the extent that he has a point of view or agenda, it is, “Look, Germany was not monolithic.”

          Wikipedia has a page citing “mainstream” historians who attack the credibility of David Irving’s work. One quote is from Hoffmann.

          On the other hand, in 1970 Hoffmann cited Irving’s work in a few of his footnotes. On his own website Irving says that Hoffman wrote the book about the resistance, effectively referring readers to it for more information on the subject. It also turns out that Hoffmann and Irving maintain e-mail contact. (Hoffmann is or was a professor at a university in Canada.)

          I should clarify that it did not enter Hoffmann’s mind to classify Hess as a member of the resistance. Rather, that occurred to me the instant I read his brief chapter on Albrecht Haushofer. It’s a matter of how broadly you’re willing to define the terms “resistance” and “opposition.”

          You’re right that the prevailing depiction of NS Germany as a monolithic projection of Hitler’s will is a lie. It’s essentially a projection of Communism onto Nazism. The amount of toughness, disagreement, and independent-mindedness everywhere in the upper echelons, both inside and outside the movement, is substantial. These guys weren’t doormats. Nazi Germany was not Communism or today’s Jewish-Leftist society. I read somewhere that Hitler wasn’t interested in surrounding himself with Yes-men; he sought out strong, tough, fearless, capable individuals with minds of their own.

          As for the war, David Irving made an interesting observation in one of his YouTube-posted Hess talks. He said that if Britain had not gone down the road it did, there might have been a different aftermath than either victory or defeat. “People forget,” he said, “that winning and losing aren’t the only outcomes of wars. Sometimes a sort of balance or middle ground results.”

          • Walter
            Posted March 27, 2014 at 12:14 am | Permalink

            It is possible to write, or at least attempt to, in an objective manner about matters towards which one doesn’t have a friendly attitude; perhaps that is the case with Hoffmann. That he wrote the book so long ago makes it possible that he did so with a critical distance to the topic, and of course an attitude, but without the tickle of fear for his career, freedom, social acceptance or even his family’s or his own health, as is the norm nowadays in this age of induced insanity through continued holocaust indoctrination and conditioning. I will take a look at Hoffmann’s book, and it might be profitable to read both the original German and then the English edition.
            The holocaust ideology does indeed have all the characteristics of a religion, but it offers no salvation to its adherents, only despair and self-loathing. As such it is a truly inhuman construct, sucking out the light of life and replacing it with the terrors of a lightless and hopeless underworld. From a psychological point of view I am amazed that such a thing is even possible, as life has a built-in principle of hope and yearning for its continuation.
            It is interesting that Wikipedia has a page citing attacks of mainstream “historians” (I put the quotation marks around the “historian”) on David Irving’s credibility. It must be really scary for some people to accept that not everyone is arguing a case with the arguments supplied, but rather wonder about the purpose of this mad urge at uniformity of opinion, even going as far as depriving dissenters of freedom, health and life. David Irving has been diligent, broad-minded and intelligent in finding relevant information, while the “mainstream crowd” is forever recycling the same few texts supplying the original foundation. After several decades of citing one another as sources of information, the factual basis of this sort of historiography is just as feeble as it was in the beginning, even if libraries could be filled with all the writings. It is only allowed to make any argument based on pre-selected information. This typefies the leftist mindset in a perfect manner: The leftist wants the world to conform to his thinking; hence the love of abstract constructs in society, science or art, and the brazen insolence to implement them. In contrast, a non-leftist has his thinking formed by the world, and in science, art or life he strives for lively empiricism rather than lifeless abstractions one cannot relate to.

            As to your last paragraph: I agree with Irving. There might have been a cessation of hostilities without a winner and loser, and all the destruction, the millionfold interruption of bloodlines through the death or psychological wreckage of the future parents, the perhaps permanent break-off of the upwards development of the White world, the beating down of a life-affirming attitude would not have occurred.
            Instead we are left with the poisonous result of Unconditional Surrender. And that, without a catharsis this is not even a tragedy.

          • Andrew Hamilton
            Posted March 28, 2014 at 2:55 am | Permalink

            “This typefies the leftist mindset in a perfect manner: The leftist wants the world to conform to his thinking; hence the love of abstract constructs in society, science or art, and the brazen insolence to implement them. In contrast, a non-leftist has his thinking formed by the world, and in science, art or life he strives for lively empiricism rather than lifeless abstractions one cannot relate to.”

            That is a pretty good summary of how I view the primary distinction between Left and Right. I would add that the Left is morally, psychologically, and aesthetically depraved, composed of natural-born killers, gangsters, thugs, sadists, destroyers, and oppressors.

  3. Glen
    Posted March 25, 2014 at 6:39 am | Permalink

    Some of the resistance to Hitler came from class elitists who didn’t like him because he came from a common background. These Junkers were behind the 1944 bomb plot. In some other cases Wehrmacht officers were simply jealous and spiteful of the German leaders military successes and political support.
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8227

    • Andrew Hamilton
      Posted March 25, 2014 at 11:03 pm | Permalink

      The resistance to Hitler is a very interesting phenomenon. Apart from its intrinsic historical interest, one desires to get a handle on the sort of problems fellow whites, all of whom would have been socialized under the old regime and imbibed its values, would present to a successful revolutionary government after Jews and other non-whites had been unceremoniously heaved overboard.

      I highly recommend Peter Hoffmann’s book on the subject, cited in my article above. Although it is not without flaws, and Hoffmann is very anti-Nazi, the book is well-documented and quite fascinating. I would be surprised if anyone who read it didn’t come away with a much different picture of Germany and Germans than they currently have.

      I would first of all divide the resistance into two broad camps.

      One, Communist, Leftist, philo-Semitic (top priority being to serve Jews), anti-white, anti-Western, Weimar decadents, etc. Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer belongs in this category. Henry Ashby Turner’s book makes it clear that many BIG businessmen of the Bill Gates-Warren Buffett stripe were philo-Semitic and anti-white.

      Two, right-wing German patriots who believed Hitler was waging an unwinnable war and would destroy Germany—which, after all, is what happened.

      In reality, it was not so clear-cut as this, but it is still a useful construct.

      I have no sympathy for the former group. The second group, on the other hand, is very intriguing. There was no lack of courage, bravery, or independent thinking, that’s for sure. Utterly unlike the “West.”

  4. Stronza
    Posted March 24, 2014 at 11:07 am | Permalink

    Compare the treatment of Hess’ remains to those of Lenin the next time you think Russia or its leaders are entities to be admired.

    http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0304/lenin.asp

    Off-topic: here’s an interesting tidbit from Lenin himself, at least according to wikipedia:

    “Lenin was privately critical of Russia, describing it as “one of the most benighted, medieval and shamefully backward of Asian [?] countries”. He was similarly critical of the Russian people, informing Gorky that “An intelligent Russian is almost always a Jew or someone with Jewish blood”, in other instances admitting that he knew little of Russia, having spent one half of his adult life abroad.”

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted March 24, 2014 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

      Lenin was such a swine. There were many brilliant Russians: Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Chekhov, and Pushkin (despite his Negro blood) in literature; Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Mussorgsky, Shostakovitch, Stravinsky, and Prokofiev in music; and none of them had Jewish blood. I am sure a similar list of high achievers in science, technology, warcraft, and statecraft could be assembled. No wonder the Lenin (who had Jewish and Asiatic blood) and his largely non-Russian Bolsheviks murdered so many millions of Russians. Pity a people who fall under the control of such a bigoted and hostile elite. Pity ourselves, too, since we are being subjected to a much slower form of genocide engineered by the same tribe.

  5. Jaego
    Posted March 23, 2014 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

    Wolf was told by one of the maintenance staff at Spandau, under the strictest confidence, that his father was probably killed by British agents dressed in American uniforms. Hess apparently tried to defend himself or at least make known that it was not suicide as signs of struggle were evident in the environment.

    The Soviets denied that they were the ones who had insisted on holding him I believe.

    • White Republican
      Posted March 24, 2014 at 4:47 am | Permalink

      I think Colin Jordan noted in National Socialism: Vanguard of the Future that the Soviets expressed a willingness to release Rudolf Hess shortly before his death. However, it’s been over a decade since I read Jordan’s work, and my memory on this point might be inaccurate.

  6. Andrew Hamilton
    Posted March 23, 2014 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

    I was going through an old file folder this morning and discovered a series of newspaper clippings I’d saved at the time of Hess’s death.

    Aug. 18, 1987: “Hitler Aide, Rudolf Hess, Last Spandau Inmate, Dies” (“From News Services”)

    This article said that over the years the US, Britain, France, and West Germany had made appeals to have Hess released on humanitarian grounds, but that the USSR always blocked them.

    “One hypothesis for the refusal was that the Soviets shared the view that Hess had sought peace with Britain in order to strengthen Germany’s hand against the Soviet Union. Hitler’s invasion began only weeks after Hess’ parachute jump.” Hess’s May 10, 1941 flight occurred 10 days after Hitler had fixed the time for his June invasion of the USSR.

    Aug. 19, 1987: “Hess Apparently Strangled Self, Say British” (Associated Press)

    This article mentions Eugene Bird, “once the top US officer guarding Spandau.” He is quoted as saying that Hess had tried to commit suicide on four other occasions (I suspect this means altogether—i.e., before being imprisoned at Spandau as well). Bird said it was unusual that Hess was left alone outside his cell long enough to strangle himself.

    Wikipedia has an entry for Eugene K. Bird. Born in Montana, he was the US Commandant of Spandau Allied Prison from 1964 to 1972. “Over the years, and after many hundreds of hours of discussion between the two, there developed a relationship of friendship between them and they began a surreptitious collaboration on a book about Hess and his enigmatic flight to Scotland in 1941. Both Bird and Hess saw this as an opportunity to set the record straight, as far as possible, about Hess’s historic flight. In March 1971, Bird’s superiors at the U.S. Mission in Berlin became officially aware of the Bird/Hess manuscripts and other documents relating to the proposed book. Bird was interrogated in great detail, placed under house arrest, and eventually made to resign his position as Commandant of Spandau Prison. This episode, in effect, also ended his military career.” (None of this was mentioned in the newspaper article quoting him.)

    Bird’s book, The Loneliest Man in the World: The Inside Story of the 30-year Imprisonment of Rudolf Hess, was published in London by Secker & Warburg in 1974. (The book was also unmentioned in the article.) He and his family relocated to Germany permanently, where he died at the age of 79 in 2005. He is buried in Berlin.

    “After the publication of the book, Bird campaigned to have Hess released. Hess allegedly committed suicide in 1987 in Spandau Prison and Bird publicly voiced his concern that Hess may have been murdered.”

    Aug. 20, 1987: “Suicide Note Was Left by Hess, Official Says” (Associated Press)

    His son, Munich architect Wolf Rüdiger Hess, “said he doubted his father had killed himself.”

    Aug. 25, 1987: “Family Says Hess Was Buried Secretly” (Associated Press)

    There was a new development: Hess’s son, Wolf Rüdiger Hess, 50, had suffered a stroke. The younger Hess, who had long campaigned on his father’s behalf, “was taken to a hospital intensive care unit in Munich after his wife found him unconscious in their apartment Sunday evening, said Alfred Seidl, the family attorney. He said Hess was not in critical condition, although there were signs of paralysis.”

    Wolf Rüdiger Hess died in 2001 at the age of 64.

    Bavarian attorney Alfred Seidl had served as defense counsel to Rudolf Hess and Hans Frank at Nuremberg.

  7. Kundalini Joe
    Posted March 22, 2014 at 7:16 pm | Permalink

    Great article. It had me thinking for two days. What makes Hess mythical and dangerous, in the Shakespearean sense, is his ambiguity. Like Hamlet of Denmark, one can’t put a definitive final finger on Hess. One can’t resolutely accuse or forgive him. As a legend, Hess hits the sweet-spot.

    It’s the sweet-spot that demands the interest of a very wide arc of Whites. The article conveys this. Was Hess a member of the opposition? Was he not? He had to be tortured inside before being forced, by an inner-imperative and a call-in-the-blood, into action. The combination of boldness and tragedy is epic. So is the solitude of the act, and the ensuing deep, deep loneliness.

    Hess is a hero who hits the sweet spot. Probably, he’s the Nazi whose memory must be destroyed über alles. That’s because he has cross-over possibilities and tragic resonance that Spengler would call, I think, Faustian and mystical. Hess accepted an impossible task, utterly righteous in the circumstance, and failed. It tugs on the heart.

  8. Jim
    Posted March 22, 2014 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

    P.S.: excellent article. I have always considered Hess a truly tragic figure, one of the most tragic I’ve ever known of.

  9. Peter
    Posted March 22, 2014 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

    I’m not sure what treaties Hitler broke (Versailles Treaty?), but whichever ones they were, they were thoroughly to Germany’s disadvantage and not signed by choice. Hess certainly wasn’t ill and he knew what he was doing. He should have received the Nobel Peace prize instead of prison. Hitler’s policy was overly fair toward other countries. He didn’t even seek all of the land stolen from Germany back. He didn’t ask for Alsace-Lorraine, the lands lost to Belgium or Denmark or the South Tyrol lost to Italy. All these territories populations were German. The people are of German ethnicity with German names.

    Hitler did want Danzig and western Prussia (with their German populations) back from Poland, a country created in 1919 with a large chunk of Germany. He offered the Poles a very fair deal based upon the outcome of a plebiscite. The Poles refused. I guess they knew how the Germans would vote. Hitler wanted the Sudetenland free (with 3.5 million Germans) and then took the rest of Czechoslovakia too, a new country that never existed before that had always been part of Austria and Slovakia part of Hungary. Prague was a German city, created by Germans (Austrians) whose ethnic character changed in the later centuries. Like all groups, Czechs were represented in the Austro-Hungarian parliament and not all Czechs disliked Germans.

    And lets not foprget the Saar territory. Stolen by the French for its coal (and hardworking people), when they voted in the late 30’s as to stay with France or return to Germany, over 95% voted to return to Germany.

    What any of these lands have to to with Britain, France or the USA is beyond me. Germany did not demand Britain free India or its colonies, or that France free hers and more recently Germany (nor anyone else) dropped an atomic bomb on the USA when it attacked Iraq and murdered one million people.

    According to the allies, Germany had no rights. Although Germany was the leading nation of the world with more Nobel Prizes than Britain and the USA combined in 1933, they wanted to treat Germany like a second class country and Hitler, being a proud German said “drop dead.” We’re going to free our people and take back Germany’s land.

    Jews played the major role in fomenting the war with propaganda in their newspapers and giving large sums of money to Churchill. If not for them, Churchill would not have destroyed Germany, Europe and his own empire. More Englishmen should be asking themselves “Why did we fight WW II? What did we get from it? Why did we destroy our empire?” It was Jewish payoffs to Churchill that kept England in the war even when they feared invasion.

    As soon as the Slovaks could become independent of Czechoslovakia, they did so in the early 1990’s.

    I believe WW I and II occurred because of others jealousy of Germany’s competitiveness, which no one else in the world came close to and Jews politicking against Germans that wanted them out of Germany, not dead, but out.

    • Lucian Tudor
      Posted March 23, 2014 at 11:18 am | Permalink

      You do make some valid points here, and while it is un-doubtable that Hitler and the Third Reich were at a disadvantage and mistreated by the Western powers, Hitler has some rather undeniable and obvious flaws in terms of foreign policy. First of all, while it was entirely within his rights to obtain the Sudetenland, there was no logical reason whatsoever to take the rest of Czechoslovakia other than for imperialistic purposes. And the fact that Czechoslovakia was a newly created nation after World War I does not at all delegitimize its existence, because new nations have formed numerous times throughout history (and by the way, Prague was originally a purely Czech city founded in the early Middle Ages, and was only later on Germanized under the Holy Roman Empire). Even Germany was a new nation at some point, yet you cannot say that it is illegitimate just because at one point it was a mixture of little states.

      And as for Poland, we see another ridiculous aspect of Hitler’s foreign policy manifested here. The pro-Third Reich version of the invasion of Poland is generally that all the Germans wanted was a small strip of land connecting Germany to Danzig, and that the Poles had no reason not to accept this offer. However, Poland obviously could not have accepted that because that piece of land provided their only access to the sea at the time. Furthermore, Hitler’s reaction to this was ridiculous because if he really wanted so little to begin with, why would he destroy the whole of Poland for this and in the process sell most of Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union?

      Finally, we simply cannot say that Hitler’s foreign policy was “overly fair toward other countries” and that he only wanted a little bit of extra land for Germany, because it is not only written in Mein Kampf itself but also revealed in numerous other National Socialist documents that they always intended to invade and colonize Russia and a very large portion of Eastern Europe. We should also not forget that the Third Reich treated many Slavic peoples atrociously and were unnecessarily cruel to them, which is a fact not only well-documented by historians (both Western as well as Slavic historians) but also by a number of German National Socialist documents as well. It is true that there is a lot of distortion and manipulation of historical fact regarding the Third Reich, but if you really want to understand the truth, you cannot read only the works of Third Reich apologists and revisionists; you need to balance out the perspectives properly.

      That being said, while there are some things that are respectable or worth looking at in the Third Reich, I would advise against putting too much weight on Hitler and National Socialism. I really must warn you that if you go around parading Hitler as an ideal nationalist that did almost no wrong, you will end up disappointed.

      • Walter
        Posted March 23, 2014 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

        Much can be said to your arguments; it is undeniable, however, that just because Poland wanted (or needed) access to the coast that this is not a sufficient or acceptable reason to hold sway over the people in that “strip of land” without asking their opinion. After all, this was one of the 214 Points of Wilson, “national self-determination”, and this was immediately violated after Germany’s signing of the Armistice in 1918, when Polnd occupied the Korridor region and West Prussia. The same is true for Czechoslovakia, occupying the German areas of Bohemia and this was then accepted by the League of Nations; the same is true for Memelland, North Schleswig, Eupen-Malmedy, South Tyrol. Hitler didn’t create these problems, but tried to solve them. There was an unwillingness on the part of the nations taking German territories-ethnically German territories- and reconsidering it. Also, while Hitler wrote of the Lebensraum in the east in prison in 1925, he did not repeat these ideas while having actual power, he even expressed his wish to not have written his book at all.
        The Germany under Adolf Hiter had the only reasonable and far-seeing approach to the solution of European conflicts stemming from ethnic and territorial disputes. The solution of imperialism in West and East was to smash Germany, cause havoc on an unheard-of scale, sow distrust and hatred for centuries to come, or as seems the tendency now, to dissolve the notion of nations altogether.
        What a travesty.

        • Lucian Tudor
          Posted March 23, 2014 at 11:07 pm | Permalink

          Do not equate my criticisms of Hitler with a defense of the Allies. The Allies definitely had flaws, perhaps even more than Hitler, but that does not excuse Hitler’s actions. You speak of the issue of self-determination in regards to Poland and Czechoslovakia, which is a reasonable question to bring up, but how is national self-determination achieved with the Third Reich’s domination over Czechs and Poles? Furthermore, it is obvious to anyone who does the research that the National Socialist government planned and eventually engaged in an imperialistic policy to conquer Eastern Europe for German colonization. This is regardless of whether Hitler regretted writing Mein Kampf or not, because as I mentioned before, such plans can be found in many National Socialist documents (for example, Hitler’s Table Talk, Rosenberg’s Memoirs, and numerous Third Reich government documents).

          As you can see, pointing out the Allied nations’ mistakes and wrongdoings does not necessarily justify Hitler’s own. It is your right to argue that the Third Reich and the Axis in general was the “good side” in World War II. From my perspective it is not so simple because the war involved a complexity of forces on both sides; many of the Third Reich’s enemies were actually right-wing nationalists as well. However, my issue here is not so much with that matter but with the fact that it is problematic for people on our side today to show off Hitler as a perfect or near-perfect leader because he simply is not.

          • Walter
            Posted March 24, 2014 at 10:40 pm | Permalink

            Each one of your points would have to be discussed separately from one another. To have an initial understanding of the whole situation it is important to keep in mind that after the separation of the German Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia the other parts of the multi-nationality state (these states are aptly called in German Vielvölkerstaaten) were striving for freedom from Czech domination; hence, it didn’t take long for Slovakia to declare independence, the Hungarian and Ruthenian areas wanted to be out of Czecho-Slovakia as well, and Poland alone made an aggressive move by occupyig the Teschen area- incidentally also an area with a lot of Germans living in. Slovakia declares independence, the German areas are separated from the Czech area, the support of France and Britain is gone, with only the SU as a possible supporter at that time, the Czech state was in a precarious situation. The Czech president Hacha asked to see Hitler, and from what I read asked that the Czech state be put under German Protection (i.e., it was not an unilateral decision by Hitler to violate the spirit of the agreement signed in Munich). This led to the establishment of the Protectorate Bohemia-Moravia. It is important to notice that there was no annexation, and that the Czechs were going on as a relatively autonomous political entity, although without a military and strongly depending upon Germany, but the nearly 1000 years of being part of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation, with at least one Czech Emperor (Wenzeslas), the maintenance of the Czech national character in these nearly 1000 years, and the separation only 20 years ago in 1918, wouldn’t have made this quite the equivalent of a hostile conquest. (Note that the US has several protectorates, Guam and Puerto Rico come to mind). Also, Hitler emphasized that this was going to be only a temporary solution.
            The situation with Poland was different, it came out of the German-Polish conflict, and Hitler intended to eventually establish a Poland within its ethnic boundaries which was not the case in 1939. Poland was behaving aggressively towards Germany(and its other neighbors) as soon as it was certain of the support of the victors, and thus armed conflict arose in Upper Silesia immediately after the Armistice in 1918 due to Polish incursions, then came the forcible separation of Upper Silesia under the aegis of the League of Nations, despite a clear majority in a plebiscite for Germany, and the constant aggressive behavior and talks of annexation and ethnic cleansing of Eastern Germany after the coming war with Germany. It was Poland talking like that, not Germany, and in the interest of good sense Hitler did sign a non-aggression pact with the Poland of Marshal Pilsudski, but the latter’s death in 1934 brought to an end the mutual policy towards good-neighborly relations.
            If you bring up the NS writings about expansion in the east, you will have to also take into account that Eastern Europe was covered with German outposts going back often to the middle ages, just think of Transylvania, the Bukovina or the Volga region with German colonists called by Catherine the Great. How such a colonization was imagined I don’t know, but it didn’t have to copy the Allied victors’ approach of simply taking what was wanted (such as the German territories after the First war). The actual policy in the beginning in the east seems to have been dominated by people like Gauleiter Koch with a haughty attitude towards the Slavs, while People like Rosenberg could do little even if they had no intent of agonizing the Slavs. Hitler did not trust the troops under Vlassov, and only when the front situation became pressing did he give his assent to their fighting along the Axis troops. In any case, there was no unanimous and general political program towards the East and the Slavic population.
            I do not think that Hitler was flawless leader who always made correct or wise decisions; However, compared to the other important personalities in this conflict, he comes out far ahead in his far-sighted understanding of the situation.
            There was, e.g., no reason for the United States to get involved in this war, issuing from a solvable, local conflict between Germany and Poland and essentially caused by people who as victors in a war didn’t think it necessary to look beyond their primitive lust for triumphalism through mindless destruction, blackmail and humiliation. Considering that it was deemed worthwhile by Roosevelt to throw the whole world into turmoil over a conflict that the US had no stake in whatsoever, I would say that there was no reasonable thinking involved on his part. His motivation is shrouded in mystery, perhaps you have an idea about it.
            Churchill wanted to destroy Germany as aboon to Britain; a crazy and highly unsanitary idea. This kind of talk came from a man who really loved to wage war, as even his early history shows starting with his adventures in India as a young man, where he thought that the burning of crops and huts, and the filling in of wells of poor villagers would set them straight. I don’t know any rational reason for England’s enthusiasm for this war either. In any case, England didn’t have to deal with Polish gangs in military garb causing numerous cross-border raids or terrorizing the English population in Poland, but Germany had to deal with that. The situation was certainly very tense, and perhaps Hitler should have not ended the Polish aggressions against Germans in Poland and against Germany, or ignored the steady encroachment of the British measures against germany through such willing instruments as the Poles (perhaps better: the Polish Junta of Colonels).
            Thirdly, there was the Bolshevik menace to the east, and Hitler was quite right in not trusting Stalin despite the pact of August 23, 1939. Even in October of 1939 Stalin was apparently seeking an understanding with Britain; and the world revolutionary doctrine of Communism was never abandoned by Stalin. Pilsudski understood this menace as well, being a neighbor of the SU, as well as did Germany.
            It should also not be forgotten that there is convincing evidence that Stalin did indeed intend to launch a massive attack on Germany and would of course have overrun all of Europe. That was another problem Hitler had to consider, in a much different way France or Italy had to, and still much different than the islands of Britain or the US had to.
            A worldwar can be brought about by a single individual, and I think that that individual was Churchill who unchained the dogs of war; it was his choice.
            From then on, everything evolved as action and re-action. Had Germany be victorious, there would have been a kind of European Confederacy, as plans quite similar to the early plans for the European Union had been worked out in 1943 for the time after the war. The intent was to have a confederacy of independent nations with a few areas of common interest, such as defense, industrial and envoronmental policy, but this came as a result of the situation as it developed with the war, not as an initial plan. Such a Europe would probably have had a lot of similarity with the Reich as it stood for nearly 1000 years, where the constituent parts were largely independent and autonomous, thus not forcing everyone into a Procrustes’ bed, as is always the outcome of centralized state.

          • Lucian Tudor
            Posted March 26, 2014 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

            Walter, what you are saying is technically true in terms of the facts regarding Poland and Czechoslovakia. However, despite the Third Reich incorporating these lands as protectorates (or in Poland’s case, perhaps eventually intended to be a protectorate), there is much evidence that the National Socialists heavily mistreated the Poles and Czechs. Based on what I have heard of the treatment of Poles and Czechs, and even merely statements from National Socialist leaders themselves, I seriously doubt that the Third Reich gave or even intended on giving these peoples the autonomy and independence they deserved. For example, Joseph Goebbels stated about Poland that “The right thing is to leave the Poles to their own devices and to encourage their weakness and corruption. This is the best way to rule inferior races. Like the English in India. Set up many small centers of authority and play them off against each other. The same method should be used to deal with the situation in the Protectorate. And never compromise” (“The Goebbels diaries, 1939-1941”). Heinrich Himmler in his Posen Speech also revealed a similar attitude: “whether nations live in prosperity or starve to death interests me only so far as we need them as slaves for our culture; otherwise, it is of no interest to me. Whether 10,000 Russian females fall down from exhaustion while digging an antitank ditch interests me only insofar as the anti-tank ditch for Germany is finished.”

            So I highly doubt that we would have had a “kind of European Confederacy” had Hitler won the war. Everything seems to indicate that it would have been far from it. And despite the fact that you state that you do not think Hitler is flawless, you still seem to think that his victory would have resulted in an incredably desirable outcome. In other words, your logic regarding the topic still leads to the conclusion that we should parade the man as an ideal nationalist leader, even though he is far from that, and this is exactly what I have a problem with.

          • Walter
            Posted March 26, 2014 at 10:49 pm | Permalink

            Lucian Tudor:
            Adolf Hitler pulled Germany away from the brink of destruction in 1933; we don’t know what would have happened had he not attained chancellorship, but the system of the Weimar republic was spiraling down a path to eventual dictatorship without any benefit to Germany or the Germans, inviting foreign intervention. The Weimar Republic was ruled by emergency decrees in well before Adolf Hitler became chancellor, a fact not gladly remembered nowadays.It is well to remember that Roosevelt expressed his desire to destroy Germany in 1932 already, before there was in Adolf Hitler in power. We also learn about the declaration of war by World Jewry in 1933, the boycotts organized by Jewry in the United States against Germany and the call for assassination on the 2nd of February 1933 by a columnist in the NYT. In other words, Adolf Hitler had to deal with a horrible legacy from the now-idealized Weimar Republic (e.g. 7 million unemployed), a menacing and hostile world of beneficiaries of the Versailles Dictate, a powerful and conniving World Jewry, a powerless Germany (100000 men under arms while being surrounded by hyper-armed neighbors)- I think you can see what I’m driving at. Under these circumstances he had to start restoring Germany. I admire him for that; I admire his success in doing so; I admire his intelligent and inspiring leadership in all of this turmoil. I don’t think that anyone in the history of the world can be compared to his great deed. His success inspired similar movements elsewhere and even as he said that National Socialism was not for export, the flowering of Germany stood as an example of what could be achieved by folkish thinking and by breaking the power of international finance-true national independence. He wanted good relationships with Germany’s neighbors and that meant that the robbers’ peace of Versailles had to be revised and injustices stemming from there rectified. He did it step by step, making also concessions on that way; he declared the final renunciation of Elsaß-Lothringen in order to not have this injurious dispute with France anymore; France had taken these areas from Germany in 1683, and Germany had taken them back in 1871. How wise that was is another question, but it wa nothing extraordinary to do so, with the exception that Germany took back German lands and not those inhabited by non-Germans. From 1871 onwards revenge was fomented in France for that and Hitler realized that he was dealing with an irrational attitude that could not be overcome. Likewise he renounced Süd-Tirol. He realized he unification with Austria, expressly forbidden by the victors of the First War, even if ardently desired by the Austrians. The last problem to be settled was the Korridor and Danzig question, again established against the ethnic and political attitude there. he made reasonable and fair suggestions to sttle, but this was the last chance to provoke war with Germany in order to set the clock back and this is what happened.
            You seem to think that the Poles were the innocent by-standers of Hitler’s irrational urge at expansion. Far from it, they were hoping for a war which they thought they were winning easily. It is emblematic in this vein, that Rydz-Smygdly (commander in chief of Polish military) had a portrait of himself begun in June of 1939, showing himself riding triumphantly through the Brandenburg gate after victory.
            I have no reason to believe that a Polish republic would have been established as a final settlement, and Poland would of course have been cut back to its national borders and deprived of all its conquests. Any country that is ethically inhomogeneous is heading for trouble, and Poland was choosing that course, with the same fate as Czecho-Slovakia (and Austro-Hungary, Jugo-Slavia, and the Soviet Union).

            The Czechs were not at all mistreated; that’s one of those myths to whitewash the run of events; in fact, the Protectorate was practically untouched by the events of the war, and only after Heydrich was assassinated by British machinations was there a the risk of partisan and sabotage warfare and a reprisal took place in the -small- village of Lidice. I may add that this was at atime when Allied reprisals against German cities cost already thousands of lives, as a prelude of the perhaps two millions in total of this type of warfare.

            I have every reason to believe that there would have been a confederacy of nations after the war; the sacrifice of the SS-members of nearly every nation of Europe, their belief in a common bond between the peoples of Europe would have been the natural outcome.
            You seem to think that after the final victory those Nazis would really have lorded it over everyone. I wonder, why.
            If you think that I overlook much in Hitler’s case, I think that you are by implication overlooking much on the Allied side. As to the citations from Goebbels and Himmler, they were made while Germany was under attack with the aim of its extinction. You can read in contrast the casual brutalities as uttered Churchill or perhaps of Eisenhower’s feelings towards the Germans (“how I hate the Germans”), this by people of nations of which the very existence was not in question.
            I don’t know how much common ground we have.

          • Lucian Tudor
            Posted March 27, 2014 at 10:08 am | Permalink

            Walter, I am certainly willing to acknowledge that all of the accomplishments you list for Hitler in terms of what he did for Germany were all generally good and necessary to be achieved. But the real question is whether Hitler was the only person willing and capable of achieving these things and whether there was a better choice or alternative availalbe than him. I think just about any determined revolutionary nationalist would have wanted to accomplish these things that you list as Hitler’s accomplishments. Strasser is one of the first examples that comes to mind as a good alternative to Hitler, although, I must stress, certainly not the only one (because there were numerous other respectable nationalist, monarchist, or revolutionary conservative leaders). I think it was really only a question of who would win over the people, and unfortunately Hitler was the one that ended up doing so. Basically, all I have to say about this is that I wish a more reasonable and less chauvinistic group than Hitler’s National Socialists would have achieved power and restored Germany.

            “You seem to think that the Poles were the innocent by-standers of Hitler’s irrational urge at expansion… The Czechs were not at all mistreated; that’s one of those myths to whitewash the run of events…”

            First of all, it is often forgotten that at the time Poland was a strongly anti-Semitic nationalist state (something even a National Socialist could sympathize with, if it wasn’t an enemy state). I don’t deny that the Poles were somewhat belligerent towards Germany at that time, but at the same time you have to realize that Poland was not very long before conquered by the German empire and there was even a program of Germanization forced upon them. Also, had the Germans been in the same position as Poland, they would have done exactly the same thing. What really mattered was whether or not Hitler was wise enough to make the right decision, and he was not, because he attacked Poland despite all the warnings and knowing full well that he would drag his nation into a war with the West. Finally, as for the Czechs, a simple assertion that their mistreatment was a “myth” is hardly convincing for me, especially when I have already seen sources which make it clear that some mistreatment was done. These sorts of things have a certain amount of historical accounts, evidence, and studies behind them, which is why they are mentioned as facts.

            “You seem to think that after the final victory those Nazis would really have lorded it over everyone. I wonder, why. If you think that I overlook much in Hitler’s case, I think that you are by implication overlooking much on the Allied side.”

            I have every reason to believe that Hitler’s victory would have resulted in simply a German hegemony over most of Europe. You still have yet to give me any proof that it would have been otherwise – other than simply listing that they had recruits from other countries, which was inevitable because everybody has collaboraters wherever they go. And, again, you are still trying to justify Hitler’s wrongs by mentioning the wrongs done by his opponents; one wrong does not right another, Walter. I am not taking the Allied side in this conflict. In fact, I would tell you that both sides had committed too many wrongs to truly be considered the “good side”. If you ask me who I would say the “good side” was in World War II, I would say it was all the little people and nations – who had hopes and dreams far better and more just than what either major powers would give them but were (unless they were neutral) forced to pick a side in the conflict and ended up ruined.

            “I don’t know how much common ground we have.”

            Let me tell you how much common ground we have, Walter. I am not new to this; I have read the arguments of many revisionists regarding Germany and World War II. Believe me, in the past I have agreed with and used their arguments in conversations with others and I have found that when you share these pro-Third Reich arguments with non-believers you will find that they are actually very unconvincing and in many cases just downright fallacious. So again, I must stress, that it is simply an error to portray Hitler as an ideal nationalist; a more balanced perspective needs to be taken, one not based upon emotional attachments to the idealization of Hitler, which all too frequent among nationalists.

          • Walter
            Posted March 28, 2014 at 1:20 am | Permalink

            Lucian Tudor:
            I will state my argument in this manner. The war against Germany was provoked, i.e., deliberately brought about. Adolf Hitler might have had his attitudes, so might the scholars in that time , such Hans F. K. Günther, but so did people like Roosevelt, Daladier, Churchill, the Bible quoter Chamberlain and Stalin. If there was a prejudice against the Slavs, then I can cite prejudice against Germans on the other side, in other words, to construe an ideological string of thought and action is possible, but it is only sensible if it is done universally. Germany didn’t want anything from anyone except being treated fairly and on an equal basis. That is natural and reasonable. The victors and beneficiaries of the Versailles system didn’t want that, and the cost of being a despicable hypocrite was gladly accepted by that faction (in reference to the lofty pronouncements about self-determination, protection of ethnic minorities etc.). I just read today about Roosevelt and his duplicity of disavowing publicly his course towards a war against Germany while in private he made most revealing remarks towards his intimate goal, e.g. with French ambassador). You are well-read and likely know about these things).
            The British torpedoed a reasonable and necessary settlement of grievances between Germany and Poland and this was the trigger of the war.
            Whatever followed is the consequence of that., just as the consequences of a house fire stem from the initial ember.
            The responsibility for that rests on Britain and on Roosevelt’s needling behind the curtain and his mask of virtuousness. I don’t know what his motivation was, it could be as simple as ambition to make a name for himself in the annals of history.
            Hitler was reacting to the provocations thrown at his country.
            If you are not German, you will also not have any first-hand knowledge of the character of the Poles or Czechs. As far as Slavs are concerned, several high-standing National Socialists had very positive experiences with russians (e.g. a love affair Göring had while in Russia in the early thirties), so it is more likely that the Slavic Untermensch you seem to have in mind are the manifestations of the Bolshevik destroyer class, with which Germans had also had their first-hand experience.
            In any case, a German hegemony over a Europe would have been preferable to an American or Russian or the current essential disempowering disunity. That’s the path towards the extinction of Europe as a distinct entity in world history. If you baulk at that, then you will have to have an idea of how the largest and most productive nation in Europe should be held under the rule of smaller nations, or under foreign rule, which on the other hand are dependent on the prosperity, intelligence and energy of that nation.
            But I believe that Europe under German leadership would not have sunk to the suicidal and soulless depths it finds itself in now. Also, I don’t dismiss the contributions of the SS volunteers from all the European countries. These people were not what you call “collaborators” (with that meaning) but the vanguard of a new Europe in which it would have been worthwhile to live.

          • Lucian Tudor
            Posted March 29, 2014 at 11:39 am | Permalink

            Walter, some of the things you say, such as that Roosevelt wanted to make war on Germany, have truth to them. However, your logic would lead us to conclude that Hitler was merely one who wanted a few chunks of lands with Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia, but otherwise wanted to simply be left alone in peace and all the blame for starting the war goes to the Allies. I do not see how this makes any sense considering that Britain and France allowed Hitler to break numerous agreements from the Versailles Treaty year after year. Britain did not need to wait until 1939 with the invasion of Poland to have an excuse to attack Germany, when they had numerous excuses to do so years before by merely using the Versailles Treaty as a basis. And mind you, they could have done so with Hitler’s takeover over of the Czechs as well, because although the Czech president Hacha signed for the Czech state to be put under German Protection, he only did so under threat of German invasion. Again, Hitler had a chance to be have his country develop in peace, but everything seems to indicate that he wanted to create a rather large empire that would own large portions of Eastern Europe and especially Russia. Perhaps he believed this was the only way the German people could thrive, but the Third Reich undertaking such a goal would inevitably lead to another great war in Europe

          • Walter
            Posted March 29, 2014 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

            Lucian Tudor:
            Perhaps you can tell on which occasion Adolf Hitler broke a provision of the Versailles Treaty; he forced the beneficiaries of this criminal (yes, criminal) document to show their hand and in each case they had to make concessions because they knew it themselves what evil, dishonorable, criminal intent had been put into practice by it. The rearmament of Germany in March of 1935 was also not break of the Versailles Treaty as France had just signed a treaty with the SU, forbidden by the provisions of the “Reaty of Versailles”.
            In any case, while Germany had adhered to this treaty the other countries were not, in itself a violation of it. Hacha was not forced by germany to sigh anything. he went to Berlin voluntarily, although with the knowledge that Czechoslovakia had been fatally weakened by the loss of the Sudeten germans; it is self-inflicted, as before that the Czechs were treating them very high-handedly, unwilling to accept their cooperation as Germans under Czech rule.
            It was the Allies from the First War threatening and refusing any german offers at cooperation. As the war started, further offers were made, but they were all refused, even after the defeat of France, when Germany was the victor of this war.
            If a victor makes such offers-and they would have meant the end of the war, and they are refused, the responsibility lies with the refusing party. Hitler made the same offer after Poland lay defeated, also refused.
            Hitler wanted the prosperity, happiness and forward-looking development in Germany as one of the European nations, but on an equal footing. To have refused that shows the insanity hubris breeds in countries like Britain and France, who, from centuries of practice saw themselves entitled to hold sway over countries they had absolutely no right to interfere with.
            The ongoing war created a new situation, and since it could not be resolved by peaceful maeeans, the fighting went on.
            If you fault Adolf Hitler for that, why not fault the parties who firstly caused the war, and secondly, continued it, even as they had no stake in it, other than wanting to win it? For Germany, it became a life-and-death struggle, in itself a sufficient reason to fight.
            That it came to that is the Allies’ fault and responsibility.

          • Lucian Tudor
            Posted March 29, 2014 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

            Walter, I have already made it clear who I hold at fault for starting WW2, and it isn’t Germany, it’s everybody. As I said before, I hold all of the major powers at fault. You don’t seem to fully realize what my position is on this conflict. In any case, my main message to you has less to do with the actual facts of the war, and more to do with my problem with people obsessing over them and over constantly trying to justify Hitler. I would like to see a debate where you present your points about World War 2 to a proud Pole or Czech nationalist, or even just anybody that isn’t predisposed to siding with Hitler. Things are a little bit more difficult when you are not preaching to choir, that is to those who are predisposed to agree with you. I have found that it is actually counter-productive to argue about World War 2 with non-believers or anybody who isn’t predisposed to siding with Hitler for that matter. I stress that it is not only difficult to portray Hitler as an ideal nationalist, but also a waste of time and I would even say irrelevant to our goal as a movement today. This is my main message to you, and while I still insist on disagreeing with your interpretation of Hitler for various reasons, it is all I have left to say.

          • Walter
            Posted March 30, 2014 at 1:19 am | Permalink

            It seems you are weary of going on; and it does not seem to lead either one of us anywhere that is new.
            I disagree with you on that: Not everyone was somehow equally responsible for the Second or First War. That detracts from the causes of the war of destruction of Western Civilisation. Not to recognize that there was a causative responsibility is not satisfactory, and is just cementing the evil system bringing about this state of affairs as we have to labor under now. I have quite generally found that it is not useful to argue with anybody about the causes of the Second War, as the majority is pre-programmed to accept the Allied Victors’ line of justification. The intellect is not very developable, and we might just be destined to disappear. On the other hand, reality as the great teacher of good sense might still overtake the system of Potsdam with its self-assured belief, and after a great shake-up, in the absence of comforting security, a realistic thinking as the door to a liveable future might gain followers. As far as the First War is concerned, a slow rethinking about its causes seems to develop. Distance in time makes thinking more easily possible. It will also happen for the Second War, the ideological and pseudo-religious superstructure that has been erected to secure a certain prescribed attitude concerning it will not last forever.
            I am interested in the causes and reasons for these wars for myself, not to gain an abstract and quite useless knowledge in-itself. I want to be certain about my place and attitude and direction in this life, and whatever might follow from such a certainty.

      • White Republican
        Posted March 24, 2014 at 4:45 am | Permalink

        Are there any books in English worth reading concerning National Socialist ideology and policy towards the Slavs? I admittedly don’t know of any book focusing specifically on this subject. I get the impression that academics seem to regard this as a matter of little interest despite its objective importance in the history of National Socialism and the Second World War. After all, in Jewish eyes, Slavs are mere goyim who are not worth a Jewish fingernail, eastern Europe has long been a hotbed of anti-Semitism, and the Second World War is a mere detail in the history of the Holocaust.

        I’m aware of one primary source, Der Untermensch (The Subhuman), a pamphlet distributed within the SS which depicted Slavs as subhumans and which featured a picture of a Slav on the cover. Kurt “Panzer” Meyer reportedly said that whoever wrote it should have been shot, and I’m inclined to agree. I believe the pamphlet is available in German and in English from some National Socialist organizations or book dealers today.

        • Lucian Tudor
          Posted March 24, 2014 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

          In terms of secondary sources, I know of a number of books and articles by historians that discuss the topic of National Socialist views and policy towards Slavs, but I have never seen an entire book dedicated to that subject alone; in books, it is usually discussed as a part of a larger discussion of National Socialist policy. I could mention some of these, if you are interested in these types of sources. In terms of primary sources, I should stress that Alfred Rosenberg is a very important source to look at. Concerning ideological views alone, there is obviously “The Myth of the Twentieth Century”, and concerning foreign policy, look to his “Memoirs.” In his “Memoirs,” Rosenberg makes some rather extensive comments as well as criticisms on the Third Reich’s policies towards Slavs; he discusses that at first (when he was Minister of the East), the Third Reich involved cooperation with the majority of Slavic nations, but their policy eventually became more malevolent and oppressive. The other primary sources I am aware of is “Hitler’s Table Talk” and there are some mentions of this is Goebbels’s diaries.

        • Lucian Tudor
          Posted March 24, 2014 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

          I forgot to mention, there were a few National Socialists who had more pro-Slavic views, but the anti-Slavic views were the ones which became pre-dominant due to the fact that Hitler himself had anti-Slavic attitudes. The Third Reich’s official policy towards Slavs only became more pro-Slavic towards the end of the war because the National Socialists became more desperate for recruits, stability, and support from other peoples.

          • Axe of Perun
            Posted March 27, 2014 at 6:50 am | Permalink

            The most of so-called NS anti-slavic views are war and post war black propaganda. Germans at that time were racially most aware people on Earth (except Jews) and they knew pretty well who they were. Only minority of Germans were real germanics. Prussians were mostly former Wends (Slavs). Read Stoddard’s Racial realities in Europe, to understand from what the Germans are composed. The only superiority that they cultivated against Slavs was their cultural and technological superiority. That was real then and still is now.

          • Lucian Tudor
            Posted March 27, 2014 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

            No, National Socialist anti-Slavic views are a reality, not merely propaganda from their enemies. See for example the sources and quotes I mentioned above, and there is practically mountains of evidence to back up my point from historical studies. It is rather obvious that this is true, not only from ideoogical works (such as those of Hans Gunther) and statements from people like Himmler, Goebbels, and Koch, but because we can also see statements from more pro-Slavic National Socialists like Alfred Rosenberg actually complaining against the prevalent chauvinism against Slavs they were seeing from Third Reich leaders. The evidence is so extensive and well-documented that it cannot be simply brushed aside with a single sentence stating it is merely “black propaganda.” As for the rest of your comment, despite the Prussians’ Slavic origins (of which I was fully aware, by the way), Germans still considered themselves to be separate from Slavs, still had chauvinistic attitudes towards Slavs, and still attempted to justify these on a “Nordicist” racial basis. Finally, your comment has a touch of an irrational Germano-centrism; Germans were not the most racially aware people on Earth (for anyone who has studied the history of racialism, we can see just as strong racialist feelings all over Europe and the Americas in the 19th and 20th Centuries), nor should you assume that Slavs are incapable of matching Germans, culturally and technologically.

        • Armor
          Posted March 30, 2014 at 2:50 am | Permalink

          White Republican: “a pamphlet distributed within the SS which depicted Slavs as subhumans”

          The word Slav is not even used in the booklet. They should have used the word non-white instead of subhuman. But the authors saw racial mixing as a problem. I think they used the word “subhuman” to indicate their total refusal of miscegenation with non-Whites.

          The booklet says that the violence and lack of civilization in Russia is due to the influx of non-Whites and to the Jews. They don’t mention the Slavs, but they allude to the miscegenation between the Whites and the non-Whites. Hitler had many grievances against the Slavs, but in that booklet, the main problem the authors see with the Slavs is that they are not completely Slav. The problem is not the Slavs, but the non-whites. The book explains that Jewish Bolshevism is responsible for the mass murder taking place, and that the Jews are leading the non-Whites and promoting them over the Whites. The idea is that we had better not let that happen to Western Europe.

          On the one hand, the book disapproves of the racial mixing between the Russians and the non-Whites. On the other hand, it presents the Russians as victims of the Jews and of the non-Whites. But the book doesn’t say that there are no longer any acceptable European populations in Russia.

          Himmler is quoted (translation found on a Jewish website) : “When a nation loses its leaders by blood and violence, the next step becomes their state, then economic, cultural and spiritual slavery. All that remains of such a nation, tainted by the mixing of blood and race, is the feeling of lost identity. They lose their own unique significance, and soon enough the nation ceases to exist. Only those that can be preserved, untainted, can prove that this nation ever existed”. (Heinrich Himmler 1935)

          The booklet in German can be downloaded at archive.org.
          https://archive.org/details/SS-Hauptamt-Der-Untermensch

          • Walter
            Posted March 31, 2014 at 12:38 am | Permalink

            Thank you for that address. I wanted to read the booklet for a long time but never had it at hand. Since it plays such an important part in the propaganda efforts against National Socialism, it should be read. An old teacher said once: I don’t want to read books about books anymore, I want to read the books. A quite agreeable attitude.

  10. Dan
    Posted March 22, 2014 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

    I’m reading through Greg Johnson’s excellent essays in New Right Versus Old Right, and I’m trying to square the strategies he went into there with what I occasionally read here. One argument he has is that revisionism is irrelevant. Of course, he is referring to the Holocaust narrative there, but doesn’t the same apply to Hess? Whether Hess was in some sense a member of the opposition in National Socialist Germany doesn’t seem to have much bearing on white issues today.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted March 22, 2014 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

      The topic may not have much bearing on white issues today, but it is still of interest to a good number of our readers. Counter-Currents is not a galley in which our writers are all pulling oars as I bark out orders. It is an intellectual salon, in which people carry on conversations on a broad range of metapolitical topics, many of which have no immediate political relevance.

      • Dan
        Posted March 26, 2014 at 8:20 am | Permalink

        But what is the source of this interest? Nostalgia for the Old Right, I imagine. But if we are the New Right, we slow ourselves down by dwelling on the Old Right without contextualizing it. When the lines between us are blurred, those who are curious and would agree with us are lost, as most people reject totalitarianism, genocide, terrorism, and imperialism. But so do we. Whether these topics interest us or not should take a back seat to the success of our cause.

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted March 26, 2014 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

          I disagree. The New Right is in the process of forming its identity, and many of our readers are as well. That process involves an ongoing dialogue with the Old Right, contemporary politics, and the Western cultural and intellectual tradition as a whole. If you don’t feel the interest or the need, then by all means, skip such discussions.

          • Dan
            Posted March 27, 2014 at 9:43 am | Permalink

            That makes sense. After reading your recent article on the Schwartzehefte and Heidegger, and how he hoped to reform the National Socialist movement into something with sounder principles, then I’ll consider your own efforts as the same.

  11. Peter Quint
    Posted March 22, 2014 at 10:35 am | Permalink

    There is a mystery surrounding Hess. Why was he the only prisoner of Spandau? Why was he kept isolated from the public? Why didn’t the allies just execute him as they had done so many Germans at the Nuremburg trials?

    • Andrew Hamilton
      Posted March 22, 2014 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

      Many questions cannot be definitively answered until the British release their Hess files. Presently they are sealed from public view, like the files on MLK.

      • Peter Quint
        Posted March 24, 2014 at 9:35 am | Permalink

        I agree, we can also extend our analysis to John F. Kennedy. Why did the jews kill Kennedy, he was such a willing advocate on integration and civil rights? Why did the jews destroy a valuable tool? These things we will never know. And then we get to Robert Kennedy who was just as much a tool as John, the jews killed him too. I think that the 60’s too be the most perplexing era in America. To make it plain, I am no fan of the Kennedys, I just wonder why the jews had them killed.

        • me
          Posted March 25, 2014 at 7:57 am | Permalink

          Why was JFK killed? Your best bet is to read Michael Collins Piper’s “The Final Judgement” to get your answer.

  12. Axe of Perun
    Posted March 22, 2014 at 10:32 am | Permalink

    My first impression was: how stupid and evil these people are. Demolishishing graves of the old political enemies and dissidents? For what purpose. They even erased the grave of Hitler’s parents, that died very long time ago and had absolutely no connections with politics.
    But after second thought: of course. They are affraid. They are terrified to the bone. Their world of historical fairy-tales is collapsing. They want to erase the past. Too late. They are beginning to see their own future. On gallows.

  13. Walter
    Posted March 21, 2014 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

    Is this stone really there now? I read some years ago that the marker at Hess’ landing spot had been destroyed by the anti- crowd.
    Thank you for this article.
    I think that Hess was flying with Hitler’s assent-just my feeling. The impending catastrophe was clearly seen by the German leadership, and this mission was one of the attempts to pull back the world from the abyss. To assume otherwise would imply that Hitler really wanted a war with the SU. Had Britain agreed -I believe that Hess went as a Plenipotentiary- the SU might have stopped its military build-up at Germany’s easren border and tensions might have relaxed-might, it would have been worth a try.
    In comparing Hess, at least nominally the second-most powerful man in Germany (as deputy Führer), with the current world-wide democratic leadership in character and courage one can only wonder what happened to this world. He flew into the night and jumped over enemy territory into an unknown fate, from the height of his power as the triumphant Germany at that time into the depth of night. He will always be remembered for this lonesome, great deed which shows that he was a man of his convictions and not of his power. I can’t imagine any of the current world leaders do anything remotely as daring and willing to make such a sarifice. The democrats can’t even imagine that someone would not think of his monetary situation and would not be interested in small-character behind-the scenes secretive dealmakings, all secured behind a thick wall of bombs, guns and threats. Perhaps the dishonorable destruction of his last resting place , the cremation of his bones and diposal of them at sea lets us guess that they can’t live up to a man like Hess, so they rather destroy what reminds them of him.

    • Andrew Hamilton
      Posted March 22, 2014 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

      I assume the stone is not there now. It must have been privately erected. The photo I used is the same color photo of the stone reproduced by David Irving in his book about the Nuremberg Trials, so it existed at one time. In recent talks about Rudolf Hess (Irving wrote a book about him) posted on YouTube, Irving does not mention the stone in the photo, but alludes instead to “a cairn of stones” commemorating the spot in Scotland, which was destroyed by antifas.

      An interesting thought. What if groups of tough young whites organized and tore down Jewish, Communist, and other racist memorials honoring non-whites for the purpose of erasing their evil memories? And when they were put back up, destroyed them again. Also, they could physically attack meetings by Tim Wise and others, including the speeches of anti-white university professors, using the attacks on David Irving’s (secret!) meetings, and the former assaults on Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton, and others as models, duplicating the Jews’ behavior exactly. After all, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. How would police, prosecutors, judges, and the media respond if Jews and the Left were forced to take exactly the same medicine they force down others’ throats? Would there be equal treatment under the law—i.e., no response, or just a light slap on the wrist?

      • ChristopherP
        Posted March 22, 2014 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

        I have copied and pasted below Colin Jordan’s account of the memorial stone’s destruction. The Anti-Nazi leader who destroyed the memorial (who Jordan refers to as “Anwar Aamer”) is Aamer Anwar who went on to become a lawyer and is described in his Wikipedia entry as “one of Scotland’s top lawyers, with over 25 years history of being a justice and equality campaigner”. Jordan spent some years attempting to bring Aamer to justice for his vandalism, with no success. The text below is copied from http://newgothicripples.wordpress.com/2013/05/18/smashing-the-peace-stone/

        “November 18, 1993 and onto a field at Floors Farm, Eaglesham, some 15 miles south of Glasgow, Scotland, came persons carrying leaflets, placards and paint. Their objective was an engraved, upright stone, placed there some months before by veteran National Socialist Tom Graham with the permission of the farmer, Craig Baird. It read: “This stone marks the spot where brave, heroic Rudolf Hess landed by parachute on the night of 10th May 1941 seeking to end the war between Britain and Germany.” It marked the spot where half a century earlier another and much different visitor had arrived, descending by parachute at night. Whereas his purpose had been benevolent in its bravery, theirs was malevolent in its banality, pursued while the farmer was away at the cattle market.

        Followed, as prearranged, by a television crew, the hate-filled vandals of 1993 proceeded to daub the memorial with paint and then plaster it with leaflets. After a pause for media attention to their handiwork, they came to their climax as shown on Scottish Television’s news programme the same evening. Their Asian leader, Anwar Aamer, West of Scotland organizer of the Anti-Nazi League (ANL), a communist front organization devoted to violence, took up a sledge hammer and proceeded to smash to pieces the memorial to the visitor of 1941. The next day the Scottish Daily Record published on its page 7 a photograph of this “hero of the hammer” in his act of destruction.

        Despite this irrefutable evidence of criminal responsibility, Tories, Reds and other sections of the Old Order immediately closed ranks to protect Anwar and his accomplices, and mendaciously to defame the man who those five decades ago flew alone across the wartime sky to try and stop the brothers’ war between Britain and Germany. Lured by the stratagems of the British Secret Service, serving a regime intent, not on peace, but on exploiting him in the war of revenge against his country. Rudolf Hess was then subjugated to 46 years behind bars before finally being done to death in a fake “suicide” plot in Spandau Prison, Berlin in 1987 to silence him forever from disclosing the truth behind his arrival at Floors Farm.

        Back in 1941 Churchill allied himself with Stalin, the biggest butcher of all time, in preference to peace. Now, in 1993, the British authorities allied themselves with Stalin’s heirs of the ANL in rejection of justice. When the local police at Giffnock sent their report of the criminal damage to private property on private ground to the Procurator Fiscal in Paisley, as the prosecuting official of that area of Scotland, he passed the item onto the Crown Office in Edinburgh for decision. This is the department of the chief law officer for Scotland, the Lord Advocate, to whom Procurators Fiscal are accountable, and whose sanction is necessary for a criminal prosecution by the state in the High Court on indictment. The Crown Office refused this sanction, and this decision also then meant that the local Procurator Fiscal would neither institute summary criminal proceedings himself in the local Sheriff Court, or give his necessary sanction for a private criminal prosecution.

        Thereupon an approach was made to the Crown Office for the Lord Advocate’s requisite sanction for a private criminal prosecution, but this was refused by him also. While in theory one can apply to the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh against the Lord Advocate’s refusal, in practice that court can be deemed virtually certain to endorse the Lord Advocate’s decision, and in Scotland, unlike England, there is no final avenue of appeal to the House of Lords in criminal cases.

        Neither the Prosecutor Fiscal nor the Lord Advocates can present a civil action for damages, but among the impediments to this alternative course of redress was the fact that the local authority, Eastwood District Council, had hastened to declare the memorial to be illicit, as lacking the needed planning commission permission, and to demand its removal. There is also the fact that, while such proceedings could certainly be costly for the Plaintiff, who would be Tom Graham, Anwar Aamer the Defendant, would equally certainly, as a “student,” purport to be without means if the case did go against him, so that no recompense would be forthcoming.

        The play of pressures within Eastwood District Council — whose area one journalist had the temerity to describe as “the Jewish capital of Scotland” — was indicated by the pronouncements to the press of its Chief Executive Michael Henry. “We are appalled by the sentiments which the wording of the stone conveys,” he said, to which he added that, if an application had been made for planning permission, “I am sure the Council would have found reason to refuse it.” This local authority not long afterwards, not surprisingly, provided a public reception for a visiting contingent from the Jewish Board of Deputies in London in association with the Glasgow Jewish Representative Council.

        When called on to cite the precise section of law relied on in declaring that the small memorial out of public view in a back field was subject to planning permission, Chief Executive Henry refrained from doing so. Consequently a complaint was made to the Provost of the Council, who turned out to be one Leslie Rosin, who in turn simply and blandly endorsed the conduct of friend Henry. When a complaint was therefore laid before the Commissioner for Local Administration in Scotland (Ombudsman) against both Henry and Rosin, this only brought the response that “the Commissioner does not consider that there are grounds for him to be involved.”

        Separately approached, the Scottish Office in Edinburgh claimed that Section 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 applies to such a memorial, precluding its erection without permission.

        Thus, both left and right of the Old Order of national and racial ruin join forces in fear and fury at a mere stone bearing witness to the heroic arrival of Ambassador of Peace Rudolf Hess. The same fear prompted the demolition of Spandau Prison immediately after his murder in order to prevent its stones becoming a memorial to his monstrous martyrdom.

        Yet in London today stones of memory of another kind, redolent of the foul forces underlying the brothers’ war which Rudolf Hess strove to stop, remain in tact and protected. We have in the centre of the city the memorial to war criminal bomber Harris, mass murderer of hundreds of thousands of German civilians, and in Highgate Cemetery the memorial to Karl Marx, the spiritual father of both yesterday’s Stalin and today’s ANL.”

        • Andrew Hamilton
          Posted March 22, 2014 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

          Thanks very much for this. Jordan supplied great background. You could just guess there’d have been a big Communist-Orwellian to-do over the matter, but it’s great to know the details. I wondered what the story of the memorial was when I first saw the photo, but lacked any information about it. My guess is that the modest “cairn of stones” was a subsequent attempt at a memorial that the Left also destroyed.

      • Jim
        Posted March 22, 2014 at 6:07 pm | Permalink

        Andrew Hamilton wrote: “What if groups of tough young whites organized and tore down Jewish, Communist, and other racist memorials honoring non-whites for the purpose of erasing their evil memories?”

        Well, in the US, the local rabbis would draw media attention to the “hate crime”; local media would print and air woeful tales of the “dangers of forgetting the six million”; local churches would reach out to the synagogue and there would be meetings to “educate” and “heal”. If caught, the desecrators (and their families) would be punished to the full extent of the law.

        These sorts of events do occur from time to time, and redound so far to the benefit of the Jews and PC-er’s that I often marvel that the rabbi himself doesn’t spray-paint a few swastikas on the synagogue wall in the wee hours of the night.

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted March 22, 2014 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

          You neglected to mention that the SPLC would sue Counter-Currents because the idea was discussed here. So why not take this line of thought elsewhere?

          • Jim
            Posted March 23, 2014 at 11:10 am | Permalink

            Greg Johnson wrote: “You neglected to mention that the SPLC would sue Counter-Currents because the idea was discussed here. So why not take this line of thought elsewhere?”

            I’m not sure why you responded thus. I was clearly not advocating for petty vandalism; on the contrary I was pointing out the pitfalls of it…

            My policy is open discussion with both friends and foes. Let people know where you stand in a forthright way. Vandalism and desecration of property isn’t something I admire or endorse. I was simply answering the original article’s rhetorical question of “what if…?”.

            If you were fearful my comment exposed CC to any potential liability , you had the editorial priviledge of not publishing it. Creating a problem for CC was the last thing on my mind, I can assure you.

      • Walter
        Posted March 22, 2014 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

        It will have to come to that; payback with the same currency. With a capable defense the law would need to show its hand to be either brazenly unequal and partisan or just willing to live up to the great promise of “equal justice for all”. This would be a way to force the admission to either shameless hypocrisy and open, public sell-out or to reign in the forces which eventually will undermine the system held together so far by some belief in fairness in impartiality, i.e., a belief held by the gray and indolent mass of the “majority”, which is the buttress of societal and political stability. This might still be possible in the United States, while in Germany things have moved beyond a possible intervention by a court, with paragraphs 130 (Public Incitement”) and 189 (“Calumny and Insulting the Memories of the Deceased”). The deceased are those promoted as victims of Nazism, and the “findings of the court” are a foregone conclusion with a system which presupposes “obviousness” of the findings of the court proceedings in Nuremberg. Perhaps Britain has some possibilities with the courts, too, and with a long breath the European Court of Human Rights” (I think that’s what it is called) might be invoked, too.
        Short of more vigorous measures, the system must be made to show its hand.

    Kindle Subscription
  • EXSURGO Apparel

    Our Titles

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Tyr, Vol. 4

    Reuben

    The Node

    Axe

    Carl Schmitt Today

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    Generation Identity

    Nietzsche's Coming God

    The Conservative

    The New Austerities

    Convergence of Catastrophes

    Demon

    Proofs of a Conspiracy

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    The Fourth Political Theory

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Metaphysics of War

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Shock of History

    The Prison Notes

    Sex and Deviance

    Standardbearers

    On the Brink of the Abyss

    Beyond Human Rights

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy

    Archeofuturism

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Tyr

    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Revolution from Above