Talk:Rudolf Höß

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Old Discussions

The number of 2.5 million deaths caused by Hoess is vastly exaggerated: all Auschwitz camps together saw only about 1.1 million deaths, and he didn't even lead the camp for the whole time of the extermination campaign. AxelBoldt 09:27, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hoess confessed under oath to administrating 2 million deaths at the Auschwitz during his tenure, and testified further that he understood the total number as being 3 million. He also stated in his autobiography that he was severely beaten by the British during the time of his capture and internment. His autobiography was first published in Polish, not German. It was later translated into English, and presumably from Polish into German since the original German text was never made available. Hoess's signed statements at Nuremberg are mostly in English, though by law and convention they should have been in German. Many of the Nuremberg statements contain handwritten changes in English; there is no evidence that Hoess could speak, read, write, or understand either English or Polish.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please note our guideline for naming articles: Convention: Title your pages using the English name, if one exists, and give the native spelling on the first line of the article. If the native spelling is not in the Latin alphabet, also provide a Latin transliteration. Only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form. gidonb</fIndeed. The question is which spelling is used more frequently. From December 2003 till July 10 2005 the title Höß was not considered to be questionable. I have the impression that you renamed it just recently in order to use it as "proof" in your cruisade against diacritics at the Dutch wikipedia. Besednjak 10:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC) ont> 04:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

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

I disapprove of your allegations, such "cruisade against diacritics", here and at nl.wikipedia. I have never taken a stand against diacritics in general. In fact, I favor using them in most cases. I believe it would be good practice to review some of your texts, for example the one on my Dutch user page. Why first blame then ask? I think Elly pointed out to you that the question mark is also an important symbol that actually is part and parcel of one’s basic keyboard. gidonb 19:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

You first stated the ß was abolished, then you said the use of ß has vastly dimished, then you said the ß can be replaced with ss (though not stating under what conditions, i.e. if the ß cannot be written because of technical constraints) and then you said German nazis do not deserve their surnames to be spelled in their most original form. Some more research from your part would have done no harm... Besednjak 16:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

If you do not want to face the facts, that is fine with me. gidonb 23:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

If you do not want to face the facts, that is fine with me. gidonb 23:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Please respect that ß and ss cannot be used equally in Germany. The German spelling regulations states clearly: "Die amtliche Regelung der deutschen Rechtschreibung" - A Laut-Buchstaben-Zuordnungen - 0 Vorbemerkungen - §3.2. and thus excludes surnames from the ß reform - ß cannot equally be replaced with ss.

If you do not face this fact, that is fine with me.

The reason why you do never give proof for your "facts" and why you never respond to quotations from official documents like above is simply because you would have to acknowledge that your assumption (ß and ss can be used equally in German) is wrong. Besednjak 11:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

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

[edit] SS Career

I am unclear why Hoess's SS career summary keeps getting cut from the article. It contains exact dates of rank and all of his awards. A user posted in the edit summary that Hoess is a war criminal and therefore doesnt need or deserve to have this section, or words to that effect. However, rank and award summaries are common on sveral other pages, among them Reinhard Heydrich, Colin Powell, Chester Nimitz, Dwight Eisenhower. Why should a career summary not be in this article if it is on all those others? -Husnock 04:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

if this is your only argument then i say, i start here with taking it out or shortening it and will come to the others later. his career in the ss is covered in the article. the exact specifics; when he was ober or unter something are trivial, and matter to nobody but ss and military fetishists. giving all these ranks this much space to me is like valuating the system of a criminal organisation. it is trivial, it may be covered in the article about the ss (and i azm sure it is).trueblood 12:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

OK, will go through it all in detail when I next get time. From a quick surface inspection it would appear that you are wholesale deleting facts but I will check in more detail. MarkThomas 22:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

TB is actually being a trooper. He compromised and didnt edit war both now and before. Good for him, we all should follow the examp. -Husnock 23:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commandant at Auschwitz

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

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