The History Book Club discussion
THE SECOND WORLD WAR
>
Q&A WITH THOMAS (SPOILER THREAD)
Question:Is the building containing the Alexander apartment on Kaiserallee still standing?
"Is the building containing the Alexander apartment on Kaiserallee still standing?"Hi Bryan
No. It was torn down at the war's end and replaced with an ugly modern commercial building.
However it adjoins a building that is exactly like the building that the Alexander's lived in - massive front door, balconies, high ceilings, wide-carpeted staircase - so it is still possible to visit Berlin and go to BundesAllee (renamed from KaiserAllee) and see what the property looked like.
- Thomas
"Question: You write at Rudolf's first Nazi rally in 1922: "...he rejected the mass propaganda and what he saw as the appeal to the crowd's basest instincts." (p. 36) Could you explain a little bit more on what Rudolf disagreed with Hitler specifically?"Hi Bryan (again)
In his memoirs Höss says that he did not agree with the lowest form of anti-semitism, promoted by various magazines, including Der Stürmer, and which depicted the Jews as having hooked noses, being engaged in unethical money-lending and killing Christian babies.
Instead, Höss says that he held a more 'scientific' version of anti-semitism, which saw the Jews as 'enemies' of the nation. He is never very clear about what this means, but it probably was connected to conspiracy theories about a global Jewish banking system or the threat of Bolshevism, which Höss, like many Germans, believed was underpinned by Jews.
Hitler was a proponent of both the more unsophisticated view and the more 'scientific' viewpoint, depending on his audience and when you caught him.
"Question: Mr. Harding, were you surprised to find that Kommandant was not what we all assumed to be, a cold blooded psychopath, but a manager which took his management efficiency too far?"Hi Zohar (sorry to take so long to get back to you)
Yes.
When I started researching this book I saw the two characters as 'Hanns' and 'Höss'. I didn't use first names for both of the men. This was because I saw the Kommandant as a two-dimensional villain.
But as I looked into it, and came across Höss' writings, I realised that he was capable of articulating emotion and empathy. Most surprising, were his letters to his children written in prison shortly before his death. I found them to be disturbingly expressive and moving.
Then I heard the testimony of people who had spent time with him - his barber, his interrogator, some of the prisoners - and they recorded that he was like an 'ordinary man' and a 'grocer's assistant'. This too contradicted my image of him as a monster.
Finally, I tracked down members of his family, and they told me that he was well-loved. His daughter even told me that he was the 'nicest father in the world'. (for my interview with his daughter go here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifesty... )
This interview with Höss' daughter was both shocking and destabilising. How was it possible that this man - who had supervised the construction of Auschwitz, overseeing the murder of over a million men, women and children - could be called the 'nicest father in the world'?
However, I would not say that any of this detracts from him being 'cold blooded' - if by that you mean, able to oversee the murder of over 2000 people an hour, rip children from their mother's and send them to the gas chamber, instruct people to inject children with Phenol, and then return to his family, ask his wife about her day, and take his children for a boat ride. Indeed, as one the worst mass-murderers in human history isn't he by definition 'cold blooded'?
As to whether he is a 'psychopath' I have tried to answer that in another answer earlier.
Hi Thomas, I don’t have a question but just wanted to say how much I appreciate your presence and appreciate the background you have provided in the Q&A. I am really enjoying your book. You have given much insight and it helps to understand the book and Hanns and Rudolf more as well.
Question: In Chapter 2, there wasn't any mention of Hann's father telling stories or anecdotes of his time in the army. Did Dr. Alexander not do this at all with Hann's?
Mod
Thomas, at what age did you think that Rudolf's path in life was set? It is true that everybody can make new decisions in their lives and Rudolf could have done that as well - but given the peculiar circumstances of Rudolf's young past - do you think that change had a high degree of probability? It seemed the die was cast when he went to prison. Did you have any additional thoughts on the young Rudolf?
"Question: In Chapter 2, there wasn't any mention of Hann's father telling stories or anecdotes of his time in the army. Did Dr. Alexander not do this at all with Hann's?"Hi Cary
Yes, Dr Alexander would have shared his war stories with his children.
More than this, his elder children would have remembered living close to the frontline during the war while their father worked in the military field hospital in Zabern/ Saverne.
Of course, we have the photograph of the children playing with their father's WW1 army uniform (which is printed in the book).
Also, the family had a bunch of photographs of Dr Alexander from WW1: Alfred in uniform on a war horse, Alfred in the trenches, Alfred in the hospital, Alfred posing with another army officer.
We also have the story of the time the trunks arrived in London from Berlin in the late 1930s containing all of the Alexander's belongings. When these trunks were unpacked, the boys found their father's old WW1 uniform and, worried that their neighbours might not appreciate finding a German army outfit, Hanns and Paul took the pike helmet, sword, trousers and jacket, and dropped those items into garbage bins in a nearby road.
Thomas
Question: Thomas, at what age did you think that Rudolf's path in life was set? It is true that everybody can make new decisions in their lives and Rudolf could have done that as well - but given the peculiar circumstances of Rudolf's young past - do you think that change had a high degree of probability? It seemed the die was cast when he went to prison. Did you have any additional thoughts on the young Rudolf? Hi Bentley,
I am sorry, but I don't agree with the premise of the question. I do not believe that anything is ever really 'set' or that the 'die is cast'.
At any stage, Rudolf could have decided to switch course, end the murder, leave the Nazi Party, flee Germany, choose another direction.
One of the arguments put forward by the defence attorneys at Nuremberg and other trials was that the perpetrators had no choice, that if they disobeyed orders, then they or their family would be punished. The judges refused to accept this argument as the defence failed to offer a single instance where they could prove that this was true.
Of course, the cultural, political, economic and ideological conditions, circumstances, environment, context, experiences, environs, and milieux that Rudolf Höss inhabited and passed through would have left their mark. But none of this predicated his later choices or behaviours. I simply do not agree with a view of history which reduces a highly complex system, or systems, to a limited number of causes and outcomes.
Ultimately, I believe that there are just too many moving parts for a historian to identify a single instance, or even a few internal or external pressures, and then say that these definitively propelled someone to take action.
But more than the complexity of the issues, a painting-by-numbers approach to history also ignores a key part of the equation: human agency.
This last point explains why two people who experience the same economic and social conditions, are exposed to the same cultural and ideological forces, and who come from the same family background, can lead very different lives... because they made different choices.
I would turn the question on its head: if we can agree that Rudolf Höss had the opportunity NOT to become the Kommandant of Auschwitz, and yet still chose to do so, what does this say about human beings and our capacity to commit atrocities?
- Thomas
Mod
Let me first say that my question was not intended to be controversial - but probing for additional information.
I will go through your response point by point.
It is true that anybody can change the direction of their life including of course Rudolf. First let me say this that the acts that he was responsible for at Auschwitz were horrendous - absolutely horrific and despicable. The accounts of what transpired there would bring tears to anybody's eyes.
But having said that - it could also be true that "some" of the perpetrators and/or their families would have been punished by the Nazis if they decided to switch course and disobey military orders (as despicable as they were).
The Nazis were certainly not a forgiving bunch of folks. On this we can agree to disagree.
I agree with the third paragraph that all of these conditions left their mark on Rudolf.
My question which I asked in message 59 indicated that all folks have choices. I simply asked if in your additional research there were any other instances where Rudolf's life seemed already on the path of violence, His reason for being in prison in the first place seemed to me to be in line with the violence he committed later in life as the Kommandant.
Just as an aside we try to be neutral when we read all historic accounts and weigh all sides. So we ask probing questions to find out more information.
Right now I am still reading and evaluating both men and their circumstances.
It is also true - and I do agree with you that the choices you make in your life ultimately determine what your life will be like. However, having said that - some very good people who have made all of the best choices have had some pretty bad things happen to them - and which had nothing to do with their choices but simply because they experienced some bad luck. The probability is that the folks who make better choices in life will often fare better than folks who make choices like Rudolf did.
Right now even though this is a spoiler thread - I am reading the assigned pages along with the syllabus - so I do not know yet how the opportunity arose for Rudolf Hoss to become the Kommandant of Auschwitz or whether he had free will or choice in the matter. His testimony at the Nuremberg Trials indicated that he was summoned to Berlin and told about the "Final Solution".
But hypothetically if he did have a choice and he absolutely knew what was involved and the orders he would be carrying out - then of course he is guilty as sin of atrocities that are unbelievably awful. I do not disagree with you on that point at all.
As I read further - I am sure that your book will highlight what he knew and when he knew it and what his other options were if he had them.
I will not respond to the last question until I have completed the book.
Also, remember that when we discuss a book at the HBC - we look at all sides and all facets of the account and we ask a lot of questions.
Having said the above - one thing that I am not so sure about at this point in the reading is that at any time Rudolf Hoss could have left the Nazi party unscathed and just have walked away without any repercussions. I think there might have been plenty of repercussions not only for Rudolf. You did include the fact that at the Nuremburg trials - that the defense attorneys tried to make an argument along the same lines - you stated - "The judges refused to accept this argument as the defense failed to offer a single instance where they could prove that this was true".
I would say this - that just because nobody dared thwart Nazi command does not mean that if they did that they "would not have been punished". I guess the Nuremberg judges simply wanted to put a stake in the ground with that argument - that is not to say that even if there were even a single instance that this would have made any difference in the outcome of those trials either.
Also, I really enjoy a spirited discussion and thank you for taking the time to make the reading of your book memorable and most informative.
- Bentley
Hi Bentley (olive branch also held out, smile)Great comments and good questions.
Maybe it was the European elections that came in last night -with the many far-right victories - that got me riled up. I hope my thoughts did not offend.
What is most key to me is that you, the reader(s), make up your own mind(s) about the story that I have tried to present dispassionately. This is far more important than my opinions.
Best
Thomas
Mod
No worries - a good discussion frequently brings up some different thoughts. That is always a good thing.
Sorry about the European election results.
We discuss a book in detail and I think you have succeeded in being dispassionate and neutral in the book which had to be extremely difficult to write given the subject matter which of course brings up so many strong reactions in all of us. That period of time for the world was a dark period - I for one am thankful that I was not born yet and did not experience it first hand.
You are in good hands here. We study each book and all of its nuances - so our discussion often peels back a lot of layers. We value your input above all because you have been close to the subject matter and the research in preparing your fine book which focuses on more than a few uncomfortable subjects for many of us -for example - Auschwitz, the Holocaust, the Nazis. These are all tough subjects to discuss dispassionately and you have done an admirable job.
Bentley
Question:How were you able to access Rudolf's accounts?
At what age did he share these accounts?
Hi Rebecca. So I had access to various sources for Rudolf's side of the story:
Rudolf's memoirs: These were written while he was in Polish prison in 1946/1947, first published in Polish as a memoirs and later published in English and around the world. I had passages from his memoirs translated especially for this book from the original German to English. Most historians consider these documents not only reliable, but a key part of the evidence of the Holocaust, though at times they are clearly self-serving, and there are examples of mistruths and inconsistencies.
Rudolf's letters: Rudolf wrote a few letters while in prison. Again I had these translated from the originals.
Interviews with his family members, including his daughter, daughter-in-law and grandson.
Rudolf's family photos: taken while family was living in villa next to Auschwitz concentration camp.
Interviews I carried out with people who knew Rudolf: These range from American prosecutor in Nuremberg who interrogated the Kommandant for a few days to the barber who cut his hair every week for three years.
Archival interviews: particularly people who remembered the Kommandant personally, for example some are archived at the Auschwitz Museum while others are held by the Shoah Foundation (funded by Steven Spielberg) which comprise video testimony that are held on a database.
Court documents: These include Nuremberg Trial, but also Belsen Trial, Frankfurt Trial and the trial of Rudolf himself in Poland.
Thomas,Wow, That is extensive.
Thank You for answering my question.
Mod
What are you thoughts on Pope Francis's visit and address at Yad Vashem, 26 May 2014 - it was a very timely visit in terms of our discussion and your book?
First, I would add my thanks for you taking the time for questions.When Hans and his brother went Officers school, it appears they were given a more equal status with Army or after making Lt. did they just get sent to the Pioneer Unit ( which appear to be the gofer unit)?
Dear Mr. Harding,Thank you so much for being a part of our discussion of your book. That is a real honor and privilege. So far, I like the book very much.
I consider myself well-educated, but I must admit that my knowledge of World War I history is incomplete. What was meant by the "betrayal at Versailles:" (Chapter 3 page 35)
Maybe this question is somewhat outside of the realm of your book but through your research, you may be able to answer.Question
Why do you think that the members of the SS followed the leadership of Himmler. From reading and seeing films of him, he appears to be the stereotype of the low level civil servant with no charisma whatsoever. Was Himmler just their "stand-in" for Hitler who may have been one of the most charismatic leader in the world at that time? Himmler couldn't even view the death camps for which his men were responsible without throwing up. It has always been a mystery to me that a man of his temperament and personality would be in charge of men who performed heinous acts that will forever be chilling and unbelievable.
Question: What was meant by the "betrayal at Versailles:" (Chapter 3 page 35) Hi Nita
For an introduction to the Treaty of Versailles, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_o... or http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.p...
Thomas
Question: Maybe this question is somewhat outside of the realm of your book but through your research, you may be able to answer. Why do you think that the members of the SS followed the leadership of Himmler?Hi Jill
Yes, this is beyond what I would be happy to talk about.
For two books on Himmler check out:
"HEINRICH HIMMLER" By Peter Longerich. Translated by Jeremy Noakes and Lesley Sharpe or
"The Architect of Genocide: Himmler and the Final Solution" by Richard Breitmann.
Thomas
Question: When Hans and his brother went Officers school, it appears they were given a more equal status with Army or after making Lt. did they just get sent to the Pioneer Unit ( which appear to be the gofer unit)? Hi Eddie.
I am sorry but I do not understand your question. Can you please rephrase.
Thanks
Thomas
Thanks, Thomas. I thought the question may have been a little beyond what you researched but I thought I would give it a try. I have always been curious about the loyalty that he engendered. Thanks for the book recommendations.
Thanks for the answer.The book is wonderful.
Question: During your research, did you get an idea of how frequently servants left "employment" and new ones arrived? Do you suspect the children wonder where they ultimately went?I guess this leads to a bigger question. Do you have an idea if Rudolf's children knew about the mass executions, or were they isolated psychologically and geographically from all of it?
Thanks.
Mr. Harding, Thank you for being so kind to share your thoughts and answer questions for our discussion. I am enjoying your book, especially the details and insight into each man.
Question: I read your article/interview that you posted from the Washington Post with Höss' daughter, Brigitte. I know you mentioned that you talked with other family as well. How was the family's reception to your book? It appears that Brigitte was cautiously open to you during her interview and even commented how she might tell her story after your book was published. Were others as open to talk to you as Brigitte?
Mr. Harding, I am impressed by how impartial your writing concerning Rudolf in these early chapters. I realize that you are a professional, but still....
Question: How do you get yourself to be objective in your writing when you know the outcome of the character in his latter years?
"Question: How do you get yourself to be objective in your writing when you know the outcome of the character in his latter years?"Hi Kathy
Thank you for your kind words. The impartiality was intentional. It would have been easy to have passed judgement along the way - Rudolf was a terrible man', 'Rudolf oversaw an atrocity', 'Hanns was brutal with his captive' etc - but I chose not to. Why? Because I felt that the text would have much more power if the reader was allowed to make their own minds up. I still think that was the right decision. The two men's actions speak for themselves.
As to how did I get there, this is probably the result of years of writing as a journalist, especially as an investigative journalist where the raw facts are presented forensically and with as little bias as possible.
During the editing process I tried to remove all the judgements in the text, with the exception of two or three very minor nudges when it came to providing context to Rudolf Höss' memoirs.
All the best
Thomas
"Question: I read your article/interview that you posted from the Washington Post with Höss' daughter, Brigitte. I know you mentioned that you talked with other family as well. How was the family's reception to your book? It appears that Brigitte was cautiously open to you during her interview and even commented how she might tell her story after your book was published. Were others as open to talk to you as Brigitte?"Hi Teri
I have not had a reaction from Brigitte with the exception of thanking me for a copy.
I did hear back from Rainer Höss - who I visited Auschwitz with - and he said very positive things about my book.
Thomas
"Question: During your research, did you get an idea of how frequently servants left "employment" and new ones arrived? Do you suspect the children wonder where they ultimately went? I guess this leads to a bigger question. Do you have an idea if Rudolf's children knew about the mass executions, or were they isolated psychologically and geographically from all of it?"Hi Bryan
Rudolf Höss' daughter Brigitte told me that she knew about the prison camp, she saw prisoners working in the camp and the house, but she was certain that she did not know about the murders, the gassings, the crematoria.
When I went to Auschwitz, the wife of Rudolf's Höss' youngest son Hans-Jürgen, told me that her husband remembered the smell from the crematoria when he was growing up.
It is hard to know for sure what is the truth.
It is worth bearing in mind that the children, with the exception of Klaus, were quite young when they were at Auschwitz. For example Brigitte was 11-14 years old during this time.
Thomas
I can't imagine his children, at thei young ages, having even a remote conception of the atrocities occuring at their father's workplace. It is interesting the idea that we wonder "if they knew" and that even the scent of their culpability exists. It shows in the article you wrote for the Washington Post when you describe the fears his daughter has that her legacy will be discovered. Grateful for the humanity of her employers that you reported in speaking with their son. I am astounded at the level of research and detail you have put into this work. I am also grateful as it has made a very well rounded view of this important moment in history, with great depth and insight. Thank you!
Mod
Question: Why did Rudolf Hess agree to be the fall guy for the Walter Kadow murder in the 1920's for Bormann?
Question: why did Rudolf Höss agree to be the fall guy?Hi Bentley
We don't really know, so I can but guess: because a deal was done, because Martin B. was more senior and pulled rank, because someone had to and RH offered, because RH had no children, because RH was in debt to the others, because MB had something on him ....?
It is intriguing, but guesses are all I can offer.
- Thomas
Mod
Mod
What was the reaction of Ranier's mother to the visit - in the documentary - it appeared that he was seeing some of this for the first time but that was not the case based upon your post?
If Ranier was seeing Auschwitz for the first time, what was his reaction? Did you go into the villa as Ranier was allowed to do in the documentary Hitler's Children?
Note: Thomas I am only posting questions about this because you had posted that you and Ranier first went to Auschwitz a year earlier than when he visited with the Hitler's Children production team. I went back and rewatched that part in the documentary and I was not mistaken that they claimed that this was his first visit to Auschwitz; a BBC article stated the same thing - I guess one has to be suspicious of what one reads and hears. Thank you for popping in and setting the record straight.
Mod
Thomas, what was your take on Morgen - the Bloodhound Judge? Was there any evidence that at any time - he had placed in any one of his corruption or investigative reports that the mass murders or extermination of the Jewish people should stop? Or was his testimony at Nuremberg or after the war - somewhat of a self-serving rendition as it appears some parts of the Hess memoir were? Curious as to your research on Morgen since he was discussed in the book.
Question:Can you go into a little more detail on how Hanns was recruited for the war crimes investigation team? Did he know someone that gave him a recommendation? Was the team looking for specific people with certain skills and background?
Question: Can you go into a little more detail on how Hanns was recruited for the war crimes investigation team? Did he know someone that gave him a recommendation? Was the team looking for specific people with certain skills and background? Hi Bryan
We don't have much detail on this beyond some reporting in Hanns and Paul's letters. It appears that they were approached to join the interpreter pool and later this became the war crimes investigation team. But it seems they did have to volunteer for the task, and as such it demonstrates Hanns' commitment.
But yes, the war crimes team, such that it was, identified a handful of people, some with investigative experience (former policemen etc) and some with language/ local knowledge (like Hanns).
Overall, it was more chaos than order when it came to the early war crimes work, and under-resourced chaos at that.
All the best
Thomas
Mod
Thomas, do you not have any additional information on Morgen?
And when you were on the first visit with Ranier - what was his reaction (Ranier's)?
I noticed that you had skipped those questions. Was there any reason?
Your response to Bryan was very much appreciated. It is fine if you do not have any additional information to add - we are very understanding people. But I was curious as to why it was skipped.
Question: Thomas, what was your take on Morgen - the Bloodhound Judge? Was there any evidence that at any time - he had placed in any one of his corruption or investigative reports that the mass murders or extermination of the Jewish people should stop? Or was his testimony at Nuremberg or after the war - somewhat of a self-serving rendition as it appears some parts of the Hess memoir were? Curious as to your research on Morgen since he was discussed in the book.Hi Bentley
First let's be clear we are talking about Rudolf Höss not Rudolf Hess, the latter was Hitler's secretary who flew to Scotland and ended up in Spandau Prison.
Second, I need to challenge your assumption that Höss' memoirs were a 'self-serving rendition' as you call it. This is an important issue. The overwhelming opinion is that Rudolf Höss prison memoirs are not only reliable and credible but, and this is critical, they serve as a hugely important part of the core evidence of the Holocaust.
Yes, some of his writings are factually incorrect, for instance he lied about his wife not knowing about the murders in the camps, and some are inconsistent, such as his changing views on the numbers of those killed, while there are some instances were he is clearly dissembling, such as his avoidance of corruption in the camp. However, these examples are few, and for the most part he demonstrates extraordinary reliability.
What cannot be denied, is that he was writing memoirs that he knew would be presented at his own trial. However, to simply state that this must have skewed his memory fails to understand the man's motivations, namely that he was proud of his actions and wanted to set the record straight (in contrast to this colleagues who in Nuremberg denied knowledge of the Final Solution).
Now onto to Morgen.
Most of what we know comes from his interviews at the Nuremberg Trials as well as his post-war writings. There is some discussion amongst German academics about how reliable he is, with a few accusing him of being self-serving, but the majority of scholars seem to agree that he was on the right side of justice. This affirms the court's decisions of the 1940s and 1950s. However, there is little available from the war-time period itself to prove either way, apart from the fact that he did track and arrest many notable SS leaders including a handful of camp kommandants.
Thomas
Mod
First, I do not have a keyboard which can depict the Swabian heritage. I noticed Ranier's spelling of his name and I believe asked about it. I already noticed on page xix - your author's note.
I will answer the other segments in separate posts.
Hi Bentley,No problem, in English you can write "Hoess" if you don't have the ö on your keyboard.
Thomas
Mod
Thomas,
As far as the details of what transpired in Auschwitz and within the SS - I do believe that what Rudolf wrote is fairly accurate, has been corroborated and further this memoir has been used by historians for quite some time. It is probably among the most reliable from World War II because who else knew better than Hoess how things operated and the decisions behind those operations.
My understanding is that he was asked to write these by Jan Sehn - one of the prosecuting attorneys who suggested that he write about himself. Many (historians and other well thought of survivors) believe that the accounts are invaluable but that there are omissions, incorrect factual details and that there are segments which are self serving.
I agree that what Rudolf wrote is invaluable - but I also agree that he knew he was writing this for posterity long after he was hung and that his family and children lived on.
If he was so proud of what he had done - why did he say that what he had done was a crime right before his execution. Setting up the details of Auschwitz at that time was a massive logistical nightmare and he made it work. The place was a nightmare for many people so I am not sure what he was proud of. The fact that he did not deny that there was a Final Solution like his colleagues in Nuremberg was to his credit. Maybe he thought that by this admission - his sentence might be commuted to life imprisonment versus hanging. It is hard to know what this man's motivations were considering how he could compartmentalize and go home to his family as if nothing much had happened at the office.
One other thing - I love great discussions and we all have differences of opinions which we discuss back and forth and that is all great. I respect everybody's differences of opinion. Regarding Hoess and his memoir - I have to say that we are violently in agreement. If you reread my question which was about Morgen - I am referring to Morgen's testimony at Nuremberg and my question was about him. I also referred to ("some parts" of Hoess's memoirs) as being the same and I stand by my statement.
Your response to me indicates that you believe that Hoess's memoir was credible, reliable, important (couldn't agree with you more) but that Hoess had lied in them, that some parts were factually incorrect and that others were inconsistent, that there were other parts where he was clearly dissembling, but overall you felt that his memoir was reliable. I also agree with you about those segments too, your assessment and evaluation and your use of those adjectives to describe Hoess's memoir.
But I think this is where we slightly diverge. My take is that the reason he lied in some parts of his memoir, or where other parts were shown to be clearly inconsistent, or where some segments were plainly examples of purposeful dissembling was because he knew he was writing history and maybe history would be kinder to his memory because of this memoir and the fact that he did do it. It was a way to publish his version of what he did and why he did it for the world and to paint a better image of himself or even protect his family including his wife. Also other segments which point out he was shocked or disagreed with this or that from my vantage point were all intentionally written that way and these soul searching segments in retrospect were self serving. Not that he did not regret them when he was writing his memoir in prison - that is possible - but I do not believe that there was any soul searching or misgivings at the time. He was following orders and his rendition is that he had to do what he was told.
I also do not understand any sensitivity on Hoess's memoirs - we are very much in agreement aside from the fact that I think they were self serving in some parts - the motivation for this or any rationale for what he wrote and why he wrote it in the way he did or why he lied, dissembled, omitted segments died with him. Maybe he was simply under stress and didn't remember things well; understandably he was under stress knowing full well that he could be convicted and eventually hung.
Anyway that is my take.
Mod
Most of what we know comes from his interviews at the Nuremberg Trials as well as his post-war writings. There is some discussion amongst German academics about how reliable he is, with a few accusing him of being self-serving, but the majority of scholars seem to agree that he was on the right side of justice. This affirms the court's decisions of the 1940s and 1950s. However, there is little available from the war-time period itself to prove either way, apart from the fact that he did track and arrest many notable SS leaders including a handful of camp kommandants.
Thomas
=============
OK on to Morgen - so the answer is no. We just have the Nuremberg Trials. Yes, he did arrest them but for corruption - not for killing the Jews.
Thank you for your input - I appreciate it.
Mod
The Hitler's documentary and the BBC article made it appear that this was Ranier's first visit!!! We only knew the difference because of your post!
The first visit that you took with Ranier must have been much more powerful an experience for all of you I would imagine. Especially for Ranier.
Mod
No problem, in English you can write "Hoess" if you don't have the ö on your keyboard.
Thomas"
Thomas - hi again - in the introduction thread where we were inputting your information - we did some copy and pastes and it is correctly noted.
Additionally if you check the introduction thread I also took the time to do a copy and paste of the variations of the spelling and posted it. If you verify the introduction - that is the case. You will see a copy of your Author's Note posted quite some time ago.
Also I questionned Ranier's spelling of his last name in order to eliminate the back and forth - in terms of the umlauted vowels and the historical renditions - many are inconsistent that I found elsewhere.
However, in the scheme of things I think we both know who we are talking about (smile).
Hello Thomas- thank you for taking the time to join us and answer our questions. I suppose mine deals with your conception of the book as you were putting it together. I find it a bit of a roller coaster (as I sure others are as well) to go back and forth between Hans and Rudolph's stories through WW II. I can't imagine what it was like for you.
Question:
At what point in researching and writing the book did you come up with the format of the book, IE: going back and forth between the two men? And, did you at any time, consider focusing more on Hans and writing more of a bio of your great-uncle? And how did you approach and deal with the research and recounting of the atrocities?
I guess that's three questions. :)
Thomas wrote: "Question: Can you go into a little more detail on how Hanns was recruited for the war crimes investigation team? Did he know someone that gave him a recommendation? Was the team looking for specifi..."Thank you, Thomas, this is helpful.
"Question(s): At what point in researching and writing the book did you come up with the format of the book: ie. going back and forth between the two men? And, did you at any time, consider focusing more on Hanns and writing more of a bio of your great-uncle? Question 3: And how did you approach and deal with the research and recounting of the atrocities."Hi John,
When I started, I was interested only in my great uncle Hanns. I wanted to know if he was a Nazi hunter, did he actually arrest the Kommandant, why he did it, what were the consequences, what were the decisions and son on.
Then I became quickly interested in Rudolf Höss himself. How does one become the Kommandant of Auschwitz? I wondered to myself? What were the steps involved? Again, the decisions.
And then I realised that they were both Germans, and whilst of different ages (Rudolf Höss of course is about 16 years older than Hanns Alexander), they were subject to many of the same cultural contexts, pressures and situations, their lives then diverged and then came together at the end.
This was when I came up with the idea of a double biography. It took me much longer than it should have to get the time line straight. For a while I started with a chapter that described Hanns' father's early life so that I could start both stories around 1901, but then it became clear that this would mislead the reader into thinking the story was going to be about Alfred and would confuse things.
Then I had to work out the focus of the story, At first I thought of the story as being about HANNS and HÖSS, my sympathetic uncle, the hero, and the Kommandant, the two-dimensional villain. I now realise that it was easier for me to think of Höss this way, it allowed me to keep my distance, not to get emotionally involved. Eventually, it became clear that I had to tell both stories from the personal perspective, on the human level, this was when it became HANNS and RUDOLF.
As to the atrocities, I found this really hard. The visits to the camps were very difficult for me, in the end I visited Auschwitz three times. First by myself, then with Rainer Höss and his mother, and then with survivors from my synagogue. The testimony from the survivors that have been recorded by the Shoah Foundation (funded by Steven Spielberg) were particularly troubling, the pain and suffering still so proximate. Also disturbing were the interviews I had with Höss' daughter, Brigitte, it made it very real and very human, impossible to objectify and compartmentalise.
In terms of writing about the atrocities, almost at the end of the writing process my agent suggested I write more 'horror'. By this he meant be more graphic and detailed about the atrocities. This was when I wrote the scene about the piles of burning bodies and the buckets of oil being scooped and dumped. This was such a totally disgusting image for me, I found it extremely hard to write. It conveyed a part of the true horror and as such had to be in. I felt it vital not to avoid the horror for the sake of an easier read.
Thomas
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The Devil That Never Dies: The Rise and Threat of Global Antisemitism (other topics)Hanns and Rudolf: The True Story of the German Jew Who Tracked Down and Caught the Kommandant of Auschwitz (other topics)
Hanns and Rudolf: The True Story of the German Jew Who Tracked Down and Caught the Kommandant of Auschwitz (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen (other topics)Thomas Harding (other topics)
Thomas Harding (other topics)
Could you explain a little bit more on what Rudolf disagreed with Hitler specifically?