The Heretics’ Hour: Why did Rudolf Hess fly?

August 30, 2010

Wreckage of Hess' ME110 in Scottish field

Wreckage of Hess’ ME110 in Scottish field. Enlarge.

Carolyn continues the theme of the responsibility for WWII with a detailed look at Rudolf Hess’ unusual peace mission to Great Britain in May 1941. Topics include:

  • No part played by Sikorski and the Poles.
  • The role of the Haushofers – father and son.
  • A deep intelligence op for the Brits.
  • Hitler could not have approved the flight.

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 56 min.

Contact Carolyn:


8 Responses to “The Heretics’ Hour: Why did Rudolf Hess fly?”

  1. Akira on September 2nd, 2010 6:18 pm

    The idea that Chamberlain was somehow anti-war or some sort of alternative to Churchill is absurd. [I realize that wasn’t the view you expressed, but you were just stating the belief of certain of the characters you mention). Both were just the faces put up for the real regime. Chamberlain appointed the Jew Hore-Belisha as Secretary of War. Chamberlain started the World War by declaring (at the same time as the French Empire) the British Empire’s war of aggression against Germany.

    + + +

    The people going on about Blair being “Bush’s Poodle” in Iraq and Afghanistan make the same mistake. As if Britain wasn’t a key, or the key, player in the Great Game there!

    + + +

    Samuel Hoare was Mussolini’s handler.

    + + +

    Hess was not the only one naive in dealing with Britain.

    Hitler was also an idiot for miscalculating the British reaction to the invasion of Poland, for underestimating and being too soft on Jewry, for misunderstanding the essential nature of Jewism, for having too high a regard for Britain, for misunderstanding that Britain was always Germany’s worst enemy (even if the main military campaign was necessarily against the Anglo-American Jew-Masonic creation in Russia).

    The British Empire, the City of London, British Secret Services: these were and are the most malevolent forces against world peace, even as the most powerful military forces shift (then the USSR, now the USA, in future who knows?).

    Did the Germans even consider targeting 60 Great Queen Street, London?

    Jews turned on Germany after allying with Britain in exchange for Palestine, but the anti-German animus came from Britain, not from Jews or America or anyone else. Jews were not naturally anti-Germanic. Of course they were a threat to German society, but no more than they have been and were and are a threat to Spain, Persia, Turkey, France, America or anywhere else. They are a threat to humanity. They would just as easily have been as falsely pro-German as they are now falsely pro-American, if the Kaiser could have gotten Palestine for them. Then they would have helped build Germany up into becoming the rulers of Europe, and built Frankfurt into the economic centre of the world, and the UN HQ would have been built in Berlin instead of NYC. And now we’d be hearing Jews speaking German yapping about how “Israel is Germany greatest ally!” just like they prattle on now about how “Israel is America’s greatest ally!”

    Jew-culture is by definition parasitic.

    Of course they were were a threat to German culture, but their organized campaign to destroy Germany as a nation was in the service of their main ally at the time, the British. The British were driven to destroy Germany ever since unification. The British were the driving force behind WWI. Jews had no natural compunction to destroy a united Germany. All they would have cared about is whether a united Germany was good or bad for them. They could take it or leave it. London could definitely not tolerate it.

    Of course the USSR was the greatest military threat, but that regime was only decades old, and didn’t represent any sort of natural Russian animus towards Germans. A defeat of the Red Army (which would have been possible with the correct political approach to the East, an approach the Nazis failed at) and the facilitation of Anti-Communist regimes in Moscow and Kiev would have neutralized that threat enough to allow Germany to deal with the real geo-strategic enemy in London.

    The only way the Germans could have won the war was to build up the nations of central and Eastern Europe as independent allies against the USSR. Their racial arrogance and other factors prevented them from following this course of action.

    There is no way that Germany could have stood up to Jewry, Britain, the US and the USSR in Europe without more and stronger allies than Italy and the on-again-off-again allies (Finland, Hungary etc). Therefore war should have been avoided. The invasion of Poland was the worst decision, a mistake made because Hitler didn’t realize that the greatest enemy was the regime in London, who were desperate for any excuse to drag the populace into supporting war against Germany.

  2. Carolyn on September 3rd, 2010 5:44 pm


    “Samuel Hoare was Mussolini’s handler.”

    Just because he was the paymaster for Britain’s payments to Mussolini in WWI, doesn’t mean he was M.’s “handler” in WWII. Do you have other evidence for your statement?

    Also, Hitler didn’t underestimate the essential nature of Jewism — he was one of the few who did understand it. He understood it when he wrote Mein Kamf. But he was trying to be civilized about it. You seem to think the civilized nature of the Germans was a mistake, but you also think they were uncivilized with the Poles and Eastern Europeans.

    Hitler said the Jews were a threat to Europe — you are the one concerned with humanity. You also said:

    “The only way the Germans could have won the war was to build up the nations of central and Eastern Europe as independent allies against the USSR. Their racial arrogance and other factors prevented them from following this course of action”.

    In truth, some of these EE nations had German minorities living in them which they were discriminating against, along with other minorities. Independence and nationalism was everyone’s desire amongst these nations, and aggression against their neighbors a common occurrance. Therefore, a cohesive anti-communist force was not necessarily possible to build. These nations did not have a history of successful independence. Some had no allegience to European values even; about all they did have was strong Christian traditions, which is what you like so much about them. Their competence and their loyalty as “allies” is overshadowed for you by that.

    There’s no question NS Germany wanted to run the show; it felt it had to in order for proper actions to be carried out. I don’t believe the “arrogance” you mention was that great, even with the few individuals who are specially cited for it. I think much of the attitude was based on who was most competent and whose plan needed to be followed. This, then, had to be enforced. NS Germany didn’t function on democratic principles.

    As I’ve said before, it’s easy to stand by 60 years later and say what should have been done.

  3. Akira on September 3rd, 2010 10:25 pm

    The point about Hoare and Mussolini was just in response to the idea that Hoare or any real insider in the British power structure could ever be interested in peace.

    The goal of the British from the 1870s was the elimination of Germany as a European economic, cultural, industrial or military rival.

    As for Mussolini during the war, I didn’t suggest that he was still on the payroll, but still it was something to use against him if necesary, although such exposes work both ways.

    Anyway, that relationship illustrates what I meant about Hitler’s softness and his naivite. Even Mussolini’s first wife was going around telling everyone that he had been a French and British agent. Surely the German intelligence services must have looked into it. Did Hitler just dismiss such talk as not worthy of paying attention to? I don’t know.

    I think you’ve confused what I mean by decency and cruelty, and by softness and hardness. The first contrast is regarding morality, and the Germans lacked morality in many respects. The second is in terms of clearness of thought, and they were overly sentimental in many ways.

    Hitler obviously did underestimate Jewish power and influence, and also foolishly believed that some sort of racial unity between Britons and Germans could somehow lead to a German-English alliance. That was impossible, it could never happen — first of all because the British hated the German state more than anyone else did, and secondly because the British and International Jewry entered into an alliance in 1917. The two powers were in many respects synonymous.

    The same thinking also affected the disastrous Nazi policies regarding Jews. Especially the absurd ideas about Jewish blood and genetics.

    I’ve also said before, though, that of course such thinking was not exclusive to Nazis, but was common then, amongst Jews, in Britain, in America, all over — the idea that blood or genes hold mystical characteristics and so on.

    It seems to me that you are trying to prove my points, no? When you argue that Eastern Europeans could be relied upon as allies for various reasons. What I had said was that the Germans couldn’t possibly fight Britain, the USSR and the USA without strong European allies. You argued that they couldn’t rely on anyone else, Therefore, back to my original point, that Germany couldn’t win the war. That’s what I meant about their arrogance. They imagined that they could invade these territories, defeat the Red Army (and partisans), while having to deal with populations they looked down on and didn’t trusts, all the while trying to conquer the Balkans, the Middle East and North Africa, while still at war with Britain and the Commonwealth, and all the time having to be ready for a possible American entry into the war.


    Therefore, they should have pursued more diplomatic measures, and gone about establishing a proper process of securing succession (something problematic when the entire regime is tied up in a cult of personality), and building up Germany socialy and culturally and economically, so that more French, Brirish and other average citizens would come to see National Socialism as a valid alternative to the Communocapitalism that they were being sold as the obly way to go (left? right? left? right?).

    And they should have done everything to avoid war, especially not invading Poland (regardless of whether they were justified in doing so or not).

    As they say, hindsight is 20/20, of course, but the Nazis could have some success if they had promoted conscientious education and awareness of the theological and ideological roots of the Jew drive to subvert, acquire, destroy, and so on; and if they had not invaded Poland. That invasion and the racial policies about Jews and the concentration camps — without these factors I doubt that that American populace could ever have been drawn into another European war.

    You are correct that Germany wasn’t dreaming of “World Domination” — That was the goal of the UKUSAUSSR.

    That doesn’t mean one can whitewash or dismiss the Nazis own tactical errors and moral failings.

  4. Akira on September 3rd, 2010 10:29 pm

    Clarification about “I think you’ve confused what I mean by decency and cruelty, and by softness and hardness.”

    I mean that I say the Nazis were cruel in their practices and soft in their thinking — a bad combination, and an easy target.

  5. Carolyn on September 3rd, 2010 11:23 pm

    Sorry Akira, you didn’t address my comments at all. You just keep repeating your same ideas that you want to believe, whether there is real evidence for them or not, because they fit your world view .

    Since in your view Hitler underestimated everyone else, and overestimated himself, and since he was not capable of dealing with the Jews at all, and since the British will never be anything but eternal enemies of the Germans, and since the idea of “blood” or “genes”, mystical or not, means nothing …. then, in your view, Hitler should never have done anything, but quit before he ever started.

    Your advice to him (today) is to engage in an education and awareness program for the Slavs and other EE peoples, but that is something YOU like, not something HE was interested in. He was interested space for Germans, and a strong Germany within Europe. You are interested in a universalist Christian defeat of Godless Communism and Godless Globalism, and Godless anything, so Christian universalism is the answer for you. That seems to be where you’e coming from. That’s what you mean by morality, which Hitler lacked. Religion, yes. Blood and genes, no.

    I tell you what … you form a political party and do everything right and bring about the changes you think are desireable. I know you know exactly how to do it. Wouldn’t that be more productive for your aims than just arguing with everyone and pointing to other people’s failures?

  6. Akira on September 4th, 2010 8:15 am

    You exaggerate everything I said.

    I never said that, “he was not capable of dealing with the Jews AT ALL”. — I said that the propaganda about “Jewish blood” and “the Jewish gene” etc was mistaken and counter-productive. And that the Concentration Camp system was immoral and provided a perfect target for Anglo-American (mostly Jew-Masonic) and Soviet media propaganda.

    I never said that, “the British will never be anything but ETERNAL enemies of the Germans”. — I said that the British regime was the main catalyst and instigators of war against Germany, and the ones who saw Germany as their main competitors and their main target in continental Europe, and therefore the idea that they would some ally with Germany against Communism (which had mostly been mostly directed by London from the start, including the 1848 “revolutions”) and the USSR (a Judeo-Anglo-American creation), for the sake of fraternal “Germanic blood ties” or whatever was a naive and ‘romantic’ notion.

    And it was irrational since in certain speeches Hitler made i clear that he was well-aware that the “competition” between Communism and Capitalism was artificial, and that the UK, USA, and USSR were all naturally allied and in fact already tied together through the same Jew and Masonic and Usurious (banking) networks. Therefore one can’t argue that he just didn’t realize the way things were set up it. Therefore it’s irrational that he imagined the British could be Germany’s allies against Communism and Capitalism. In fact this is why we have all these bloggers going on about how Hitler must have been a Jew and a British and and all that kind of stuff, since German belligerence seems so destined to failure against such powerful enemies with so few allies — so they say “see, Hitler was trying to lose” Which I think is nonsense. Such people are making the same mistakes (or promoting the same propaganda) as the Jews: As if Hitler was some sort of superman genius who controlled everything. I’m saying no, this is not true, he was quite naive and foolish in many ways, most of which derive from romantic notions superseding political realism. And these romantic notions led them to throw away the incredible achievements that had made beteen 1933 to 1939, in which they set a model for an alternative economic system to Communocapitalism.

    And I never said that “the idea of “blood” or “genes”, mystical or not, MEANS NOTHING.” — I’m well aware of the importance of ethnic or racial or national solidarity and some sort of commonality of culture and purpose. I argued that the Nazi conceptions of this were extreme, and could hardly inspire, for example, Yugoslavians or anyone else who were trying to establish stability and peace and prosperity in heavily ethnically-intermixed regions. And these policies also provided the main propaganda targets of the Jews & Masons (“The West” then and now still. And they proved disastrous for all the Germans aoutside Germany & Austria in East and Central Europe, since the same policies were applied to them post-war and they were mercilessly slaughtered, enslaved, deported etc as racial enemies.

    Re: “in your view, Hitler should [have] quit before he ever started.”

    In regards to the invasion of Poland, yes, exactly, he should have quit before starting. It was the beginning of the end. It was stupid. It wasn’t just a tactical error. It was stupid because it was based on Hitler’s mistaken belief that the British and French would not respond by declaring war. As you said, Hitler didn’t want a world war and wasn’t prepared for it. Therefore, obviously he didn’t expect one to start in response to the Polish invasion. Therefore he must have not understood that those controlling the UK were !desperate! for any attempt to start a war. And it seems to me, based on other things he wrote and said, and going by the track record in WWI, that he should have understood that it would be a war of annihilation — just like the first war wasn’t allowed to be settled by a peace treaty or to end until Russia was ruined and the US had been dragged in to the war and Germany was thoroughly crushed and humiliated — it seems to me reasonable that any politically aware German in 1939 (a mere 2o years after the end of the last war) should have expected that another war would inevitably take the same course, since Germany’s enemies would argue (as they did) that obviously Versailles had been too kind on the Germans, and that “this time we have to completely crush them and break the nation in half (at least), and install an occupation regime, etc etc” as happened.

    Re: “Your advice to him (today) is to engage in an education and awareness program for the Slavs and other EE peoples:

    Wrong, when referring to consolidating the gains made by the Reich economically and technologically etc, and presnting an alternative to communcapitalism, I meant mostly a model to the west — something that would make Brits and Americans and colonized peoples (in the middle east etc) see that there was an alternative to the “Anglo-American capitalism vs Soviet Communism” false choice.

    Re: “He was interested space for Germans” — It makes no difference what he was interested in if he couldn’t achieve it. And now Germany is a space for Turks and Kurds and anyone else.

    Re: “He was interested [in] a strong Germany within Europe.”

    – Well, now Germany is very strong within Europe. It just isn’t strong within Germany”

    Re: “Christian universalism is the answer for you.” — This is a propaganda term — “Christian universalism” — implying that being Christian is somehow equivalent to wanting no borders or not considering any other sort of social or ethnic or national concerns, equivalent to having nothing but animosity towards all other faiths, beliefs, and religions. None of this is the case, so I reject conversations based on such false notions. It’s a tactic similar to labeling people as “Holocoast deniers” or whatever. If you’ve listened to Father Raphael’s podcasts on this same site, then you should be aware that the idea that Orthodox Christians desire a universal state or polity or whatever is completely false.

    Re: “That’s what you mean by morality, which Hitler lacked. Religion, yes.”

    I never said that Hitler lacked any morality. I said that many of the Nazi policies were immoral.

    Re: “I tell you what … you form a political party and do everything right”

    – No thanks. And I couldn’t anyway. And in this political climate I doubt any political effort can succeed. I prefer cultural movements as the way to improve things. I think at this stage all we can do is try to raise awareness of how the world really is. Hoever, I have looked in to how to go about establishing a proper political party, but not with any hopes of electoral success. Just “for a lark”. Something like “The Anti-Jewist Anti-Masonic Party” — just to see if I don’t end up in jail or have my house burned down.

    Re: “I know you know exactly how to do it.” — Sorry, you’re mistaken again.

    Re: “[You] just argu[e] with everyone and point to other people’s failures”

    – If you’ll forgive me for arguing with you and pointing out your failure: You’re wrong on both counts. Again you run to extremes. I’ve pointed out many of Hitler’s successes (pre-1939). And I’ve expressed much support and approval for many, many people — including Sylvia Stolz, Germar Rudolf, Ernst Zundel and others you share my admiration for.

  7. Carolyn on September 4th, 2010 10:56 am

    The key to you and what you’ve said here is this:

    Me: “I tell you what … you form a political party and do everything right”

    Akira: No thanks. And I couldn’t anyway. And in this political climate I doubt any political effort can succeed. I prefer cultural movements as the way to improve things. I think at this stage all we can do is try to raise awareness of how the world really is. Hoever, I have looked in to how to go about establishing a proper political party, but not with any hopes of electoral success. Just “for a lark”. Something like “The Anti-Jewist Anti-Masonic Party” — just to see if I don’t end up in jail or have my house burned down.

  8. Akira on September 4th, 2010 5:23 pm

    Sure, and how about before you criticize the judge in Sylvia Stolz’ case, you go and get a law degree and get appointed to the bench; and before you criticize Bush or Obama, you try being president; and before you criticize Snoop Doggy Dog, you try growing up in the ghet-toe and being a rapper; etc etc etc

    I think I last heard this kind of “argument” back in Grade 6.