The real reason for Rudolf Hess's flight to Britain in 1941?

[JMM]

Interesting theory - better than the lunatic solo act. Worth a reading.
Thanks

[Gunny Hartmann]

It sounds like a must read, the non aggression pact sounds plausible to me as i don't think Hitler ever wanted a war with Britain. Did i hear a theory that the Wehrmacht didn't have the capability to invade Britain and the whole Operation Sea lion thing was a ploy to bluff Britain out of the war?...

[asterperious]

Hess was a haggis aficionado and the war had him cut off. Strap on your tinfoil hats while you read this one I suspect. I am a firm believer in Occams razor, plenty of lunatics and delusional types in the nutzi ranks, it is not farfetched that Hess was acting alone, his star was fading in the hierarchy by that time like many other early prewar political types whose relevance was displaced by martial demands. Hess had as robust an ego as any of them and I think he felt the sting of irrelevance pretty deeply. Any bona fide diplomatic overtures would have been easier and more comprehensively carried out in neutral countries like Switzerland or Sweden.

I have never frankly bought the BS that the Germans never really wanted war in the west or with Britain - what did they expect when they invade allied nations? Did 1914 not give them a clue about what was likely to happen?

[Datrus]

Would be interesting to see the reference/documentation. To be honest i doubt there anything other to it than Hess thought he did something good and clever. David Irwing's 1977 book (before he got controversial) "Hitlers War 1939-1943" also touches on this topic and according to his book, there is nothing proving this theory. He did a very thorough research for "Hitlers War".

Write a book about Hitler, Hess, Himmler or Göring, put a swastika on the cover and you got a best seller. I think the true story is lost forever, meaning we will never know for sure. JMHO

Cheers

[relicz]

I think the true story resides in a "time vault". By the time official documents are released, no one alive will care very much. I further believe that was the theory of those that sealed them there and why it was done.

[StefanM]

Would be interesting to see the reference/documentation. To be honest i doubt there anything other to it than Hess thought he did something good and clever. David Irwing's 1977 book (before he got controversial) "Hitlers War 1939-1943" also touches on this topic and according to his book, there is nothing proving this theory. He did a very thorough research for "Hitlers War".

Write a book about Hitler, Hess, Himmler or Göring, put a swastika on the cover and you got a best seller. I think the true story is lost forever, meaning we will never know for sure. JMHO

Cheers

When Irving was writing in back 1977 many of the archive documents were still closed in the UK and elsewhere under time limited nondisclosure legislation, however since the late 1990s many once "secret" or "classified" documents have been released into the public domain and therefore to available to researchers.

[Frundsberg]

To seal the documents for 100 years.... well, maybe the truth is too bitter. After 100 years nobody cares. In 2014 there is exactly 100 years from the begin of the WWI. All soldiers who took part of it are dead and can not say anything about it any more. It is the same with every war - winners will write the history.

[StefanM]

If the winners write the history then why are there so many history books written by the losers? It is a stupid "saying" ... No offence intended to anyone here.

[Frundsberg]

The winners write the history what is in our schoolbooks. And it is the only thing what really matters.

The history books written by the losing side are just for some military history fans, "revisionists" and peaople who are wearing tinfoil hats as some people of this forum belive.

I belive that history is not just black and white. One side was "bad" and another side was "good". Like in the Hollywood film.

[StefanM]

I suspect for example that the history of the Vietnam war in Vietnamese schoolbooks is very different from the history of the same war in American schoolbooks assuming this would be a subject on the history syllabus; I suspect also that the history of the " Six Day War" of 1967 is taught very differently in Arab schools than Israeli schools but undeniably each side, winner or loser records their history and teaches their own sides history accordingly.

Unless the argument is that only the winners history/story is told in the losers schools as well as the winners schools...with respect would this be credible?